Dogma of the Redemptive Sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the works of Ephraim the Syrian

Understanding the dogma of the Redemptive Sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the works of Ephraim the Syrian The dogmatic teaching of Saint Ephraim the Syrian has not become the subject of careful study either in Russian or in foreign theology - such a preliminary conclusion can be reached after reading the article “Ephrem the Syrian” in the Orthodox Encyclopedia: not a single (!) source of literature is attached to the small section devoted to the theology of the Syrian Father of the Church. Perhaps this is explained by the fact that, as the authors of the section N.N. Seleznev and S. Brock write, “The Thought of E.S. rejects deliberate systematization, and even a systematic presentation of his theology carries the danger of giving it unusual forms” (Orthodox Encyclopedia. Vol. 19). However, attempts to describe the dogmatic teaching of St. Ephraim both in Russian and foreign theology were nevertheless made (a brief historiography is given, for example, in the book of Archpriest G.V. Florovsky “Eastern Fathers of the Church”, a much more extensive one is in the book “Syrian Patrology” by Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina). In our article from foreign works, we will focus only on the above-mentioned “Syrian Patrolology” and “Dogmatics” by St. Justin (Popovich). From domestic research, we will first consider works on patrolology, then works on dogmatic theology, namely the quotes from the works of St. Ephraim the Syrian given in them in the section on the work of our salvation, and finally some other materials on this subject. Let us say in advance that, first of all, we are interested in the question of whether in the works of St. Ephraim there are words that clearly and unequivocally prove the truth of the church teaching about the Atonement, which in modernist writings received the name “legal theory of the Atonement.” Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky) notes that “there is almost not a single dogmatic subject that St. Ephraim" (Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church, p. 119) and indicates the property of the dogmatic creations of the saint: "St. Ephraim does not enter into a deliberate consideration of the foundations on which the truth is affirmed, but only points to these foundations during the outpouring of feelings and reverent thoughts” (Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church, p. 119). Archbishop Filaret does not write anything directly about the revelation of the dogma of the Redemption by Ephraim the Syrian. A much harsher attitude towards Ephraim the Syrian and his creations is expressed by Prof. A. I. Sagarda. First, we find in him an assessment of the style of the saint’s works: “Saint Ephraim is unusually verbose, he repeats himself endlessly, and from the whole mass of material, it seems that very little can be chosen. His style is so allegorical that the thought gives the impression of deep and refined, but when the meaning is disassembled, it usually turns out to be banal” (Sagarda A.I., p. 1168). What follows is an assessment of the views of Saint Ephraim the Syrian: “Indeed, it is very difficult to extract from the works of Saint Ephraim a clear understanding of his views. He moves from symbol to symbol, and the points that he considers especially important are sometimes quite controversial” (Sagarda A.I., p. 1172). And finally, concluding the review of the theology of St. Ephraim the Syrian, A. I. Sagarda makes the following verdict: “The situation is exactly the same with the theology of St. Ephraim. It does not come into contact with reality, it does not give us either the historical appearance of Christ, or the Christianity of the first Church, or even clearly defined teachings of post-Nicene times. In a word, St. Ephraim reflected the transitional time to which he belonged. The fatal lack of spiritual seriousness in his teaching partly explains to us why the Church, having become strictly Orthodox under Rabbula, a hundred years later constantly fell into non-Orthodoxy and schism” (Sagarda A.I., p. 1174)). I think the question about the adequacy of the professor’s final statement is quite rhetorical. A.I. Sagarda does not speak about how Saint Ephraim understood our Redemption. Archpriest G.V. Florovsky, in his assessment of the works of St. Ephraim the Syrian, is also quite critical: “The Rev. Ephraim has a lot of bold images, but few original and bold thoughts. In the transmission of general church teaching, he achieves great brightness, achieves artistic synthesis, and this is the doctrinal dignity of his creations” (Florovsky G.V., archpriest, p. 233). Like Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archpriest G. Florovsky notes that “from the works of St. Ephraim, rich dogmatic material can be extracted” (Florovsky G.V., archpriest, p. 230). However, at the same time, according to the author, “he (St. Ephraim - I.R.) says little about the meaning of redemption. The main idea is clear: “He became like us in order to make us like ourselves. And the immortal descended to mortals, made them immortal, and ascended again to the Father...” (Florovsky G.V., Archpriest, p. 231). In the works on patrolology written by professors I.V. Popov, N.I. Sagarda, K.E. Skurat, the theology of St. Ephraim the Syrian is not considered at all. Nothing is said about him in the “Golden Age of Patristic Writing” by Archimandrite. Cyprian (Kern). In the “Syrian Patrolology” of Ignacia Ortiz de Urbina, translated into Russian in 2011, it is only noted that “soteriology is most present in the “Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul,” which states that God tasted death for all people. Salvation was accomplished through the suffering and sacrifice of Christ on the Cross” (Ortiz de Ubina Ignacio, p. 85). The author of the patrolology course taught at the Jordanville Seminary, monk Vsevolod (Filipev), notes the verified dogmatics of Saint Ephraim, but writes nothing about his understanding of the dogma of the Atonement. “God-wise dogmatist” (Sidorov A.I., 2013) calls Efrem Sirin in one of his works by Prof. A.I. Sidorov, but writes nothing about the dogmatic teaching of the saint. Let us move on to works on dogmatic theology. Nothing is said about the views of St. Ephraim the Syrian on the issue of interest to us from Archbishop Anthony (Amphiteatrov), Archbishop Philaret (Gumilevsky), Archpriest Nikolai Malinovsky. Bishop Sylvester (Malevansky) gives a link to Ephraim the Syrian’s “Sermon on the Suffering of the Savior” (Sylvester (Malevansky), Bishop of Kanevsky, p. 159), from which, unfortunately, one can only get a general idea of ​​the meaning of the Redemptive Sacrifice - that Christ was crucified for us and for our sake. Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) limits himself to the same text, quoting the following lines from it: “the impassive Master suffered for us, the only sinless one was crucified for us...; for us wicked Christ our Savior was put to death” (Makariy (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, p. 143). “The all-saving and all-conquering power of Christ’s cross is inspiredly described by the unsurpassed poet of bright Christian sadness - St. Ephraim the Syrian” (Collected Works, p. 174), writes St. Justin (Popovich) and offers several quotes from the works of the Syrian saint, none of which allows one to properly understand the meaning of the Redemptive Sacrifice in the understanding of St. Ephraim. As an example, let us cite part of one of them: “The Cross... enlightened the entire universe. He dispersed the darkness and brought back the light. He abolished idolatry flattery. He, from the west and the north, from the sea and the east, gathered peoples into a single Church, to a single faith and a single baptism, and bound them with love... With this holy weapon, Christ dissolved the all-consuming womb of hell and stopped the wicked lips of the devil” (Collected Works, p. 175). Thus, neither in the works on patrolology we examined above, nor in the works on dogmatic theology, almost nothing is said about Saint Ephraim the Syrian’s understanding of the dogma of the Atonement. Let's move on to probably the first and perhaps the only work in Russian theology dedicated separately to the dogmatic teaching of St. Ephraim the Syrian - “Some Features from the Teachings of St. Ephraim the Syrian” by Archpriest A. K. Sokolov, published in “Additions to the Works of St. Fathers" in 1849. Almost without a preface, the author proceeds to describe the views of St. Ephraim. Let's choose something that relates to our topic. So, Father Alexander gives quotes that talk about the various fruits of the Redemptive Sacrifice: a) about victory over death: “Death reigned over Adam because he transgressed the commandment, and imprisoned him and those born of him in graves as his captives. But the Lord showed His mercy, and He sent His Son, Who came and crushed the faiths of hell and brought our race back to life” (Sokolov A.K., archpriest, p. 111), “Desiring to crush death, Christ covered His immortal nature, and, becoming like (us) with death, crushed death” (Sokolov A.K., archpriest, p. 111); b) about the victory over the devil: “The devil, writes St. Ephraim, neither the Heavenly Powers, nor the Patriarchs, nor the Prophets could weaken; only Emmanuel... With the Cross he crushed Satan and all his power" (Sokolov A.K., Archpriest, p. 110), "The Prince of Darkness, says St. Ephraim in another place could not be defeated by any of the sons of men; only Emmanuel alone could drive out the prince of this century” (Sokolov A.K., archpriest, p. 110); c) about the deliverance of the forefathers from the prison of hell: “He, in the blood of His Covenant, delivered the prisoners from the ditch, having no water (Zech. 9, 11.) That is, He freed Adam and Eve, imprisoned in hell, where there is no life, and with His holy blood, which He poured out from His side on the cross of His Covenant, He brought them out of the ditch of destruction” (Sokolov A.K., archpriest, p. 110); d) about the healing of human nature: “Explaining the words of the prophet Zechariah about the high priest Jesus 3.4 St. Ephraim says: “according to his high priesthood, this Jesus is the image of Jesus Christ, the Word of God, who was ordained by God His Father, and was sent to be the great and faithful high priest of our confession (Heb. 3:1.2). And he became cleansing for us through the shedding of His blood (Rom. 3:25)... He took upon himself the sins of the whole world" (Sokolov A.K., archpriest, pp. 109–110); e) about the possible deification of human nature: "About the purpose and saving fruits of the incarnation of the Son of God, Saint Ephraim writes: “Light from the Light came to us and, illuminating us, led us to the Light. He came down to us, becoming like us, in order to make us like Himself. The Immortal descended to mortals, and having made them immortal, entered again to the Father"" (Sokolov A.K., archpriest, p. 109). We have already cited these lines above, only in a more abbreviated form, speaking about the work of Archpriest. G. Florovsky; f) about the resurrection and the granting of paradise to people: “Blessed is Christ, who humbled himself and voluntarily accepted death in order to return to Adam the inheritance of paradise, which he had lost. By Your Cross the lost descendants of Adam were redeemed, raised from the dust and became heirs of Your kingdom” (Sokolov A.K., Archpriest, p. 111). The fruits of the Redemption are more or less fully described in the following words of Ephraim the Syrian, quoted by Archpriest A.K. Sokolov: “We honor Thy Cross, O Christ,” says St. Ephraim in another place, the cross by which we are restored, resurrected, by which the dead are raised from their graves, and their bodies are clothed with glory. Glory to Thee, Who in the beginning created in Thy image and honored our nature, and in the last days redeemed through Thy Beloved Son” (Sokolov A.K., Archpriest, p. 111). It is interesting that among the quotes selected by Father Alexander that speak of the Redemptive Sacrifice, there is not a single one that mentions reconciliation with God, satisfaction with God’s truth. The thought arises that Saint Ephraim the Syrian did not write anything about this. The author of the first study in our theological literature devoted to the historical presentation of the dogma of the Atonement, priest John of Orfanitsky characterizes the views of St. Ephraim the Syrian as follows: “...The teaching of St. Ephraim the Syrian about redemption is a more reverent reflection on the deepest mystery of our salvation, rather than a logical penetration into its essence” (Historical presentation of dogma, p. 94). As an illustration, the researcher cites excerpts from the work of Saint Ephraim “On the Sufferings of the Savior,” which was also referred to, as we showed above, by Bishop Sylvester (Malevansky) and Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) and which, in fact, does not allow us to resolve the question that interests us: “Why is He, the Holy and Sinless Master, betraying himself? For having sinned in nothing, he was betrayed today. Come, and we will find out why Christ our Savior was betrayed. The Lord is betrayed for us, the wicked. Who wouldn't marvel? Who won't glorify? The slaves sinned, and the Lord was betrayed in order to free his sinners with his own death... The Lord... with meekness, voluntarily gave Himself into the hands of the wicked. And the lawless, having bound the Most Pure Lord, mocked Him, who bound the strong with insoluble bonds and freed us from the bonds of sin... Come, and you will know the excessiveness of generosity, the patience and mercy of the sweetest Lord. He had a good servant in the sweet paradise, and he, having sinned, was handed over to the torturers. But the Good One, seeing that he was weak in spirit, had mercy on the slave, took pity on him and gave himself up to be scourged for him... The impassive Master suffered for us, the One Sinless One was crucified for us... For us, the wicked, Christ, our Savior, was put to death. Understand, brother, what you hear means. The sinless God, the Son of the Most High, was given up for you” (Historical presentation of dogma, p. 94). Thus, we cannot glean anything particularly important on our topic from the book of Father John. Archpriest Valentin Asmus, in the appendix to the article “Archbishop Hilarion of the Trinity and Orthodox Theology,” gives a fairly large number of quotations from the Holy Scriptures and the works of the Holy Fathers to substantiate the truth of the traditional church teaching about the Redemptive Sacrifice, but among them there is not a single one belonging to St. Ephraim the Syrian. Finally, it is necessary to say about the website “Orthodoxy on the Redemption,” the authors of which have collected very extensive material from the patristic heritage, proving the truth of the church teaching about the Redemption, called by modernists the “legal” theory of the Redemption. Among the several quotations they selected from the works of Ephraim the Syrian, let us dwell on the two most valuable, proving that Saint Ephraim not only expressed poetic delight and gratitude to our Savior, but, like a number of other Holy Fathers, clearly and unequivocally expressed his dogmatic convictions about the Redemption, which completely coincide with the teachings of the Church. “Through this, most of all, He (Christ) shows His love in us, that is, through the Death that He endured for the sake of our sins. After all, if for the sake of our wickedness He died, then much more will He justify us with His Blood and save us from the wrath that will come at the end of the world. For if, when we were enemies (with God because of) for the sake of our works, God was reconciled with us through the Death of His Son, then how much more, at the very reconciliation, will He save us through His life? (collected works, vol. 4, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, ch. 5. In these words, Saint Ephraim expresses a very important thought about the wrath of God that prevailed over people after the Fall, about the state of enmity that lasted for centuries and about the reconciliation accomplished by Christ, which the modernist authors of various new understandings of the Redemption for the Church persistently reject. “Since our debts, as a result of falling away from God, surpassed all in their multiplicity, so that neither prophets, nor priests, nor righteous men, nor kings were able to blot them out, then the Son of God Himself, having appeared (on earth), became the captor of everyone everywhere and neither in the womb, nor at birth, nor in baptism did not destroy our debts until the one delivered to the Cross tasted death, so that His Death was equal to our guilt, for through it that which all creation was not sufficient to blot out was blotted out” (collected works, vol. 4, Commentary on the Four Gospels, chapter 21, Here in a few words: “and neither in the womb, nor at birth, nor in baptism did he erase our debts, until the one delivered to the Cross tasted death” - St. Ephraim the Syrian exposes Metropolitan Anthony of unbelief (Khrapovitsky) and supporters of the so-called “moral” theory of the Atonement, who placed Gethsemane instead of Golgotha at the center of our Redemption, and at the same time strikes a blow with one brilliant, precise phrase to the supporters of the so-called. “organic” theory of the Atonement: “His death was equal to our guilt, for through it was blotted out that which all creation was insufficient to blot out,” explaining that humanity was not only sick, but also immeasurably guilty before God, and only the death of Christ, the Theanthropic blood, could satisfy the righteousness of God. And in conclusion, let us quote from the work of Ephraim the Syrian, which, as far as we know, for some reason has not yet been used by anyone to defend the church teaching on the Atonement: Your sinful soul has been redeemed by the blood of the Son of God: because all the worlds could not be a sufficient price for you: the earth, and the sea, and everything that is on them is a small price in comparison with you. All the heavenly ranks, which are flame and spirit, did not accept death for your redemption. The Father gave up His beloved Son to death for you as a ransom price. He is the only begotten Son, but the Father did not spare Him and gave Him in your place. For the sake of your life, He gave over to death the Origin of all living things; He, before whom death trembles, the Father bound and cast into death; She nailed Him to the cross and wrote the handwriting of your debts with nails. Look at what price you have been redeemed! Do not be lost to the One who bought you! His life accuses your life if you live in sin; His death cries out against your death if you do the works of death. His precious blood cries out to the throne of the Divine that it was shed for you, and you are perishing from sin. He who bought himself a slave, if the one he bought dies, loses not only the slave, but also the price given for him. So the suffering and death of God from our negligence remain fruitless for us; because He gave Himself for your soul, but you were not delivered from death. He did not spare His beloved Son, but gave Him up to death for you; if you perish from sin, then you offend Him who redeemed you. With the price given for you—the suffering and death of God—death has been abolished. Since your soul was purchased for life, let not death destroy your life (E. Sirin, Holy Creation. Volume V, p. 38). With just one phrase about the death of Christ, which “wrote the handwriting of your debts with nails,” Saint Ephraim convincingly denies both the “moral” and “organic” theories, and the repeated use of the words “buy” and “price” speaks of the legitimacy of their use to express the dogma of the Redemption. Thus, we can conclude that the dogmatic teaching of St. Ephraim the Syrian about the Atonement, unfortunately, was not properly studied by Russian researchers (we won’t say anything about foreign ones), although it, as it turns out, is accurately and clearly expressed in his works and convincingly testifies to the truth of the traditional church understanding of the dogma of the Atonement. As Archpriest A.K. Sokolov beautifully noted, “The voice of Saint Ephraim in itself has great significance, as the voice of a God-enlightened witness to the truth (emphasis added by us. - I.R.). Let us add to this that in the works of Saint Ephraim, for the first time, the teaching of the Syrian Church is revealed to us in its own language. To hear the voice of the ancient Church, planted by the apostles in Edessa, - to hear those speaking (author's italics. - I.R.) in different languages, but in agreement and with one mind, the greatness of God (author's italics. - I.R.): - this brings a new conviction in the purity and Apostolic origin of the teachings we contain, - a new conviction against foolish and false teachings (emphasized us. – I.R.), which arose in ancient times and were repeated in later times.” Let the words of Saint Ephraim become another argument against modernist distortions of Orthodox doctrine. 1. Anthony (Amphiteatrov), Archbishop of Kazan. Dogmatic theology of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church. – St. Petersburg: Aksion estin, 2006. 2. Asmus V.V., archpriest. Archbishop Hilarion of Trinity and Orthodox theology. 3. Ephraim the Syrian // Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. 19. 4. Monk Vsevolod. The Path of the Holy Fathers. – M.: Pilgrim, 2007. 5. John (Popov), martyr. Works on patrolology: Holy Fathers of the 2nd-4th centuries. T. 1. – Sergiev Posad, 2004. 6. Historical presentation of the dogma of the Redemptive Sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ by the priest John of Orphan. – M., 1904. 7. Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. The Golden Age of Patristic Writing. – 2nd ed. – M., 1995. 8. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Orthodox dogmatic theology. – St. Petersburg: Aksion estin, 2006. 9. Malinovsky N.P., archpriest. Orthodox dogmatic theology. – St. Petersburg: Aksion estin, 2006. 10. Ortiz de Urbina Ignacio. Syrian patrol. Per. from lat. M. V. Gratsiansky. – M.: PSTGU Publishing House, 2011. 11. Orthodoxy about the Redemption. Sagarda A.I. Ancient Syriac church literature // Sagarda N.I., Sagarda A.I. A complete body of lectures on patrolology with applications. – 1st ed. – St. Petersburg: Resurrection, 2004. 12. Sylvester (Malevansky), Bishop of Kanevsky. Experience of Orthodox dogmatic theology with a historical presentation of dogmas. T. 4. – St. Petersburg: Aksion estin, 2006. 13. Sidorov A.I. The Golden Age of Ancient Syriac Asceticism (beginning of the 4th - mid-5th century) and Blessed Theodoret // Sidorov A.I. Patristic Heritage and Church Antiquities. T. 3. – M.: Sibirskaya blagozvonnitsa, 2013. 14. Sirin E., saint. Creations. Volume V. – M.: Russian Publishing Center named after St. Basil the Great, 2014. 15. Skurat K.E. Memoirs and works on patrolology (I-V centuries). – Yakhroma: Trinity Cathedral, 2006. 16. Collection of works of St. Justin (Popovich). Dogmatics of the Orthodox Church. Soteriology. Ecclesiology. T. 3. Alexandria and Antioch in the history of church writing and theology. – M.: Pilgrim, 2006. 17. Sokolov A.K., archpriest. Some features from the teachings of St. Ephraim the Syrian // Additions to the Works of St. Fathers. – 1849. – No. 8. 18. Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop of Chernigov and Nizhyn. Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church: In 3 vols. T. 2. - St. Petersburg, 1859. 19. Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop of Chernigov and Nizhyn. Orthodox dogmatic theology. – St. Petersburg: Aksion estin, 2006. 20. Florovsky G.V., archpriest. Eastern Fathers of the 4th Century. From readings at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. – Paris, 1931