ACOE Fathers

Tag: saints

  • Assyrian Martyrs Day

    Assyrian Martyrs Day Reflection

     

    What is Assyrian Martyrs Day?

     

    In the 1970s, Assyrians began to celebrate August 7th as Assyrian Martyrs’ Day.  This day was chosen because in August of 1933, military forces from the newly-founded country of Iraq massacred approximately 3,000 Assyrians in Simele, Iraq. Men, women, children, Priests, and Deacons were murdered in northern Iraq. Entire villages were targeted and attacked and families who had already survived the horrors of the Sayfo genocides once again found themselves targeted simply because they were Assyrians and because they were Christians. By August of 1933, exaggerated stories began circulating by Iraqi parliament leaders, of atrocities committed by the Assyrians, as well as spreading anti-Christian propaganda such as that the Christians were planning to blow up bridges and poison drinking water in major Iraqi cities. The Iraqi Army, led by Bakr Sidqi, decided then to crush the Assyrian protests, which demanded autonomy and freedom of land. Kurdish, Arab, and Yazidi tribes were encouraged to loot assyrian villages, while men were sometimes rounded up and handed over to the army, by whom they were shot. Some villages were completely burned down and most of them were later inhabited by Kurds, forcing women and children to move to neighboring cities and villages. The town of Simele then became the last refuge for Assyrians fleeing from the looted villages. By the 10th of August, more Arab and Kurdish looters arrived in Simele, where they continued the looting and were not stopped by local police. And finally as more and more Assyrians were imprisoned and held captive, they were released on August 11th and told to return to their homes in Simele, in which on their way home, they were met with gunfire by Iraqi soldiers, indiscriminately shooting and killing women, children, and men of all ages. In his depiction of the massacre, Mar Shimun Eshai states: “Girls were raped and made to march naked before Iraqi commanders. Children were run over by military cars. Pregnant women were bayoneted. Children were flung in the air and pierced on to the points of bayonets. Holy books were used for the burning of the massacred.”

    Although historically this day is connected to the Simele Massacre, Assyrian Martyrs’ Day also commemorates the lives of the thousands of other Assyrian martyrs who perished throughout history, such as some notable Saints. The legacy of the persecution of our people serves as a reminder to us all of our identity, as both Christians and Assyrians. That is why we call them martyrs. The word martyr comes from the Greek word martys, meaning witness. A martyr is not simply someone who dies. A martyr is someone whose life points beyond themselves to Jesus Christ. Their greatest testimony is not the manner of their death, but the faithfulness of their life, even when faced with the option of death. Because as Christians we know, that after death, comes eternal life. When the Church remembers martyrs, she is not celebrating suffering. She is celebrating Christ’s victory over suffering. She is proclaiming that death does not have the final word. Because Jesus Christ rose from the dead, every martyr who died in Him shall also rise in Him.

    Scripture Reading:

    Hebrews 12:1–3

    “Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls.”

    Scripture Reflection:

    Saint Paul in Hebrews paints a beautiful image in the Scriptures. He tells us that we are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses. He does not say that we walk alone. He also does not say that faith is disconnected from those who came prior to us. But instead, the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is one Body all across time, tied together by the faith. The ones who have gone before us, continue to live in Christ, and continue to encourage us by the witness of their lives. When we think of the cloud of witnesses, we think first of the Apostles, the Prophets, and the early martyrs of the Church. Today we remember that cloud, of the countless number of Assyrian faithful, whose names are remembered by God and his Church. Children who never had the opportunity to grow old. Priests who continued celebrating the Holy Qurbana even under threat. Mothers who chose faith over fear. Fathers who protected their families while confessing Christ. Young people who carried nothing with them except their hope in the Resurrection. Their stories may appear in history books, or sometimes they may not. But their names are written in the eternal book, which is the Book of Life. Their names may have been forgotten by the world. But they are not forgotten by God. The Church teaches us that death cannot separate those who belong to Christ. The martyrs are not merely people of the past. They are alive in Christ. Their race is finished. Ours continues. Therefore the question is not only: “How did they die?” The greater question is: “How did they live?” They lived with hope. They worshipped faithfully. They forgave. They baptized their children. They prayed the Psalms. They received the Holy Mysteries. They taught the Scriptures. They served the poor. They trusted Christ even when kingdoms failed them. This is the inheritance they have left us.

    Mar Shimun Bar Sabbae

    Long before Simele and long before the Ottoman persecutions, the Church of the East already knew what it meant to suffer for Christ. One of her greatest martyrs was Mar Shimun Bar Sabbae, Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church during the fourth century. In the year 340, The Tsar of Persia passed a law where Christians were imposed by a heavy tax. When some of them refused to pay it, the tsar regarded it as a riot and started to persecute Christians. He ordered to catch Mar Shimun and not to release him until he gave his word to collect taxes, for the tsar’s treasury, from his people. The tsar tried to persuade him to worship the sun or otherwise he threatened to destroy Christianity in the country. But Mar Shimun answered: ” I have one soul and it belongs to God Immortal, Creator of the Sky and the Earth.” Heavy taxes were imposed upon Christians. Churches were watched. Bishops were arrested. Many priests were captured and thrown into a dungeon during those days. The Tsar ordered Mar Shimun to his palace again. And again he failed to subdue Mar Shimun’s will. Then Shapur ordered to slaughter all the Christians in the dungeon with a sword and do it in front of Mar Shimun. Christians, blessed by Saint Mar Shimun, went to execution without any fear. Saint Mar Shimun came up to the executor as the last person, after witnessing his flock slaughtered, and with a prayer, put his head on the block. This happened in April, 340. Tradition says that on the way to the dungeons, like sheep being led to a slaughter, Mar Shimun and his flock did so in prayer, chanting the Lakhu Mara prayer, knowing what was coming. He was ordered to renounce his faith and submit to demands that would compromise the Church, which he refused. He did not respond with violence. He did not gather an army, and more importantly, he did not deny Christ to save himself. Instead, he and his flock remained faithful. Mar Shimun understood something that every martyr understands. The worst thing that can happen to a Christian is not death. The worst thing is unfaithfulness, because death lasts only a moment. But faithfulness lasts forever. The same courage that strengthened Mar Shimun centuries ago strengthened countless unnamed Assyrians in Simele. The same Lord who welcomed Mar Shimun welcomed every faithful soul who suffered in 1933. The same Resurrection that gave hope to the ancient martyrs gives hope to us today.

    Scripture Reading:

    John 15:18-20

    “If the world hates you, know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. But because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

    Remember the word that I said to you: ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.”

    Scripture Reflection:

    None of us desires persecution, nor does any of us pray for suffering. Jesus Himself prayed in Gethsemane that the cup might pass from Him. But yet, He also prayed and said: “Not My will, but Yours be done.” The martyrs never sought death. They sought Christ. When death came because they belonged to Him, and they remained faithful. This is why the Church honors them. Not because they suffered. But because they loved Christ more than fear. As we continue this reflection, let us ask ourselves: Would Christ recognize my daily life as faithful? Not whether I will ever be called to die for Him. But whether I am willing to live for Him. As we continue our meditation, let us remember that the story of the Assyrian people is not simply a story of suffering, but a story of God’s faithfulness. Massacres and persecutions do not define us. Christ defines us. The Cross defines us. The Resurrection defines us. The Church has survived not because she has always been protected by earthly kingdoms, as they have failed her, but because she belongs to a heavenly Kingdom, which has always prevailed. The Holy Qurbana continues to be celebrated. The Gospel continues to be proclaimed. Children continue to be baptized. The Scriptures continue to be read. This is nothing less than the faithfulness of God. When we remember Simele, we remember terrible evil, but we also proclaim something greater: that evil did not win. The Church still lives. 

    Mar Qardagh

    Mar Qardagh was born to a noble family in the Persian Empire during the 4th century and was said to have descended from a “great race and lineage of the kingdom of the Assyrians”. He was born to Zoroastrian parents, and foreign to Christianity. He had influence, wealth, authority, and enjoyed the favor of the king. Yet God called him to something greater. Mar Qardagh was appointed as a governor for a large region in northern Persia, and there he met Abdisho, a Deacon of the Church of The East, and converted to Christianity. After encountering the Christian faith, Mar Qardagh embraced Christ and was baptized, but his conversion came at tremendous cost. Those who once praised him and his power and wealth, now viewed him as a traitor. Very quickly, the honors and success of the world quickly disappeared. He was ordered by Shapur II to abandon Christianity and return to the religion of the empire. Instead, he confessed Christ openly. His refusal ultimately led to his martyrdom. Upon returning home Mar Qardagh was rejected by his family and under pressure from the religious elite, Shapur sentenced him to be stoned. Mar Qardagh fled with a small army to the mountains where he was able to repel the Persians for months. According to tradition, one night, Saint Stephen, the first Martyr of Christianity, appeared to him and told him that it was better to give his life for his faith than to continue fighting. He thus surrendered to the king and it was his own father who threw the first stone. Not only did he surrender his life, but he surrendered his status, his comfort, his reputation, and his future. Everything that once seemed valuable became secondary to knowing Christ.

    Scripture Reading:

    Philippians 3:7–11

    “Whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For His sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ… That I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and may share His sufferings, becoming like Him in His death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.”

    Scripture Reflection:

    Notice that Saint Paul connects two realities that we often separate: the sufferings of Christ and the resurrection of Christ. The Cross is never the end of the story and neither is Simele. The Resurrection always has the final word. This is why we as Christians, gather around the graves and sing hymns. This is why funerals are filled with prayers of hope. This is why the Church commemorates martyrs on the altar rather than merely in history books. Because the altar proclaims life. Every celebration of the Holy Qurbana reminds us that Christ transformed the greatest evil ever committed—the crucifixion of the Son of God—into the salvation of the world. If God could bring salvation from Calvary, He can also bring hope from every tragedy in our history. 

    Mar Benyamin Shimun:

    As we remember the martyrs of Simele, it is impossible not to remember one man whose life became a symbol of the suffering and faithfulness of the Assyrian people: His Holiness Mar Benyamin Shimun XXI, Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church of the East. Although he died fifteen years before the Simele Massacre, his witness prepared the Church for one of the darkest periods in its history. His life reminds us that God often raises shepherds whose greatest act of leadership is not found in moments of triumph, but in moments of sacrifice. He was ordained Metropolitan at just the age of 16, younger than most of us here, and was tasked with bearing the weight of an entire nation and Church. Mar Benyamin’s Patriarchal tenure occurred during one of the most violent and troubling eras of modern Assyrian history. The destruction and damage done by the Kurds, governments who opposed the Assyrians, foreign missionaries and conflicting religious ideologies, all created an almost hopeless situation for the Assyrians and Christian minorities of the Hakkari region. Over the following years and in spite of these difficulties, Mar Benyamin’s unrelenting persistence and fighting spirit sought to lead his nation to what he had believed was a safe outcome, escaping through the rough mountain terrain and into Urmi, Iran. He is responsible for leading some 15,000 Assyrians into Russia, as well as even more into Urmia. He was a leader, who took himself to the front line of all issues, and was there for his people when they needed him most. Mar Benyamin’s integrity and ethics were constantly tested, most notably, even at the expense of his own brother’s life, Hormiz. The honorable Hormiz, the third brother of Mar Benyamin, was attending University in Istanbul. In an attempt to bend the Patriarch to its will, the Turkish government kidnapped the Honorable Hormiz and threatened his life. In attempts of getting Mar Benyamin to subdue to the Turkish Government, is where we get this famous quote from him, where he says: “It is impossible for me and my people to surrender after seeing the atrocities done to my Assyrian people by your government; therefore my brother is one, my people are many, I would rather lose my brother but not my nation.” Mar Benyamin’s punishment for his act of defiance was paid by the Turkish government when they killed the Honorable Hormiz, who paid the ultimate price. He was hanged publicly in Mosul, with his body left in full view all day. Tragically, Mar Benyamin was forced to make one of the most difficult decisions of his administration and his life in which he sacrificed his beloved brother for the safety and honor of Assyrians in an attempt to secure their future. As the Assyrian nation settled into Iran, Mar Benyamin’s honor was again tested. Through the urges of others Mar Benyamin was encouraged to meet with Simko, a Kurdish warlord, under the false pretenses of forming an anti-Turkish alliance. Reluctantly, Mar Benyamin felt he had little choice and again, with the Church and Assyrian nation’s needs in mind, he accepted an invitation from Simko to discuss the proposed alliance.

    Patriarch Mar Benyamin prepared to set off in his carriage accompanied by one hundred fifty armed horsemen. Many people pleaded with him to reconsider. Among them Armenians, Assyrians and his own brother Dawid, and Rab Khaila (Commander in Chief) of the Assyrian forces. In keeping up with the charade, the Patriarch was received with honors and his position was given to Simko and his men. Once their meeting concluded Mar Benyamin was seated in his carriage, surrounded by his attendants. Upon leaving the meeting, Simko and his men opened fire and killed the Patriarch and most all others with him.

    Scripture Reading:

    John 10:11-15

    “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep. He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd… sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees… I am the good shepherd. I know My own and My own know Me, just as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.”

    Scripture Reflection:

    Jesus in this passage describes two kinds of leaders. One who remains only while life is comfortable. The other remains even when danger comes. The hired servant protects himself, while the shepherd protects the flock. Throughout the history of the Church of the East, our bishops, priests, monks, deacons, and faithful have often lived according to the example of the Good Shepherd. Mar Benyamin was one of those shepherds. He knew that remaining with his people could cost him everything, yet he remained. His courage did not come from military strength. It came from confidence in Christ. The greatest shepherds are not remembered because they never suffered. They are remembered because they loved God’s people more than their own comfort. This is the calling of every Christian. Whether we are parents, teachers, clergy, or friends, Christ calls us to become people who remain faithful when faithfulness is costly.

    Conclusion:

    As we come to the end of this time of reflection, let us ask ourselves the question: Why does the Church remember her martyrs? We do not remember them because we are unable to move on. We do not remember them to reopen old wounds. We do not remember them because suffering is our identity. We remember because Christ remembers. Every martyr is precious in His sight and every tear has been seen by Him. Every injustice is known to him and every faithful witness has been crowned by Him. Today we have remembered the martyrs of Simele and the Martyrs of the entire Church. We have remembered the countless unnamed faithful whose stories may never be written in history books, yet whose names are written in the Book of Life. We have remembered Mar Shimun Bar Sabbae, who remained steadfast before the Persian Empire. We have remembered Mar Qardagh, who gave away his entire life and earthly possessions, to worship the true God. We have remembered His Holiness Mar Benyamin Shimun XXI, the shepherd who chose to remain with his flock through persecution and whose martyrdom became a symbol of faithful leadership. Above all, we have remembered Jesus Christ—the King of Martyrs, who by His Cross destroyed death and by His Resurrection opened the gates of eternal life. The history of the Assyrian Church of the East has never been easy. Our fathers and mothers endured exile. They endured persecution. They endured massacres. They crossed mountains carrying nothing more than the clothes on their back, the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Cross, and the faith that had been entrusted to them by the apostles. Yet despite all of this, the Church remains. Not because we are strong. Not because we have always been protected. Not because we have always had worldly power. The Church remains because Christ promised in Matthew 16:18:

    “Upon this rock, I will build My Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”

    That promise has carried the Church through every century, has carried it through Simele, and it continues to carry the Church today, and will do so until the Lord returns in Glory. As we depart here, let us carry with us not only the memory of the martyrs, but also their faith. May their courage strengthen us. May their prayers accompany us. May their witness inspire us until the last day.

    Amen.

  • Saint Isaac of Nineveh, Universalist or just misunderstood?

    Saint Isaac of Nineveh, is an important monastic figure and Saint within the Church of The East tradition, and has been subjected to many criticism from scholarship in regards to a supposed doctrine that he is accused of teaching, being “universalism”. This is the idea that all of humanity, will eventually be reconciled to God, and achieve salvation, regardless of the state of their sins, or faith. This is most obviously considered heretical for the Church of The East and the overall Christian faith, as the consensus of the Saints for all of Christian history believe that there is an eternal hell, and a damnation for those who have not lived faithfully according to God and his Church. This is the entire reason as to why The Son of God became incarnate, which is to die for us, and that for those who BELIEVE in him, will have eternal life meaning that those who reject him and his offering up of himself for us, are actively choosing an eternal life away from him in heaven, that is hell. This would be contrary to the universalist position, which likely first became influential with Origen, an early Church father in the 2nd century who held to this belief, who had a strong influence on alot of later fathers as well. Some even make the argument that another extremely important Saint in our tradition, in the figure of Saint Theodore of Mopsuestia, also was a universalist, and that since Theodore was the main authority and most important Saint for Saint Isaac, likewise Saint Isaac also has been considered to be one as well due to their tight connection in theology. This could not be any more further from the truth and this article will be dedicated to refuting this idea that is led by misguided scholarship, that Isaac held to this position, which will as well vindicate Theodore, and God-willing one day I will make an article as a refutation to the supposed universalism that was taught by Theodore. Let us now get into where these accusations come from.

    Textual references of Saint Isaac

    We will have to first start off by examining where do these accusations begin with, by reading into some of the quotes that are typically cited when talking about Saint Isaac and his supposed universalism, along with some of the arguments made as to what exactly he is saying, and then providing the refutation to them. The sources that we will be mainly pulling from are going to be as follows:

    – Mystic Treatises of Isaac of Nineveh, By A. J. WENSINCK (A complete translation of Part I of the Homilies of Saint Isaac)
    – The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian, By Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev (A Study on Saint Isaac by a Russian Orthodox Metropolitan)
    – The Book of The Bee by Solomon of Basra (A collection of Church of The East traditions and interpretations by a Church of The East Bishop of Basra)
    – St. Isaac The Syrian and His Understanding of Universal Salvation (Sebastian Brock on Saint Isaac’s understanding of Gehenna)

    These texts will be critical in doing a full examination of the accusations of Saint Isaac, since the majority of the references come from his writings, in which they all share quotes and writings from Saint Isaac himself, where he speaks on important matters of faith such as salvation, and the love of God, both of which will be tying in to the theme of how Saint Isaac views salvation as being ultimately being a form of love from God, who like any other Christian who has an orthodox faith, believes that God is love himself, and that anything that is done by God is out of love.

    Saint Isaac and Universal Salvation according to Dr. Sebastian Brock

    Let us now give the citations of the quotes that are typically used to affirm that Saint Isaac of Nineveh was a universalist and break down what the argument is, and why it is a misinterpretation of the text, and a disregard to his other works which we will also examine later on. The first reference we will be examining is by Dr. Sebastian Brock, a prominent and world renowned Syriac Scholar who has multiple works written on Saint Isaac.

    “And it is clear that He does not abandon them the moment they fall, and that demons will not remain in their demonic state, and sinners will not remain in their sins; rather, He is going to bring them to a single equal state of completion in relationship to His own Being in a state in which the holy angels are now, in perfection of love and a passionless mind.”

    To begin with addressing this accusation, I would first like to note that Dr. Brock mentions in the very beginning of writing his article, that “Isaac’s teaching lays great emphasis on the love of God, and of the need for human response to this, by way of reflecting this divine love. For Isaac, the whole aim of the Incarnation is to disclose the extent of God’s love:” Brock would be absolutely correct in mentioning this as a way to first interpret Isaac’s view on salvation, however his particular interpretation is a misunderstanding of the text. He argues that in regards to this quote, “ultimate salvation is indeed universal, involving all rational beings (thus including the fallen angels). Thus his argument is that at its face value, Isaac appears to teach the eventual restoration of all rational beings — including demons and sinners — into a perfected state of union and love before God. This would then theoretically strongly suggest that evil itself is temporary and that no creature will eternally remain in a damned state. That is one of the foundational ideas of universal restoration (apokatastasis). My response to this accusation goes as follows:

    St. Isaac when speaking in this quote, is not saying that all rational beings will be reconciled, rather that his burden is that Gehenna should not be understood as being God’s revenge, and that when saying God essentially punishes sinners by eternal damnation, it should be viewed according to God’s unchanging love, as I stated earlier in the article that the very being of God’s essence is love which Brock agrees with as well, which is why in alot of his passages, he writes that Gods love is damaging to the sinner, because they’ve hardened their hearts to Gods love, thus their punishment is without a “known end” and a free will choice by sinners who choose to be away from God’s love. So whenever we even read of any use of biblical speech about “wrath,” “fire,” or “punishment”, it must be read in the context of the goodness of God Himself. The torment of Gehenna is not a change in God but a change in the state of the sinner who has made himself incapable of enjoying divine love as joy. So the best way to understand this passage, is that when St. Isaac says that demons will not remain in their demonic state and sinners will not remain in their sins, the cautious and correct interpretation of the text is that he is declaring that evil will not have the last word, in the sense that they don’t exist as a principle beside the Heavenly Kingdom or is present in it. Let us look at another quote referenced by Dr. Brock that is used to demonstrate Isaac’s universalism:

    “I say that those who are scourged in Gehenna are tormented by the scourging’s of love. The scourging’s that result from love – that is, the scourges of those who have become aware that they have sinned against love – are harder and more bitter than the torments which result from fear. The pain that gnaws at the heart as a result of sinning against love is sharper than all other torments that exist”

    Now here when Dr. Brock is referencing this quote, he is stating again the overarching theme of Isaac’s interpretation of salvation, as fundamentally being God’s love as the source of all things. He states in his article. “The contrition that comes from the realization of God’s love is itself the harsh punishment.” and “As Isaac stresses, the idea that the torments of Gehenna are retributive punishments is in fact blasphemous, for it attributes to God motives and actions that belong solely to the realm of human beings.”

    Brock is absolutely correct in making this assertion, that for Saint Isaac, speaking of God in any way where he punishes and torments sinners, is something that is blasphemous and contrary to the very fact that God is love. What Saint Isaac is trying to reconcile again, is how can an all loving God, allow torment and punishment for sinners, which in today’s day in age, you will see this as a commonly brought up objection from even atheists who reject the idea of God because of this very excuse, a sort of “If God is good, then why does he allow bad things” type of argument. Saint Isaac in the 8th Century was already thinking about these things and refuting these ideas. Now from a universalist perspective when reading this quote, the typical argument that will be made is that for Saint Isaac in this passage, is arguing that hell is not something eternal but rather temporary, and that it implies that since God is all loving, the conclusion they would draw would goes as follows:

    P1. God’s essence is Love
    P2. God never ceases to love any creature
    P3. Gehenna itself is an experience of Divine Love
    P4. The Divine Love overpowers sinners and seeks restoration
    C. Therefore Gehenna ultimately has a restorative end

    The refutation for this goes as follows:

    Again this quote is simply only rejecting a crude, retributive view of eternal punishment, this does not prove that all will be eventually saved, rather it would go back to what I said about St. Isaac viewing hell as built upon love rather than revenge, and those in hell rejecting His love lack the presence of God, because their hearts are hardened. This scourging of Love that Saint Isaac mentions so often does not necessarily mean that repentance and thus ultimate reconciliation is thus guaranteed. Saint Isaac as well due to his nature of being a monastic figure, speaks very mystically in regards to these things and the quotes when taken out of context and read at face value are ambiguous and does not do Saint Isaac justice unless you read the rest of his works to get the overall idea of his faith. Given the context of St. Isaac, the proper interpretation would be that there is a purification after death for believers in Christ, and those who are “scourged by Love” reject God in their hearts and do not attain the “happiness prepared” which St. Diodore also speaks about. This in no way defends the idea that all are to be saved as P4. in the above formal syllogism I provided would be rejected, because the damned and their hearts can remain hardened, their suffering comes from the refusing of God’s love, and nothing in the text explicitly says this condition ends, thus granting the idea that for Saint Isaac, Gehenna is still eternal despite the above quotes which speak about God’s love ultimately overpowering sinners in Gehenna, and that demons will be restored by not remaining in a demonic state. So the quote is just simply talking about the nature of what this punishment is, not whether or not it is eternal. Saint Isaac can still confidently accept that God loves the damned eternally, while simultaneously affirming that the damned still have chosen to eternally reject his love.

    This can also be connected to even Biblical passages which speak this way, and so if you choose to argue that Saint Isaac is a universalist for his rhetoric in these passages, you must also remain consistent and say the Bible does the same thing and thus contradictory, which obviously nobody will say as this is blasphemous. These quotes only becomes universalism if you force “healing,” and “perfection” to mean the guaranteed final salvation of every rational creature, which is just simply not a fair reading of the text, because biblical and patristic language often speaks universally and rhetorically about God’s will and God’s mercy, such as in Colossians 1:20 , the verse says God reconciles “all things”, yet reconciliation can mean the restoration of cosmic order under Christ’s lordship, not the salvation of every single person/ creature. Another passage in scripture that can be pointed to is 1 John 3:8 which states that evil is “destroyed,” death is “destroyed,” and all things are “reconciled” to God so Scripture itself also speaks of an eternal punishment. So what Saint John is saying then, is that sin’s dominion is destroyed, not guaranteeing the restoration of Satan and his demons or sinners, and this can be exactly applied to the above two quotes. The issue then becomes into a situation where in Saint Isaac truly is a universalist, then we would have to say that universalism is scriptural because scripture itself uses this language, it says God desires all to be saved, draws all, has mercy on all, and reconciles all things to Himself, but that language exists alongside judgment eternally. St. Isaac speaks about how people who are hardened to God, can’t receive His love, His love feels like punishment. So the fathers can thus speak maximally about mercy without that becoming a clear denial of an eternal Gehenna. This now concludes the portion of our examination on Dr. Sebastian Brock’s analysis of Saint Isaac and his view on salvation.

    Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev and The Spiritual World of Saint Isaac

    We will now be examining what a well known scholar, and Russian Orthodox Metropolitan, Hilarion Alfeyev has to say in regards to the view of salvation in the world of Saint Isaac, where we will be providing citations from his book that I referenced above. Like Dr. Sebastian Brock, Metropolitan Alfeyev begins off the discussion of Saint Isaac on Universalism mentioning that attributing retribution to God is blasphemous, and just like Brock, he is correct in making this assertion that Saint Isaac does believe this, as the Metropolitan states:

    “Isaac emphasizes that God does nothing out of retribution: even to think this way about God would be blasphemous.*? This opinion is all the more unacceptable in view of God’s foreknowledge that humanity would sin and fall even before he created human beings, yet still he created them:”

    “To suppose that retribution for evil acts is to be found in him is abominable. By implying that he makes use of such a great and difficult thing out of retribution we are attributing a weakness to the Divine Nature. We cannot even believe such a thing can be found in those human beings who live a virtuous and upright life and whose thoughts are entirely in accord with the divine will—let alone believe of God that he has done something out of retribution for anticipated evil acts in connection with those whose nature he has brought into being with honour and great love. Knowing them and all their conduct, the flow of his grace did not dry up from them: not even after they started living amid many evil deeds did he withhold his care for them, even for a moment.”

    • Saint Isaac The Syrian, Part II/39,2, The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian

    So as we saw in Dr. Brock’s analysis, we see the exact same approach being taken here towards Saint Isaac’s soteriology, as he establishes the fundamental idea that for Isaac, any sense of “revenge”, or retribution about God is a complete contradiction and blasphemy to say, considering the fact that because God had foreknowledge of the fall of Adam and Eve, then why would he create humans in the first place? This is again exactly what Saint Isaac is trying to reconcile, and being very careful as he understands that the basis of all things in God is good because God is love. The only mistake that can be made when reading Saint Isaac, is by forcing universalism upon him in his writings, without a thorough exegesis of what he is actually saying. So what we have read so far, is nothing sufficient to say that Saint Isaac was a universalist as everything in the above responses to Dr. Brock’s article still applies. We will continue on however analyzing the rest of the references provided in this book that can be misinterpreted wrong, as Metropolitan Alfeyev says this:

    “In the establishment of death, God’s ‘cunning’ was revealed: he concealed his true intention under the guise of punishment for sin. The same ‘cunning’ explains the establishment of gehenna as a punishment whose aim is the profit which humans may derive from it:”

    The only problem with this explanation, is that Metropolitan Alfeyev is using this to setup the idea that for Isaac, Gehenna is a temporary state sort of like purgatory, where mercy can be obtained and thus a disguise of the Love of God hidden in the form of suffering, despite it not being retributive. This is a problem, because he is saying that the punishment in a way profits the sinner according to Saint Isaac, and thus the goal of Gehenna is healing and purification which eventually leads to universal restoration, that is, if you misinterpret it this way. So people then will conclude based on the theme of Isaac’s writing, that because God’s love is unchanging, God does not act out of wrath or revenge, and Gehenna even is an expression of Love, that this concludes universal salvation.

    The refutation for this goes as follows, this sort of line of argumentation employs a fallacy of equivocation, by saying that because Gehenna benefits the sinners, it is guaranteeing universal salvation. But that is simply not justified or even explained in any of Saint Isaac’s works, its too ambiguous to conclude that and is not a fair reading of the text to read that into his writings. Isaac is only affirming the premise that Gehenna is the absence of God’s love but an experience still of that love scourging the sinner because everything God does is out of love, and that Gehenna is not retributive but a choice from a sinner to be away eternally from God, and thus away from his love, yet that love still overcomes all and is experienced not directly but due to the absence of it. This is why Gehenna can be properly interpreted as being both therapeutic in a sense for the sinners, yet also subjectively tormenting and unending for those who refuse God. The main thing to focus on the reference by Metropolitan Alfeyev, is his use of the word cunning as being a way of saying God brings good out of what is severe. This is indeed true, however, to assume universal salvation is the good that comes out of this is just another assumption as I can give some other examples of what it exactly means for God to bring good out of something severe. Such as how death is something that restrains the sinner, or that suffering leads to repentance, and the will to seek God, as we see in the Scriptures in the book of Job. All this just means is that judgement serves a purpose of mercy, and its a state that the human soul and will remains in. So the entire argument hinges on an assumption that it automatically means universal salvation which it does not. The more proper understanding is that God always acts out of the purpose of love and healing even in judgement but this healing is not forced upon one as they remain in free will, and must not be resistant to it. But do not take my word for it, take what Saint Isaac says himself:

    “You should see that, while God’s caring is guiding us all the time to what he wishes for us, as things outwardly appear, it” is from us that he takes the occasion to providing things, his aim being to carry out by every means what he has intended for our advantage. All this is because he knew beforehand our inclination towards all sorts of wickedness, and so he cunningly made the harmful consequences which would result from this into a means of entry to the future good and the setting right of our corrupted state. These are things which are known only to him. But after we have been exercised and assisted little by little as a result of these consequences after they have occurred, we realize and perceive that it could not turn out otherwise than in accordance with what has been foreseen by him. This is how everything works with him, even though things may seem otherwise to us: with him it is not a matter of retribution, but he is always looking beyond to the advantage that will come from his dealings with humanity. And one such thing is the matter of Gehenna“

    • Saint Isaac The Syrian, Part II/39,5, The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian

    Metropolitan Hilarion goes on to say this: “Thus Isaac gradually arrives at his key idea: the final outcome of the history of the universe must correspond to the majesty of God, and the final destiny of human beings should be worthy of God’s mercifulness. ‘I am of the opinion’, Isaac claims,” and then quotes from Saint Isaac saying:

    “that he is going to manifest some wonderful outcome, a matter of immense and ineffable compassion on the part of the glorious Creator, with respect to the ordering of this difficult matter of Gehenna’s torment: out of it the wealth of his love and power and wisdom will become known all the more—and so will the insistent might of the waves of his goodness. It is not the way of the compassionate Maker to create rational beings in order to deliver them over mercilessly to unending affliction in punishment for things of which he knew even before they were fashioned, aware how they would turn out when he created them— and whom nonetheless he created. All the more since the foreplanning of evil and the taking of vengeance are characteristic of the passions of created beings, and do not belong to the Creator. For all this characterizes people who do not know or who are unaware of what they are doing .. . for as a result of some matter that has occurred unexpectedly to them they are incited by the vehemence of anger to take vengeance. Such action does not belong to the Creator who, even before the cycle of the depiction of creation has been portrayed, knew of all that was before and all that was after in connection with the actions and intentions of rational beings.*”

    • Saint Isaac The Syrian Part II/39,6, The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian

    Again he is taking this as being a reference to Gehenna’s torment being temporary and not everlasting, because he is inferring that if there is a good to come out of this torment, that goodness will be salvation, not giving a fair reading of the text which we already have established a refutation of. The key reading however in this text by Isaac is “It is not the way of the compassionate Maker to create rational beings in order to deliver them over mercilessly to unending affliction in punishment for things of which he knew even before they were fashioned”. Again, all this is saying is that you can not ascribe to God, as being vindictive, or retributive, as these are all things that apply to humanity, not the Godhead. So here, all Saint Isaac is saying is that it was never God’s intention to create mankind just to one day condemn those who disobey, that is not in line with the will of God, and so this also does not logically imply that he also created them with the intention of saving them as well. Instead, he wills for salvation for all, but not that he will inevitably save all, so his foreknowledge of the fall of man is not equivalent to determining universal salvation. And since free will exists, that then leads to a choice of rejecting God or not, and by choosing so is an eternal choice to spend eternity away from God, otherwise now there is no free will if there is no choice to choose between being with God in eternity or being away from him for eternity.

    Metropolitan Alfeyev then goes on to say this about Isaac:

    “The idea of love contradicts the idea of requital, Isaac insists. Besides, if we were to suppose that God will punish sinners eternally, this would mean that the creation of the world was a mistake, that God proved unable to oppose evil, which is not within his will. If we ascribe requital to God’s actions, we apply weakness to God:”

    “So then, let us not attribute to God’s actions and his dealings with us any idea of requital. Rather, we should speak of fatherly provision, a wise dispensation, a perfect will which is concerned with our good, and complete love. If it is a case of love, then it is not one of requital; and if it is a case of requital, then it is not one of love. Love, when it operates, is not concerned with the requiting of former things by means of its own good deeds or correction; rather, it looks to what is most advantageous in the future: it examines what is to come, and not things of the past. If we think otherwise than this, then according to the resulting childish view the Creator will prove to be weak . . . for after what he had established had become corrupted against his will, he devised some other plan, preparing ills in return for its corruption. Such are the feeble ways of understanding the Creator!”

    • Saint Isaac The Syrian, Part II/39,17, The Spiritual World of Isaac The Syrian

    Metropolitan Alfeyev then goes on to make the claim that for Isaac, love contradicts requital, and that if God truly loves us, he would not condemn us to eternal damnation. He is saying that since this is not in God’s will to damn all, that Isaac is clearly coming to the conclusion of a temporary Gehenna, and this is again false. Again, all Saint Isaac was doing in this explanation is reconciling that God can not be attributed as a being of retribution or crude punishment. Again I can simply point to many instances in Scripture that universalism can be read into but is obviously not the case, such as Matthew 18:14 “Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.” So let us remain consistent in our interpretations of these passages, as we are in the Scriptures.

    Solomon of Basra and The Book of The Bee

    The Book of The Bee is a book written by a medieval Church of The East Bishop by the name of Solomon of Basra, which is a collection of different theological opinions, and interpretations of scripture and traditions that have been passed down and believed in the Church of The East. We will be examining a small reference to Saint Isaac in this book, due to it’s notoriety of being considered as one of the strongest pieces of evidence in regards to Saint Isaac and his supposed universalism.

    It is important to note first off when getting to the reference, is that Solomon of Basra was indeed a universalist. This is something that I personally believe, there is no denying, and my goal in this article is not to argue that universalism did not exist in the Church of The East fathers, as it certainly did, but rather to vindicate Saint Isaac and Saint Theodore indirectly from this theological error, since they are the most important and dogmatic figures for us in the Church of The East, and I firmly believe that their soteriology has been misinterpreted. It’s important to note that Solomon of Basra was a universalist himself, because naturally what this means, is that Solomon is falling into the same mistakes as others, by reading universalism into Saint Isaac, however in his case the error is bigger due to his own personal belief of universalism, which is what convinces him of the conclusion. Lets take a look at the quote that is always used.

    “Mar Isaac says thus: ‘Those who are to be scourged in Gehenna will be tortured with stripes of love; they who feel that they have sinned against love will suffer harder and more severe pangs from love than the pain that springs from fear.’ Again he says: ‘The recompense of sinners will be this: the resurrection itself will be their recompense instead of the recompense of justice ; and at the last He will clothe those bodies which have trodden down His laws with the glory of perfection. This act of grace to us after we have sinned is greater than that which, when we were not, brought our nature into being.”

    Again we see the same theme in Saint Isaac’s first sentence, as he brings on the topic of love being the thing that will scourge those in Gehenna and tortured by it, indicating to us the effect of Gehenna, and why they will be suffering this way, not the duration of it or if it will be temporary. Because God loves all sinners, even those who will be tormented in Gehenna, this does not mean that those sinners will eventually be reconciled, as we already have refuted the idea of a contradiction that if God truly does love sinners, he would save those whom he loves from being tortured, which would not follow because this eternal damnation is a choice and a result of free will in human beings to being away from God, and we know that God in his perfect knowledge, wisdom, and judgement, will not force an action or decision upon anyone to choose aside from their own will, otherwise this would not be love. Another thing to point out in this verse is the mentioning of a resurrection. Some might say that this is evidence that the resurrection Saint Isaac speaks of is the resurrection unto heaven into a glorified body, however I say otherwise, and would point the reader to what the Holy Scriptures say, such as in John 5:29: “and come forth— those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” So even the Bible makes it clear that there is a resurrection to come even for those who have sinned and are condemned, not just for the righteous who will receive the resurrection of life, so let us be consistent in our readings. Another might mention in this passage that Saint Isaac talks about an act of grace, being bestowed upon the fallen as a means of perfection, and say that this perfection is what is the salvation to come. But instead, we can read this as Saint Isaac expressing that in either resurrection, both will be perfected in a state of being that they were once before, however, this does not mean both will enjoy the Divine Gift that is heaven. It is just the restoration of God to all beings, which is why Isaac talks about this state of being perfected, and how it relates to being greater than our state before the fall (of Adam and Eve). This just demonstrates the love that God has for all and that he still will not abandon creation, and even in condemnation, we will no longer be in a state of sin, rather we will be suffering the fate of our choice, to be away from God. So if anything this passage affirms Gehenna very clearly as still being a state of torment, however this torment is the feeling of God’s love, not wrath, and therefore not an experience of God’s Divine revenge, but a painful experience of his love.

    Mystic Treatises by Saint Isaac

    After during a thorough study and examination of some of the works of Saint Isaac that are used to affirm his soteriology as being that of a universalist, and have provided the refutations and the proper interpretation of his works, and an exegesis of Scripture, let us now examine some of the works of Saint Isaac that say otherwise in regards to his supposed universalism. After all, we must always be reading the fathers into their overall theme, and context of their passages, and examine all their works to really determine if their viewpoint is consistent or if there are any contradictions. What I will be showing from Saint Isaac will demonstrate that from a universalist perspective, they would be making Saint Isaac contradict himself when he speaks on certain topics, however from our viewpoint, he would be consistent and without error.

    “The encouragement which our Fathers give us in their writings and the help towards repentance which is in the writings of the Prophets and the Apostles, should not be taken by us as a reason to disregard the threats of the divine acts of judgment, nor the punishment which God has decreed firmly against the transgression of the borders which should not be passed, through the mouth of all His saints and by means of all kinds of laws, in order to eradicate sins. As if the hope of repentance could be reason for us to strip from ourselves the feeling of fear in order to sin more freely and without dread. These [threats] are confirmed by the seals of the word of God, in all the scriptures of our salvation, and by the [divine} decrees fixed against them, [threatening] all kinds of terror.”

    The key thing to understand about this passage from Saint Isaac, is that he is carefully warning the readers, to take heed to the Holy Scriptures and follow what is said in regards to repentance and the Divine Judgement. He emphasizes that repentance is an absolute means of salvation and is needed for all those who have transgressed against God, and that there is a punishment for those who don’t. Now the universalist position would acknowledge that there would of course be a punishment for sinners, but that ultimately this punishment is temporary. My question to that position would simply be this; why is he putting such an emphasis on the means of repentance, and not to disregard the Divine Judgement? If it were something not so serious, which the universalist position would inherently have to take, then why is he telling us to not disregard it? After all, if all who have sinned and are destined to fall, should they not just disregard it because they will expect salvation at the end? Yet Saint Isaac says otherwise, he emphasizes that repentance is necessary, as it is found in the scriptures, and that what is confirmed in the Scriptures is sealed by the Word of God. So if Saint Isaac affirms the Holy Scriptures, and tells us to take heed to what it says, and the Bible affirms an eternal Gehenna, should we not come to the conclusion that Saint Isaac believes in this as well? He even goes as far to say that we should not hope for salvation, and that it is not a means to strip us from fear, meaning that salvation should be feared. If all will eventually be saved, he should be logically arguing the opposite, that there is nothing to fear if salvation should be the end all be all, but instead he says the opposite, and to be afraid and worried almost about whether or not we will make it to heaven. Even the language of the passage implies that God has decreed what he has decreed, and this is something that is firm, not just being pedagogical for the sake of learning and for sinners to be called to repentance, but to understand that what is said by God will not be changed by God, all of these which contradict the universalist position yet remains consistent with ours that God is loving and Saint Isaac is reconciling Love with the result of eternal damnation.

    “When the brilliant clouds will bear on their backs the bodies that have become splendid by purification and that enter the great gate of heaven. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, because their work is already judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous, in the resurrection before the judgment, nor the impure in the ranks of the saints.”

    Another very interesting passage from Saint Isaac, where in this quote, we see a heavy emphasis on those who are righteous, being separated from those who are in judgement. So essentially he is distinguishing between two different resurrections, which we already established previously in the article that he believes there will be a resurrection for the sinners and those who were righteous, as it says in the Scriptures. One group is being named as the one who will not stand in the judgement, because their work is already judgement, and one will be splendid by the means of purification and enter the gate of heaven. Another question here can be posed to the universalist; If Isaac believed all would eventually be saved, why describe a final distinction between the righteous and sinners? Would not all be eventually saved anyways even if it will be at a different time? He clearly is saying that even during those who will be judged as righteous, the ungodly will not be in their presence, so where will they be, even if assuming their resurrection is to come at a different time, as either way he still implies it will never happen. Would the universalist have to argue that the sinners will also be in their own group when their time comes for their resurrection into heaven? The universalist would have to say that this passage has to mean eventual inclusion yet the passage itself emphasizes exclusion, and is not consistent with their reading. Saint Isaac even says explicitly that those who will be purified will enter heaven, and that the impure will not be in the ranks of the Saints, so does this not imply that only the purified will enter heaven? Yet the universalist would then have to argue for the eventual purification of sinners in Gehenna, but again if that is the case, then that means the ones who become purified are now among the righteous, so why does Saint Isaac say there will still be a separation between the righteous and the not righteous? If he was really a universalist, his passage should have been more inclusive and indicate that even those who are not among the congregation, will eventually be apart of that, but no where can we find that in his texts. The universalist could also argue that of course sinners are excluded from the congregation of the righteous while they remain sinners, which is almost tautological to say, but then the question is will they always remain sinners? In our previous passages we have understood the texts of Saint Isaac that even Gehenna will be purification of the sinner, where they will no longer be in a state of sin, which then brings us back to the point of, so why and how are they still excluded, and where can we find this eventual inclusion of the once fallen, to the now purified sinner, to entering heaven eventually, in any of the texts of Saint Isaac? This passage certainly does not answer it, remaining only consistent with our interpretations. Especially since the need of repentance is heavily emphasized, which why would there even be an emphasis if all will eventually be restored.

    “The saints of the Lord and those near to Him are good works and a pure heart. But when they reject the ways of the Lord’s will, He also rejects them and puts them away from before Him and takes His grace from them.”

    At face value this quote in of itself is difficult to reconcile with universalism. This is not just about a self inflicted consequence of a sinner, but it literally affirms a Divine Response to a human action or choice, meaning God quite literally rejects those who reject him. Is the universalist then saying that God would have to at first reject the sinner and then allow them into heaven? If Isaac believed all people were destined to be universally restored regardless of their choices, why would he talk about God rejecting those who rejected Him? Again, another passage that is heavily exclusive of those who will be fallen. He even says that this grace can be lost and taken away from those who have fallen. If grace is taken, does God magically restore it back to them eventually? Where can we find this in any of Saint Isaac’s works? It very clearly means that participation into heaven is not simply unconditional but rather conditional and contingent on those who have closely followed God and his commandments, such as repentance, the sacraments, the good works, the Church, and etc. Again this most closely aligns with our interpretation as grace can indeed be forfeited, but the universalist would need to argue that it can’t be, and the passage stresses for us to be morally responsible for ourselves and align our will with the Lord’s will. The difficulty of this text is that God does not say whether this rejection is permanent, but the burden of proof is on the universalists to demonstrate that, not us, as the correct reading of all of these passages more closely align with the language, theme, context, and the Holy Bible and their interpretation does.

    “As a grace beyond a grace has repentance been given to man. Repentance is being born anew in God. That of which we have received the pledge by baptism, we receive as a gift by repentance. Repentance is the gate of mercy which is opened to all who seek it. Through this gate we go in to divine mercy. Apart from this entrance it is not possible to find mercy. Because all have sinned, according to the words of scripture, and are justified freely by grace. Repentance is a second grace; it is born in the heart from faith and fear.”

    This might be one of my most favorite passages to point out in the soteriology of Saint Isaac. There is one key sentence to focus on in this passage that is very explicit. That is, when Saint Isaac says, “Apart from this entrance it is not possible to find mercy.” Do I even need to explain this any further as to how this is unreconcilable with universalism. This is Saint Isaac affirming John 3:5 which says; “Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” If the universalist position is consistent, this premise needs to be rejected, that even despite all conditions, one may still enter the Kingdom of God regardless of baptism. Yet both Scripture and Saint Isaac are agreement that there is clearly something conditional to enter heaven. The universalist would need to argue otherwise that regardless there is still salvation for all, even the unbaptized, the unrepented, the ones deep in sin, the ones who have rejected God. Saint Isaac here in this passage is clearly not saying all will enter heaven, instead, he says that apart from this entrance it isn’t even possible to find mercy, and therefore you should throw away this idea of being saved without being baptized, and if you do, then congratulations as you have conceded that universalism has been falsified. I rest my case as this passage in of itself proves enough.

    “When, however, we have found love, we eat the heavenly bread and we are sustained without labour and without weariness. Heavenly bread is that which has descended from heaven and which gives the world life; this is the food of angels. He that has found love eats Christ at all times and becomes immortal from thence onwards. For whoever eats of this bread shall not taste death in eternity. Blessed is he that has eaten from the bread of love which is Jesus. Whoever is fed with love is fed with Christ, who is the all governing God.”

    And finally, for the cherry on top on this article, I present Saint Isaac affirming that there will be an eternity of death for those who do not eat of the Bread of Life, the Eucharist, which is Christ’s body shed on the cross for us, and for our salvation (Luke 22:19). There is absolutely no way of getting around this, he explicitly affirms an eternal death yet not once do we see in his works, an affirmation of a temporary death or a temporary Gehenna. What else would he mean by a temporary death? Again in this passage he is saying and affirming in the Holy Scriptures themselves, that the path to heaven is through God, his Church, and his sacraments, and the rest of the Divine Gifts that are given to us. Surely the universalist would not say these are all still necessary for salvation, because if that is the case, then they have just conceded they are not universalists. The Eucharist gives us Divine Life, an eternal life, and to be without it is to be without this Divine Life, and thus not an eternal living with the One True God, therefore affirming an eternal death, one in separation from God and his congregation of the Saints and righteous men.

    Conclusion

    With that being said, we have now successfully demonstrated the case that is the opposite of what all the scholars have said in regards to Saint Isaac and his soteriology, and one that is overlooked upon and dismissed for whatever reason. We have not only demonstrated that the claims of universalism are erroneous, but that it is extremely inconsistent, and misinterpreted in the works of Saint Isaac, as everything that he writes about points towards our view and our interpretation of his soteriology. Mainly that is affirming an eternal Gehenna, but also that God is love, there is a judgement, there are moral distinctions, that sinners will not be counted among the righteous, that purification is necessary in both resurrections of those condemned and those not, that there is a real fear of Gehenna, that nothing in God contradicts himself, that nothing in God is out of wrath or retribution, that God is merciful and near to his creation at all times, that what is decreed by God is decreed eternally, and that with all of this, we can be confident in our interpretation that when Saint Isaac speaks on soteriology, he aligns perfectly with what the Holy Scriptures say, and what the rest of the Blessed Saints say in their works. The burden of proof is still on the universalist to take the opposite position and demonstrate that none of these are the case in any of Saint Isaac’s writings, and with that I will conclude, as Saint Isaac has been vindicated. May he pray for all of us sinners, and pray that we may attain eternal life with him among God and the rest of his Saints. Amen.

  • Mary, The Ark Of The New Covenant

    As Christians, we believe and confess with our hearts in what we call the deposit of faith, which includes core doctrines such as the Holy Trinity, the duality of natures in Christ, the Resurrection, and many more important and essential things, one of them being the annunciation and the character of the Blessed Mother, the Virgin Mary, Mother of our Lord Christ. This topic, we will be exploring the biblical connection between the Old and New Testament of the Blessed Mother, and her importance in the tradition of the Church of The East, which is commonly described as not showing enough reverence to her. We will be demonstrating that the Church of The East upholds the Blessed Mother, as the highest above all creation, as according to the Bible, the Takhsa of the Raza (Rite of Liturgy), and of the Saints themselves. This will be broken down into a 4 part study in which we will examine what she means to us as being the Ark of The New Covenant. 

    What is the Ark Of The Covenant?

    The Ark of the Covenant, is mentioned in the Old Testament of the Bible as being a Holy Sanctuary to exist in Israel. In Exodus 25, we find the construction of the Ark, and it being a place for God to dwell in, and for Moses to go and speak to God. We see it mentioned a few times more throughout the bible, but when we come across Hebrews 9, we get a more deeper description of the Ark, that was believed to be passed down by oral tradition of the jews, since we do not find the items that were placed in the Ark in the Old Testament.

    This Ark was thus meant to not only serve as a sanctuary for God to dwell in, and be among his people, but also a place that represented as a promise, or “Covenant” between God and his people. This is important to understand for the later parts of the study, and to know what the Old Covenant vs New Covenant was and is. 

    Specifically in Hebrews 9:4, there are 3 things that were mentioned as being inside the Ark, and these are important to understand what they are and why the author of Hebrews decided to note this. One of them was the Stone Tablets of the Law, the Golden pot of Manna, and the Budded Aarons Rod. Here is what each of those items are and their representation:

    The Significance of the Ark

    Aaron’s Rod – In the Old Testament of Numbers 17, there was a rebellion which led to the Israelites questioning the authority of Moses and Aaron. God then commanded that each of the 12 tribes of Israel produce a rod, in which Aaron would represent the Levites. The rods were each placed in the tabernacle and then the next morning, only Aaron’s rod, which was dead wood, produced buds, and almonds, which showed then that life comes from death, and that the true priesthood was divinely selected by God.

    Stone Tablets of the Law – These were two stone slabs of the 10 commandments in Exodus 31-34 that were written by the hand of God himself when Moses spoke with God on Mount Sinai. This was set to be the foundation of God’s laws and thus a covenant between them that would be a promise to follow the laws of God. In other words, it is quite literally the Word of God dwelling amongst his people.

    Golden Jar of Manna – In Exodus 16, God commands Moses to have Aaron fill a jar with manna, which is the bread that descended from heaven to sustain the Israelites for 40 days in the wilderness , and was preserved miraculously and never rotting. It is thus to show heavenly nourishment, and God sustaining his people.

    Old vs New Covenant Parallels

    After going through the Old Testament description of what the Ark was, we can now draw the connections between the person of the Blessed Mother, and how the Ark was a typological foreshadowing of her. It goes as the following:

    Ark – The dwelling place of God, to be among his people

    Mary – The dwelling place of Christ who is God, to be among his people as stated in Isaiah 7:14 and Matthew 1:23

    Ark – Made with incorruptible wood and with Gold

    Mary – The incorruptible person and sinless vessel to carry God The Word

    This would then foreshadow what Mary would carry in her womb being that she is the Ark, it would be Christ.

    Ark – 1 Samuel 5 and 6 explains the story of David going to retrieve the Ark from the Philistines, Uzzah gets killed by touching it, and David says “How can the Ark of the Lord come to me?”

    Mary – Visits Elizabeth in Luke 1 in which Elizabeth proclaims to her “Why is this granted to me that the Mother of my Lord should come to me?

    The words of both Mary and King David are echoed as being replicas of each other, foreshadowing once again what is to come.

    The Stone Tablets of the Law – God the Word (Christ), The Law is written on Stone and The Lawgiver of God becomes flesh 

    The Manna from Heaven – Christ in the flesh as the Eucharistic Bread (John 6). The Old Bread preserves life temporally, The Eternal Bread from heaven grants eternal life.

    Aarons Budded Rod – Christ as the Eternal High Priest as according to the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 7). Aaron’s Rod grew life from dead wood. The True High Priest raises himself from the dead and on the cross which shows life sprouts from the death on the cross.

    The Takhsa of Dukhrana D’Mart Mariam

    “O, Reader, do not blame me, for calling her the Heaven; and, as I expect (anticipate) from Heaven, (for She is the) virtuous, high and exalted one. Our Lord who was hidden in Heaven, for six thousand years, and humankind was not saved, till She became unto Him a dwelling place. The Staff of Aaron gives witness to her that she has a Son and no husband; and Moses, by his rod confesses to Her, and the Rock with the Water gives witness to Her The Staff of Aaron bore the Almond Flower, while it was placed into the Ark (of the Covenant), even though it was not planted into the earth; it stayed for a time, and it withered. The Womb of Mary which gave birth, was revealed through the Rod of David; and it extended over all nations; and was stronger than iron; by it all nations were ruled, and under it were brought all the ends of the earth; and, by it were yoked-together, (bound) our necks and unto Him glorify all tongues. This is the Fleece not of wool, the Holy Spirit dwelt in Her, like that fleece of Gideon which received the rain; for Gideon had placed fleece on the threshing floor and tempted God by saying to God, the people of the world, thus said ‘If this night rain falls upon this place and if we find this fleece dried which we place here’. ‘I will believe that there is still redemption by the hands of this Israelite;’ and, as He said when He spoke in times past; thus, too, He speaks as in other times. If there is dryness on all (of) in this section, and this fleece which I place here, will squeeze or forth water from it. All earth was dry round about, and the fleece which I have placed here, wrings out water from it. All the earth was dry, and the fleece wrings out sediment; this is Mary who is more virtuous than fleece. As the fleece was dry, thus was Mary pure; and, never was seduced by lust, and was not wet by sin And, as the fleece received rain, while the earth was dry, thus dwelt in Mary the Spirit and was sanctifying all.

    • Anthem of The Deceased, Evening prayer for The Feast of Saint Mary

    “O Christ who established Mary His begetter to intercede in behalf of all believers; and, to pray and beseech of Him for all the sheep of His flock: we beseech You * O Christ who has accepted the prayers of His begetter, while she was here on earth, and now always accepts and visits all those who take refuge in her, and through her intercession, call upon Him; we beseech You * O Christ who responds to His worshipers by the prayers of His begetter and answers the petitions of His servants who celebrate the commemoration of the upbringer of His manhood; we beseech You”

    • The Karozoutha of the Evening Prayer of The Feast of Saint Mary

    “we supplicate and beseech from You O God, that by the mediation of the glorified Sanctuary which You have established for Your dwelling place; in the Temple of the body of the Blessed Mary, You have made salvation for all creation, thus, O my Lord, also, this congregation which has gathered today to celebrate diligently the Feast of Her Commemoration,”

    • Prayer by Mar Shalita of the Evening Prayer of The Feast of Saint Mary

    “full of grace; the Holy One, the source of divine holiness; pure and splendid, and the ark of the Spiritual Mysteries; famous in the virtues of sanctifying triumph; the treasurer of the grace and the storehouse of Heavenly riches; O our Lady, Mary the exalted one, who is higher than other named heavenly ranks; the Temple of the Holy Spirit and the Mother of the Son of God; she who knit in her hidden members the rational image without seed and physical contact; and, carried within her pure womb; and, reared upon her holy knees;”

    • The Litany Prayer for the Dukhrana of Mary in August

    From the Takhsa of the ACOE, we can see that not only is she referred to as the Ark, but as the New Heaven, the Exalted one, The Temple and even more that we did not go over today in the large hymns and prayers we have dedicated to her. She is someone who we have and should maintain a deep reverence for, being that she is the mother of our Lord, and that she is a testimony to all believers as according to our prayers of the Church, and as well as the bible. By doing so, we rightly give her the status as being the most exalted of all creation.

    The Church Fathers on Mary

    Saint Athanasius has a beautiful quote in regards to his reverence of the Blessed Mother:

    ‘O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all. O Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. Should I compare you to the fertile earth and its fruits? You surpass them, for it is written: “The earth is my footstool” (Is 66:1). But you carry within you the feet, the head, and the entire body of the perfect God.

    If I say that heaven is exalted, yet it does not equal you, for it is written: “Heaven is my throne” (ibid.), while you are God’s place of repose. If I say that the angels and archangels are great—but you are greater than them all, for the angels and archangels serve with trembling the One who dwells in your womb, and they dare not speak in his presence, while you speak to him freely.

    If we say that the cherubim are great, you are greater than they, for the cherubim carry the throne of God (cf. Ps 80:1; 99:1), while you hold God in your hands. If we say that the seraphim are great, you are greater than them all, for the seraphim cover their faces with their wings (cf. Is 6:2), unable to look upon the perfect glory, while you not only gaze upon his face but caress it and offer your breasts to his holy mouth….

    As for Eve, she is the mother of the dead, “for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor 15:22). Eve took from the tree and made her husband eat of it along with her. And so they ate of that tree of which God had told them: “The day you eat of it, you shall die” (Gen 2:17). Eve took from it, ate some of it, and gave some to her husband with her. He ate of it, and he died.

    In you, instead, O wise Virgin, dwells the Son of God: he, that is, who is the tree of life. Truly he has given us his body, and we have eaten of it. That is how life came to all, and all have come to life by the mercy of God, your beloved Son. That is why your spirit is full of joy in God your Savior!

    • St. Athanasius, Fourth Century Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, ed. T. Lefort, in Le Muséon 71 (1958): 216-217.

    What Saint Athanasius is saying in this quote, is highlighting the idea of Saint Mary being above all creation, since she bore that which was Uncreated, aka GOD. This is why he essentially says that there is no other creature that she can be compared to, and also identifies her as being the Ark of the Covenant as discussed in the Old and New testament typology we went over. 

    “Owing to Joseph the workmen came to the Son of Joseph. Blessed be Thy Nativity, Thou Head of Workmen, the impress of which the ark bore, fashioned after which was the Tabernacle of the congregation‘ that was for a time only! Our craft praiseth Thee, Who art our glory.”

    • Rhythm the 6th Saint Ephrem

    Here we have Saint Ephrem making the same connection, as Jesus being the one born of the nativity of the Virgin Mary, is the same one who was in the Ark, being Mary, matching the typological connections that other fathers such as Athanasius makes.

    Summary

    Mary is called the New Ark of the Covenant because as we went over in the Old Testament, the Old Ark carried the presence of God, while Mary carried within her womb, Christ who is the incarnate Word and fulfillment of the covenant itself. The Ark contained the manna from heaven, Aaron’s priestly rod, and the tablets of the Law, while Mary bore Christ, who is the true Bread sent down from Heaven, the eternal High Priest according to the order of Melchizdek, and the Word of God as the Word was written on the Stone. The Ark was overshadowed by the glorious cloud of God’s presence, and likewise Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit at the Annunciation (Luke 1:35). Both David and Elizabeth respond to the Ark and to Mary with almost identical words of awe, and both the Ark and Mary remain for three months in the country of Judah. The Early Christians saw these parallels as intentional biblical typology, along with the tradition of our Liturgical Breviary (Khudra) showing that Mary is the living sanctuary and holy dwelling place through whom God came to dwell among humanity in the Incarnation. It would be absolutely wrong for us to not have the utmost and highest reverence for the one that is called the most blessed amongst all women, the highest of all creatures, the exalted one, and more importantly the one whose intercession is accepted before God as a testimony of faith.

  • The Christology of Mar Youkhanan Bar Zo’bi

    Today I will be going over a question I get asked alot, and that is, what exactly is a Kyana, Qnoma, and a Parsopa, what do these mean, and how do we use these terms when formulating our Theology / Christology to properly understand both the Trinity and the Person of Christ through the Incarnation. Since this is such a meaty topic, I am going to split this up into different posts, each addressing different topics. One will be today, which is a general understanding of these terms and how they are defined according to our theologians and their Christology, such as Mar Babai the Great, and Mar Youkhanan Bar Zo’bi. The other posts will be about how we actually formulate these terms to understand the Trinity and the Incarnation. Therefore I will dedicate a post to each of these concepts to give a proper understanding of what exactly we mean.

    The beauty of this particular topic, is that we have all the material and writings given to us in the works of our Saints. All we have to do is read what the Fathers say for themselves. They have laid out all of the information for us and its now just up to us to familiarize ourselves with what it is that makes up the core doctrines of the Church of The East. In fact, much of the controversy of the early Church, particularly the 3rd, 4th, and 5th ecumenical councils (Which we do not accept as being ecumenical or dogmatically binding due to their depart of the orthodox faith) revolves around these formulations specifically in regards to Christology.

    How can we translate these terms?

    To put it very plainly, these words are very hard to give a direct translation into english for the most part. At the end of the day, these are Syriac terms, and we should more so focus on what exactly they mean rather than what they can be translated into, and nobody else can tell us what these words mean to us, especially if our own Saints have already given you the definitions, and to read into these terms through another Christological lens or tradition is being disingenuous and imposing a presupposition on what we mean when we say this. This is exactly why when dialoguing with other christians regarding Christology, we need to clarify what we mean when we use these terms to be absolutely clear about what is being explained and not that we are using them in the same sense, cause we most likely arent. Nonetheless I will still give what most scholars say, was an overall idea of what these words can mean, but I will later in my other post about Christology, break down the differences between the different traditions and our formulations.

    Kyana

    Syriac: Kyana (ܟܝܢܐ) the English would be Nature
    Greek: Ousia (οὐσία) the English would be Essence/Substance (Sometimes interchangeable with Physis/Nature)
    Greek: Physis (φύσις) the English would be Nature

    As you can see already it might be getting confusing, as these terms have been used in various ways, and have different meanings which is why it is important to read the Fathers within their context to understand exactly what they mean when using these terms. For now though we are just gonna focus on our own definitions and not the greek as that will be expounded upon later.

    Qnoma

    Syriac: Qnoma (ܩܢܘܡܐ) the English would be Individual Nature / Concrete Nature or sometimes even in the Greek as Hypostasis
    Greek: Hypostasis (ὑπόστασις) the English would be Concrete / Particular instance of a Nature

    Parsopa

    Syriac: Parsopa (ܦܪܨܘܦܐ) the English would be Person
    Greek: Prosopon (πρόσωπον) the English also would be Person

    To make it a bit easier to read and get the general idea of these terms I made a table down below to help better categorize these terms in comparison to their Greek, Syriac, and English definitions:

    ConceptSyriac TermScriptGreek TermScriptMeaning
    NatureKyānāܟܝܢܐPhysisφύσιςThe nature or kind of being (e.g., divine nature, human nature)
    Individual Nature / Concrete InstanceQnōmāܩܢܘܡܐHypostasisὑπόστασιςA concrete instance of a nature
    PersonParsōpāܦܪܨܘܦܐProsoponπρόσωπονThe personal identity or outward person

    Distinction between Trinity and Christology

    One thing I would like to make very clear about these definitions so far, is that the way they are to be used in regards to Christology, compared to Triadology, will be much more different, which is why I am making 2 separate posts on those topics. The reason being is because, when talking about Christology, you are trying to explain a union where what is Divine, joins that which is Human, compared to the Trinity where we are trying to explain how something that is purely Divine, exists in the manner that it does. The way that we would explain Kyana for the Trinity will not be the same as how we define Kyana in regards to humans, or in the Incarnation of Christ. Its very important not to conflate definitions when doing this because it can result in a view which we do not hold to, and I have seen a lot of people take this sort of approach. That is the goal of this blog post, which is to clarify. This is also why I mentioned reading the Fathers in context of what they are trying to explain because these terms in of themselves can be ambiguous, as Doctrines such as the Incarnation and the Trinity are ultimately mysteries. We have to explain these things only in ways that we can understand them, and make it clear that it is only analogous to philosophical concepts, in which the Syriac tradition does borrow from to explain these things.

    Kyana, Qnoma, Parsopa according to Mar Youkhanan Bar Zo’bi

    The Church of The East has a very great Saint by the name of Youkhanan Bar Zo’bi who in the late 12th and early 13th Century, wrote treatises in regards to Philosophy and Theology in which he harmonizes both through the lens of the ACOE. His work titled Zqorā mlaḥḥmā (‘Well-woven fabric’) will be used for now to conclude a general explanation of these terms. And in my next posts, I will clarify them in regards to Triadology. I highly recommend anyone who is an ACOE faithful, or trying to learn about our Theology, or both, to read this excerpt that is linked and embedded above.

    What is a Kyana and what is a Qnoma for Bar Zo’bi?

    “Nature (Kyana) is distinguishable from hypostasis (Qnoma), by its essential qualities. Nature is universal but hypostasis is specific. When nature is divided it constitutes its species and Nature is distinguishable also its hypostasis. But when hypostasis is divided it is meaningless; because if you were to divide hypostasis into parts, it will be destroyed and rendered meaningless, and it will not retain its natural qualities. Nature is simple, but hypostasis is compounded. Hypostasis is visible to the eyes, but nature is visible to the mind. When you speak of nature, the mind encompasses all, but when you speak of hypostasis, the mind embraces only one. This is the difference O, Father, between the nature and the hypostasis.”

    What Bar Zo’bi is essentially trying to explain here, is that Kyana, is something that is shared amongst many individuals, hence why he defines it as something being universal. Here we can see him borrowing terms from Aristotelian Philosophy to describe what we mean by these words (again being very careful when explaining this as this would simply be analogous, there is no such thing as a universal or particular relationship in the Trinity). For example: Humanity is a nature and it is something shared amongst all human beings, that is why he says that when we speak of Nature, it is something that the mind encompasses all. In other words it exists conceptually as something common.

    He also says that a Qnoma, is something that can be spoken of in the singular, meaning it refers to a specific concrete instance of a Nature. Concrete as in something that we can perceive and not just conceptialize, just as he says, “visible to the eyes”. We would for example be considered our own human qnome, individuals that are a specific instantation of that general human Nature that is shared amongst many individuals. Us as qnome however, are specific and particular, something that is not shared amongst every single other human being but unique to us specifically. What I am as a human qnoma, is something different then that of another person who is also a human qnoma, namely in the characteristics in which we possess, which Mar Babai also says word for word and I will quote later on in his post on Christology. This is why we can conceptually divide a Kyana into many different instances, which in that case we are left with Qnome, meanwhile to divide a Qnoma will be rendered meaningless as then you would have destroyed that Qnoma. A human qnoma can be said to be made up of “parts” as it would be considered a sort of composition between Body and Soul. This however would not apply to the Divine nature and Qnoma of the Godhead as there is no parts or composition in the Divine Essence.

    So to put into simpler terms, Kyana or “nature” for Bar Zo’bi when speaking on Christology, is something general, abstract, or “universal”. I am a human being because I am apart of the human nature, along with other humans. Qnoma is what is specific, concrete, or the “particular” of that universal. It is specific because it is what constitutes us individually, I am known by my Qnoma, because what I possess in my Qnoma, is different from that of someone else. We would call these “accidents” or “accidental” properties in Aristotelian definitions. Accidental properties in regards to the human nature, are things that are not essential to be considered human, such as hair color, height or weight, or other physical traits. Since they are contingent on the person, they do not define humanity as a whole or what makes someone human, rather it is apart of the Qnoma. Compare this to Kyana, a nature would bear the qualities of what we would say, are essential properties. So to be a human, or apart of the human nature, everyone must possess emotions, a human mind and will, being mortal, having hunger, etc. If these properties are now to be removed from the characteristics of what it means to be a human, you no longer have a human being, however someone with brown hair vs black hair, will not change that they are still human. So humanity in Aristotelian philosophy would be a mix between having the necessary essential properties of being a human and its accidents that are specific to each individual.

    Distinction between Parsopa and Qnoma

    “Let us now speak of the difference that exists between person and hypostasis. Person is unlike hypostasis in the qualities which it possesses, namely, such as beautiful, hateful, hideous and black. But in hypostasis there is only one (attribute), for it is one and the same. But in person there are many, because of the many attributes that it possesses. Of qualities I mean, son of so and so, beautiful or ugly. These characteristics appertain to person, that which signifies hypostasis. Hypostasis has been spoken of as a small part of nature. Person has been spoken of as a small part of hypostasis. This is therefore the difference between hypostasis and person.”

    Now this leaves us with the question of, what then is a Parsopa compared to Qnoma if we all are individual Qnome? Parsopa in this case, or “Person” is defined as an actual identity, personality, or basically something in which we identify the exact WHAT of the Qnoma. For example, with me, my name is Yosip Pithyou, I am a Subdeacon, and I am 24 years old. These are all characteristics of who I am as a person, in which we can use to say that I am me, and not someone else. In other words, Qnoma CAN be seen as the ontological reality of a thing, and Parsopa is the way we can recognize that Qnoma, or an expression of that reality, but this usage of Parsopa as well can carry different contexts as used in the past by our Fathers.

    The Usage of Parsopa

    It is important to note about the word Parsopa, that it has been used in a few different ways according to our fathers, namely such as in Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia, and other fathers in different traditions, including ours. There are 2 specific senses in which he uses it, but generally in regards to our usage, we can say that Parsopa, refers to the personal subject, or the “who” that subsists, acts, and is the bearer of the attribution of Kyana and Qnoma, and possesses all that pertains to both. The two ways in which Parsopa can be viewed according to both Bar Zo’bi and Theodore is as follows:

    First, in an ontological sense, Parsopa, signifies the individual Qnoma, what each of us is as a center of rationality and the concrete subject who exists and acts. We can in other words say that this would be a center of agency, the exact subject that subsists, because of its Qnoma in which it possesses, and not just a manifestation of identity. Qnoma and Kyana in of itself does not act, which would not alone be considered a center of agency, rather it is the Parsopa which possesses these that does, making it an ontological view that it is something concrete which Bar Zo’bi says says in the following quotes:

    “Let us now speak on the difference between face and person. Person is different from face in that it does not possess the concrete image of the mind. Face is impressed (concrete), but person is not concrete.”

    “Let us now demonstrate the facts concerning each one of them – nature in the manner of man, hypostasis in the manner of Adam. Of person as beautiful, as of the age of thirty three years. And the face which is concrete impression of this image, is the manifestation of his person.”

    The second sense in which Parsopa is typically used, is in a doxological sense, it refers to the one who is appearing in honor, glory, and worship. In this context, Parsopa can also carry the sense of appearance, or the manifestation of the one that is revealed (Theodore uses Acts 2 as an example for this), which is why at times certain fathers speak of a “human person,” like Saint Jerome and Augustine. So for Bar Zo’bi, he as well uses “Face” to signify the Parsopa as it is apart of the Parsopa, in the sense that it is concrete, to signify its ontological perception, and as well uses it in a doxological sense following Theodore, to mean the actual manifestation of what is revealed.

    “Face denotes person, but he (person) cannot denote the face. Person denotes hypostasis, but hypostasis does not do the same.”

    With that I will conclude this blog post on the understanding of these terms in the ACOE tradition as demonstrated by Bar Zo’bi, until my next posts which I will then be doing an explanation on our use of these terms in regards to Triadology. God bless you all.