A. Osipov about original sin
- In seminar lectures you say that original sin does not forgive. What does it mean?
- To start a small image, and then an explanation. That man broke his leg, this, of course, is not good. He says: “It’s my fault that I didn’t listen to good advice and jumped,” but the leg remains broken, it needs to be treated, and not the person to forgive.
Let's try to understand what is original sin. There are several different points of view on this question. Catholic, and then Protestant theology, under original sin, means mainly the guilt of Adam and Eve for the sin they committed (1). Guilt, which supposedly goes to all of humanity. But this is absurd. The prophet Ezekiel writes: "The son will not bear the guilt of the father, and the father will not bear the guilt of the son" (). How can the guilt of my great-grandfather go to me?
There is another point of view: original sin is the damage caused by the fall of the first people. Rev. Maxim the Confessor explains this damage as follows: the first is mortality, we became mortal, and the first people were immortal.The Lord says: "All good is evil" (), everything created was fine, but warned: "If you sin, die by death" (). The first people committed sin and became mortal, and their descendants became mortal. We are not guilty, but it is a pity that we are mortal. We have become susceptible to all diseases, all environmental influences. There was a need for sleep, food, clothing, warmth. Before the fall, all this was not necessary. This is what is called “skin” in the Bible, as it is said: “And the Lord God made leather clothes for Adam and his wife and put them on” ().
This is what the original sin is - damage. Man became mortal, perishable, vulnerable. And no dogma is needed, we baptized the child and - glory to You, Lord! - he died baptized. That is, with baptism, mortality and pain do not disappear.
Original sin will be healed when we receive a new body in a general resurrection.
That's what it means "not forgiven." You can not forgive mortality. It is not necessary to forgive, but to heal. Healing is impossible in our conditions of life, it will be after the general resurrection.
Unfortunately, the Western idea of guilt entered into our theological textbooks, as if we were to blame for the sin of Adam and Eve.You understand that this is an unreasonable thing.
- Explain the question of the original sin of our Lord Jesus Christ.
“Under the original sin, of course, our mortality, corruption is our dependence on the surrounding nature and the painful states of hunger, thirst, pain and disease. And also passion - immaculate, non-sinful (it is almost a synonym for perishability). Under the irreproachable passions, of course, righteous anger, striving for justice, etc. This is what we gained as a result of the fall of Adam. In Scripture, all this is called "leather vestments" (), that is, "leather robes" in which the Lord clothed the sinner, mortality, corruption, passion.
The Lord Jesus, in His incarnation, accepts our human nature as mortal, perishable, and sinful and passionate, but does not sin in this and through suffering, the Cross and death raise it in its original state: death trampled upon death (2).
The Apostle Paul in Hebrews will say: "God, the leader of their salvation, accomplished them through suffering" (). Here the word "committed" in Greek sounds teliosh, that is, "made perfect." But after all, He was perfect, He had no sin, although by nature he was alike in everything, including in mortality.Athanasius the Great says: "Let them say that Christ’s human nature was immortal by nature" (3) and further, resolving the question: "If He had not been crucified, would He have died or not?", Says: "The mortal nature of Christ could not don't die. "
There are many statements of the holy fathers on this question, and they all boil down to the fact that the Lord did not accomplish the feat of salvation, the healing of human nature, not in embodiment, otherwise the Cross would not be needed. This was the greatest humility of God (in Greek kenosis - “diminishing himself”), that He, the almighty, united with the mortal human nature, without sinning in him. And, according to the teachings of the Church, it was through death that He trampled on death. He accepted the true death, not the imaginary. Prep. John of Damascus directly condemns the heretics as aftartodokety (4), who taught that Christ perceived the immortal nature, but voluntarily assumed death; took the nature impassive, but voluntarily took upon himself the passion. Pope Honorius, who was condemned by the Church as a monothele (5), also claimed that Christ accepted the nature of the first Adam.
The church clearly formulated its teaching, these heresies were condemned. Many have spoken about this holy fathers.And suddenly, in our time, aftartodoketes again raise their heads, as if Christ had healed human nature already in His incarnation. But why then was the Cross needed? No wonder the Apostle Paul wrote: "But we preach Christ crucified, for the Jews are tempted, and for the Hellenes, madness" (). They are trying to remove the crucifixion again - this temptation and this madness. Not! Salvation is not in embodiment, but on the Cross. "God made the leader of salvation perfect" (), that is, freed from death, made perfect through suffering. Therefore, when we speak of original sin in Christ, I understand how frightening many are, because all our school-theological literature is filled with the Catholic teaching about original sin, which is God's curse that extends to the entire human race. And as if, therefore, Christ was born without original sin and became a sacrifice for the curse to be lifted. That is, he sacrificed to the Father. St. Gregory the Theologian answers this way: “I ask who the sacrifice was offered to? If it is humiliating for the devil, the Creator of the fallen creature should offer sacrifice. And if the Father, does the Father love the man less than the Son? Why He needed such a sacrifice? “It was necessary for mankind to be sanctified by mankind” (6).
That is, the sacrifice was offered to us, why we should be infinitely grateful to Him. Similarly, if we were drowned and someone, sacrificing himself, would save us. This is what the Lord has done - death trampled upon His death, and from here comes the greatest gratitude to Christ.
- How was Adam different from Christ?
- Very many. Adam did not know what evil is, he had no experience of contact either outside himself or inside. Adam didn’t have “leather robes” - a biblical term for Rev. Maxim the Confessor, meaning mortality, rottenness and non-spiritual passion, that is, dependence on natural conditions, the need for sleep, nutrition, and so on.
"Leather vestments" were given to Adam after the Fall, when he became mortal, perishable, passionate.
Christ, when he was born, took our flesh, mortal and perishable. As Athanasius the Great writes: "Let those who say that the body of Christ was naturally immortal be silent!" Christ took our sick, damaged, mortal flesh. Why truly died and truly rose. Adam did not have this.
Christ was surrounded by evil. Adam did not know this because he fell after the slightest temptation. Christ was tempted constantly and did not fall.That is the greatness of Christ - the “second Adam” in comparison with the first.
- Did Adam know about the Most Holy Trinity?
- I can give methodological advice: always, when a question arises, you need to think: “What will I have, having received an answer? Why do I need it?” There is an endless sea of questions, but it is impossible and unnecessary to do everything. There is also an endless sea of literature, but everything is impossible to read and not necessary. Be calm, never read everything. It is necessary to choose the useful, necessary, which is claimed by the present moment. Of course, judging by the age, I will soon find out the answer to your question, but how can I let you know about it?
1. "For two sins arose in our forefather as a result of the crime of the divine commandment: one - reproachable, and the second, which had a cause first, could not cause censure; the first - from the arbitrariness, voluntarily renounced the good, the second - from nature, after the arbitrariness unwittingly refused to immortality. " - Prep. Maxim the Confessor. Creations in 2 vols. Questions to Fallacia. Question 42.M .: Martis, 1994. T. 2. S. 129.
2. Easter troparion.
3. "Christ took a body that could die to bring it as His own for everyone,and how for all the injured, because of His stay in the Body, to abolish the power of death, that is, the devil, and save everyone, fear of death, blame them for their work. ”- St. Athanasius the Great. . S. 346.
4. Authors and Dockies (AFA, Doors, Guyanites, Netherling Priests, Fantaziasts, Julianists) - a current in monophysitism consisting of followers of the Bishop of Julian of Halicarnassus. It was formed in 519, after the deposition of Monophysite hierarchs in the East. Adherents of Julian taught that the body of Jesus Christ was incorruptible, that he felt hunger, thirst, and other physiological sensations either apparently, or by spontaneous desire, and not by nature. At the same time, God-Jesus and man-Jesus did not have any distinction, and therefore Christ had one nature. AFARTODODEKETY divided intoactistitisthose who recognized the body of Christ as uncreated, and those of the chisolarts (cytites) who recognized the body of Christ as created. At the IV and V Ecumenical Councils, the teaching of the aftarthoquets was rejected, and they were forced to disperse outside the Eastern Empire.
5. Honorius, the Pope, was elected in 625, built many magnificent churches, and established the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross in the Western Church. He died in 638 year.In the debate about whether Jesus Christ has two or one will, he supported the views of the Patriarch of Constantinople Sergius, for which he was anathema as a heretic anathema at the Council of Constantinople.
6. It remains to investigate the question and dogma, ignored by many, but very demanding research for me. To whom and for what is this blood shed for us shed - the great and glorious blood of God and the bishop and sacrifice? We were at the mercy of the evil one, sold under sin and voluptuousness, who bought the damage. And if the price of redemption is given to none other than the one who contains in power, I ask: to whom and for what reason was such a price brought? If the evil one, how insulting is this! The robber receives the price of redemption, receives not only from God, but <receives> God himself, takes such an immense payment for his torment that it was fair to spare us too! And if the Father, then, first, for what reason is the blood of the Only-Begotten pleasing to the Father, Who did not accept Isaac, brought by the father, but replaced the sacrifice, instead of giving a verbal sacrifice with a ram? Or from this it can be seen that the Father accepts, not because he demanded or had need,but according to the house-building and by the fact that man needed to be sanctified by the humanity of God, so that He Himself would deliver us, having overcome the torturer with power, and brought us to Himself through the Son of mediating and arranging everything in honor of the Father, to whom He turns out to be in all things submissive? Such are the works of Christ, and more shall be honored silence. "- St. Gregory the Theologian. Creations. T. 1. M., 1994, pp. 676-677.