I. О ДВУХ ЕСТЕСТВАХ ВО ИИСУСЕ ХРИСТЕ

§ 133. The Lord Jesus has the divine nature and is precisely the Son of God We are convinced of this truth: I) from the Old Testament writings about the Messiah, II) from the teaching of Christ the Savior about Himself, III) from the teaching of St. Apostles, IV) from the teachings and beliefs of the apostolic men and the entire Church. I. In the Old Testament the Messiah is called: 1) The Son of God, born from eternity from the being of the Father. In Psalm 2, which is all holy. The Apostles (Acts 4, 24–28; 13, 32–34; Heb. 1:5, 5:5) and the ancient Jews themselves refer 97 to the Messiah, the Messiah testifies of Himself: The Lord speaks to me: You are my son, who today gave birth to you (v. 7), that is, I gave birth or give birth forever. In Psalm 109, also attributed to St. The Apostles (Acts 2:34-36; Heb. 1:13; 7, 17. 21. 24. 25) and the ancient Jews 98 to the Messiah, God himself speaks to Him: from the womb, that is, from My being, before the star, that is, before all time, I begot thee (v. 3). The Prophet Micah, predicting that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, added that He also has another origin - eternal: coming from the beginning from the days of the age (Mic. 5:2), - and this prophecy also applied to the Messiah by the entire Jewish Church (Matt. 2:4-6; John 7:42). 2) the Lord, God (Adonai, Elohim) and even Jehovah, a name exclusively attributed to God alone. These are, for example: a) the words of Psalm 44: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a scepter of righteousness, a scepter of thy kingdom; You loved righteousness, and you hated iniquity: for this reason, for the sake of anointing you, O God, your God is more than your partaker with the oil of joy (v. 8), - attributed to the Messiah and the Apostle (Heb. 1:7-9) and the ancient Jews 99; b) the words of the 109th psalm: the Lord spoke to my Lord: sit at my right hand (v. 1), which Christ the Savior himself refers to the Messiah (Matthew 22:41–46); c) the prophecy of Malachi: behold, I send my angel, and he will look upon the way before me: and suddenly the Lord, whom you seek, will come into his church, and the Angel of the covenant, whom you desire: behold, says the Lord Almighty (Mal. 3:1), which the Savior himself also refers to the Messiah (Matthew 11:10.11); d) a prophecy repeated twice by Jeremiah: these days are coming, says the Lord, and I will raise up a righteous east for David, and a king will reign, and he will be wise, and he will do justice and righteousness on the earth. In one of these days Judah will be saved, and Israel will remain in hope, and this is the name by which he will be called, our Lord (Jehovah) is righteous (Jer 23:5.6; 33:15.16), a prophecy that the ancient Jews unanimously attributed to the Messiah 100. II. According to the Old Testament prophecies, Christ the Savior himself, having appeared on earth, taught about Himself as the true Son of God, as God. Of the many examples of this teaching, we will point out a few. 1) Talking with Nicodemus, the prince of the Jews, about spiritual rebirth, the Savior said among other things: no one ascended into heaven except the Son of man who came down from heaven, who is in heaven... For God loved the world, for He also gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life... Believe in Him, and not will be condemned: but he who does not believe is already condemned, for he does not believe in the name of the only begotten Son of God (John 3:13, 16, 18). Here - a) in the first words, the Savior clearly ascribes to himself omnipresence, a property that cannot belong to any of the created beings; b) then calls himself the only begotten Son of God (μονογενής), no doubt in the proper sense, that is, born of the being of God, having a Divine essence: for this Son belongs to omnipresence - a Divine property; c) finally, it testifies that without faith in Him, as the only begotten Son of God, who is omnipresent, salvation is impossible for people. 2) Speaking before the bishops, scribes and elders of the Jews (Mark 11:27) the parable of the grapes, which a man planted, and protected as a stronghold, and was betrayed by a worker (- 12, 1.2), and meaning by this the Heavenly Father, who planted his Church among the Jewish people, and handed it over to them, the leaders of the people, the Savior said that first the lord of the grapes, at a certain time, he sent his servants to the workers, one after another, to receive from the fruit of the grapes (- 2). But when the workers drove away some of those sent with dishonor, and even killed others (3-5); Then the master decided to send his own son to them: for he also sent his only son, his beloved, and sent him to them, saying, “They will put my son to shame.” They decided within themselves that this is the heir: come, let us kill him, and our inheritance will be ours. And when I ate it, I killed it, and cast it out of the vineyard (6–8). Such a contrast between slaves, i.e. By the prophets whom God had previously sent to the Jews, and by Himself, as the only Son of God, beloved, as the heir of the Father, our Lord clearly expressed that He called Himself the Son of God not in a figurative sense, but in a personal sense. 3) When the Savior healed the paralytic, and the Jews sought to kill him, having done this on the Sabbath (John 5:16), He answered them, as if in justification: My Father works hitherto, and I do the same (-17). This answer, in which the Lord Jesus assimilates to himself equality with God the Father in right and authority, was understood in this precise sense by the Jews, and for this reason I seek to kill him, as not only destroying the Sabbath, but also his Father (ίδιον) in the verb God, being equal to the creation of God (- 18). Then Jesus not only did not notice to the Jews that they understood Him incorrectly, on the contrary, he continued: Amen, amen, I say to you, the Son cannot do anything for himself, unless he sees the Father doing it: what He does, the Son also does likewise (- 19). Just as the Father raises the dead and lives, so the Son also lives when He wants them. For the Father does not judge anyone, but all judgment is given to the Sons: that all may honor the Son as they honor the Father. And whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him (- 21, 22. 23). Just as the Father has life in himself, so will the Son have life in himself (-26). Here the Savior assimilates to himself the same independent power to work miracles, the same Divine reverence, the same originality as God the Father. Not only that: to further convince the Jews of the truth of their words and traces. in the truth of His Divinity, He further points them to third-party evidence about Him: a) to the testimony of John the Baptist, who called Him the Son of God, who came from heaven, and who is above all (- 32.33; demolished 3, 31-36); b) to testify to your wonderful deeds, which you did to no one else (- 36; demolished 15, 24); c) on the testimony of the Heavenly Father, who said about Him: This is my beloved Son, in whom I was well pleased (- 37; taken down. Mat. 3:17), and d) on the testimony of the Old Testament scriptures: test the scriptures, for in them you believe to have eternal life, and that is the essence that testifies about me (- 39). 4) Another similar case presented itself soon. When the Savior once came to the Jerusalem temple, and the Jews surrounded Him and urgently asked: How long will you bear our souls? If you are the Christ, we are not offended (John 10:24): then He, answering them, among other things, said: I and the Father are one (- 29). These words irritated those who asked so much that they took a stone and beat it, adding: We do not place a stone against you for a good deed, but for blasphemy, because you, this man, have created for yourself God (- 30.33). However, even this time the Savior not only did not notice to the Jews that He did not call himself God at all, as they think, but on the contrary, he began to prove this idea by directly calling himself the Son of God, inseparable from the Father: whose Father is holy and ambassador to the world, you say, as if you were speaking blasphemy, beforehand: I am the Son of God. If I do not do the works of my Father, do not have faith in me: if I do it, even if you do not believe me, believe in my work: that you may understand and believe that the Father is in me, and I am in Him (36-38). For this reason, the Evangelist continues, I asked him to give him back: and he came out of their hands (- 39). 5) A third, similar, but even more striking incident occurred before the death of the Savior. He was bound and brought to trial before Pilate. Here, after listening to many false witnesses against Jesus, the bishop finally stood up and solemnly asked Him: I adjure you by the living God, that you may say to us that you are the Christ, the Son of God (Matthew 26:63; taken down by Mark 14:61) - and Jesus, without hesitating in the least, answered: I am, and you will see the Son of man who sits at the right hand of power, and coming from the clouds of heaven (Mark 14:62). Then the bishop tore his vestments, saying, as if blaspheming the verb: what else do we require witnesses? Behold now you hear his blasphemy. What do you think? They answered, deciding: I am guilty of death (Matthew 26, 66. 66). And then bringing Jesus to Pilate, the Jews said to him: we are imams of the law, and according to our law we must die, that we may create for ourselves the Son of God (John 19:7). Thus, the Savior did not hesitate to confirm the truth of his Divinity by his very death. 6) Let us add to this that He ascribed to Himself, in addition to omnipresence (John 3:13; Mat. 18:20; 28:20) and originality (John 5:26), about which we have already spoken, other Divine properties: a) eternity: Amen, amen I say to you: before even Abraham was not, but I am (John. 8, 68); and now you, Father, have glorified me with yourself with the glory that I had with you before the world existed (- 17:5); b) omnipotence: my sheep listen to my voice, and I know them, and they will come for me. And I will give them eternal life, and they will never perish, and no one will snatch them from the hand of my Father. I and the Father are one (John 10:27 – 29); c) knowledge equal to the knowledge of God the Father: all things have been handed over to me by my Father: and no one knows the Son except the Father: no one knows the Father except the Son, and whatever the Son wills to reveal (Matthew 11:27; John 10:16). III. As Christ the Savior taught about Himself: so His disciples later taught about Him, by inspiration from the Holy Spirit. For example: 1) St. Evangelist Matthew, depicting the miraculous conception of the Savior, refers to Him the prophecy of Isaiah: behold, a virgin will be with child and give birth to a son, and they will call his name Immanuel, as it is said: God is with us (1:23; Isa. 7:14). 2) St. Evangelist Mark begins his Gospel with the words: the conception of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (1, 1), and then, narrating the baptism of the Savior, he says: and rising from the water, he saw the heavens parting, and the Spirit descending like a dove: and a voice came from heaven: You are my beloved Son, in whom you are well pleased (- 10. 11). 3) The Holy Evangelist Luke brings the prophetic words of the angel to Zechariah about his son John, the forerunner of the Savior, who was to be born: and he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God: and he will go before him before him in the spirit and in the power of Elijah (1, 16. 17). 4) St. John the Theologian begins his Gospel with the words: in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word. This is from time immemorial to God. Everything came to be, and without him nothing came to be (John 1:1-3). That is, he directly calls the Word God, represents Him as existing from the beginning or from eternity, distinct from the Father and creating everything that exists. Further he writes: and the Word became flesh, and dwelt in us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth... as the law was given by Moses; grace and truth Jesus Christ became (- 14.17). That is, it testifies that this Word is precisely the only begotten Son of God the Father, that He became incarnate and is none other than Jesus Christ. Even further: God is seen nowhere: the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, that confession (- 18). That is, it shows that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son in the proper sense, as existing in the very bosom of the Father. And finishing his Gospel, he makes the remark that the purpose of his writing was to prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ: this was written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that you who believe may have life in His name (- 20, 31). The same Apostle, at the beginning of his first epistle, calls Christ the Savior the word of the living (1 John 1:1), and the eternal life, which was with the Father and appeared to us (-2), and at the conclusion of the epistle he says: We know that the Son of God has come, and has given us light and understanding, that we may know the true God: and that we may be in His true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and the eternal life (- 5, 20), calling here the true Son of God and the true God of the One whom he previously called the eternal life. Finally, in the Apocalypse he repeatedly quotes the words of the Savior who appeared to him: I am alpha and omega, the beginning and the end, first and last (1, 10. 12. 17. 18; 2, 8; 22, 12. 13), and it is expressed that Christ is the prince of the kings of the earth (1, 5), king by king and Lord by lord (19, 16). 5) St. Jude the Apostle, depicting heretics, says: having given in to men who were of old destined for this condemnation, wickedness, turning the grace of our God into defilement, and rejecting the only Master God and our Lord Jesus Christ (v. 4). 6) St. Apostle Paul calls the Savior in his epistles: God who appeared in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16), Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8), great God (Titus 2:11-13), blessed God (Rom. 9:4.5), God’s own Son (ίδιον) (Rom. 8:32), who, in the form of God, is not equal to God by admiration (Phil. 2:6); assimilates to Him the Divine properties: eternity (Heb. 13:8), immutability (- 1:10-12), omnipotence (Heb. 1:3; Phil. 3:21), and says: by this all things were created, both in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether they were thrones, whether they were dominions, whether they were principalities, whether they were powers: all things were created. created by him (Col. 1, 16. 17); He is before all, and all things are found in Him (Col. 1:17; taken down. Heb. 1:3) 101. IV. Following Christ the Savior and St. The Apostles unanimously taught about His Divinity and all the teachers of the Church from the very beginning of Christianity. Here are some 102 pieces of evidence: St. Ignatius the God-Bearer in his letter to the Trallians writes: “beware of such (heretics). And you will be safe from them if you do not become arrogant and tear yourself away from God - Jesus Christ, and from the bishop, and from the apostolic commandments" 103. In the letter to the Ephesian Christians: “Every knot of unrighteousness is broken; ignorance is cast down; the ancient kingdom was devastated by the appearance of God in human form (Θεού άνθρωπίνως) for a new, eternal life "... "All of you, one and all, with the assistance of grace, are united in one faith and in one Jesus Christ, descended in the flesh from the line of David, the Son of man and the Son of God" 104. In the letter to the Roman Church: “Ignatius, also called the God-Bearer, having been pardoned by the mercy of the highest God and Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, the beloved Church, enlightened by the will of Him, to whom everything that was done through the love of Jesus Christ our God is pleasing - I wish to rejoice with the highest and immaculate joy in Jesus Christ our God” 105. St. Polycarp, in his letter to the Philippians, greets them with the words: “Polycarp, and with him the elders of the Church of God located in Philippi: may mercy and peace from Jesus Christ, God Almighty, our Lord and Savior, be multiplied to you” 106. The apostolic man, known as the author of the letter to Diognetus, says: “God himself gave his Son as a ransom for us, holy for the wicked, innocent for the guilty, righteous for the unjust, incorruptible for the corruptible, immortal for the mortals. For what else could cover our sins but His righteousness? Who else could justify you, lawless and wicked, except the Son of God alone?..." 107. 2) Fathers and teachers of the second and third centuries: St. Justin the Martyr says: “in the words: let us make man in our image and likeness... and God created man, in the image of God created him (Gen. 1:26.27), the Word of God points to the Son of God, inspiring us that He should be called God” 108. St. Irenaeus testifies that in his time the whole Church believed: “and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation, and in the Holy Spirit, who through the Prophets foretold the birth of the Virgin, and suffering, and the resurrection from the dead, and in the flesh the ascension into heaven of the beloved Jesus Christ our Lord, and also His coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to lead all things (Eph. 1, 10), that before Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, Savior and King, by the good pleasure of the invisible Father, every knee will bow, in heaven, on earth and under the earth 109. St. Hippolytus, disciple of St. Irenaeus: “For us, the God of all became man, so that, having suffered through flesh capable of suffering, he could redeem our entire race, given up to death, and together, working miracles with the impassive Divinity through the flesh, lead us to an immortal and blessed life” 110. St. Dionysius of Alexandria: “There was no time when God was not the Father, and I confess that Christ has eternal existence, as Word, and Wisdom, and power. God the Father is eternal light, never beginning, never ceasing: therefore there is something eternal before Him and with Him, a radiance without beginning and ever born from Him, manifesting Him... since the Father is eternal, the Son is also eternal, like light from light” 111 . St. Methodius of Patara - a) in the word about Simeon and Anna: “The virgin without a husband gave birth to the Firstborn, the only begotten Son of the Father, she gave birth, I say, to Him who shone forth in the highest without a mother from the essence of the one Father” 112 ; b) in the word for the week of Vai: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord - the true God in the name of the true God, the Almighty from the Almighty, the Son in the name of the Father, the true King from the true King, who has a kingdom, like the One who begat Him, eternal and eternal! And you, believer, come with faith to Christ, our true God." 113 Let us remember, finally, that in the third century there was a Council in Antioch, which defended the dogma of Christ Jesus as the true Son of God, true God, against the false teaching of Paul of Samosata (in 289), and in the fourth century - the Council of Nicaea, the first ecumenical, which defended and established the dogma of the true Divinity and consubstantiality of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, with God the Father against Aria (in 325). §134. The Lord Jesus has human nature and is precisely the Son of the Virgin Mary Being perfect God, Christ the Savior is at the same time a perfect man, and consubstantial with the Father in Divinity, consubstantial with us in humanity, like the Most Holy Son. Virgin Mary (Orthodox Confession, part 1, answer to question 38). 1. This truth is revealed in St. Scripture with the greatest detail and is obvious: 1) From the promises and prophecies about the Messiah that were in the Old Testament. Here the Messiah is called the seed of the woman (Gen. 3, 16), the seed of Abraham (- 12, 2. 3; 22, 18), Isaac (26, 4) and Jacob (28, 14), the rod and flower from the root of Jesse ( Is. 11, 1-3), the descendant of David ( Jer. 23, 5. 6); are foreshadowed - the image of His birth from the Virgin (Is. 7:14), place of birth (Mic. 5:2), the circumstances of his life (Ps. 71:10.11; 77:2; Is. 35:3–6; Zech. 9:9) and death (Is. 53:3–10; Ps. 21:8.9, etc.). 2) From the genealogies of Christ the Savior, presented in the books of the New Testament by the evangelists Matthew and Luke. The first sets out this genealogy in the line descending from Abraham, and begins with the words: the book of the kinship of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham. Abraham gave birth to Isaac... and so on; and ends with the words: Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, from whom Jesus was born, the spoken Christ (Matthew 1, 1. 2. 16). The latter is in the line ascending to Adam, and begins: Jesus was about thirty years old, beginning, supposedly, the son of Joseph, Eli, Matthat... and so on; and ends:... Cain, Enos, Seth, Adam, God (Luke 3, 23. 38). 3) From the legend of the evangelists about the circumstances of the birth of Jesus Christ. The evangelists say: a) How the angel preached the gospel to the Most Holy One. To the virgin: do not be afraid, Mariam: for you have found grace from God. And behold, you conceived in your womb, and gave birth to a Son, and called his name Jesus (Luke 1:30.31). b) As the angel admonished Joseph, the betrothed of the Virgin Mary: Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to accept Mariam your wife: what is born in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a Son, and you will call his name Jesus (Matthew 1:20.21). c) How then the Most Rev. really gave birth. The virgin, after the usual time of pregnancy, came to pass when she was there (in Bethlehem), and the days of giving birth to her were fulfilled: and she gave birth to her firstborn Son, and gave birth to him, and laid him in a manger: for there was no place for them in the monastery (Luke 2:7) 114. d) Like the shepherds of Bethlehem, according to the instructions of an angel, they came to the city of David, and found Mariam and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger (Luke 2:16), as well as the wise men from the east, at the direction of an extraordinary star, who came to the church, saw the child with Mary in her matter, and fell down before him (Matt. 2, 11). e) How, after completing eight days from birth, He was circumcised, and having called his name Jesus, he who had been named by an angel was not even conceived in the womb (Luke 2:21). f) How, after the completion of the days of purification of the mother, he was taken up to Jerusalem before the Lord, and how here the elder Simeon received the Divine Child in his arms and blessed God (- 22.28). 4) From the entire subsequent gospel story about the earthly life of Jesus Christ. Here we read that the Lord Jesus, as a man, even in the days of infancy, had to, by the arrangement of Providence, retire from Bethlehem to Egypt, together with his mother and Joseph, in order to avoid the death that threatened Him (Matthew 2, 13. 14); like a person, gradually stretching and strengthening in spirit (Luke 2:40); like the son of Mary, who did not obey her and her betrothed (Luke 2:51); as a man who was baptized by John in the Jordan (Mark 1:9), and John only recognized Him among other people who came to be baptized because he saw the Spirit of God descending and abiding in Him (John 1:32, 33). We see, then, that the Lord Jesus, having entered into the position of his ministry, went around cities and towns with saving preaching, and was recognized everywhere as a true man, never once encountering the need to certify anyone of the truth of his humanity; that He sometimes took part in institutions (Luke 5:29), was at a marriage in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1-11), reclined at supper in the house of Lazarus (John 12:2), in the house of Zacchaeus (Luke 16, 5–8); that He came to Jerusalem every year for the Passover holiday, and He himself celebrated the Passover with His disciples, according to the law of rites (Matthew 26, 17, etc.). Finally, the evangelists depict in the greatest detail the suffering of our Lord, talk about His death, burial, resurrection and ascension into heaven - all about such events that would have been absolutely impossible if He had not had human nature. 5) From the names of Jesus Christ in St. Scripture. He himself called Himself: a) a man: now, he once said to the Jews, you are seeking to kill me, a man, even as you have heard the truth from God (John 8:40), and b) very often - the Son of man, for example: foxes have plagues, and birds of the air have nests: But the Son of man has no place to lay his head (Matthew 8:20; demolished. 11, 19; 20, 28; Luke 22, 48; The Holy Apostles also call Him: man (1 Tim. 2:5; 1 Cor. 15:21.47; Acts 17:31), husband (Acts 17:31), another Adam (1 Cor. 15:46. 47. 49). 6) In particular, from the fact that Jesus Christ assimilates the true Word of God, and not a ghostly, human body, with all its parts, properties and functions. a) Assimilates the body. So it is said that one pious wife first anointed His body for burial (Mark 14:8), that He Himself bore our sins on His body on the tree (1 Peter 2:24), that, after His death, Joseph of Arimathea went to Pilate, asking for the body of Jesus, and received the body, wrapped in a clean shroud, and laid it in his new tomb, he was also cut into stone (Matthew 27:58-60); that even after His resurrection, when His body was already in glorified form, the Lord, appearing to the disciples, said: Handle me and see: for the spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see me having (Luke 24:39), and then the verb to Thomas: Bring your finger yourself, and see my hand: and bring your hand, and put it in my side: and do not be unfaithful, but true (John 20:27) 115. b) Assimilates parts of the body: head (Matt. 27, 29–30), hands and feet (John 12, 3; Luke 24, 39), fingers (John 8, 6), legs (- 19, 33) and ribs (- 34; 20, 27–30), flesh and blood ( Acts 20, 28; Heb. 2, 14). c) Assimilates bodily properties and functions. The Body of Jesus: was circumcised (Luke 2:21), had a need for food and drink (Matthew 4:2; 21:18; Luke 4:2; John 19:28), was subject to fatigue (John 4:6), required rest and sleep (Mark 4:38; Matt. 8:24), was capable of painful sensations and suffering (Luke 22:41–44; John 19:34.35), tasted death, was buried and resurrected (Matthew 27:40–61, etc.). 7) Finally, from what Jesus Christ learns in St. Scripture and the other half of the human being, the soul or spirit with its powers, properties, manifestations. a) The soul or spirit is assimilated. My soul is sorrowful unto death (Matthew 26:38), the Lord himself said to his disciples in the garden of Gethsemane. In the same way, the evangelists, narrating about His death on the cross, among other things, note: Jesus cried with a great voice and gave up the ghost (Matthew 27:60); or: and Jesus cried out with a great voice, saying: Father in your hands I commend my spirit: and these words came forth (Luke 23:46); or: when Jesus was received, he said: done: and bow your head, give up your spirit (John 19:30; demolished 1 Cor. 16:45) 116. b) The powers of the soul are assimilated, namely: aa) the human mind, as can be seen from the words of the evangelist: Jesus excelled in wisdom and age (Luke 2:52), and even before that, as a child he grew in strength and strength in spirit, filled with wisdom (- 40). bb) human will, as the prayer of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane shows: My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me: otherwise, not as I will, but as you will (Matthew 26:39; 22:42). c) The properties and manifestations of the soul are assimilated. It is narrated, for example, that Jesus sometimes rejoiced in spirit (Luke 10:21; John 11:15), sometimes was indignant in spirit (John 11:33; 12:27; 13:21), that He expressed special love for children and indignation towards those who forbade them to approach Him (Mark 10:13:10), had zeal for the glory of God, sometimes accompanied by just anger (John 2:14-17; Mat. 21:12.13; 23:28), that He grieved and anguished at the thought of suffering and death (Matthew 26:37.38; Luke 22:42-45), and in the days of his flesh, prayers and supplications to Him who was able to save him from death, He brought it with a strong cry and with tears, and was heard with reverence (Heb. 5:7). II. Prompted by the numerous and varied errors of heretics regarding the human nature of Jesus Christ, St. The fathers and teachers of the Church, in defense of Orthodox dogma, very often discussed this subject. They are 1) They proved the reality of human nature in general in Jesus Christ. And for this they used not only the clear testimonies of St. Scripture, but also by sound considerations of reason in the light of the Word of God, revealing mainly the idea that our Savior certainly had to be a true man. Should have: a) As our Intercessor or mediator between God and people (1 Tim. 2:5). “The mediator must be related to both,” says one of the universal teachers, in order to be a mediator. If He has an affinity only with One, and not with others: then He cannot be a mediator. If He did not have a nature one with the Father, He would not be a mediator, but an alien one. Just as He had to have human nature, because He came to people, so He had to have Divine nature, because He came from God. Being only a man, He would not be a mediator: for a mediator must be in the closest relation to God. Likewise, being only God, he would not be a mediator; for those for whom He mediates could not approach Him” 117. b) As our Teacher and Enlightener (Luke 4:18.19; John 8:11). “We could know God in no other way,” thinks St. Irenaeus, as through the Word of God made man, and no other who could tell us about the Father, as soon as His hypostatic Word (Rom. 11, 34. 35). There is no other way, I say, that we could learn than by seeing our Enlightener with our eyes, and receiving His word with our ears, so that, trying to be imitators of deeds, executors of His instructions, we would become able to enter into communication with Him and borrow success from the perfect, which is above all conditions and restrictions” 118. St. reasoned in a similar way. Cyril of Jerusalem: “since a person could hear only from a person similar to him; then the Savior took upon himself a nature similar to his, in order to more conveniently teach people” 119. c) As our Redeemer and Restorer (Gal. 3:13; Heb. 7:22). “We could not have received incorruptibility and immortality if we had not united with the incorruptible and immortal. But how could we unite with the incorruptible and immortal, if the incorruptible and immortal had not first become what we are, so that our corruptible would be swallowed up by incorruptibility and our mortal by immortality? and just as death gained victory over us through man, so through man we also gained victory over death” 121 ... “Reunion could not have taken place if death and corruption had not been destroyed. Therefore, the Lord did not take on a mortal body without a reason, but in order to completely destroy death in Himself, and renew people created in the image” 122. 2. They proved, in particular, that Christ took upon Himself a true, real human body, and not a ghost. To deny the authenticity of the body of Christ, despite all the testimonies about it from the Savior himself and the Apostles, said the defenders of Orthodox teaching, and to assert that the Son of God only seemed to have our flesh, but did not have it - a) means to suspect Him of lies and deceit - Him, who is the very truth 123; b) means recognizing His entire earthly life and deeds as a ghost and deception 124; c) means to consider all His instructions to us strange and meaningless, so that we follow His footsteps along the path of the cross and suffering 125; d) means, in general, to overthrow the very foundations of historical faith, and introduce doubt and distrust into what appears to the senses 126; e) means, finally, to reject the truth of Christ’s death and our salvation: “He (the Son of God) did not truly redeem us with his blood, unless he truly became man” 127. “The ghost could not have been harmed,” trace. the whole work of God is destroyed" 128. “If everything that the Gospel tells about, namely hunger, thirst, nails, a perforated rib, death, was not real, but only imaginary: then the mystery of the economy of salvation is a ghost and a deception, and Christ was an imaginary, and not a real person, and we are saved imaginary, and not really” 129. 3. They proved that Christ accepted, along with the body, the true human soul, rational and free, contrary to the error of the heretics, as if the whole soul, or at least the mind in Christ, was replaced by His Divinity. The most important of this evidence was the following: a) Man fell completely - both body and soul; therefore, the Savior had to take on not only the body, but also the soul of man in order to save him completely. “(Christ) finds what was lost, and puts on his shoulders the lost sheep, and not just the skin of the sheep. In order to reunite with the Divinity the whole man of God, perfect in soul and body, He left nothing in our nature that He did not take upon Himself: for it is said: that He was tempted of all kinds of sin (Heb. 4:15). But the soul in itself is not sin, but has become involved in sin to the point of recklessness. Therefore, in order to sanctify it, Christ takes it upon Himself, and through the received firstfruits communicates sanctification to all humanity” 130. b) The soul and mind are primarily to blame for the fall of man: they were primarily what the Savior had to accept in order to save. “He needed, says Gregory the Theologian, both flesh for the sake of the condemned flesh, and the soul for the sake of the soul, and the mind for the sake of the mind, which in Adam not only fell, but, as doctors say about diseases, was the first to be struck. For whatever received the commandment did not keep the commandment; and what he did not comply with, he also dared to commit a crime; and what transgressed was the most in need of salvation; and whatever needed salvation was accepted. Therefore, the mind is perceived" 131. A similar idea is expressed by St. Cyril of Alexandria: “since man was completely deceived and completely fell into sin; but before the body, the mind accepted the deception (for first the consent of the mind prefigures sin, and then the body depicts it in action): then it is fair that the Lord Christ, wanting to restore the fallen nature, stretches out his hand to all (parts of it) and restores what lies down - that is, both the flesh and the mind, which was created in the image of the Creator" 132. c) The soul is rational and serves as that mediating principle through which God, the purest Spirit, united in man with gross flesh. “The incomprehensible is embraced through the rational soul, which mediates between the Divine and the gross flesh” 133. “The mind is united with the mind, as with the closest and more akin, and then with the flesh, through the mind between the Divine and the weak” 134. d) If Christ had not taken on the human soul, or its mind, but had taken on only the body or the irrational soul: He would not have been a man, but inferior to man. “But they say: instead of mind, Divinity is sufficient... Divinity with one flesh is not yet man, and also with one soul, or with flesh and soul, but without mind, which primarily distinguishes man” 135. “We affirm that the entire essence of the Divine is united with the entire human nature. God the Word, who created us in the beginning, did not reject anything that He gave to our nature, but took upon Himself everything: the body, the rational and verbal soul, and their properties. Because a living being that does not have one of these parts, or one of these properties, is no longer a person” 136. e) “If the perceived nature did not have a human mind, then the one who entered into battle with the devil was God himself; God was the one who won the victory. If God won, then I, as I did not contribute at all to this victory, do not receive any benefit from it, I cannot even rejoice about it, as I am proud of other people’s trophies” 137. 4) They argued that Christ assumed human nature precisely from the Most Holy One. Virgin Mary, etc. consubstantial with us, and not brought from above. Here's what they say about it, for example: St. Irenaeus: “Why did God not accept the dust of the earth, but borrowed for himself the nature from Mary? So that His nature should not be different, and not another - that which was to be saved, but so that He would appear exactly the same, preserving the similarity” 138. St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “Believe that the only begotten Son of God, for the sake of our sins, descended from heaven to earth, taking upon Himself humanity similar to ours, and being born of the Holy Virgin and the Holy Spirit. Not in the form and ghost, but truly, His incarnation took place; He did not pass through the Virgin as through a canal, but was truly incarnate from Her; really ate like us and really drank like us. For if becoming man is a ghost, then salvation will also be a dream” 139. St. Gregory the Theologian: “If anyone says that Christ passed through the Virgin as through a trumpet, and was not formed in Her both divinely and humanly, divinely, as born without a husband, humanly, as born according to the law of pregnancy: then he is godless... If anyone says that the flesh came down from heaven, and not from the earth and not from us; let him be anathema" 140. St. John Chrysostom: “What exactly (Christ) came from the Virgin in the flesh, this was clearly shown by the Evangelist with the words: born in her (Matthew 1:20.21), and Paul with the words: born of a woman (Gal. 4:4). From his wife, he says, blocking the lips of those who claim that Christ passed through Mary, as if through some kind of pipe. And if this is true: was the virgin’s womb also necessary? If this is true: then Christ has nothing in common with us; on the contrary, His flesh is different from ours, not of the same composition. How can we call Him then, having come from the root of Jesse? with a rod? Son of man? color? How can you call Mary a mother? How can we say that Christ came from the seed of David, took on the form of a servant, and that the Word became flesh? Why did Paul say to the Romans: from them is Christ according to the flesh, who is God above all (9:5)? From these words and from many other places of Scripture it is clear that Christ came from us, from our composition, from a virgin’s womb” 141. § 135. The Lord Jesus was born according to humanity in a supernatural way, and the Most Holy. His Mother is the Ever-Virgin However, although Christ the Savior came from us according to the flesh, took on our human nature of the same essence, He did not come into existence in the same way as all people come, but in a supernatural way: He became incarnate and became man “from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,” so that the Most Holy One. His Mother, before the Nativity, and at the Nativity, and even after His Nativity, remained a Virgin, and is an Ever-Virgin (Orthodox confession, part 1, answer to question 39). I. The Lord Jesus became incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and the Most Holy. His Mother remained a Virgin before His Nativity and at His Nativity. This truth is known: 1) From the prophecy of Isaiah about the birth of the Messiah: behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will call his name Immanuel (7, 14). The reliability of the prophecy and its relation to the Messiah, in addition to what is visible from the very content of the prophecy and the occasion on which it was pronounced, is clearly attested by the Evangelist (Matthew 1:23). Meanwhile, here it is foretold that it will be the Virgin (Alma), the pure, immaculate Virgin, who will conceive and give birth to Emmanuel (with us, God). 2) From the Annunciation of the Angel about the birth of the Messiah, promised and foretold from ancient times. Having been sent from God to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the heavenly messenger announced to Her that She would conceive and give birth to the Son of the Most High: Do not be afraid, Mariam: for you have found grace with God. And behold, you conceived in your womb, and gave birth to a son, and you called his name Jesus. This one will be great and will be called the son of the Most High (Luke 1:30-32). When the Virgin expressed bewilderment: how will this happen if I don’t know where my husband is (- 34); The angel answered that her virginity would remain, that she would conceive and give birth without a husband in a supernatural way: the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you: in the same way, what is to be born holy will be called the Son of God (- 35). And to prove the possibility of such a miracle for God, he pointed to the example of her relative, Elizabeth, who, despite her old age and barrenness, conceived, however, according to His will, in her womb, and added in general: with God every verb will not fail (- 36. 37). After which the Most Rev. spoke. Virgin: behold the servant of the Lord, wake me according to your word (- 38). 3) From the Evangelist’s account of the actual conception and birth of the Messiah. The Evangelist begins this story like this: more than the betrothed of his former mother, Mary Joseph, whom she had never even dreamed of, was found in her womb by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18). Then he continues that when Joseph, not yet understanding the sacrament, desired to let her go (- 20), an angel appeared to him in a dream and said: Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to receive Miriam your wife: what is born in her of the Spirit is holy. She will give birth to a son, and you will call his name Jesus: for he will save his people from their sins (- 20.21). Noticing later that all this happened, that what was spoken from the Lord by the prophet might be fulfilled, speaking about the birth of Emmanuel from the Virgin (- 22.23), he concludes: Joseph rose from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and received his wife. And without knowing her, she gave birth to her firstborn son, and he called his name Jesus (- 24.25). 4) From the constant faith of the entire Church of Christ. She expressed this belief, firstly, in the ancient Symbols, used in her from the beginning, which directly speak of the virgin conception and birth of the Lord Jesus from the Virgin Mary, through the influx of the Holy Spirit 143; and then solemnly testified at the Ecumenical Councils. Thus, the Second Ecumenical Council placed in its very symbol the words: “I believe in the Son of God, incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,” - in a symbol that since that time has become an unchanging example of faith for all centuries. At the third Ecumenical Council, at its conclusion, a solemn word was pronounced. where, by the way, is the following praise to the Mother of God: “You are the crown of virginity! You are the Mother and the Virgin!... And which of the people is able to adequately praise the all-sung Mary? Oh miracle! She is both Mother and Maiden! 144. We have already seen the dogma of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which teaches us to confess the Son of God, born of the Father according to Divinity, born for our sake “from Mary the Virgin Mother of God according to humanity.” 5) From the unanimous teaching of private pastors and teachers of the Church: a) St. Ignatius the God-Bearer: “The virginity of Mary, her birth, and also the death of the Lord were hidden from the prince of this age - three loud sacraments that took place in the silence of God” 145; b) St. Justina: The power of God, having come upon the Virgin, overshadowed her and made the existing Virgin fruit-bearing” 146; c) St. Irenea: “He (the Son of God) was born of a Virgin”... 147; “He was born of the Virgin of David” 148; d) St. Gregory of Nyssa: “one and the same Mother and Virgin: neither virginity prevented her from giving birth, nor birth violated virginity” 149; e) St. Ambrose: who said the words: behold the handmaid of the Lord, wake me according to your word, both after she conceived in the womb, the Virgin, and after she gave birth, the Virgin: for the Prophet (Is. 7:14) announced not only what the Virgin will conceive, but also what the Virgin will give birth to” 150 Also taught: St. Methodius 151, Eusebius 152, Amphilochius 153. , Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom 154, Ephraim the Syrian 155, Leo the Great 156, Augustine 157, Cyril of Alexandria 158 and others 159. And they not only taught this, but often tried to reveal that such a miraculous method of the birth of the Messiah was both possible and very decent: as proof or explanation of the possibility they pointed to the omnipotence of God 160 and to some other similar miraculous cases, for example, to a bush that burned but did not burn 161, to the fact that the Savior, after his resurrection, could enter to his disciples through closed doors 162. And, setting forth thoughts about the propriety of this image of the birth of the Messiah, they said: “just as the primordial Adam had his bodily composition from uncultivated and virgin land (Gen. 2:5), and was created by the hand of God, precisely by the Word of God, by whom all things were (John 1:3): so in order to lead Adam in Himself, God the Word Himself was born from the virgin Mary. and in truth chose for Himself such a birth as was necessary for the restoration of Adam” 163. Or: “death came through the virgin Eve; through the Virgin, or better yet, from the Virgin, life had to come, so that just as the serpent deceived her, so Gabriel would preach the good news to this one” 164 . Or again: “It was fitting for the One who entered into human life to bring everyone to chastity, to be born from the Immaculate One who served his birth: for the one who is not unmade is usually called blameless” 165. II. Rev. The Mother of the Lord Jesus remained a Virgin forever and after His birth. An indication of this truth by St. The Fathers and Teachers of the Church found: 1) In the words of the prophet Ezekiel about the eastern gates of the church. shown to him by God in a vision: and this gate was shut, says the prophet, and the Lord said to me: this gate will be closed, and will not be opened, and no one will pass through it: for the Lord God of Israel will enter through it, and it will be closed (Ezek. 44: 1-3). In a mysterious sense, according to the mind of the Fathers, these gates signified the immaculate Virgin Mary, who remained imprisoned, that is, remained in pure and unbroken virginity forever, not only before the Nativity, and at the Nativity of the Savior, but also after the Nativity, through whom He alone, the Lord our God, entered into this world, and no one else entered 166. 2) It is even clearer in the words of the most blessed Virgin herself to the angel-broadcaster: how this will happen, even if I have a husband, I do not know (Luke 1:34). We must remember that this question was proposed by Rev. The virgin at the time was already betrothed to Joseph (Luke 1:34). What would Her words mean if, even before the betrothal, She had not vowed to God to preserve her virginity forever, and if she had not only been betrothed to Joseph so that he would remain the guardian of Her virginity? Otherwise, having been betrothed to Joseph as her future husband, She could not have said: I don’t know where my husband is. And if there is no doubt that Rev. The Virgin took a vow of perpetual virginity before God: it is impossible that She would not keep her vow forever, especially after she was worthy to become the Matter of the Son of God 167 . 3) Priest. The legend is valid and confirms that the Immaculate Mother of God kept her vow of virginity to the end. Based on this legend, St. The Church, from the time of the Apostles themselves, constantly confessed her as a Virgin in her Symbols, and all the private pastors of the Church and all believers constantly confessed her as a Virgin, so that, according to the testimony of St. Epiphany, the name of the Virgin became, as it were, the proper name of Mary 168. Based on this legend, they very often called her the Ever-Virgin (άειπαρθένος, semper virgo), the Ever-Virgin (άείπαις), as can be seen from the writings: St. Hippolytus 169, Athanasius the Great, Epiphanius, Caesarea and many others 170; as can be seen from the rules and definitions of the Ecumenical Councils themselves. Thus, in the 2nd definition of the Fifth Ecumenical Council we read: “if anyone does not confess the two births of God the Word, the first – the pre-eternal, not in time, incorporeal birth from the Father, and the second birth in the last days of this same God the Word, who came down from heaven and became incarnate from the Holy, Glorious Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary: let him be anathema” 171. And in the first rule of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, by the way, it says the following: “by two hundred God-bearing Fathers (at the Council of Ephesus) the teaching set forth, as an indestructible power of piety, we seal with consent, the one Christ the Son of God and the incarnate preaching, and the one who gave birth to Him without seed, the immaculate Ever-Virgin, confessing to be actually and truly the Mother of God.” 172. 4) In addition, the Church’s belief in the ever-virginity of the Mother of God was revealed mainly on the occasion of the appearance of heretics. those who dared to teach as if the Rev. The virgin, after the birth of the Savior from Her, had other children from Joseph 173. Such a teaching, as soon as it arose, was called madness by the pastors of the Church 174 , sacrilege 175 , blasphemy 176 , heresy 177 , and was more than once solemnly condemned at local councils 178 . To refute it, by the way, they noted: a) it is impossible for the Son of God to choose for himself as his Mother the one who, having given birth to Him in a supernatural way, without artifice, then wanted to break her virginity 179; b) it is impossible that “she who gave birth to God and from what followed experienced a miracle decided to have communication with her husband” 180; c) this is also impossible on the part of Joseph, a righteous man (Matthew 1:19), especially after he was honored to be a secret man and a witness to the supernatural birth from the immaculate Virgin of the Savior of the world betrothed to him 181; d) That is why the Savior, dying on the cross, entrusted Her to one of his disciples, saying to him: Behold your mother, and to Her: Behold your son (John 19:26. 27), which, of course, he would not have done if She had a husband or other natural children 182. Turning to the very foundations of false teaching, which the heretics thought to be found in the Word of God, the defenders of Orthodox dogma said: a) From the words of the Evangelist: before she had not even dreamed of her (Matthew 1:18), and then: and without knowing her, until she gave birth to her Son (- 25), it does not at all follow that Joseph subsequently ceased to be the custodian of Her virginity. The Evangelist speaks only about what happened before the birth of the Savior from the Most Holy. Virgos, and not about what happened after. It does not follow - just like from the words of the Lord of hosts to the Jews: I am, and until you grow old, I am (Isa. 46:4), it does not follow that after He ceased to be; as from the words of the saint. The writer of everyday life about the ark: the crow did not return until the water dried up from the earth (Gen. 8:7), it does not follow that he returned afterwards 183. b) From the name of Jesus Christ the firstborn of the Most Holy. Virgin (Matt. 1:25; Luke 2:7) one also cannot conclude that after Him others were born from Her: the name of the firstborn in St. Scripture means not only the one after whom other children were born, but also the one before whom no one was born, and the law required the dedication to God of every first-born firstborn, soon after his birth, when it could not yet be known whether there would be other children after him from the parents or not (Ex. ch. 13 and 34; Lev. 28; Num. 8) 184. c) If in St. Scripture mentions the brothers and sisters of Jesus Christ (Matthew 12:46–48, 9; Mark 6:3; John 2:17; 7:3, etc.): it does not follow from this that these were the children of the Most Holy One. Virgin Mary. For in St. In the Scriptures, only relatives are sometimes called brothers, in the sense of property, for example, Abraham and Lot are called brothers (Gen. 13:8), while Lot was actually the son of Abraham's brother, Arran (cf. Gen. 12:4.5; 14:14-16), - Jacob and Laban are called brothers, while Jacob was the son of Laban's sister, Rebekah, Isaac's wife (cf. Gen. 28 and 29 with 36. 37). In the same sense, one must take the name brothers of the Lord, i.e., in the meaning of only close relatives, and not half-brothers: these were the children of the imaginary husband of the Most Holy. Joseph's virgins from his first wife 185. § 136. The Lord Jesus is a sinless man Differing from us in humanity by the supernatural image of his birth from the Virgin, Christ the Savior differs from us in humanity in that He is completely uninvolved in any sin (Right. Confession, part 1, answer to question 38). 1) The Word of God teaches, firstly, that the Lord is not involved in original sin: a) When he presents the words of the angel of good news to St. To the Virgin: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you: likewise, what is to be born holy will be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). From this it is clear that although the Lord Jesus was conceived from a Virgin, the daughter of man, he was conceived from a Virgin, in whom soul and body, in the words of the church song, were purified by the Holy Spirit 186; conceived of the Virgin by the power and action of the same Holy Spirit, and therefore was born completely pure and holy: a thought that was clearly preached by St. Church Fathers, for example: St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “This very Holy Spirit descended on the holy Virgin Mary. For when the only begotten Christ was about to be born, the power of the Most High overshadowed Her, and the Holy Spirit, coming upon Her, sanctified Her, so that She might be able to receive Him through whom everything happened. I don’t need to talk much about this to teach you that this birth is undefiled and pure” 187. St. Gregory the Theologian: “although the Virgin bears womb, in whom the soul and body were purified by the Spirit (for it was necessary to honor both birth and virginity); however, the one who came into being is God and with what was received from Him (human nature) is one of two opposites - flesh and Spirit, of which one is deified, and the other is deified... This is my word about the new birth of Christ! There is nothing shameful here; because one sin is shameful. But in Christ there is no place for shame; because He (the humanity of Jesus Christ) was created by the Word, and He did not become man from human seed. But from the flesh of the most pure, unbrided Mother, which was previously purified by the Spirit, a self-created Man came forth, and accepted purification for my sake” 188. St. Ephraim the Syrian. “Christ was born from a nature that was subject to uncleanness and needed to be cleansed by God’s visitation. Just as lightning penetrates everything, so does God. And just as lightning illuminates the hidden, so Christ cleanses the hidden nature. He also purified the Virgin, and then was born, in order to show that where Christ is, purity is manifested in all its power. He cleansed the Virgin, having prepared him with the Holy Spirit; and then the womb, becoming clean, conceives Him. Purified the Virgin in her purity; why, and having been born, he left the Virgin” 189. St. John of Damascus: “By the consent of St. Virgins, the Holy Spirit, according to the word of the Lord, announced to Her by an angel, descended on Her, cleansed Her and gave Her the ability to both accept the Divinity of the Word and give birth. Then the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, the hypostatic wisdom and power of the highest God, overshadowed Her, as it were, a divine seed, and from Her most pure and virgin blood formed for himself the firstfruits of our composition, flesh, animated by the verbal and rational soul, but formed it not from the seed, but creatively, by the Holy Spirit" 190 . b) When he testifies that God sent His Son only in the likeness of the flesh of sin (Rom. 8:3), etc. expresses the idea that the Son of God, although He took upon Himself flesh, essentially similar to that which all people enslaved to sin have, but not the sinful flesh in which they are born, live and die, He took on human flesh, but pure from sin and corruption 191. 2) The Word of God teaches, secondly, that the Lord Jesus is completely pure from all personal sin. He himself asked his enemies: who of you accuses me of sin (John 8:46)? And he said to his disciples before the onset of his suffering: for the prince of this world is coming, and he will have nothing in me (- 14, 30). The Holy Apostles also unanimously testify that He appeared and took away our sins, and in Him there was no sin (1 John 3:5); that He did not commit sin, nor was flattery found in His mouth (1 Peter 2:22); that He, who knew no sin, God made sin for us, so that we may be the righteousness of God about him (2 Cor. 5:21); that we have been redeemed with the honest blood of Christ, like the blameless and pure lamb (1 Peter 1:18); or they say: the imams are not the bishops, who are not able to suffer with our weaknesses, but were tempted in every way according to the likeness, except sin (Heb. 4:16); such is a bishop befitting us, reverent, gentle, undefiled, excommunicated from sinners, and above the heavens (Heb. 7:26); intercessor of the imams to the Father of Jesus Christ the righteous (1 John 2:1). 3) Following such clear teaching of the Word of God, St. The Church has invariably believed that the Lord Jesus, consubstantial with us in humanity, is similar to us in everything, except for sin, as the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon expressed in their dogma, and as all her shepherds and teachers unanimously confessed before: Justin 192, Irenaeus 193, Clement of Alexandria 194, Hippolytus 195, Dionysius Alexandrian, Eusebius, Athanasius the Great, James of Nisib, John Chrysostom, Gregory of Nisib 196, Augustine 197 and others 198. And from ancient times the Church understood this sinlessness of Christ the Savior not only in the sense that He is completely pure from ancestral sin and any arbitrary sin, but also in the fact that He cannot even sin, 199 that He is free from any sensual desires or inclinations to sin, free from any internal temptation 200. Therefore, when Theodore of Mopsuete dared, among other things, to assert that the Lord Jesus was not removed from internal temptations and the struggle of passions 201, the fifth Ecumenical Council (in 553) condemned this false teaching as one of the most important 202. To explain this complete, unconditional sinlessness of Christ the Savior, the teachers of the Church pointed out that human nature in Him does not exist separately, but is hypostatically united with the divine nature 203. For their evidence, see “Introduced. in Orthodox Theology" A. M. § 84, note. 225. View Note there. 224. A more detailed presentation of the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, based on St. Scriptures, presented by us before. See “Orthodox dogma. Bogosl." vol. 1. § 33, pp. 219–230. And on the basis of St. According to legend, we have revealed in more detail the doctrine of the Divinity of Jesus Christ, in the same place in § 31, pp. 212–217. Here we present only a few pieces of evidence that are not listed above. Ad Trall. cap. VII, p. 194; Opp. Rr. Apostol., ed. Hefele. Tubing. 1847. Ad Eplies. sar. XIX et XX, p. 172. 174, ed. citat.; in Xp. Thurs. 1821, 1 page 41. Ad Roman. cap. 1, p. 200, ed. eit. Ad Philip, cap. 1, p. 258, ed. cit. Epist. ad Diognet. cap. IX, p. 316, ed. cit. Diaiog. cum Tryphon, p. 285, in Opp. S. Justini, ed. Colon. 1686. Adv. haeres. 1, 10, n. 1. Contr. Beron. et Helie., apud jFabric. T. I, p. 227. These words are quoted by St. Athanasius the Great – in Epist. de sententia Dionisi n. 15. De Symeone et Anna § 11, p. 403, in Opp. Methodii, ed. Combefis. Paris. 1644. In Ramos. Palmar. §§ 10 et 11, p. 439. 440, ed. cit. As for the words of the Apostle: the first man is from the earth, the ring: the second man, the Lord is from heaven. Jacob is the ringed, so are the rings; and yakov is heavenly, and also celestial (1 Cor. 15, 47. 48), - from where the heretics drew their conclusion. as if Christ did not borrow his flesh from the Holy One. Virgin, but only passed through her, as if through a channel, with a subtle, heavenly body: then here is a remark about this - a) St. Cyril of Alexandria: “Christ is called a heavenly man, not because He brought a body from above and from heaven, but because the Word, being God, descended from heaven and became like us, that is, according to the flesh, born of a woman, without ceasing even after the incarnation to be what was before the birth according to the flesh, namely, heavenly and from heaven, and being God above all” (Dialog. IX, in Opp. Cyrill. Alex. p. 723, ed. faiis. 1638); b) Theophylact of Bulgaria: “not because man or human nature was borrowed from heaven by Christ, as Apollinaris fabled, but because there is one face of the one Christ, He, both as a man, is called heavenly, and as God nailed to the cross, both because of the union of two natures in one person” (Commentar, in Pauli Epist. p. 310. ed. Londin. 1636). They also explained the designated place of the Apostle St. Athanasius (Orat, contr. Arian. II, in Opp. T. 1, p. 351, ed. Paris. 1627) and St. John Chrysostom (in Epist. ad Corinth. homil. XLII, in Opp. T. X, p. 394, ed. Montfauc.). With so much clear evidence of the reality of the body of Jesus Christ, the Docetes mainly contrasted the saying of St. Apostle Paul: God the Son is your ambassador in the likeness of the flesh of sin, and about sin condemn sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3) - but extremely unfoundedly, as the defenders of the truth showed. For example, St. Chrysostom: if it is said that God sent the Son in the likeness of flesh, do not conclude from this that the flesh of Christ was not the same: the word - likeness was added because human flesh is called the flesh of sin - and Christ had not sinful flesh, but although by nature the same with us, however, only similar to our sinful and sinless" (ln episfc. ad Roman. homil. XIII, in Opp. T. IX, p. 564, ed. Montfauc.), Go - St. Cyril of Alexandria: “The Apostle did not simply say: in the likeness of the flesh, destroying the blasphemy of ungodly teaching, for the grace of the Spirit knows everything in advance; but he said: in the likeness of the flesh of sin, so that we would know that he used the word: likeness because our Savior was free from all sin. For He, having become man, was made man by nature, apart from sin: therefore, in the likeness of the flesh of sin, judge sin in the flesh. Having assumed human nature, He did not accept the yoke of sin that rules over people; on the contrary, He crushed all its power, and showed that even in human nature it is possible to avoid the arrows of sin” (O incarnation of the Lord, Chapter 9, in Chron. Reading 1847, III, 177–178. See also this entire chapter to the end). The heretics who rejected the human soul in Jesus Christ were mainly based on the words of the Evangelist: The Word became flesh (John 1:14). But the word: flesh in St. Scripture is very often used to mean the whole person, for example: Gen. 6, 12; Mat. 24, 22; Acts 2, 17; Rome. 3, 20; 1 Cor. 1, 29; Gal. 2, 16; 1 Tim. 3, 16. “He thinks,” St. writes against Apollinaris. Cyril of Alexandria, - to have as a defender of his madness the most vocal preacher of Theology, the Evangelist John, who says: The Word became flesh and dwelt in us (1, 14). Meanwhile, he himself knows well how often Divine Scripture expresses the whole in parts, sometimes, for example, it calls the whole person soul, sometimes flesh means a whole living being (ολον το ζώον). Thus it is said: all the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt were seventy-five (Gen. 49:27); it is obvious that the sons and grandsons of Jacob were not incorporeal; but the writer of everyday life designated the whole as a part. And one more thing; the soul that sins will die (Lev. 5:1 et seq.); but no one has ever known a soul to fall into sin without a body. And again: my spirit shall not abide in these men, for they are flesh (Gen. 6:3)… But everyone knows that those whom Scripture accuses here were not soulless, to whom it gives the law and whose nature it reveals” (O incarnation of the Lord, ch. 17, in Chron. Read. 1847, III, 202–203). Chrysost. In Epist. 1 ad Timoth. homil. VII, in Opp. T. XI, ed. Montfauc. This idea was revealed by: a) St. Irenaeus: “It was necessary for the intercessor of God and men, through his own affinity with One and the other, to bring both sides to commonwealth and agreement, and to introduce man to God, and to reveal God to men” (adv. haeres. III, p. 18); b) blessed Theodoret: “The very name of the mediator here points to Divinity and humanity. Being only God, Jesus was not called a mediator; how could He mediate between us and God, having nothing of ours? But since He, as God, is united with the Father, having the same power, and as a man with us, having received from us the form of a slave: He is rightly called a mediator, uniting in Himself the divided parties through the union of natures, that is, Divinity and humanity” (in confus. Dialog. II, Opp. T. .IV, p. 56 ed. 1642, in Xp. ch. 1846, 1, pp. 352–353). Publicity instructive XII, paragraph 14, p. 218, in Russian. translation St. has the same idea. Athanasius: “at the request of the matter itself, the Lord, in order to help people, himself appears in the form of a man, takes on a body similar to ours, and uses further, that is, deeds performed in the body, so that people who did not want to know the Lord from His providence and government of the universe, at least from the deeds He performed in the body, would know the Word of God revealed in the flesh, and through him the Father” (de incarn. Verbi Dei n. 15, in Xp. 1837, IV. Iren, adv. haeres. III, c. 19. Iren. ady. haeres. V, c. 21. Athanas. de incarnat. Verbi n. 13. Totus veritae fuit (Cliristus); maluit, crede, non nasci, quam ex aliqua parte mentiri, et quidem in semetipsum (Tertull. de carn. Christi c. V). Si phantasma fuit corpus Christi, fefellit Christus; et si fefellit, veritas non est. Est autem veritas Christus. Non ergo phantasma fuit corpus ejus (Augustin. de quaest. LXXXIII qu. 14; cfr. in Ps. XLIV En. n. 19). Iren. adv. haeres. V, 1, n. 1. “If He suffered only in a ghost, as the atheists, that is, the infidels, claim, being themselves nothing more than ghosts: then why should I be in chains? Why should I want to fight with beasts? So, am I really dying in vain?... (Ignat. ad Trallian. sar. X, p. 196, ed. Hefel.). Et nos, cum incipiemus vere pati, seducens videbitur, adhortans nos vapulare, et alteram praebere maxillam, si ipse illud non prius in veritate passus est: et quemadmodum illos seduxit, ut videretur eis ipse hoc, quod nou erat; et nos seducit, adhortans perferre ea, quae ipse non pertulit (Iren. adv, haer. III, 18, n. 6). Iren. adv. haer. IV, no. 33; n. 5; Tertull. adv. Marcion. III, 8. Iren. adv. haer. V, 2, n. 1. And in another place: ουδέ γάρ ήν άληθώς σάρκα και αιμα έσχηκώς , δι ' ών ήμας έξηγοράσατο , εί μή την άρχαιαν πλάσιν τού ᾿Αδάμ εις έαυτον άνεκεφαλαιώσατό (ibid. V, 1, n. 2). Tertull. contr. Marcion. III, 8. And again: Empti sumus pretio magno. Plane nullo, si phantasma fuit Christus, nec habuit ullam substantiam corporis, quam pro nostris corporibus dependeret (ibid. V, 7). John Damascus. Accur. exposition right faith book III, ch. 28, pp. 219–220, in Russian. translation Gregor. Nyss. contr. Eunom. orat. II, Opp. T. II, p. 483, ed. Morel. The same thought is expressed: blessed. Augustine (de civit. Dei X, 27; Serm. CCXXVII, n. 4), blessed. Theodoret (Epl. CXLV ad monach. CP) and St. John of Damascus: “Thus, the whole of the whole accepted me, and the whole united with the whole in order to grant salvation to the whole. For what He did not take upon Himself would remain unhealed. (Accurate presentation of the pr. faith, book III, chapter 6, pp. 152–133). Sent. to Kledonius, 1, in TV. St. Father IV, 203. O man. Gentlemen ch. 16, in Chr. Thurs. 1847, III, 198–199. Grigor. Theologian Words for St. Easter, on TV. St. Father IV, 161. Last to Kledonius I, ibid. 203. This thought is also found in other teachers of the Church, for example: in Blessed. Augustine (Epl. CXXXVII. n. II; CXL, paragraph 12) and in St. John of Damascus: “The Word of God was united with the flesh through the mind, which is something between the purity of the Divinity and the purity of the flesh: for the mind rules over the soul and the flesh, and the purest thing in the soul is the mind, and the purest thing of the mind is God” (Accurate statement of the pr. faith, book III, chapter 6, p. 153). Grigor. Bgosl. last to Kledonius 1, in TV. St. Father IV, 200. John Damascus. Accur. Exposition Ave. Faith III, 6, p. 152. Also - from the blessed. Augustine: Non est homo perfectus, si vel anima carni, vel animae ipsi mens humana defuerit (Epl. CLXXXVII ad Dardan. n. 4; cfr. de divers. quaest. LXXXIII qu. 80, n. 1). Kirill. Alex. o in person. Mr. Ch. 14, in Chr. Thurs. 1847, III, 194–195 et seq. (138) Adv. haeres. III, 21, paragraph 10; cfr. Tertull. de carne Christi cap. XVÏ Neque Publicity instructive IV, ch. 9, p. 63. The same idea is revealed by St. Ephraim the Syrian (word for heretic in the Tv. of the Holy Father XIV, 64). Last to Kledonius 1, in TV. St. Father IV, 197. 199. Conversation on Ev. Matthew IV, paragraph 3, vol. 1, pp. 62–63. Ed. Moscow 1843. For a statement of this prophecy, see § 82 “Introduction.” in Orthodox Theology" A. M. So - a) in the symbol known under the name of the apostolic, it says: τον Κύριον ήμών, τόν γεννηθέντα εκ πνεύματος άγιου και Μαρίας τής παρθένου; b) in the symbol placed in the apostolic decrees: και έκ τής άγίας παρθένου Μαρίας γεννηθέντα ...; c) in the symbol of the Church of Antioch according to the text cited by Cassian: qui propter nos venit et natus est ex Maria Virgine... (Vid. apud Bingham. Antiqu. eccles. lib. X, c. 4, §§ 7. 11. 12). Concil. Ephes. Part. 11, act. 1, apud Binium T. 1, Part. 11, p. 221. Epist. ad Ephes. cap. 19, in Xp. Thurs. 1821, 1, 40. Apolog. 1, 33, in Xp. Thurs. 1825, XVII, 56. Adv. haer. III, 21, n. 5. And further: “As Eve, although she had a husband, but, while still remaining a virgin, showed disobedience, and through this caused death to herself and the entire human race: so Mary, being betrothed to her husband, but remaining a Virgin, showed obedience (Luke 1:38), and through this she served the salvation of her and the entire human race” (-III, 22). Adv. haer. V, 19, n. 1; cf. III, 19, n. 1 et squ.; V, 21, n. 1. 2. Orat. in diem natal. Christi, Opp. T. III, p. 344, ed. Morel., in Xp. Thurs. 1837, IV, 258; cfr. Contr. Eunom. Orat. III, p. 536. Epist. ad Syricium, T. II, class, 1 Epistol. XLII, p. 967. He has expressions about Mary: παρθενομήτωρ (de Simeon. et Anna n. II), μήτερ παρθένε (ibid. n. V), ω μήτερ παρθένε και παρθένε μήτερ (ibid. n. IX). Demonstr. Evangel. III, 2. Τοκετός παρθενικός (in Christ. natal. n. IV); ούδ ’ ολως αι παρθενικαι πύλαι ανεώχθησαν (orat. in Domin. occurs. n. III). Greg. Naz. carm. II, 196 et squ.; Chrysost. in Genes. homil. XLIX, no. 2; in Math. homil. IV, no. 3: “Do not ask: how did the Spirit form the child in the Virgin? For if with natural action it is impossible to explain the method of this formation, then how can this be explained when the Spirit worked miracles?... Also, do not think that you have learned everything when you hear that Christ was born of the Spirit. With this information, we still don’t know much, for example: how does the uncontainable fit in the womb? how is everything contained in the womb of a woman? How does a Virgin give birth and remain a Virgin? (according to the Russian translation of conversations on Ev. Matt. vol. 1, pp. 61. 62). “He (Christ) was born painlessly, because he was conceived incorruptibly. In the Virgin he is clothed with flesh, but not of the flesh, but of the Holy Spirit; therefore he was born of the Virgin: for the Spirit opened the womb, so that Man, who created nature and gave the Virgin the power to increase it, would come out, the Spirit would assist at the birth of one who had not known the husband’s bed; therefore, what was born did not break the seal of virginity, and the Virgin remained without illness” (Words on the heretic, in the Tv. of the Holy Father XIV, 66). Cujus viginitas sic non est violata partu, ut non fuerat temerata conceptu (Serm. ХXII, p. 1). Virgo concepit, virgo peperit, et post partum virgo permansit (De Symb. n. 5; cfr. contr. Faust. XXVIII, 4). “The Only Begotten Word of God, having received from the one Virgin the firstfruits of the bodily composition, I thus built an uncultivated church and united it with Myself, comes from the Virgin, not dissolving the virgin’s belt with its conception and not dissolving it by birth, but preserving it whole and inviolable, and thus performing a great and ineffable miracle” (O Incarnation of the Lord, Chapter 22, in Chron. Read. 1847, 111, 217). Petr. Chrysolog. Serm. LXII. LXXV; Procl, in diem nativ. Christi orat. IV, in Combef. auctor, p, 334; Zeno Ueron. Serm. de contit. III, in Patrolog. curs. compl. T. XI, p. 303. Procl. de laud. S. Mariae Orat. 1; John. Damascus. Accur. Izl. pr. faith book. IV, ch. 14, page 260: “It was not impossible for Him (Jesus Christ) to pass through the gates without damaging their seal.” Grigor. Nyssa: “just as a bush burns and is not consumed; so here too the Virgin gives birth to light and remains incorruptible” (words for the birth of the Lord in Chron. Reading 1837, IV, 259); Ambros. de institution. virg. cap. VI. VII; Epiphan. haeres. LXXVIII, n. 9. 10; Cyrill. Alex, contr. Anthrop. 26. Augustin. de civit. Dei XXII, 8; Greg M. in Evang. homil. XXVI. Iren. adv. haeres. III, 21, n. 10. Similar - in St. Hippolyta: προτότοκον έκ παρθένου, ινα τον προτόπλαστον έν αοτω άναπλάσοων δειχθή (in Daniel. VII, apud May 1). Kirill. Jerus. Ogl. instructive XII, paragraph 15, pp. 218–219. The same is in Tertullian: “in virginem adhuc Evam irrepserat verbum aedificatorium mortis; in virginem aeque introducendum erat Verbum extructorium vitae, ut quod per ejusmodi sexum abierat in perditionem, per eundem sexum redigeretur in ordinem" (de carne Christi p. 17), - and y blessed. Augustine: (de agone Christian. cap. XXII, n. 24). Greg. Nyss. Orat. in diem natal. Christi, Opp. T. III, p. 344; Cfr. de virg. cap. II et Augustin. contr. Faust. XXVIII, 4. Quid est haec porta (Ezech. 44, 1), nisi Maria, ideo clausa, quia virgo? Porta igitur Maria, per quam. Christus intravit in hunc mundum, quando virginali fusus est partu, et genitalia virginitatis claustra non soluit. Mansit intemeratum septum pudoris, et inviolata virginatis duravere signacula (Ambros. de instit virg. c. VIII, paragraph 52; cfr. Epist. ad Siric., class. 1 Epist. LXXII), Exact. Izl. right faith book IV, ch. 14, p. 260. “Mary’s virginity is all the more valuable and pleasant because she dedicated it to God even before Christ was conceived from her. This is shown by her words to the Angel - the evangelist: how will this happen, where I don’t know my husband? In truth, she would not have said this if she had not previously vowed to God to remain a Virgin. But since this was not in accordance with the morals of the Israelites, she became engaged to a righteous husband, who would not only not violate what she had already dedicated to God, but would also protect her from others” (Augustin. de Virgin, c. IV). Epiphan. haer. LXXVIII, n. 5. 8. 19. .... γέγονεν άνθρωπος (De Theolog. et inсarn. n. VIII; cfr. contr. Beron. et Helic. Serm III). Athanas. in Luc. 1, 58; Epiphan. Exposit, fld. cathol. n. XV; Ancorat. CXXI; Caesar. Dialog. 1, n. 20; III, no. 122; Cassian. de incarn. 1, 4; Leo M. Epist. ad Flav. fragm. 1 (apud Mansi VI, 424); Cyrill. Alex. homil. Ephes. in Nestor. habit. p. 355 T. VI, ed. Aub. Quintae Synod. coll. VIII, apud. Bin. T. II, Part. II, p. 115, 116, There in the 6th Council definition it is said: “If anyone insidiously and not in the proper sense accepts the name of the holy, Orthodox and ever-virgin Mary Theotokos, used by St. Council of Chalcedon: let him be anathema." Book right St. Ap., Cathedral. and St. Father page 62. In ancient times this error was held by: Eunomius (Philostorg. Η. E. VI, 2) and some of the followers of Apollinaris (Epiphan. haeres. LXXVII, n. 26), also Helvidius with his followers (Hieronym. adv. Helvid.; Gennad. de dogm. eccles. cap. LIX) and the Antidikomarianite sect (Epiphan. haeres. LXXVII, LXXVIII; Augustin. haeres. LVI). In modern times, this heresy, along with others, is preached by the so-called rationalists. Origen. homil. VII, in Lucam. Ambros. de institution. virgin. cap. 5. Gennad. de dogm. theolog. c. LXIX. Namely: the Roman one, which was in 320, under the presidency of Pope Siricius, and the Mediolan, which was in the same year, under the chairmanship of St. Ambrose. An vero Dominus Jesus eam sibi matrem eligeret, quae virili semine aulam posset incestare coelestem, quasi eam, cui impossibile esset virginalis pudoris servare custodiam?… (Ambros. de instit. virgin. p. 6). John. Damascus. Accur. izl. pr. faith book. IV, ch. 14, p. 261. John. Chrysostom per ev. Matt. conversations V, paragraph 3, p. 83, in Russian. translated; Hierpath. adv. Helvid., Orr. T. IV, Par. II, p. 134. “If he (Joseph) had known her, and really had her as a wife; then why should Jesus Christ entrust her to his disciple, as a husbandless woman who has no one, and order him to take her to himself? (Chrysostom in Hebrew. Matt. conversations. V, v. 3, p. 93). Dicit et ad discipulum: ecce mater tua. Ipse est discipulus, cui mater commendabatur. Quomodo marito uxorem tolleret, si fuerat Maria mixta conjugio, aut usum tori conjugalis cognoverat? (Ambros. de instit. virgin. c. VI). John. Chrysostom on Ev. Matt. conversations V, n. 3, pp. 92–93; Ambros. de institution. virg. c. V; Isidor. Pelus, lib. 1, Epist. ХVIII. Hieronym. adv. Helvid., Opp. T. VI, Part. II, p. 135. 136. As believed by St. Epiphanius (haeres. XXVIII et LXXVIII), St. Ambrose (de instit. virgin. c. VI) and others. “Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth rejoice: for co-essential with the Father, co-originating and co-throne, accepting generosity and philanthropic mercy, set yourself in exhaustion, with the Father’s favor and advice; and entered into the womb of the maiden, purified by the Spirit” (Service on the 25th day of March, Verse 4). Publicity Pouch. XVII, part 6, neg. 376. Words on Epiphany, in TV. St. Father III, 245; oh covenant. and about the comings. Christ., ibid. IV, 248–249. Words on heretic., in TV. St. Father XIV, 71. Accur. Exposition Ave. Faith III, 2, pp. 138–139. See note above. 115. Iп similitudine inquit carnis peccati fuisse Christum. Non quod similitudinem carnis acceperit, quasi imaginem corporis et non veritatem; sed similitudinem peccatricis carnis vult intelligi; quod ipsa non peccatrix caro Christi ejus fuit par, cujus erat peccatum; genere, non vitio Adaë quando hinc etiam continuamus eam fuisse carnem in Christo, cujus natura est in homine peccatrix (Tertull. de carn. Christi c. XVI; cfr. c. XLI). Συν τώ ... μόνω άσπίλω και άναμαρτήτω Χριστω . Dialog. cum Tryphon, cap. 110. Adv. haeres. IV, 20, n. 2. Εις μέν ούν μόνος, ό άνεπεθύμητος έξ άρχής ό Κύριος ημών. Strom. VII, 12. Ανθρωπος άνευ αμαρτίας (de charism. n. 1); άνθρωπος αναμάρτητος (de theolog. et incarn. adv. Beron. et Helie, n. 2. 4). Dionys. Alex. Epist. ad Paul. Samosat.; Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. III, 2; Athanas. de incarn. Verbi Dei n. 17. 18; Jacob. Nisib. de poenit. Serm. VII, n. 1; Chrysost. in Ephes. homil. III, no. 3; in Hebr. hom. ХIII, n. 3; Greg. Nyss. Orat. Catech. c. XVI. Nullum habuit omnino peccatum, vel originale, vel proprium (Epist. CLIV ad Euod. n. 19). Didym. Alex, de Trinit. 1, 30; III, 10; Theodoret. Erauist. dialog. III; in Hebr. II, 8. Hippol. de theolog. et incarn. n. 11; Chrysost. in Rom. homil. XIII, no. 5; Cyrill. Alex. contr. Anthropom. c. XXIII; Augustin. Praed. Sanet. XV, no. 30; de pecc. et merit. et rem. 11, 20, no. 34. Clem. Alex. Strom. VII, 12; Paedag. 1, 2; Ambros. Epist. ad Hier, (in Mai VII, p. 160); Maxim. Opusc. theol. T. II, p. 14, ed. Combef; John. Damascus. Accur. izl. Ave. Faith III, 20, p. 207. Serm. de incarn. fragm. XXV. XXIX (in Mai V). Cons. Constantinop. 11, cap. XII. Tertull. de anim. c. XIII. You might be interested in: