Reclaiming the Gospel

Outside of Orthodoxy, have you noticed how the healthiest Christian communities around today are the ones who preach Christ, not their own denomination? They speak of Jesus, not their “Baptist,” “Methodist” or “Pentecostal” identities. Yet, all we seem to hear from our pulpits is “Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy!” We are obsessed with self-definition through negation. It is a sick religious addiction. We often shore up our identity as Orthodox by constantly contrasting ourselves with Evangelicals or Catholics. I wish we would talk more about Christian faith, and less about “Orthodoxy.” Dr. Bradley Nassif

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/NassifGospel.php

Fr. Gregory +

Transfiguration

… from the II Nocturn, Anglican Breviary:

The Lesson is taken from a Sermon by St. Leo the Pope

The Lord took chosen witnesses and in their presence revealed his glory. That is to say, the form of body which he had in common with other men, he so transfigured with light, that his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment became exceeding white, even as snow. Now the chief purpose of this Transfiguration was to remove from the hearts of the disciples their fear of the Cross. So, before their eyes, was unveiled the splendour of his hidden majesty, that the lowliness of his freely-chosen suffering might not confound their faith. But nonetheless there was also thus set forth, by the providence of God, a sure and certain hope for holy Church, whereby the whole Body of Christ should know with what great a change it is yet to be honoured. For the members of that Body whose Head hath already been transfigured in light may promise themselves a share in his glory.

Also, that the Apostles might be strengthened, and brought forward into all knowledge, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias (that is, the Law and the Prophets), talking with him. This glorification of Christ took place before five witnesses, as though to fulfil that which is written : At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. What can be more certain, or better attested, than this matter which is proclaimed by the trumpets of both the Old and the New Testament, and concerning which the witness of ancient testimony uniteth with the teaching of the Gospel? The pages of either Covenant strengthen one another, and the brightness of open glory maketh manifest and distinct him whom the former prophecies had promised under the veil of mysteries.

The unveiling of such mysteries roused the mind of the Apostle Peter to an outburst of longing for the things eternal, which despised and disdained things worldly and earthly. Overflowing with gladness at the vision, he yearned to dwell with Jesus there, where the revelation of his glory had rejoiced him. And so he said : Master, it is good for us to be here ; if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles, one for thee, and one for Moses, and one Elias. To this proposal the Lord answered nothing, signifying that what Peter wished was not wrong, but out of place, since the world could not be saved but by the death of Christ. And the Lord’s example was to call the faith of believers to this, that although we should have no doubts concerning the promise of eternal blessedness, yet we are to understand that, amid the trials of this life, we are to seek for power to endure rather than for glory.

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

N T Wright on the ECUSA

From The Times

July 15, 2009

The Americans know this will end in schism

Support by US Episcopalians for homosexual clergy is contrary to Anglican faith and tradition. They are leaving the family

Tom Wright

In the slow-moving train crash of international Anglicanism, a decision taken in California has finally brought a large coach off the rails altogether. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church (TEC) in the United States has voted decisively to allow in principle the appointment, to all orders of ministry, of persons in active same-sex relationships. This marks a clear break with the rest of the Anglican Communion.Both the bishops and deputies (lay and clergy) of TEC knew exactly what they were doing. They were telling the Archbishop of Canterbury and the other “instruments of communion” that they were ignoring their plea for a moratorium on consecrating practising homosexuals as bishops. They were rejecting the two things the Archbishop of Canterbury has named as the pathway to the future — the Windsor Report (2004) and the proposed Covenant (whose aim is to provide a modus operandi for the Anglican Communion). They were formalising the schism they initiated six years ago when they consecrated as bishop a divorced man in an active same-sex relationship, against the Primates’ unanimous statement that this would “tear the fabric of the Communion at its deepest level”. In Windsor’s language, they have chosen to “walk apart”.

Granted, the TEC resolution indicates a strong willingness to remain within the Anglican Communion. But saying “we want to stay in, but we insist on rewriting the rules” is cynical double-think. We should not be fooled.

Of course, matters didn’t begin with the consecration of Gene Robinson. The floodgates opened several years before, particularly in 1996 when a church court acquitted a bishop who had ordained active homosexuals. Many in TEC have long embraced a theology in which chastity, as universally understood by the wider Christian tradition, has been optional.

That wider tradition always was counter-cultural as well as counter-intuitive. Our supposedly selfish genes crave a variety of sexual possibilities. But Jewish, Christian and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse. This is not (as is frequently suggested) an arbitrary rule, dualistic in overtone and killjoy in intention. It is a deep structural reflection of the belief in a creator God who has entered into covenant both with his creation and with his people (who carry forward his purposes for that creation).

Paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic, and this belief, ridiculous and incredible. But the biblical witness is scarcely confined, as the shrill leader in yesterday’s Times suggests, to a few verses in St Paul. Jesus’s own stern denunciation of sexual immorality would certainly have carried, to his hearers, a clear implied rejection of all sexual behaviour outside heterosexual monogamy. This isn’t a matter of “private response to Scripture” but of the uniform teaching of the whole Bible, of Jesus himself, and of the entire Christian tradition.

[The very same is true concerning the issue of Women's Orders, in which the ECUSA also pointed the way. Despite arguments - sometimes thoughtful ones - to the contrary, it is equally unbiblical or untraditional to ordain women to the priesthood or epsicopate.]

The appeal to justice as a way of cutting the ethical knot in favour of including active homosexuals in Christian ministry simply begs the question. Nobody has a right to be ordained: it is always a gift of sheer and unmerited grace. The appeal also seriously misrepresents the notion of justice itself, not just in the Christian tradition of Augustine, Aquinas and others, but in the wider philosophical discussion from Aristotle to John Rawls. Justice never means “treating everybody the same way”, but “treating people appropriately”, which involves making distinctions between different people and situations. Justice has never meant “the right to give active expression to any and every sexual desire”.

[Again the same is true concerning women's orders. Doing justice to women is not treating them the same way as men but to treat them "appropriately." Ordinaition is not "a right of anyone" - indeed! - and if only more would realize that simply because men can be ordained (to the priesthood and episcopate) women must have the right to be ordained is simply false and inappropriate.]

Such a novel usage would also raise the further question of identity. It is a very recent innovation to consider sexual preferences as a marker of “identity” parallel to, say, being male or female, English or African, rich or poor. Within the “gay community” much postmodern reflection has turned away from “identity” as a modernist fiction. We simply “construct” ourselves from day to day.

[And once more this is true for "gemder" issues such as Women's Orders. Some construct and reconstruct their gender as they see fit, as a consequence ordination for women cannot be prevented by their gender. Postmodernism applied to gender leads to relativism in this regard as well]

We must insist, too, on the distinction between inclination and desire on the one hand and activity on the other — a distinction regularly obscured by references to “homosexual clergy” and so on. We all have all kinds of deep-rooted inclinations and desires. The question is, what shall we do with them? One of the great Prayer Book collects asks God that we may “love the thing which thou commandest, and desire that which thou dost promise”. That is always tough, for all of us. Much easier to ask God to command what we already love, and promise what we already desire. But much less like the challenge of the Gospel.

The question then presses: who, in the US, is now in communion with the great majority of the Anglican world? It would be too hasty to answer, the newly formed “province” of the “Anglican Church in North America”. One can sympathise with some of the motivations of these breakaway Episcopalians. But we should not forget the Episcopalian bishops, who, doggedly loyal to their own Church, and to the expressed mind of the wider Communion, voted against the current resolution. Nor should we forget the many parishes and worshippers who take the same stance. There are many American Episcopalians, inside and outside the present TEC, who are eager to sign the proposed Covenant. That aspiration must be honoured.

Contrary to some who have recently adopted the phrase, there is already a “fellowship of confessing Anglicans”. It is called the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church is now distancing itself from that fellowship. Ways must be found for all in America who want to be loyal to it, and to scripture, tradition and Jesus, to have that loyalty recognised and affirmed at the highest level.

Tom Wright is [Anglican] Bishop of Durham

The New Testament and the People of God (preface)

His Grace N T Wright is the Bishop of Durham and the author of an influential series of books concerning biblical interpretation and biblical theology. There is a lot of debate going on about Scripture and its interpretation, and at the seminary I attended (Saint Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary) much emphasis was placed on the centrality of Scripture and the falsity of the ‘two sources of revelation’ idea (tradition is a source of revelation next to and of equal value to Scripture). In classes our patristics professor would not fail to point out many times that the fathers and councils (the Bulk of our Tradition) are themselves interpreting the Scriptures. Also in our liturgical life Scripture is central and interpreted as the source of God’s speaking and being with us (on the Altar of an Eastern Orthodox Church, for example, we always find the four Gospels even if the Altar is otherwise empty). In a way the Scriptures are the ‘presence of God’ with us and such they must be the very center of our life of faith. This is also evident (for example) from the Vesperal Entrance where the Gospel is ceremonially brought in and held high to focus the people’s attention on it while the Deacon or Priest exclaims: “Wisdom! Let us be attentive!” the very same occurs during the Divine Liturgy in what is called the “Little Entrance.” In the Western as much as in the Eastern Rite of the liturgy it is true to say that the first didactic element of the liturgy revolves around the reading of the Scriptures and it’s explication in a sermon. This is both a preparation for receiving Christ in the Eucharist and a coming of Christ to us in His very Word! It seems to me that this suffices as an introduction tot the centrality and importance of the Scriptures for Orthodox Christians. I will, therefore, move on to the debate about Scripture and I will use His Grace N T Wright as a guide (yes, I am aware His Grace is Anglican and not Eastern Orthodox but I do not believe that this is a hindrance for us here).

In the following series of posts we will be reading and learning from Bp. Wright’s introductory work: The New Testament and the People of God.

See also the N T Wright page.

.

PREFACE

Bp. Wright starts out by letting his readers know where the series of books we are about to start reading came from. He had been, for some years, contemplating writing books about Jesus and Paul but had gradually come to realize that these would be closer related than he had originally realized and thus instead of writing two or three volumes he realized he would need to write five volumes:

Having given in, and admitted to myelf that In was thus planning three volumes, it was only a small short step to the realization that I was actually thinking of five: one each for Jesus, Paul, and the gospels, and an introduction (the present volume) and conclusion in which the various things that would otherwise have to be said at the beginning and end of each of the other three books could be gathered together. The result is a project which, though still focussed centraly on Jesus and Paul, is also inevitably about the New Testament as a whole (Bp. NT Wright, The New Testament and the People of God - henceforth NTPG – Fortress Press, 1992, p. xiii).

The bulk of the work on the first two volumes was completed during the summer of 1989 along with the first half of volume three. Bp. Wright further explains that what he thinks are essential elements left out in other and previous books of this kind he will attempt to address more satisfactoraly in these volumes. So that a consistent hypothesis of the origins of Christianity is offered with particular emphasis on Jesus and Paul, while setting out new ways of understanding major movements and thought-patterns while also suggesting new lines of exegesis for exegetes to follow up on: “I hope to contribute to this task myself (Wright, NTPG, p. xiv).”

.

Five Matters of Linguistic Usage

1. As a norm Bp. Wright refers to Jesus as ‘Jesus’ and not as ‘Christ.’ He does not deny Jesus’ Messiaship, but rather seeks to recognize that Jesus’ Messiaship is the question at stake throughout the gospel story so that in a work of history, as this work intends to be, it is inappropriate to assume the conclusion before the question is even asked.

2. Bp. Wright frequently uses the word ‘god’ without capitalizing as is usually done today. Contemporary useage “amounts to regarding ‘God’ as the proper name of the Deity, rather than as essentially a common noun” which in turn implies that “all monotheists believe in the same god” and this is of course “self-evidently untrue.” It also popular today to believe that all worship of any god coems down to worship of the same Deity “who happens to be the only god” but again, as His Grace explains this “is not, however, believed by very many practitioners of the mainline monotheistic religions (Judaims, Christianity, Islam) or of the non-monotheistic ones (Hinduism, Buddhism and their cognates). Certainly the Jews and Christians of the first century did not believe it. They believed that pagans worshipped idols, or even demons (Wright, NTPG, p. xiv-xv).” Such early Christian beliefs are very impopular today, even though these beliefs are as true today as they were back then. Other gods are not the one revealed in Jesus Christ, such is the indicated by the very word ‘other’ as well as the fact that the Scriptures pit themselves in opposition to these other religious views of god and the gods. As His Grace points out ‘god’ is the unknown and the known so that the truth of the statement ‘Jesus is God’ cannot be considered from the other way around as if ‘god’ is the known and Jesus the unknown. For Christians it is Jesus who is known and it is thereby revealed who and what ‘god’ is. Because of Jesus Christ we know ‘god’ to be the One revealed in Him and the Scriptures – and as we shall see this is because Jesus is himself the full revelation of YHWH because – like YHWH – Jesus is-what-it-is-to-be-god in the same way as YHWH is-what-is-to-be-god Himself. In this way the truth of ‘Jesus is God’ becomes evident from the Scriptures who present Jesus to us in this way.

3. Instead of using politically correct usages such as CE and BCE or different terms to describe the Old and New Testaments so as to minimize ‘offense’ to one party or another, Bp. Wright simply uses the terms he has been used to for so long. As a nice extra his doing so simply makes things more clear and easier to understand. Besides, it is almost impossible to satisfy every and all parties who could (or inmho sometimes seek to be offended at something) possibly be offended anyway – so why waste the time and energy?

4. Here the Bishop addresses another politically correctness issue language and gender. Can the god of Israel be described in a gender neutral way or both as ‘he’ and ’she’ to appease modern concerns? His Grace seems to be saying ‘No’ because in “a work of history I think it is appropriate to refer to the god of the jews, the gods of the Greco-Roman world, and the god of the early church, in ways in which those groups themselves have recognized as appropriate.” Iow words to describe this god in terms other than the ones recognized by the people who worship this god is inappropriate. I would go even a step further and clearly affirm that changing the terms and conditions in which a particular god is know is to create a god according to one’s own fancy – which may be popular today but is certainly not a way open to us as Christians who worship a god who reveals Himself in Jesus Christ.

5. Again an issue of politicam correctness. Bp. Wright notes that he has developed no consistent way of referring to a particular region of the Middle East where the gospels are set – because no matter what he does in this regard someone will be likely to take offense. He therefore uses the language as seems fit to him conscious of his friends’ possible objections and without any desire to offend or upset them. But language must necesarily be used.

.

Fascinated Amateur

In this book Bp. Wright admits that he has touched on issues in which he is not an expert, but in his own words a ‘fascinated amateur.’ Among these issues is ‘critical realism‘ which is his preferred approach to questions that concern his hermeneutical principles. Another issue His Grace feels it is necessary to discuss is his use of the category of ’story.’ Bp. Wrigth finds himself using this category ‘increasingly frequently’ but does “not wish, in using this category, to buy wholesale into postmodernism” but rather he seeks to “integrate it within the ‘critical realist’ epistemology” which he sets out in this book and forms the foundation of the other volumes to come.

In the summer of 1991 Bp. Wright re-assessed the first five chapters of the present volume and admits that the architect for his foundational ideas expressed here he owes to his friend Dr. Bran Walsh concerning whom I have no further information. It seems that he has helped Bp. Wright hammer out the use of critical realism for hermeneutical purposes.

Now that we have discussed some prelimenaries we can move on to the substance of the book in future posts. After completing a whole chapter I will add the posts concerning that chapter in a page with “completed series” in the sidebar of this blog.

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

Big Change

I am in the process of completely overhauling this blog. Pls be patient if you are a reader.

I will be back, in much better shape than ever before (I hope).

+ Fr. Gregory Wassen

Origen on the Cross of Christ

From Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John Bk I (par. 231-235):

For we must dare say that the goodness of Christ appeared greater and more divine and truly in accordance with the image of the Father when “he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross,” than when “he had considered being equal to God robbery,” and had not been willing to become a servant for the salvation of the world.

For this reason, wishing to teach us that to have served in this way was a great gift which he had received from the Father, he says, “And my God shall be my strength. And he said to me, This is a great thing for you, that you are called my servant.” For if he had not become a servant he would not have established “the tribes of Jacob” nor converted “the diaspora of Israel”; neither would he have become the “light of the gentiles” to ” be for salvation to the end of the earth.”

And although the Father says it was great, the fact that he became a servant was moderate indeed compared to the fact that he became an innocent little lamb and a lamb to be slaughtered that he might take away “the sin of the world.” He who bestowed speech on all is compared to a lamb dumb “before his shearer,” that we might all be cleansed by his death which is distributed like a drug against the adverse influences and against the sin of those who wish to receive the truth. For the death of Christ has made the powers which war against the human race ineffectual, and by an ineffable power, has brought the life in sin in each believer to an end.

And because he takes away sin until all his enemies are abolished, and death is the last indeed, that the whole world might be without sin, John points to him and says, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” He does not say he who will take it away but is not already also taking it away; and he does not say he who took it away but is not also still taking it away.

For the “taking away” affects each one in the world until sin be removed from all the world and the Savior deliver to the Father a prepared kingdom in which there is no sin at all, a kingdom which permits the Father’s rule and again admits all things of God in its whole total self, when the saying is fulfilled :That God may be all in all.

The image of Jesus’ death on the cross as “a drug” which heals is and takes away the sins of the world, I think, spot on! As the beautiful hymn Vexilla Regis produent by Venantius Fortunates (530-603) says:

He, our Maker, deeply grieving / That the first-made Adam fell, / When he ate the fruit forbidden / Whose reward was death and hell, / Marked e’en then this Tree the ruin / Of the first tree to dispel.

Thus the work of our salvation / He ordained to be done; / To the traitor’s art opposing / Art yet deeper than his own: / Thence the remedy procuring / Whence the fatal wound begun.

Or again a hymn by the same poet Bishop expresses the victory and greatness of the Cross:

The royal banners forward go; / The Cross shines forth in mystic glow; / Where he in flesh, our flesh who made, Our sentence bore our ransom paid.

Where deep for us the spear was dyed, / life’s torrent rushing from his side, / to wash us in that precious flood / where mingled Water flowed and Blood.

Fulfilled is all that David told / in true prophetic song of old; / Amidst the nations, God, saith he, / Hath reigned and triumphed from the Tree.

Far from defeat the Cross is a “remedy” or “drug” which cures the “adverse influences” of sin and heals our “fatal wound” precisely where it had begun – a tree. The poetry of the hymnography is rich and deep but expresses the same truth Origen had already laid down. “God reigns from the Tree” because the “kingdom without sin” is establishes there and from there spreads throughout the sinful world to heal and restore while establishing the reign of God. It is also important to note that Origen states that it is on the Cross that Christ’s divinity is especially evident! Because it is there – at the height of human suffering (death) – that the cause of our fatal illness (sin) is taken care of once and for all. The reign of sin is “brought to an end’ in the believers and instead Christ is enthroned as King. This sinless kingdom is “handed over to the Father” because only this Kingdom “permits the Father’s rule” as Origen states following St. Paul.

+  Fr. Gregory Wassen

In the Beginning was the Word

Those who know me have heard me say this many, many times …. : “Origen is brilliant!”

(90) It is not only the Greeks who say that the designation “beginning” means many things. For, indeed, if anyone should observe this title, collecting its occurrences from every source, and should wish, by careful examination, to understand its application in each passage of the Scriptures, he will discover many meanings of the expression even in the word of God.

Origen is about to set out on an elaborate exegesis of the words from St. John’s Gospel: “In the beginning was the word” with particular emphasis on the word “beginning.” He makes it clear that Scripture itself – and not just the Greeks – attribute many different meanings to the word beginning. The focus here will be not the Greeks, but rather “the word of God” iow the Scriptures.

(91) One meaning involves change, and this belongs, as it were to a way and length which is revealed by the Scripture: “The beginning of a good way is to do justice (Prov. 16, 7 LXX).” For since a “good way” is very great, we must understand that the practical, which is presented by the phrase “to do justice,” relates to the initial matters, and the contemplative to those that follow. I think its stopping point and goal is in the so-called restoration because no one is left as an enemy then, if indeed the statement is true, “For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. And the last enemy to be defeated is death (1 Cor. 15, 25-26).”

The “good way” for Origen signifies what Evagrius would refer to as gnostike or theolgike the contemplative knowledge of God. Such knowledge of God is the result of “doing justice” which is what Evagrius would refer to as praktike and origen also refers to as “the practical” here. The “beginning of a good way” – that is the beginning of contemplative knowledge of God – is in living rightly iow “to do justice.” One begins to know God by living in a godly manner. The “stopping point” of this “beginning” is “the restoration” or “apokatastasis.” With this term Origen indicates the unity of the creature with God in Christ according to the words of the Apostle Paul that God would be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15, 28) which forms the conclusion to the train of the Apostles thought that Origen began to quote at vs. 25 above. The “beginning” of this unity with God – this contemplative knowledge of God – is “to do justice” to live rightly. Contemplation is not a withdrawal from this world – it is a right living in this world so that our higher faculties may be purified to receive the knowledge of God. The last enemy to be defeated has to be death, for death is the state of separation from God which Christ has overcome, the same Christ will overcome death in us. Action, grace and contemplation are not opposites but rather elements forming one whole. A movement as it were, with a beginning, a middle, and an end – but one movement nonetheless!

(92)For at that time those who have come to God because of the Word which is with him, will have the contemplation of God as their only activity, that, having been accurately formed in the knowledge of the Father, they may all thus become a son, since now the Son alone has known the Father.

In these last words Origen calls to mind the passages from the Gospel where Jesus declares that only the Son knows the Father and that it is the Son who reveals (or exegetes) Him. Our lives, here and now, are either Christ-like or not. If Christ-like we are being formed in the knowledge of the Father (contemplative knowledge and unity with Him) and shaped accurately so that we may become “a son” in the same manner as “the Son.” Our son-ship is modeled after that of Christ and it is He who is the Word to which we must come. The ambiguity between “word” as Scripture and “Word” as Christ is deliberate for the Word is among us in the flesh of the man Jesus and in the flesh of the pages of Scripture!

(93) For if someone should carefully examine when it is that those shall know the Father to whom the Son who has known the Father reveals him, and should see that the one who sees now sees “through a mirror and indistinctly (1 Cor. 13, 12)” not yet having known ‘as he ought to know (1 Cor. 8, 2),” he would be correct to say that no one has known the Father even if he be an apostle or prophet, but that it will occur whenever they become one as [the] Son and the Father are one.

Origen again emphasizes that he is speaking of  a process here. A process which will last our lifetimes and will only be complete when “I shall know as I am known” which is when the I shall be one as the Father and Son are one. The knowledge of the Father depenes (for us) on the Son who is the Father’s Word which we encounter in “the word” (Scriptures). Iow our reading and especially hearing of the Scriptures (in Church) is an essential part of our “living rightly” and of our “achieving the “good way” which – as should now be clear – is to be understood as “knowledge of the Father.” At the moment, living on this side of the Second Coming, where we “know in part,” this knowledge is unattainable but it will be given us in the future restoration.

(94) But if anyone should think that we have digressed by explaining one meaning of “beginning” and making these remarks, we must show that the “digression” was necessary and useful for that which lies ahead. For if “beginning” has to do with change and a way and length, and “the beginning of a good way is to do justice,” it is possible to know that every good way has “doing justice” as a “beginning” in some manner, and after the beginning, contemplation, and in what manner it has contemplation.

The “good way” is contemplation to which the “beginning” is “to do justice, to live rightly.

The way Origen has taken us through a journey of Scripture – sometimes by allusion and sometimes by quotation – is teaching us the importance of such a scriptural journey and at the same time starts us on this journey. This is the genius of Origen, and this is why I think he is brilliant and one of the greatest teachers of Scripture to have ever walked this planet. Contemplation – as Origen conceives of it – takes place by saturating the mind with Scripture because Scripture is the stuff of which the knowledge of God is made. No one can know the Father but through His Word, as Jesus Himself says: “No one comes to the Father but through Me (John 14, 6) !

+ Fr. Gregory

A prayer of St. Isaac

“I beg and beseech You, Lord; grant to all who have gone astray true
knowledge of You, so that each and everyone may come to know Your Glory.
In the case of those who have passed from this world lacking a virtuous
life and having had no faith, be an advocate for them, Lord, for the sake
of the body which You took from them, so that from the single united body
of the world we may offer up praise to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the
Kingdom of Heaven, an unending source of eternal delight.”

As quoted in “The Spiritual World of St. Isaac the Syrian” p. 206, by Bp. Hilarion Alfeyev

Created and Renewed – Fr. Gabriel Bunge OSB

The translation is mine (Fr. Gregory) and has been an ongoing process. If you have any suggestions in correcting my English (I am not a native writer/speaker) pls do comment!

Created and Renewed after the Image of God

Concerning the Biblical-theological and Sacramental Foundations of Evagrian Mysticism

By Fr. Gabriel Bunge osb

Evagrios Pontikos (ca. 345 – 399)¹ has from time to time been referred to as a “Philosopher in the Desert”². This is certainly correct if we understand philosophy to be the “highest philosophy” as the Church historian Socrates³ thought of it. This is also how the early Church understood it, and how Evagrios himself – from before he became a monk – understood philosophy as “the highest philosophy.”⁴ For him it is the “doctrine of Christ our Saviour” which consists of praktike, physike and theologike, which is synonymous with “Christianity.”⁵ The very “wisdom” which is here said to be “loved” above all is not the “external wisdom”⁶, the “wisdom of the world”⁷, from which Evagrios expects nothing⁸, but the Logos of God⁹ the “essential wisdom.”¹⁰ To allege that Evagrian Mysticism is, despite its theology (which is admitted to be its “highest goal”) philosophical rather than theological at least in a Trinitarian sense¹¹ and that it is neoplatonic¹², is to fundamentally misunderstand the monk from Pontos. This does nothing to change the fact that such a destructive verdict on this monk who understands himself as a Christian, has been passed on him from a competent side.¹³

To convince oneself how ungrounded this verdict is, it is prudent to inquire into the specific theological foundations of Evagrian mysticism. According to biblical teaching human beings are “created after the Image of God”¹⁴ and in Christ are also renewed after the Image of the Creator¹⁵. This “renewal”, by which the human being becomes “a new creation in Christ”¹⁶ and is also renewed to the “knowledge of God”¹⁷, is received in holy Baptism. Therefore any mysticism which understands itself as Christian mysticism must ultimately have a sacramental foundation. Do we see this in Evagrios?

Some biographical points will first be provided here. Evagrios, when he left Constantinople was a deacon, and he remained a deacon for the remainder of his life.¹⁸ It is unlikely that he ever functioned as such in the Nitrian desert, where only the oldest of the eight priests celebrated.¹⁹ Evagrios spent the last sixteen years of his life as a monk, not as a cleric. This explains why there is so little mention of the Church, whose teaching, and above all Sacraments, practice and administration lie solely in the competence of the Priests (Bishop or Presbyter). When the Church is mentioned, it is only mentioned in a “spiritual meaning,” like one would expect of a “spiritual father.” In other words, Evagrios takes the “Catholic and Apostolic Church”²⁰ for granted; he explains and defends her doctrine and Sacraments only when they are attacked and where their neglect automatically endangers the “spiritual life.” Such is certainly the case when the “consubstantiality” of the Holy Spirit is denied.

*

The way Evagrios read the Holy Scriptures of the Old Covenant in unison with the Fathers, teaches that human beings are created “after the Image of God”. Evagrios specifically applies this to man’s “intellect,”²¹ in so far as this is a bodiless nature,²² is like God Himself who in essence is a “Spirit,”²³ and that therefore He is bodiless.²⁴

Your hands have made me and built me: Made (pepoietai) was the soul, built (peplastai) was the body. Like it is said: Let us make men after our Image²⁵, and also taking dust from the earth he built him.²⁶

The Intellect, by which Evagrios means the “inner man,”²⁷ is simply referred to as the Image of God.²⁸ In principle this holds true even for the sinner,²⁹ despite the fact that Evagrios, reflecting on the “fallen image”³⁰, at one point said that man now has an “animal image”³¹ – in accordance with Ps 48, 13.

What we have here is of course the first of three creations known to Evagrios: creatio ex nihilo, also called the “transition from non-existence to existence”³² (ousiosis). This is a foundational act of the Creator, who makes man to be unchangeably what he is in accordance with his innermost being. The whole economy of salvation in behalf of the “fallen image” is constructed upon this original created being, while this “fallen image” is “renewed” in Christ and only in the eschaton will it be perfected in the “likeness.” But let us first once more return to creation.

From Holy Scripture and the New Covenant we know that only the Son is the “Image of God” the Father in an absolute sense.³³ The biblical statement that man is created after the image of God hereby gains a precise Trinitarian sense: he is after the Image of the Father, that is to say, he is an Image of the Son. In other words man is not “Image of God”³⁴ in the absolute sense. To make this fundamental distinction clear Evagrios sometimes uses Hebrews 1, 3 in this context to refer to both the Son and the Spirit. They are the “exact image and true radiance of the Father’s essence”³⁵ literally the “hypostasis of the Father.”³⁶ The intellect however is “true image and likeness of the Son and the Spirit.”³⁷ The conclusions Evagrios draws from this twofold Archetype – Copy relationship (Father – Son and Spirit, Son and Spirit – Intellect), we will examine below. It is sufficient here to state that the intellect is as it were a created image of the Image,³⁸ namely an image of a prototypos³⁹ or archetypos.⁴⁰

To understand this we must take a look at Evagrian “Christology,” even though at this point we can only establish the very basic outline of this fundamental theme in Evagrian thought. In his “Epistula ad Melaniam” Evagrios posits that the intellect is without mediation the image of the Son and Spirit. In the following “Kephalaion” it is said that:

In the Aeons God will change the body of our humiliation into the resemblance of the glorious body of the Lord⁴¹; and after all the Aeons he will also bring us to the resemblance of the image of His Son,⁴² if the image of the Son is essential knowledge of God the Father.⁴³

Evagrios, then, distinguishes between two phases of salvation. The first phase is that of the change (metas xematizei) and bringing to resemblance (summorphon) with the “glorious Body of the Lord” which will take place within time. For indeed, the aion is the spatial dimension of the kosmos that is commensurate with the temporal dimension of the material creation.⁴⁴ The second phase is that of the “bringing to the resemblance (summorphous) of His Son” which lies beyond this creation (meta ton panton ton aionon) when aion and cosmos have passed away.⁴⁵ As we will see, Evagrios develops the same thought while utilizing other biblical texts.

The implications (and problematic) of the above mentioned two phases, which are decisive for Evagrian eschatology, we cannot further discuss here. Important for our purpose here is the unambiguous distinction which Evagrios makes in the second phase between “Son” and “Image of the Son.” The “Image of the Son” is, as it were, hypostatic. But who or what is meant by this? This “Image of the Son” is “Christ.”

Let Your face shine upon us, and we shall be saved:

Christ is named face here because he is ‘the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of creation.’⁴⁶

“Here” (entautha) and on several other occasions Evagrios understands Christ in a fashion derived and further developed⁴⁷ from Origen, as ‘a certain rational and holy soul which came into the life of man⁴⁸ together with the God-Logos” when He became incarnate. He is called Christos – anointed one – because He – as the only one⁴⁹ – was anointed with the knowledge of the monas.⁵⁰ This knowledge of “oneness” is the fruit of his original,⁵¹ essential⁵² and inseparable⁵³ unity with the God-Logos. Thanks to this unity “Christ” (which here refers to a certain holy soul) is “God,” and the Logos is rightly called “Christ.”⁵⁴ When Evagrios thinks about the Son in this unity with “a certain rational and holy soul” he often adds: Christon de phemi ton meta Theou Logou epidemisanta Kyrion.⁵⁵

The unity between the God-Logos and a “certain holy soul” does not exist, according to Evagrios, until the humanization⁵⁶ of the Son of God⁵⁷ because the genesis of the asomata is timeless.⁵⁸ The humanization of the Son of God is an unrepeatable event⁵⁹ and is of decisive soteriological significance. Whenever God manifests himself in history – namely in the Old Covenant – He does so en Christo: the Old Testament theophanies are as a matter of fact christophanies.⁶⁰ The same holds true in case of the kosmopoiia⁶¹ and the creation of the material world.⁶² Consequently Evagrios identifies the “whole of material (enhylos) knowledge” with the “Kingdom of Christ”⁶³, because in Him the God-Logos is not beheld in his Divine Essence (hos pros auton) but in his actions for us (hos pros hemas).⁶⁴ In all this it is of course clear that the above mentioned distinction is strictly a matter of viewpoint (kat’ epinoian): The Lord is always one and the same!⁶⁵

Because it is a given that the soul of Jesus is of the same nature as ours⁶⁶ the question needs to be asked what the relation of this “certain rational and holy soul” is with the other souls. Christ as the Firstborn [of all Creation] (protokos pases ktiseos)⁶⁷, “before whom no others came to be and after whom others came into being”,⁶⁸ “before any rational nature” (pro pases logikes physeos) was created.⁶⁹ But not in a chronological sense since what is bodiless is also timeless,⁷⁰ which means that one intellect is not older than another intellect.⁷¹ The genesis of the logika is, as we have seen, a timeless act. The pro should much rather be understood in an ontological sense of before. A “certain rational and holy soul” is as it were the prototypos⁷² or archetype⁷³ for every rational nature. To put it differently: “Christ” is the hypostatic “Image of God” in which all the other souls participate.⁷⁴ This “rational and holy soul” is in an eternal and ideal purity which cannot be lost in which all souls were intended to be as well and for this reason potentially are. Consequently Evagrios defines the Image of God as “receptivity for the monas”⁷⁵, which is a state of unity between the triune God and his rational creation⁷⁶ – to put it a little less cryptically – as “receptivity for God.”⁷⁷

To be “receptive” (dektikos) means that one is also, in principle, receptive of the opposite,⁷⁸ that means – at least practically speaking – to loose the received good and to fail one’s goal. In reality – for reasons we cannot elaborate here – the entire physis logike exists as “fallen image” with the only exception of “a certain holy soul.” This is where the Evagrian soteriology starts; after all, the Creator is also the Redeemer!

As he killed them, they sought him:

When God kills the old man, which is being destroyed by treacherous desires,⁷⁹ they will seek the new man which is renewed after the Image of the Creator.⁸⁰

“Renewed after the Image of the Creator”, which according to what was said earlier can only mean – and Evagrios confirms it explicitly –, that God has “recreated him in Christ”⁸¹ and that he now “by grace”⁸² once again resembles the Image of the Creator. Only in this man who is “renewed after the Image of God” is there no more “male or female,”⁸³ neither “Greek nor Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian nor Scythian, neither slave nor free: but Christ is all in all.”⁸⁴ This is the fruit of the incarnation of the Son⁸⁵, which the believers receive in the second of three creations known to Evagrios, “the change from evil to good !”

By baptism is man recreated. He is a new creature in Christ.⁸⁶

Holy Baptism and its “spiritual seal”⁸⁷ are a sacramental act of the “catholic and apostolic Church,” in whom we are granted “the forgiveness of sins”⁸⁸ like the eagle sheds its old age⁸⁹ and “ in Christ” is radically “renewed according to the Image!” Whoever denies the true divinity of the Holy Spirit empties out Baptism from its soteriological content because Baptism is primarily the work of the Holy Spirit.⁹⁰ Whoever says the Holy Trinity is a creature, insofar as he says the Holy Spirit was created at a later time “blasphemes God”⁹¹ and immediately involves his own salvation. At the same time he also denies the spiritual life any ontological foundation.

As is clear from the above quoted kephalaion (KG VI 34) Evagrios sees the conformation to the Image of the Son of God as a process which – as has now become apparent – is founded in holy Baptism. Its eschatological completion is not attained “until all the aeons have passed.” This process unfolds gradually, as the following will show.

You have shortened his time:

We must first become like the “days of Heaven,”⁹² that is similar (homoious) to the holy Powers, and then also similar (parempherein) to the “Sun of Righteousness”⁹³ since the prayer of our Lord must be wholly and completely fulfilled. It is after all Jesus who prays “Father that they may be one in us, as You and I are one.”⁹⁴ This is how it will be with us: From then on neither increasing nor decreasing but rather living in the fullness of the Lord.⁹⁵

Evagrios considers the being after the Image of God to be a natural good which has been given to us at the creation of our nature.⁹⁶ The fulfilment of this being after the Image of God into the being in the likeness of God as they are indicated in Gen. 1, 26 (kat’ eikona hemeteran kai kath’ homoiosin) and in 1 John 3, 2 (homoi auto esometha) lies beyond our creaturely nature⁹⁷ and is, as custom has it, supernatural. Insofar as this, in itself eschatological fulfilment, has been graciously founded in the “new creature” by Baptism, our “spiritual life” in a real sense is already a supernatural event as will now become clear.

From Kol 3, 10 Evagrios takes it that the “renewal after the Image of the Creator” takes place eis epignosin in view of the knowledge of God. He is thinking of an unmediated knowledge of God which all physis logike originally possessed⁹⁸ but is at present unique to Christ.⁹⁹ This is where the Evagrian doctrine of the soul as after the Image of God is fully unfolded.

Evagrian mysticism is – despite all prejudices – deeply trinitarian. In KG VI 34 it is said that in the eschaton we will become similar to “the Image of the Son” and that this “Image of the Son” in fact means the “essential knowledge of God the Father.” Because the Primal Cause¹⁰⁰ and the Final Goal¹⁰¹ is strictly speaking the Person of the Father and for this reason Evagrios indicates Him to be the Producer of “essential knowledge.”¹⁰² For creatures the Father is known only – which is completely biblical¹⁰³ – by means of the Son and the Spirit, in fact – so says Evagrios – because of the double relation Archetype – Copy relationship in which as the Son and the Spirit stand to the Father so stands the Intellect to the Son and the Holy Spirit.¹⁰⁴ Due to its creaturely ‘being after the Image of God,’ the intellect is a “receiver of the knowledge of the Father,” and as Evagrios will specify more precisely, it is exclusively the intellect which has been renewed to the knowledge of the Image who also created it!”¹⁰⁵

As we have seen we are dealing with an eschatological event. “For ever,”¹⁰⁶ “without end,”¹⁰⁷ “unchangeably,”¹⁰⁸ creatures will delight in the “bottomless depth of the Father’s love,”¹⁰⁹ without creaturely mediation, but (only) through the mediation of His Son and Spirit, once the “beloved end”¹¹⁰ has become full reality. Yet the faith teaches us that, because of holy Baptism, we have a foretaste of the future glory. This is where mysticism begins with the personal experience of “final blessedness”¹¹¹ while yet here on earth during the time of prayer.

Because in a “true” prayer or “spiritual prayer” the prayer which is “in Spirit and in Truth” which is “the worship of the Father in His Holy Spirit and His Only-Begotten Son,”¹¹² does the intellect “dialogue with the Father”¹¹³ “without any mediation”¹¹⁴ of a creature or even the thought of a creature.¹¹⁵ Because now “it no longer honours the Creator from His creatures, but it praises Him in hymns from itself” (ex autou auton anhymnei).¹¹⁶ Such a praying person has in the true sense of the word become a theologian,¹¹⁷ since he does not merely know something about God but he has seen Him.¹¹⁸ And of course, this must not be forgotten; such a person is in Christ!¹¹⁹

*

Let us sum things up. As we have remarked previously, Evagrios has been called a “philosopher in the desert,” and this is certainly correct insofar as one understands “philosophy” in an Evagrian sense. It would be more appropriate to call him “the great theologian of the desert,” and to use it in a very precise sense in which Evagrios himself uses this term. Theology is the pinnacle of a supra-rational, personal realization of unity with the triune God. Theology is ultimately reserved to the eschaton but a “pure heart” can tap into it already while yet here on earth by means of grace “at the time of prayer.”

Yet Evagrios also proves himself an excellent theologian in the modern sense of that word. His mysticism, after all, has a solid biblical and theological foundation: the doctrine that the intellect is after the Image of God, which alone makes it capax Dei. Perhaps most surprising to many is the fact that for Evagrios the “theologos” is not man in general, but only the man renewed after the Image of the “Creator” in Christ by means of holy Baptism, and who therefore is the “new man.” Put differently: Evagrian mysticism, despite its scarce references to Church and Sacraments, has an undeniable sacramental character; as one ought to expect from any mysticism which understands itself to be a Christian¹²⁰ mysticism.

Evagrian Christology which fell into disrepute¹²¹ rather quickly – I think because it has been completely misunderstood¹²² – finds its true raison d’ être in this mysticism of the being after the Image of God. It is here that Evagrios attempts to understand the essence of the Intellect “being created after the Image of God” and the “renewal” after this Image of the intellect by “a certain and holy soul” (the latter was from the moment of its creation essentially and indivisibly united with the God-Logos, and together with the Son also has become man). This “certain and holy soul” serves as an example to what the soul essentially is, and what the soul despite its fall will potentially always remain to be, and what the soul will eternally be in the end by virtue of the saving economy of the Son and the Spirit. Evagrian Christology is therefore not merely the at the heart of soteriology, but it is also the central theme which connects protology, cosmology, soteriology, and eschatology.

We have designated “a certain and holy soul” as the hypostatized “Image of God,” as the “prototype” (or archetype), after the example of which all other souls are created and renewed. This justifies the question how Evagrios thinks of “our Saviour Jesus Christ”, the Son of God who became flesh in the human Person of Jesus. It is now clear that Evagrios develops his Christology using the Incarnate One as his basis, because without the Incarnation we know nothing about “the soul of Christ”!¹²³ But how does he conceive of the Incarnate One Himself?

The answer to this question will not be found in the writings dedicated to physike, such as the “Kephalaia Gnostica,” but rather in writings of a more personal nature, such as the “Letters”¹²⁴ or the “Exhortation to a Virgin.” Here we encounter a very intimate Christ-mysticism which – it is important to notice that the “Exhortation to a Virgin” is directed to a nun – rises to a true bridal mysticism.¹²⁵ When Evagrios speaks¹²⁶ of “imitation of Christ” it is precisely the human Person Jesus Christ he has in mind, despite the present metaphysical context. By means of Jesus Christ, and His Old Testament prefigurations Moses and David, Evagrios makes clear what this “imitation” which alone makes us well-pleasing to God is: “Meekness” which for him is the concrete manifestation of Christian agape. It alone makes a human being receptive of the knowledge of God and His personal Presence. Love is the quintessential point of praktike¹²⁷, the practical-ascetical life which without having been completed there can be no mysticism and also no “theologia”.

*

Translated by Fr. Gregory Wassen

1 On the person and work of Evagrios see besides the known lexicon articles also: G. Bunge: Evagrios Pontikos. Briefe aus der Wüste, Trier 1986. 17 ff.; M. O’ Laughlin: Origenism in the Desert, Diss. Cambridge Mass. 1987. For the life of Evagrios see also G. Bunge and A. de Vogüe: Quatre ermites égyptiens d’après les fragments coptes de l’Histoire Lausiaque, Bellefontaine 1994 (SO 60), 153 ff. – Abbreviations of cited works by Evagrios: Ep.: Epistula LXII, editor by W. Frankenberg, Evagrius Ponticus, Berlin 1912. Translation G. Bunge: Evagrios Pontikos. Briefe aus der Wüste, Trier, 1986. Ep. fid.: edited by J. Gribomont, in: M. Forlin Patrucco (Publisher): Basilio di Cesarea. Le Lettere, Vol. 1, Turin 1983, 84 ff. Ep. Mel.: Epistula ad Melaniam, edited by W. Frankenberg (first part); G. Vitestam: Seconde partie du Traité, qui passé sous le nom de “La grande letter d’Evagre le Pontique á Mélanie l’Ancinenne,” Lund 1964. Translation G. Bunge: Briefe. Gn: Gnostikos edited by A. Guillamont, Evagre le Pontique. Le Gnostique ou A celui qui est devenu digne de la science, Paris 1989 (SC 356). in Eccl: Scholia in Ecclesiasten, edited by P. Géhin, Evagre le Pontique. Scholies à Ecclesiasté, Paris 1993 (SC 397). in Prov: Scholia in Proverbia, edited by P. Géhin, Evagre le Pontique. Scholies aux Proverbes, Paris 1987 (SC 340). In Ps: Scholia in Psalmos. By the kind agreement of Mlle M.-J. Rondeau we use the collation of the Vat. Gr. 754 manuscript which she has made. See also the following.: Le Comementaire sur les Psaumes d’Evagre le Pontique, in: OCP 26 (1960), 307-384. KG: Kephalaia Gnostika, edited by A. Guillamont, Les Six Centuries des Kephalaia Gnostica d’Evagre le Pontique, Paris 1958 (PO 28). M.c.: De Diversis Malignis Cogitationibus. PG 79, 1200 ff. Mn: Ad monachos, edited by H. Gressmann, Nonnenspiegel und Mönchsspiegel des Evagrios Pontikos, Leipzig 1913 (TU 39, 4). Or: De Oratione Capitula CLIII, PG 79, 1165 ff. Instead of these fragmented – and corrupted text we use the manuscript Paris, BN Coislin 109, as in the Philakolia in the Bd. 1, Athen 1957 edition, 176 ff., the numbering and chapter division of which we also use. Pr: Praktikos, edited by C. and A. Guillamont, Evagre le Pontique. Traité Pratique ou le Moine, Paris 1971 (SC 170-171). Translation: G. Bunge: Evagrios Pontikos. Praktikos oder Der Mönch, Köln 1989.

2 So for example the title of a well known article by A. Guillamont “Un philosophe au desert: Evagre le Pontique,” RHR 181, (1972), 29-56.

3 Socrates, HE IV 23 (PG 67, 516 A).

4 Ep. fid. 1, 8 ff.

5 Praktikos 1. Ep. fid. 4, 20 f.

6 Ep. fid. 2, 5.

7 KG I 73; VI 22

8 In Ps 62, 4b.

9 See Ep. fid. 4, 19.

10 Ep. fid. 6, 2; See also 7, 9.

11 I. Hausherr: Les leçon d’un contemplatif. Le Traité de l’Oraison d’Evagre le Pontique, Paris 1960, 99.

12 Ibid. 7.

13 Besides Hausherr see also H. U. von Balthasar: Metaphysik und Mystik des Evagrius Ponticus, in: ZAM 14 (1939), 31-47. A. Guillamont expresses it much more carefully: La Preghiera pura di Evagrio e l’influsso del Neoplatonismo, in: Dizionario degli Instituti di Perfezione, vol. VII, Rom 1983, 591 ff., who attributes Neoplatonic influence to the verbal formulation of Evagrian mysticism, and in my opinion he does so correctly (ibid. 593).

14 Gen 1, 27.

15 Col 3, 10.

16 2 Cor 5, 17.

17 Col 1, 17.

18 See Palladios: Historia Lausiaca 38 (Butler 116, 6 and 117, 3).

19 Ibid 7 (Butler 26, 9 ff.).

20 in Prov 24, 6 (Géhin 266, 6).

21 M.c. 19; See also KG III 32.

22 in Ps 38, 6d.

23 Joh 4, 24.

24 in Ps 140, 2a.

25 Gen 1, 26.

26 in Ps 118, 73lb. Last quotation from: Gen 2, 7.

27 See G. Bunge: Nach dem Intellekt leben. Zum sog. “Intellektualismus der evagrianischen Spiritualität,” in Festschrift W. Nyssen, Köln 1989, 95-109.

28 Ep 28, 3; 48.

29 in Ps 118, 113.

30 Gn 50.

31 Ep. Mel 46. Here Evagrios refers to the opinion of someone else.

32 Ep. fid. 11, 7; in Ps 32, 9m (genesis = ousiosis).

33 2 Cor 4, 4; see also in Ps 16, 2a.

34 See KG II 23.

35 Ep Mel 19.

36 Heb 1, 3: apaugasma tes doxes kai charakter tes hypostaseos tou Patros. See also KG II 23.

37 Ep Mel 19.

38 See Origen, Comm. in Rom. 1, 3 (Philakolia, c. 25, 2).

39 See Pr 89.

40 See Gn 50.

41 Phil 3, 21.

42 Rom 8, 29.

43 KG VI 34.

44 in Ps 138, 16m

45 According to P. Arch. II, 6. The background to KG VI, 34 Com. In Rom. 1, 3.

46 in Ps 79, 8d. Col. 1, 15: protokos pases ktiseos.

47 See Peri Archon II, 6. For the background for KG VI, 34 see Com. in Rom. I, 3 (Philakolia 25, 2).

48 in Ps 131, 7e.

49 KG III

50 in Ps 44, 8z.

51 KG VI 18.

52 KG VI 79

53 KG VI 14.

54 KG IV 18.

55 in Ps 44, 8z; 88, 9d; 104, 15i; 118, 3b; KG VI 14 (the translation needs correction) [Fr. Bunge is referring to the Syriac translation of the original Greek].

56 in Ps 109, 3a.

57 KG VI 18.

58 KG VI 9, see also Ep 49, 1. Timeless is by no means equivalent to beginningless in Evagrios! Because the intellect is created it also has a beginning: Ep. Mel. 30.

59 in Ps 113, 11e.

60 KG IV 41. 43; Ep 33, 3.

61 in Eccl 6, 10-12 (Géhin 52, 14).

62 KG 58.

63 Ep. fid. 7, 22.

64 Ep. fid. 7, 42.

65 Ep. fid. 7, 11; 25.

66 KG VI 79.

67 Kol 1, 15.

68 KG IV 20.

69 in Ps 109, 3b.

70 Ep 49, 1.

71 KG III 45.

72 Pr 89.

73 Gn 50.

74 in Ps 104, 15i: “These christoi are called christoi because they participate in Christ (metechontes); Christ on the other hand is called christos because he participates in the Father. “I call Christos the one who is the Lord who came together with the God-Logos.” The being in the image of God of the soul is ultimately grounded in the Son who is the Image of God in the absolute sense. But in the Son in his union with a “certain rational and holy soul” in and through which He works ad extra. On the position of “Christ” see also the in depth contemplations of KG VI 14 (translation in need of correction).

75 KG III, 32.

76 This concept has a protological meaning in Evagrios (Ep. fid. 10, 19; KG I 49 etc.) and an eschatological meaning (Ep. fid. 7, 55; KG I 65 etc.). Right now only Jesus Christ possesses this state of being (KG III 2.3; IV 21 = in Ps. 44, 8j). See on this subject more fully Gabriel Bunge: Henade ou Monade? Au sujet de deux notions centrals de la terminologie evagrienne, in Le Museon 102 (1989), 69-91.

77 KG VI 73.

78 KG I 4.

79 Eph 4, 22.

80 in Ps 77 id; also in Ps 95, 1a; 149, 1a. Final quote: Col 3, 10.

81 in Ps 44, 4g

82 M.c. 18

83 Gal 3, 28.

84 M.c. 3 Final quote: Kol 3, 11.

85 Ep Mel 56 ff.

86 Ep Fid 11, 9ff., 3 quoting from 2 Cor 5, 17.

87 Mn 124.

88 in Ps 31, 1a; 84, 3a.

89 in Ps 102, 5j

90 Ep fid 10, 6-14; in Prov 22, 28 (Gehin 249, 6f.).

91 Mn 134.

92 Ps. 88, 30.

93 Mal 3, 20 according to Ps. 88, 37. Sun of Righteousness is a biblical symbolism name for Christ (the Logos in union with “a certain rational and holy soul”), in whom the Father abides (in Ps 18, 6b; also 26, 5d). The goal is therefore to achieve an abiding of the triune God in the soul which is at the present the exclusive prerogative of Christ. To this theme many sections of the Epsitula ad Melaniam are dedicated without the name Christ being mentioned even once!

94 Joh 17, 21For the various meanings Evagrios attributes to this verse see: G. Bunge Mysterium Unitatis. Der Gedanke der Einheit von Schöpfer und Geschöpf in der evagrianischen Mystik, in Freiburger Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Theologie 36 (1989), 449-469.

95 in Ps 88, 46im.

96 Gen 1:27.

97 Ep Mel 62. Evagrios quotes from John 10, 10 and Dan 4, 36 (Theodotion).

98 KG VI 75; also II 3.

99 KG I 77; III 3; in Ps 44, 8 z; 8, 9, 8d; 88, 43ig.

100 Ep Mel 25.

101 Ep Fid 7, 9.

102 KG VI 28.

103 Mt 11, 27 (the Son), 1 Cor 2, 10 (the Spirit).

104 Ep Mel 12. 18. 19.

105 Ep Mel 16.

106 Ep Mel 23.

107 Ep Mel 63.

108 Ep Mel 14.

109 Ep Mel 31.

110 Ep Mel 67.

111 Ep fid 7, 19; see also Pr prol 51. Also G. Bunge, Das Geistgebet. Studien zum Traktat De Oratione des Evagrios Pontikos, Köln 1987, Kap. VI: “In Geist und Wahrheit.”

112 Or 59.

113 Or. 55.

114 Or 3.

115 Or 56-58.

116 Or 60.

117 Or 61.

118 KG V 26, also Or 4.

119 KG II 90. The image of “first light” and “both lights” perhaps originates with St. Gregory of Nyssa, C. Eun 1 (PG 45, 416 BC).

120 Here I remind the reader that von Balthasar qualified this mysticism as Buddhist rather than Christian in his article Metaphysik (Anm. 13).

121 According to A. Guillaumont: Les Kephalaia Gnostica d’ Evagre le Pontique et l’Histoire de l’Origenisme chez les Grecs et les Syriens, Paris 1962, 117 f.; F. Refoule: La Christologie d’Evagre et l’Origenisme, in OCP 27 (1961), 221-266; A. Grillmeier: Jesus der Christus im Glauben der Kirche, Bd. 1, Freiburg 1982, 561 ff.

122 The misunderstanding lies in the way in which Evagrios uses the names of “Christ.” The Christology of the monk from Pontos cannot be reconstructed from the “Kephalaia Gnostica” alone. And it seems that the “Kephalaia Gnostica” was the only text available to the redactors of the 15 anathemas dating to 553. Only in the light of the “Scholias on Psalms” does it become evident that Evagrios took up Origen’s doctrine of the soul of Christ and independently developed it. Let it be noted here that Evagrios did not first develop this respective doctrine in Egypt under the influence of the Origenism of the Origenist monks. Rather, as we see in his “Epistula Fideï,” he presumes this kind of Christology to be a familiar one and completely non-offensive, and brought it with him from Cappadocia! The sources for this Christology are to be sought in the “Origenist” circle of Basil of Ceasarea and Gregory of Nazianzus, the two most prominent teachers of Evagrios.

123 From this it is possible to understand why Evagrios turns against “heretics” who “speak only of the soul of Christ” (in Ps. 108, 19 ie.). After all “he who rejects Christ cannot know God” (Mn. 134).

124 Bunge, Briefe [Anm. 1], 126 ff.

125 According to J. Driscoll: Spousal Images in Evagrius Ponticus, in SM 38 (1996), 243-256. See also P. Gehin: Evagriana d’ un manuscript basilien, in Le Museon 109 (1996), 59-85, hier: 71 ff. (A l’imitation du Cantique des cantiques).

126 M.c. 14.

127 Pr. 84.