Отделение пятое. Сын Божий – спаситель человека

§ 174. Contents of the teaching; in Jesus Christ the prophecies were fulfilled: a) about the time of the coming of the Messiah. The one who was promised by the goodness of the Heavenly Father for sinful people finally appeared on earth in the person of Jesus Christ. In Jesus Christ 1) all the prophesied features of the Messiah, the most specific ones, were fulfilled. 2) The Messiah is forced to see in Jesus the confession of Jesus and the faith of His best contemporaries. To see the fulfillment of the promises of the Messiah in the person of Jesus Christ, it is enough to point out the most remarkable of them 70. In Jesus Christ a) the prophecies were fulfilled, which indicated the time of the coming of the Messiah, aa) According to the prophecy of Jacob (Gen. 49:10), the Messiah was to come when Judah ceased to have its legislators and lost its significance. political people. The foreigner Herod, who killed Hyrcanus, the last legitimate high priest and leader of the Jews, ruled the Jews when Christ was born; and soon after the death of Jesus the Jewish people were scattered and ceased to be a political people; bb) according to the prophecy of Daniel (2, 44, 45), three strong kingdoms after Nebuchadnezzar should appear to the disgrace of the world, and then the spiritual and eternal kingdom will open. Kingdoms: Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, fell one after another; Several kingdoms were formed from the Alexandrian monarchy; and now the kingdom of Christ Jesus not made with hands crushes and embraces all earthly kingdoms, c) The number of weeks and their events were fulfilled with the death of Jesus (Dan. 9, 24–27). It is generally accepted that the count of weeks begins with the outcome of the royal word or with the decree on the restoration of Jerusalem, which followed in the 20th year of Artaxerxes Longiman (Nev. 2, 8, 18. Dan. 9, 25), since until that time the walls of Jerusalem stood in ruins (Neh. 1, 3). And the 20th year of Artaxerxes, according to chronologists, fell on 455 BC. Chr. and for 299 Rome. So, from 455, the end of 69 weeks or 483 years occurs in the year 782 of Rome and in the 15th year of the Emperor. Tiberias. And this is the very year in which Christ Jesus entered into his solemn ministry (Luke 3:1). The gospel sermon of Christ Jesus, according to the testimony of the gospel. John, indicating four Passovers in the ministry of Jesus, lasted three and a half years 71. At the end of the half-day, “Christ was killed,” as the prophet said (Dan. 9:26), and at the same time the legitimate use of educational sacrifices ended. 35 years later, while a new order of affairs was being established in people’s minds, the Jews, in the words of the Jew and eyewitness Flavius ​​himself, “carried out the prophecy against the fatherland; there was an ancient word that then the city would be taken and the holy thing would be burned by the law of war if there was indignation; and foreign hands will defile the sanctuary of God. The Zealots did not believe this, and yet they presented themselves as official persons” 72. After that, the people were scattered across the face of the entire earth, and no human efforts could and cannot return them to political existence. The Jews would like to make their material sacrifices, but they can no longer - when they do not have a church. The new covenant, which Jeremiah also prophesied (31, 31 - 34), was confirmed (Matt. 26, 28. 2 Cor. 3, 6. Heb. I, 6) 73. § 175. b) About the circumstances of the life of the Messiah The history of the birth, life, death of Christ Jesus, the consequences of His activity, can be described in the words of the ancient seers, how they described the circumstances of the life and death of the Savior of the world. a) Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, as prophesied by Isaiah (7, 14 Matt. 1, 18. 25) and as hinted at in the very first gospel about the Messiah (Gen. 3, 15). b) Jesus was born from the family of David (2 Sam. 7, 12. Matt. 1, 4. Luke 1, 27. 33. Acts 13, 23. Rom. 1, 3), but who had already lost his former glory and power, from the stump of Jesse (Is. 11, 1). Joseph, the betrothed of Mary, although a descendant of David, was already a carpenter, and Mary, the mother of Jesus, came from the same royal family, but was a poor, unknown Virgin 74. If Jesus, in accordance with the prophecies about the Messiah, is a descendant of David: then this also means that, in accordance with the prophecies, He is a descendant of Abraham through Judah, Jacob and Isaac (Matthew 1:4). c) Jesus was born in Bethlehem of the tribe of Judah, in accordance with the prophecy (Matt. 2, 1. Mic. 5, 2). d) The Forerunner John, an angel of strict and pure life, but with the spirit of Elijah, prepared people to accept His preaching (Mal. 3, 1. Mat. 17, 10. 11. Luke 1, 15). e) Jesus Christ led a modest and invisible life for people (Isa. 53:1). f) He was meek and so full of love that He was careful not to break the bruised reed, and His voice was not heard at the crossroads (Isa. 42. 2. 3. Mat. 11:29). And at the same time he performed amazing miracles (Isa. 25, b. Mat. 15, 30. 31. Luke 7, 17–22). g) He enlightened Israel with the Teaching, and especially the country of Zebulun and Nephalim saw His light (Isa. 11:1-9; 9:1). h) He enters Jerusalem as a king welcomed by the people, but in a humble form, sitting on a donkey’s colt (Zech. 99). i) His death was such as the death of the Messiah was depicted by the prophets, so that its most private features seemed to be taken from the prophets. It is valued at 30 pieces of silver, and this price passes from the church into the hands of the potter (Zech. 11, 12). The pagan princes together with the people gathered against Him (Po. 2:1). They accuse Him unlawfully, but He remains silent (Is. 53:8); They spit on Him, they hit Him on the cheeks, He suffers (Isa. 50:6). Like a sheep doomed to be slaughtered, it does not open its mouth (Isa. 53:7). They pierce His hands and feet on the cross (Ps. 21:17), and count him among the lawless (Is. 53:9.12; Luke 22.37). He melts away in agony, and his enemies mock Him blasphemously (Ps. 22:8, 9). The people make a disgrace out of Him (Ps. 21:5). In agony He cries out: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? (Ps. 22:1). They give Him gall for food and give Him vinegar to drink when He is thirsty (Ps. 68:22). They pierce His side (Zech. 12:10), cast lots for His clothing and divide among themselves (Ps. 21:19). They assign His grave with the wicked, but with the rich He finds His grave (Isa. 53:9). i) God the Father could not leave Him in the power of corruption. Jesus Christ has risen (Psalm 15:10; Acts 2:27). The Risen One sat down at the right hand of the Father (Psalm 109: 1.2, 7). And so the knowledge of Jehovah spreads throughout the whole earth (Isa. 11, 9. 1–3. John 1, 9. 3, 19. Acts 26, 18). The law is inscribed on the heart of the believing soul (Jer. 32, 37–40; Ezek. 36, 61). Through Abraham's seed all the nations of the earth are blessed (Gen. 12:3.22,18), Thus, the very prophecies point to Jesus as the Messiah. The fulfillment of the Old Testament images of the Messiah in the person of Jesus Christ makes clear the truth that Jesus is the Messiah. § 176. Evidence of the New Testament revelation It is strange to say, although others say 75 that the evidence in. covenants about Christ the Savior mean nothing to a Christian. This is strange also because I. Christ himself referred the Jews to the Scriptures. covenant as a clear testimony of Him. Test the Scriptures If they quickly believed in Moses, and quickly believed in Me; about Me there is more writing (John 5, 39. 48. Also Luke 18, 31 – 33; 24, 25. 27; Mat. 26, 54). Ap. Peter, pointing to the foundations of faith in Christ Jesus, speaks about himself and other witnesses of the greatness of Jesus and imams the most famous prophetic word. Then, turning to those who have accepted the same faith, he praises them for turning to this word as to a lamp shining in a dark place (2 Peter 1:16-19). Nevertheless, a Christian does not base his faith in Christ Jesus as the Savior of the world on the testimony of the Old Testament revelation alone. Jesus Christ, showing the Jews how the revelation known to them teaches them about Him, says that He has a testimony about Himself that is more important than the testimony of earthly witnesses, that the Father Himself who sent Him testifies about Him (John 5:34-37). The Heavenly Father more than once testified with a voice from heaven about Jesus: this is my beloved Son (Matthew 3:17; 17:5; John 12:28.29), and testified to the same with miracles. At the very announcement of the birth of Jesus, the angel called Mary and Joseph Jesus Savior precisely because He would save His people from their sins (Matthew 1:21; Luke 1:30–33). Jesus Christ Himself repeatedly confessed that He was the Messiah: He confessed in a conversation with the Samaritan woman (John 4:25.26), before the disciples of John (Matthew 1:2-8), before the apostles (Matthew 16:17-21), before the people who demanded that He confess about Himself (John 10:24.25; 9, 37. Mat. 22, 42), in prayer before his father (John 17, 4. 5), before the high priest, who adjured Him to tell the truth about Himself (Mat. 26, 63. 64). The testimony of Jesus about Himself is a completely undoubted testimony for us about His face. He knew where he came from and why; and His words and deeds show that He could speak only one truth. Jesus was recognized as the Messiah by the best of His contemporaries, illuminated by revelation. Such were the eastern wise men (Matthew 2:1) and the shepherds of Bethlehem (Luke 2:10.11). Zechariah saw in his spirit the forerunner of the Messiah in his son and said that he would give the people salvation for the remission of sins (Luke 1:76-79). The righteous Simeon was promised that He would not see death until He saw the Lord’s Christ, and when he saw Jesus, he rejoiced in Him as a light for the pagans, as the glory of Israel, and at the same time he called Him a stumbling block for many, an object of fierce sorrow for his mother (Luke 2:26-38). John the Baptist called Jesus the lamb who takes away the sins of the world (Joa 1:32–34. Matt. 21:25). The Jews connected with the name of the Messiah the concept of an earthly king, who should restore the political significance of the people of God (Joah 6, 14. 15. Mat. 21, 8. 9) and, if at the same time, be a great prophet - teacher; then only for the Jews. This concept of the Messiah was shared with others by the disciples close to Jesus, before they were enlightened by the spirit of God (Matthew 20, 20, 21 · Luke 24, 21 Acts 1, 6). But this unjust concept was denounced among the people and disciples by Jesus Christ Himself (Luke 17, 20. 21; 13, 29. John 6, 15. 18. 36–38. 10. 16. 4, 24. Matt. 21. 43). Especially the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, when Christ’s elect little by little became capable of bearing the mysteries of Jesus, fully revealed to them, and through them to all people, the glory of the Son of Man, pointed out in Jesus the Savior, destined not only for Jews, but also for pagans, a king not of the earth, but of the eternal. And in the teachings of the apostles, the name of the Messiah - Jesus, after that became the name of the only enlightener and Savior of the world (φώς χοσμο, σωτήρ). (Acts 2, 25. 36. 9, 22. 10, 36. 43. 26, 23, 28, 23. Pet. 1, 11. John 5, 1. John 20, 31) 76 § 177. Need and content of teaching When revelation revealed in Jesus the Redeemer of the world, determined by the Heavenly Father, should not sinner man turn with all his attention to this only Savior given to men and consider: who is this Jesus in himself? The Holy Apostles showed us that a Christian needs to have true knowledge of the face of Christ Jesus (1 John 4, 2. 3. 2 John v. 7. 2 Peter 2, and). The question about the face of Christ Jesus includes the following specific questions: 1) was He who came to earth to redeem people a true man, the same as all people? 2) Was He only a man, or was he also God? 3) If He is both man and God: is humanity and Divinity united in Him into one person? and 4) How far did the union of the Godhead with humanity extend in Jesus Christ? Only one revelation can answer all these questions, since He, in Whom the promises of the Redeemer were fulfilled, Himself proclaimed: no one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the Son will be revealed to him if the Son wills (Matt. 11, 27. ff. 1 Cor. 12, 3. Mat. 16, 17. Mark 9, 39). Therefore, first of all, we must carefully consider the teaching of the word of God about the person of Jesus Christ. Then, since the dogma about the person of Jesus Christ was the subject of many disputes, let us consider how the church, in the struggle with different opinions, preserved the revealed truth, clarifying it for its children according to the needs of the time. After this, reason can only demand that frank dogma does not contradict the cognitive and practical needs of human beings 77 § 178. Christ Jesus – true man Holy Scripture clearly depicts Jesus Christ as a true man with a human body and soul. a) It calls Him a man άνθρωπον, άνδρά (1 Tim. 2, 5. Acts 17, 31. John 8, 40. Rom. 5, 15. 19. 1 Cor. 15, 21), another Adam (1 Cor. 15, 45. Rom. 5:14), and people are His brothers (Heb. 2:11 – 14). It also historically speaks of His origin in the flesh, namely, it shows that He was the Son of the Virgin Mary (Luke 1, 31. 42. 2, 5. 7. 1 John 4, 2), a descendant of David, Judah, Abraham, etc. (Matthew 1, Luke 1, 32. 3, 23. Rom. 9, 5) took on a nature not of angels, but of human: when the end of the summer had come, God sent his only begotten Son, born of a woman (Gal. 4, 4). He did not receive from an angel, but from the seed of Abraham (Heb. 12, 16).-In the Apostle (Phil. 2:7), the image of a servant, the likeness of man does not mean a denial of the real humanity in Jesus, but a voluntary deprivation of the glory befitting the Son of God; This is how the apostle himself explains himself (2: 6–8). b) In particular, revelation ascribes to Jesus Christ a true human body σαρξ or σάρξ και άιμα. Rome. 1, 3. Onion. 24, 39. Heb. 2, 14. Mat. 2:24), and tells that He took flesh from the Virgin Mary (Matthew 1:18-25), how a man was circumcised (Luke 2:21), came to age (Luke 2:42.52.3,23), was hungry and thirsty (Matthew 4:2; 21:18), took food and drink (Luke 4:2.5, 29. John 2, 2. 12, 2), suffered fatigue (John 4, 6) and slept (Luke 8, 23), endured the suffering of the cross: His head was wounded by thorns, his hands and feet were pierced with nails, his side was pierced by a spear (John 19, 17. 18. 34). He died and was buried (Luke 23:52). All this speaks so clearly about the actual acceptance of human flesh by the Savior of the world that one must abandon the human meaning if even after that one thinks that the Savior of the world was not with earthly flesh, or only with ghostly flesh. Finally up. John pronounces the following sentence: every spirit who does not confess Christ in the flesh is not from God, and this one is Antichrist (1 John 4:3). This sentence falls on all dreamers, both on the Docetes, who allowed only a ghostly body in Jesus Christ, and on the dreamers of the new time, the Hegelians, who turn the historical personality of the Savior into a ghost. If Christ is called a heavenly man, while Adam is an earthly man (1 Cor. 15:47.48): then “he is called a heavenly man not because He brought a body from heaven, but because the Word, being God, descended from heaven and became like us 78. c) Holy Scripture attributes a human soul to Jesus Christ; for he speaks of His spiritual joys (John 11:15.2.i), about the actions of the will (John 2:13; Matt. 11:21; Luke 22:62; Phil. 2:8); Luke 22, 40–44). Finally, he speaks directly about the soul and about its surrender to God at the moment of death (Luke 23, 46. Mat. 26, 38. 50. John 10, 15. 17). So the Redeemer of the world, Christ Jesus, is a true man, with human soul and flesh. § 179. Advantages of the humanity of Jesus However, revelation, at the same time as it portrays Jesus Christ as a true man, shows in Him the advantages that distinguish His humanity from the other sons of Adam. And a) according to the depiction of scripture, Jesus Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, without a father, through the action of the Holy Spirit. The Archangel, preaching (Luke 1:28–38) about the birth of Jesus to the betrothed Virgin Mary, says that she will conceive the Son of the Most High (vv. 28–34); Surprised Maria says: what will this be like, I don’t know about my husband? A νδρά ϫ γίνώσχω. ϫ γινωσκω expresses the state not only in the present, but in the past and future, just as in the mouths of John’s disciples - νηςενομεν (Matthew 3:14). Ау δ р α ϫ γινωσκω . but we don’t read: τον ανδρα or τον ανδρα μοδ. Track. The virgin does not understand her husband Joseph, or any husband in general, and speaks of her state in which she cannot be childbearing at all. refers to the vow of virginity. The archangel opens: σόι. – Here the same action of the Holy Spirit is shown as it was then, as He hovered life-giving over the original substance of the world. This action, according to the archangel, will replace the participation of the husband. Track. The Son of the Most High - Jesus, according to the angel, is such a Son who was born from a wife without a husband, under the influx of the Holy Spirit. Then the archangel strengthens Mary’s faith by the example of Elizabeth and the thought of the omnipotence of God (Luke 1: 25 – 38). Track. again makes it clear that Jesus will be the Son of the Most High. In the same way!, the angel says to Joseph, Mary’s betrothed: do not be afraid to accept your wife Mariam, for what is born of her from the Spirit is holy. The Evangelist narrates: betrothed to His former mother Mary Joseph, who had never even dreamed of it before, was found possessed by the Holy Spirit; further he says: without knowing her (Joseph Mary), Dandezh gave birth to her first-born son. According to the angel, the conception was accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit. According to the evangelist’s narrative, Mary turned out to be pregnant, while Joseph did not have marital intercourse with her, or according to St. expression, did not sleep with her - (Gen. 29,25,30); she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit, according to the action of the Holy Spirit. Spirit. Joseph did not know her, did not have marital cohabitation with her, both before the angelic gospel and until the very birth of his son. The Evangelist (Matthew 1:18–25), in explanation of this extraordinary event, cites the words of the prophet: behold, the Virgin will receive with child. Track. shows that not only according to his narration, but also according to prophetic revelation, Mary the Mother of Jesus is an immaculate Virgin, and if she is at the same time a Mother, then by the action of the Holy Spirit. Let us also note that St. Matthew, presenting the genealogy of I. Christ, ends it completely differently than how he began and continued. After he said: Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob, etc., finally he says: Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, from a stranger Jesus was born (v. 18). He did not say: Joseph gave birth to Jesus, as he said about others; he lets those see that Jesus was born of a Virgin without the participation of a husband. Just as remarkable and with exactly the same meaning are the expressions of St. Luke in the genealogy of Christ Jesus. The genealogy began by calling Jesus only the imaginary son of Joseph, but it ended like this: God’s, i.e. son (Luke 3:23.38). Ap. Paul also taught: “God sent his Son, who was born of a woman,” but not of a husband (Gal. 4:4). b) Another advantage of Jesus’ humanity, according to the teachings of revelation, was its freedom from hereditary corruption. The Apostle teaches: God sent His Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and judged sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). The flesh, human nature, assumed by the Son of God, was only similar (εν δμ᾿ώματί) to our sin-loving, sin-prone flesh (σορκος αμαρτια ϛ, and not αμαρτηματο ϛ § 140.); track. it was not as spoiled as ours; In order to condemn the guilt of our flesh through suffering, He accepted sinless humanity. This is how the words of the apostle are explained by the church fathers 79. The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will shower you: likewise, what is to be born holy will be called the Son of God, said the holy angel. Virgin (Luke 1:35). With words about the influx of St. The Spirit resolved the Virgin’s bewilderment: what will this be like, even if I don’t know my husband? The words: by the same thing that is born holy, the Son of God will be called, show a special consequence of the same influx of heaven. What is born is holy - γεννώμενον άγιον and by the very letter means the birth of a holy, such a born, which in its essence has nothing unclean, is completely holy both in soul and in body and has not taken anything unclean from the outside; this is the Son of God. This is the meaning of the generation of a saint and the connection of thoughts. If Jesus was born from a Virgin, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then it is natural to expect that he was born pure and immaculate. The power of the Spirit of God helped the barren wombs of Sarah and Elizabeth in birth; but since the spoiled seed of the husband also participated there, the children of the spoiled Adam were born. The Holy Spirit alone was at work here. and a pure, holy generation appeared 80. c) According to the teaching of the word of God, Christ Jesus was free from all personal sin. He was a pure and blameless lamb (Matthew 1:19), a lamb who knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21), otherwise sinless ( Isa. 59, 8). He committed no sin and there was no flattery in His mouth (1 Peter 2:22). There is no sin in Him (1 John 3:5). I was tempted in everything, except sin (Heb. 4:1.5). The tempter tempted Him, but was defeated by Him (Matthew 4:1-11). His enemies could not convict Him of any wrongdoing (John 8:46; Mat. 26:59.60). He is δικαιος -righteous (1 John 2:1) οσιος -holy (Heb. 7:26). He freely testified of Himself that He was completely submissive to the will of the Heavenly Father (John 8, 20; 10, 17. 18; 14, 31. Luke 22, 42). And the apostle says that He was obedient to His Father all his life, to the point that he suffered death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). When we were looking for an answer to the question about the personality of the Godhead, we saw the clear and detailed instruction of revelation that among the three hypostases of the one God, the second person is the Son of God. The teaching about Christ Jesus poses another question: does revelation say that the Son of God took upon Himself the work of redeeming people? Otherwise, is Christ Jesus only the son of man, although not an ordinary one, or is He the true Son of God? If the sayings that speak of the glory of the Son of God as the true God, refer to the Son of God as the Redeemer of the world, speak directly about Christ Jesus: then the deity of Jesus Christ is undoubtedly 81. And there are many such places. Let us present here those of them which, speaking of divine glory, would clearly and directly relate to Jesus Christ. The Apostle, speaking about the advantages of the Jews, teaches: from them is Christ according to the flesh, who is God blessed above all forever (Rom. 9:5). And he teaches: for in this dwells all the fulfillment of the physical deity (Col. 2:9). Let this be understood in you, even in Christ Jesus, who did not become equal to God by admiration, but made Himself lesser (Phil. 2:5.6). What these sayings say about the divine glory is already known to us (§ 46, 47); and that the apostle attributes this glory to Christ Jesus is shown by his clear words about Christ. Trace. Christ Jesus, according to the apostle, is the true God. The great mystery of godliness is that God appeared in the flesh (Tim. 3:16), this is what the apostle says, speaking about the appearance of Christ Jesus on earth. In addition, in St. The Scriptures clearly assimilate to Christ Jesus the divine attributes, as well as the actions of the deity and the worship befitting the true God. a) Divine properties are attributed to Christ Jesus: aa) omnipotence. Christ Jesus Himself speaks of Himself: yes, see that the son of man has power on earth to forgive sins, saying to the weak: I say to you, arise (Mark 2:11), and I will give them eternal life, and they will not perish in the age, and no one will snatch them from My hand (John 10, 28. § 44); bb) eternity. And now You glorify Me, Father, with the glory that I had with You, before the world was not (John 17:5); c) omniscience or knowledge equal to the knowledge of God the Father: as the Father knows Me, and I know the Father, and I give My life for the sheep (John 10:15:22); omnipresence: no one ascends into heaven except the Son of Man who came down from heaven and is in heaven (John 3:13). b) Jesus Christ is credited with divine actions and worship equal to God the Father. Christ Jesus Himself speaks of Himself: My Father works hitherto, and I work... The Father judges no one, but he gives all judgment to the Son, 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 (John 5:17.22.23). § 181. Jesus Christ is the God-man, one person When revelation showed us that Jesus Christ is a true man and true God, then although we can after that call Him the God-man; but it still remains unresolved: are humanity and divinity united in Him, as in a single hypostasis? Otherwise, it remains to determine that humanity and divinity were so united in Him that everything that happened in the God-man took place in the consciousness of a single conscious, humanity and divinity were not under the control of two persons, but humanity was accepted into the unity of the personality of the deity. The theologian depicts the union of divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ as follows: the Word, which was from eternity with the Father, by whom all things were created, which is God, quick flesh (σαρξ εγένετο). The flesh, meaning for the apostle primarily the visible side of human nature (1 John 4:2), does not exclude the invisible, but is also used to mean the entire weak human nature (John 7:2; Acts 2:17; Mat. 24:22; Gen. 6:12). So the Word becoming flesh also means that the Word God became man; and this latter cannot be understood otherwise than that the Word and man, or God and man in Christ Jesus, are one person. What the evangelist further says about the Word confirms confidence in the shown meaning of the words: The Word became flesh: and dwelt in us - έσκήνωσεν εν ημτν Εκην ϫ ν - Heb. scbacar means to live, to dwell in the booth (Gen. 13, 12. 7. Judg. 8, 11), and in other cases it is used about the dwelling of the intelligent spirit in the mortal body (2 Cor. 5, 4. Wis. 9, 5). Εν, means between (Luke 22, 24. Acts 2, 29.). Track. the theologian teaches that a) the word did not appear instantly, but dwelt among people, lived and acted; b) that it dwelt in human nature - as in a bush, having assimilated human nature in the unity of consciousness. The ap. expresses himself in a similar way about the Messiah Jesus. Pavel; he writes: a) (Phil. 2, 7, 8) two thoughts are clearly visible in these words: firstly, the thought of unity faces in Jesus Christ. If there were two separate hypostases in Christ: the apostle would not have said that the one who is in the image of God took on the form of a servant; the same one, who does not consider it robbery to be equal with God, has diminished himself by becoming a man. Another thought in the words of the apostle: in the image of God he took on the form of a servant, took on human nature in the unity of his face, He humbled himself, He became like a man, God humbled himself; becoming a man and acting like a man. So the complete thought of the apostle is this: in Jesus Christ there are not two persons, but one, - the deity took human nature into its single personality, b) According to other images of the apostle (Gad. 4. 4.) ό ϒ ιός τό θεδ. γενόμενος εκ γυνακός, γενόμενος υπό νόμον, the Son of God born of a “woman, was under the law” (Rom. 1.3.); ϒ ιός θεδ γενόμενος εκ σπέρματος Δαβίδ κατά σάρκα -The Son of God according to the flesh was born of the seed of David, or: (Rom. 9:5) Εκ ών (Иϫ δαίω и) о Χριςός το κατά σαρκά, ό ών επί: πάντων θεός, ευλογητός έις τδτ αιώνας, from the Jews came Christ in the flesh, blessed God over all forever. Combining these images we see that a) the Son of God and God blessed forever are one and the same. But b) the Son of God was born of a woman, came from the seed of David, or from the Jews, and lived under the law. Track. one and the same person appears with divine and human nature, and this person, this God-man is Jesus Christ. Finally, Jesus Christ himself says about Himself: I departed from the Father and came into the world, and again I leave the world and go to the Father (John 16:28). Of course, He said this about Himself, not as a person; as a divine person, He came into the world, took upon Himself humanity and again returned to the Father; track. He is God and man; track. in Him the deity took human nature into a unity of consciousness. He prayed to the Father: and now glorify Me, O Father, You with the glory that I had with You, before the world was not (John 17:5). The Eternal is without a doubt a divine person, and, like God, is always clothed with glory; and therefore, if he prays for the glorification of Himself, then for the glorification of His humanity. So He is both man and God - one and the same Christ Jesus. Thus, according to the teaching of revelation aa) in Jesus Christ there are two natures - divine and human - He is the God-man; bb) the union of natures in Christ is called in Scripture either the appearance of God in the flesh - in human nature, or the adoption of the human image, or the origin of the Son of God from a woman, or the descent of God into the world, or the action of the Son of God in the form of a servant, c) according to the meaning of these expressions, the union in Christ of divinity and humanity is a real and personal union, a union in which the deity accepted human nature in the unity of its consciousness or personal existence. § 182. Image of the union of divinity with humanity in Jesus Christ How far the union of divinity with humanity in Jesus Christ extends, revelation does not so much clearly determine to us as it clearly shows the reality of the union; and this, of course, is due to the nature of the object itself, which it calls a mystery (1 Tim. 3:16). However, revelation does not leave us without instructions on this subject. And 1) according to the meaning of revealed teaching, it is necessary to confess that two natures are united in Jesus Christ without any transformation of deity into humanity, or humanity into deity. The deity did not suffer any change due to the property of its immutability: the word became flesh and dwelt in us - “dwelt among us” (John 1, I). Christ is the image of the invisible God (Col. 1:10), in Him dwells all the fullness of divinity bodily” (Col. 2:9), in human nature - (Phil. 2:7). Divine self-knowledge became in Him the consciousness of human nature. 82 Human nature did not suffer a change in Him, because otherwise Jesus would not have been a true man, and by the way, His death and resurrection would have been inexplicable. Moreover, the union of natures in Christ is nowhere in Scripture called transformation or fusion, but is directly called the acceptance of humanity by the deity (Phil. 2:7) μορφή δουλ ϫ ελαβε. 2) поскольку же соединение двух естеств во Христе не означает слияния их ; then this connection, of course, does not exclude the actions inherent in one and the other nature, placing only the actions of humanity in subordination to the divine. Revelation shows that a) the sufferings that the Son of man suffered were not suffered without the participation of the power of the Son of God (Acts 20:28), b) for the eternal glory, which the Son of God had from eternity, the Son of man labored in time (Heb. 5:8.9) and humbled Himself to the death of the cross, the Son of God (Phil. 2:8.9), c) while in time the power of the Son of God only strengthened the weak nature of the Son of man, in eternity it will be fully revealed in humanity itself (Eph. 1, 20 - 22. John 17, 5). 3) The union of two natures in Christ, not excluding the actions of one and the other nature, thereby points to two wills operating in Jesus, under the unity of the conscious. E!u thought clearly offers revelation. The Savior prays before suffering: let the cup pass by from Me, and adds: both ways, not as I will, but as You will (Matthew 26:39), not My will, but Yours be done (Luke 22:42). Another time He confessed: I came down from heaven, not to do My will, but the will of the Father who sent Me (John 6:38). The will of the Son of God is the will of the Father: and therefore when the Son says to the Father: not My will, but Thine be done; then allows one to see in oneself the human will, apart from the divine will 83. 4) Since, according to the teaching of revelation, human and Divine nature are united as branches in a single person - the God-man Jesus: then revelation, as a result of this connection, recognizes the intercommunication of the properties of both natures in Jesus Christ. a) It assimilates completely different and even opposite properties to Christ our intercessor. So revelation says about Christ that He was rich and poor (2 Cor. 8:9), was visible flesh (John 1:14.18); calls Him the head of life and says that He was killed (Acts 3:15). The redemption of the human race is attributed to both Jesus God (Col. 1:14–16, 1 John 3:8) and Jesus the man (1 Tim. 2:5). Revelation itself b) assimilates human properties to the Divine nature of Christ Jesus; The deity itself cannot suffer, cannot feel needs and infirmities, but having united personally with humanity, it, according to the image of revelation, endured all our infirmities and experienced our poverty. Even if the Son also became accustomed to obedience even after suffering (Heb. 5:8.2.18; 4:18). The Lord and God acquired the church with His blood (Acts 20:28). c) According to the teaching of revelation, the judgment of the world was handed over to the Son of man (John 5:22.27), authority was given to Him both in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:20). He was glorified after the resurrection with eternal glory (John 17:3; Heb. 7:26), so that every tribe should worship the name of Jesus (Phil. 2:10; John 5:22). This shows that the humanity of Jesus is accepted by the deity into the fellowship of eternal power and glory. However, 5) revelation does not allow us to present the mutual communication of the properties of deity and humanity in Christ Jesus in such a way as if these properties were transformed into the essence of one or another nature: for if the union of deity with humanity in Jesus does not mean the application one nature into another; then the communion of properties does not mean their merging, so that the essential properties of humanity become the essential properties of deity, or vice versa. The humanity of Jesus, through the bodily communion of the deity with it, is clothed with the glory of the eternal; but humanity acquired at the same time only what it could accept and hence omnipresence does not belong, contrary to the opinion of the Lutherans, to the humanity of Jesus (John 11, 14. 15. 7, 8. 4, 3. Mat. 28, 5. 6. Mark 16, 6) 84. Worship of God is given to the glorified God-man, but not to humanity (Phil. 2:8), and it cannot be said of the deity in the strict sense that it suffered, but the God-man suffered. § 183. The consequence of the union of man with divinity in Jesus Christ in relation to the Mother of Christ Jesus: a) She is the Ever-Virgin From the union of humanity with divinity into one person in Jesus Christ, special consequences flow in relation to the blessed Mother of Christ Jesus. Следствий этих два: 1) преблагословенная Мария есть св. Ever-Virgin; 2) She is the Mother of God. Regarding the first, we have already seen (§ 177) that, according to Mary herself, She was a Virgin before the heavenly message about the birth of Her Son, and according to the answer of the archangel to Mary, the birth of Her Son is a birth without the participation of a husband, trace. without violating holy virginity (Luke 1:35); They also saw that Joseph was told about Mary’s conception as something that had happened through the action of the Holy Spirit; otherwise, it was announced that Mary would observe immaculate virginity both before Christmas and at Christmas (Matthew 1:19.20). And according to the narration of the Evangelist Matthew, St. How Mary conceived St. birth in St. virginity, and remained an untouchable Virgin during the birth of her first-born Son (Matthew 1:18.25). The evangelist, in explaining the extraordinary state of Mary, pointed to the prophecy of Isaiah: behold, all things have come to pass, that what was spoken by the prophet might be fulfilled, saying: behold, a virgin shall be with child and give birth to a Son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, as we say: God is with us (Matthew 1:23; Isaiah 7:14). Prophetic alma, replaced in the LXX translation by the word η·παρθένος. means, in the strict sense, a maiden, a maiden not by age alone, but also by state of virginity. a) For the production of alma from alam. what it means to hide means hidden: and this indicates the Eastern custom, which did not allow virgins to appear in society before marriage and strictly protected virgin purity with supervision in the parental home. Henceforth the virgins were called differently as prisoners (2 Mac. 3:19. 3 Mac. 1:15). b) In the native Phoenician language, as Jerome noted 85, alma also means a virgin in the strict sense, c) In other six places of scripture, the word alma is also used to mean a virgin (Gen. 24, 43, Isa. 28, Ps. 67, 26, Songs 1, 2, 6,7, Prov. 30, 19). d) Finally, according to the very meaning of the prophetic words, it is necessary to combine with the word alma the meaning of maiden - virgin. The Prophet announces to the King and the people about the greatest sign that God will give them: and behold, the Lord will give you a sign: behold, a virgin will receive with child. If the one giving birth is not a virgin, then what would be the sign? If a baby is born in an ordinary way: then where is the miracle? And so, according to the prophecy of the prophet, the Matter of Christ the Messiah could be no other than a pure and immaculate Virgin. The virgin will conceive and the virgin will give birth to the Son Emmanuel, says the prophet. Track. not only before birth, but also at birth itself, the Mother of Emmanuel is a Virgin Thus, in the clear words of St. Scripture confirms the consequence of the extraordinary person of Christ in relation to the state of the most blessed Mary before the birth and at the birth of Christ Jesus; that is, Her holy virginity both before and at Christmas remains above all doubt. Did the most blessed Mother of Christ Jesus remain a Virgin after Christmas? If the betrothed Joseph fully knew how wonderfully Mary remained a Virgin even then, how Matter became, then we must assume that Joseph was not righteous, but too daring, so that he would dare to violate her virginity after the birth of the Son. The experience of Mary, who gave birth to Jesus without seed, showed the mind of the God-fearing Joseph that the purpose of Mary’s betrothal to him, according to the dispensation of the Most High, was not at all to give birth to children, but only to protect the Holy One. Virgin from everything hostile to St. her soul. The most blessed Mother of God could not help but see this, could not help but fulfill it even more than Joseph, since the sanctification of virginity by the Holy Spirit took place over her and in her. and she was so high in her reverent humility that, even at the most wonderful exaltation of her fate, she saw in herself nothing more than the servant of the Lord (Luke 1:39). - The miraculous circumstances that followed the birth of Christ Jesus were also supposed to arouse and nourish in both Mary and Joseph reverence for the mystery that took place over the Virgin Mary. We have already seen (§ 177) by the clear recognition of Mary herself that before the archangel’s gospel she was not only a virgin, but a vowed virgin, a virgin who vowed to the Lord to preserve her virginity throughout her life (Luke 1:39). Was this vow resolved by the birth of a son? Not only was he resolved more than once, but he was even more sanctified by him, since the miraculous birth did not violate virginity and, by preserving virginity, confirmed the holiness of the vow. The Evangelist says about Joseph: without knowing her, she gave birth to her first-born son (Matthew 1:25). They think that here the evangelist, both with the word: firstborn, makes it clear that Mary and Joseph had other children after the firstborn Jesus, and with the expression: without knowing her, until the birth, shows that the virgin birth of Jesus was followed by the marriage of Joseph and Mary. But the expression: V04; ωτ ϫ means only an indefinite duration of the state and is equivalent to the expression never. For example, when it is said: the raven did not return until the earth dried up (Gen. 8:7): this does not mean that the raven returned to Noah in the ark, while dry land appeared; for then Noah was not in the ark. (Also 2 Kings 6, 23. Gen. 28, 15. 1 Tim. 1, 13). In any case, ϵ ως ϫ only then does not completely exclude from the circle of reality the state it concerns, when the connection of speech allows for the reality of it. Regarding Joseph and Mary, not only does nothing show that after the birth of Jesus they lived in a marital union, but, as already said, everything shows the preservation of the virginity of the saint. Virgin to the grave. The name: προτοτο ϗ ος actually means only the one who was born first, even if another was not born after him. The angel struck the firstborn - προτοτοχ ϫ ς - Egyptian and among them, of course, those who were only begotten firstborn (Ex. 12:29). – God commanded that the firstborn of Israel be dedicated to Him and, of course, not only those who had brothers and sisters, which in relation to many parents would not even mean a sacrifice (Ex. 13, 2. 22, 29). They say: according to the evangelical and apostolic testimonies, Christ Jesus had brothers and sisters (Matt. 12, 46. 48. 28, 10. John 2, 12. 7, 3. 5. Acts 1, 11.) and namely the brothers James, Josiah, Simon, Judas (Matt. 13, 55. Mark 6, 3. Gal.. 1, 19). And hence they draw a conclusion against the ever-virginity of Mary. But a) the name of brother, Greek αδελφότ, Hebrew ach, does not always mean a brother, but often a relative in general. b) Brothers James, Josiah, Simon and Judas, they are also the apostles (Matt. 10, 2. Mark 3, 18. Luke 6, 15. Acts 1, 13), according to the clear testimony of the evangelists, were children of Mary (Matt. 28, 46. Mark 13, 40); and this Mary was the sister of the Mother of Christ the Lord and the husband of Cleopas, otherwise called Alpheus (John 19, 25), since the evangelist does not know another Mary Magdalene and Mother of Christ (Matthew 27, 81. 28, 1). So these children of Cleopas and Mary Cleopas were rightfully called brothers of Christ the Lord, only they were not His own, but His cousins. c) Adding to this what is said about the brothers or sisters of Christ Jesus nowhere in the present day. the covenant does not say, and if there were such, it would no doubt be said about them, as well as about cousins, we draw the correct conclusion that in the testimonies of n. covenant, not only are there no persons who would speak against Mary’s ever-virginity, but there is silence n. the covenant about the brothers and sisters of Jesus, with a clear reminder of cousins, serves as a confirmation of faith in the ever-virginity of the blessed Virgin Mary. § 184. 6) St. Mary the Mother of God Another dogmatic thought about the Mother of Christ the Lord, which is in connection with the thought about the face of Christ Jesus, concerns calling her the Mother of God - θεότοχοτ. If the Son of God, the true God, in his incarnation took on human nature into the unity of his divine personality: then the most blessed Virgin, who gave birth to the divine person, or God incarnate, is by all rights the Mother of God. The last thought is the strictest, most certain consequence of the first thought. And only he can deny the justice of calling the Mother of Christ Jesus the Mother of God, who is infected with heretical thoughts about the face of Christ Jesus, who does not recognize the true God in Him. In order not to remain only with our own conclusions, let us consider those passages of scripture that most closely relate to our subject. Behold, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a Son, and they will call His name Immanuel, as it is said: God is with us. This is what the ancient prophet said (Isa. 7:14) and his words, according to the instructions of the new revelation, were fulfilled at the birth of Christ Jesus. She will give birth to a son whose name is Emmanuel - God is with us. Since the prophet also has a face called the Mighty God, the Eternal Father (Isa. 8), the name Emmanuel means not only that God’s help, God’s grace is with us, but that it is with us true God, or the incarnate God is born. So, doesn’t the prophet literally express that the Mother of the Messiah is the Mother of God who gives birth to God? Righteous Elizabeth, upon meeting the blessed Virgin, is filled with the Holy Spirit and says: Where do I get this from, so that the Mother of my Lord may come to me (Luke 1:43)? Without explanation, it is clear that Elizabeth calls St. Virgin Matter of the Lord, or what is also the Matter of God. And this was while the Virgin Mother was still carrying the baby Jesus in her womb. It was, as the evangelist directly says, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and so on. not by simple reflection, or not by the simple delight of Elizabeth’s feelings. She says what the Holy Spirit taught her. So the name of the Mother of God is the name inspired by God; The name of the Mother of God is the exact name of the Mother of Jesus, since even in her womb her Son is the Lord God. The Apostle says: from them is Christ according to the flesh, who is God blessed above all forever (Rom. 9:5). God sent His Son, born of a woman (Gal. 4:4). -According to these words, Christ, who came from the Jews in the flesh, born of a woman, is the Son of God, blessed God forever. And therefore the wife from whom Christ was born gave birth to the Son of God, the blessed God, and so on. in the exact sense there is the Mother of God. Let us also note that the apostle did not say: born through a woman (διαγιναι ϗ ος), but from a wife, thereby expressing that the Son of God was really born in the flesh from a woman and even in the blessed womb accepted human nature into the knowledge of his Divine personality. Track. The apostle with particular precision instills the idea of ​​the Mother of Christ Jesus as the true Mother of God. § 185 Church teaching about the person of Jesus Christ a) before the appearance of Nestorius The church always contained the revelation of the teaching about the face of Jesus Christ in the same way, but paid attention first to one side or the other of this teaching, in accordance with the needs of the time. Henceforth, the periods of its teaching are determined by the appearance of Nestorius and the Reformation). Before the appearance of Nestorius, the church first denounced, on the one hand, the Judaizing Christians (Ebionites and others like them), who saw in Jesus nothing more than an ordinary man, although born in an unusual way, on the other hand, various Gnostic sects who appropriated to Jesus Christ either only a dreamy body (like the prepetites, Manichaeans, etc.), or a body not earthly, but heavenly (like Valentin ) 86 Thus, during the first three centuries, the subject of periodic questions of inquisitiveness was the reality of the union of the Divinity with humanity in Jesus Christ, and not the degree of this union 87 . Arius filled the entire fourth century with disputes about the personal existence of the Son of God, and only at the end of this century Apollinaris, carried away by disputes with Arianism, too sharply and arbitrarily expressed the union of the Divine with humanity in Jesus Christ, leaving in the God-Man only bodily life - without the human mind, for which he was convicted 88 . Therefore, in the church teaching of the first four centuries we do not see such precise definitions about the degree of union of the Divine with humanity in Jesus Christ, which were made after the appearance of Nestorius. In the words of the Theologian they said: about λόγοτ σάρξ έγένετο, or-vere Deus et vere homo; the very union of natures was called ένσάρχωσις, ένσωμάτωσις, ένωσις, and some even used the expressions - συγγ ϗ ρασις, ϗ αταμιξαι 89, commistio, mixtura, misceri 90. However, as with the last expressions they wanted to show only the close communication of the Divine with humanity in Jesus Christ, why did they replace them with the words - communio, ενωσις, άναλήψις: so the expression άνθρώπησις shows that the union of humanity with the Divine was not extended to just one part of the human nature, but for all nature, without destroying the actions of Divine or human nature. In general, the inaccuracy of expressions found in some teachers does not prevent us from seeing that in Jesus Christ the Divinity and humanity with their actions were always distinguished, and they always recognized in him a close, personal union of created and uncreated nature 91 ״. St. Ignatius taught: “there is one physician, carnal and spiritual, born and unborn, God revealed in the flesh, both from Mary and from God” 92 . St. Hippolytus wrote in denunciation of Noetus: “Let us believe, blessed brethren, according to the tradition of the apostles, that God the Word descended from heaven into St. Virgin Mary, in order to be incarnate from Her, accepting a human soul, that is, a rational soul, becoming everything that makes up a person, excluding sin, to save Adam” 93. Tertullian says directly: videmus duplicem statum, non confusum, sed conjunctum in una persona, Deum et hominem lesum 94. “Suscepturus (Filius Dei(etiam ipsas substantias hominis, animam et carnem 95. St. Athanasius 96, Gregory of Nazianzen 97, Chrysostom 98 and others 99 taught about the God-man in exactly the same way. Undoubtedly confessing the union of divinity with humanity in Jesus Christ and the purity of His humanity, on occasion confessed that the Virgin Mary gave birth to God the Word, having been purified by the Holy Spirit 100. St. Athanasius speaks of the communion of divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ: “what the human flesh endured, the Word united with the flesh took upon itself” 101 § 186. b) From the time of Nestorius to the Reformation In the fifth century, Nestorius appeared with a new teaching about the person of Jesus Christ. He taught that Mary should not be called θεοτοχος, but only Χριςοτοχος;. since she gave birth to a man who is an instrument of a deity, and not of God; he pointed out in Jesus Christ the combination of two natures is only temporary and external (σοναθέια σχετηχή); the incarnation was for him only the dwelling (ένοίκησις) of the word in humanity, Christ only θεόφορος, κτήτωρ θεότητος 102. The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned Nestorius and, in accordance with the words of the Nicene symbol: “I believe in the one who was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary made man,” confirmed to confess the word of God to those naturally united at birth from the Virgin with all humanity and to call the Virgin Mary the Mother of God 103 Eutyches, a champion of Orthodoxy against Nestorius, fell to a new extreme: he taught that in Jesus Christ, by the union of natures, there became one nature, and not two, the human was swallowed up by the divine, and the flesh of Christ was not consubstantial with ours. Eutyches was defended even at the council in 449, but at the council of ληςριχη - robber. The Ecumenical Council of Chalcidian in 451 condemned Eutyches and decided to confess that in Christ two natures (φύσεις) were united into one independence (νποςασιν), into one person (πρωσοπον); His human nature, excluding sin, is consubstantial with ours (ομο ϫ σια) both in the rational soul (ψηχη λογηχη) and in the body; two natures are united in Him into one person, not fused (ασυγχητως), invariably (ατρεπτως), inseparably (αδιαιρετως), inseparably (αχωριςως), then both the other nature acts and communicates its own to the other 104 Those who accepted the Eutychean teaching had to reach and did reach the idea that in Jesus Christ there was one beginning of active life, one will (εν θέλημα) and one activity (μιαν είναι την ένεργιαν); This is how the Monothelists appeared in the seventh century. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (in 680) condemned them, and wrote in the definition: “we confess in Him two natural desires or wills and two natural (φυσικος) actions: but we confess two wills that are not contrary to each other (ϫ χ υπεναντια), but we say that the human will was subjugated in Him His divine and all-governing will." The most complete and most definite teaching of the church about the person of Jesus Christ was conveyed in the 8th century by St. Damascene, the most zealous defender of Orthodoxy against the heresies of his time 105. In addition to his dogmatic and polemical works, his church songs are known, in which the birth of the God-Man by the Virgin is so often sung. § 187. c) Since the Reformation The Reformation, having renewed disputes about the person of Christ Jesus, did not significantly add even a single new bewilderment, but only involved some in refined subtleties, finally stopping at the previous decisions, others brought them either to the point where previous errors were repeated in the same form, or opinions were introduced that in their essence are consequences of previous errors. Zwinglius taught that if the properties of God are assimilated in the writings of Jesus to man: then this is only due to the inaccuracy of language (secret Nestorianism). · - Luther said that the very body of Jesus Christ is omnipresent (a consequence of the Eutychean thought). - After them, some came even closer to the Eutychian (Schoenfeld, Flakk), - others turned to Nestorianism (Shtankar). The Socinians and Russian Judaizers resurrected the Ebionites. Anabaptist dreamers (including Boehm and others like him) repeated the Gnostic idea that the body of Jesus Christ was brought from heaven. In modern times, both in the Reformed and Lutheran churches, either Nestorianism in its worst form or pantheistic Gnosticism exerts a strong power over the minds. The Orthodox confession of the East continues to teach that a) Our Lord Jesus Christ accepted true human nature, and not imaginary or illusory, did not bring flesh with Him from heaven, but received it in the womb of the Most Holy Virgin from Her purest blood, with the assistance of St. Spirit; – b) He is true God and true man in one person, and the immaculate Virgin – the Virgin Mary; - c) in Him neither the Divine nature changed into human, nor human into divine, but both remained perfect, with all their properties, except that humanity was sinless” 107 § 188. The relationship of the dogma about the incarnation of God the Word to the needs of reason: a) the dogma does not contradict theoretical reason The frank teaching about the incarnation of God the Word for a sound mind does not contain anything inconsistent with its theoretical and practical principles 108 The frank teaching about the union of two natures in Christ does not contradict the theoretical mind. a) The union of divinity with humanity in Jesus seems strange because divinity is purely spiritual, and humanity is spiritual-physical, the former is unlimited, the latter is limited. But in our nature, isn’t the spiritual united with the physical, and what strives into infinity with the limited? Isn’t the image of the boundless Creative Spirit reflected in our very spiritual nature? St. Basil the Great wrote: “how is deity in the body? - just like fire in iron" 109. It must even be said that the union of divinity with humanity in Jesus is more understandable than the union of soul with body in man: in the first case, the Spirit is united with the spirit, b, through the spirit, with the body, as the church fathers rightly noted; in the latter, the spirit is directly united with the body. b) Does humanity, united in Jesus with divinity into one person, lose its personality - the personality of humanity? But the highest independence belongs to God alone; The world is maintained by Him; and the moral being comes closer to its goal, the more closely it unites with the deity, the more it sacrifices the rights of the individual. The humanity of Jesus was complete humanity, and... subordinating his personality to the deity, he did not lose any perfection, but was elevated, becoming under the influence of the divine personality. c) In the incarnation of God the Word, created nature is elevated, as it were, to deification, and divinity is humbled to humanity? But this elevation of created nature and depletion of uncreated nature would then be incongruous if it transformed the rights and properties of one or another nature. Meanwhile, humanity in the Word made man remains with the properties of humanity and the deity-divinity 110. Humanity in the glorified Jesus rises to the degree of divine glory: but not without the exploits of the humanity of Jesus, and not without borrowing help from God the Word; it receives instructions from the deity and carries them out under His action: but is this contrary to the properties of humanity? Is it not by the power of the deity that the freedom of moral beings created is supported and controlled? As for the deity itself: His communication with humanity in Jesus is completely worthy of deity, since it is saving for people; since it is also probable in itself, just as God’s providence for the smallest bird in the world is undoubtedly. d) Finally, the personal union of God the Word with humanity fully explains the wondrous history of Christ and Christianity. Otherwise, it is not clear where the glory of the Only Begotten Son comes from in the life of Jesus? Where does the firmness in Christianity come from, inexhaustible by any struggle with the world? e) As for Hegel’s wisdom, which turns the historical personality of Christ Jesus into a ghost and replaces the temporary incarnation of God the Word with the eternal incarnation of God: since this wisdom has no right even to the name of news, even if it is stupid, and it was put forward by the dreamers of Docetas, then we can show its inconsistency with the words of St. Ignatius the God-bearer and teachers close to him. To say that the Son of God only seemed to have flesh, as the ancient teachers wrote, means, in contradiction to all the foundations of historical truth, to turn the entire earthly life of Christ Jesus into a ghost 111; means to suspect the one who is the truth 112 of lying and to consider as a dream the instruction to follow His footsteps through suffering 113 . § 189. b) I agree with his needs The dogma of the incarnation of God the Word agrees with the needs of theoretical reason. a) When could a person not want the deity to appear to him in a tangible form and teach him the secrets of the deity? If Christian rationalists, such as Wegscheider, Strauss, rebel against the incarnation of God the Word, then they thereby show that they neglect the better needs of the soul more than decent pagans who believed in the appearance of the gods in human form, beneficial for people. – It meant a lot to a person when the good God offered him instructions through the patriarchs, through the prophets and thereby enlightened his natural darkness. But how much light, and what light, when God speaks to him in His Son! By the teaching about the deity of Jesus Christ, the Christian teaching becomes higher and firmer, not only of every human teaching, but also of the very revelation of the Jews: the only begotten Son in the bosom of the Father - He confesses to the Christian the God unknown to anyone: what more could one desire for the completeness, for the purity, for the firmness of the teaching about the truth of heaven 114. b) The incarnation of God the Savior is connected by an internal connection with the work of the redemption of people. God was not forced by anyone or anything to redeem man through the incarnation of the Word; He could have redeemed in another way 115 But when and why could not a person desire reconciliation with God? His job is to accept with a grateful and reverent soul the completed reconciliation with God, no matter how it was accomplished by the will of the infinite. Therefore, one must reverently worship the Word made man, as one’s only Savior, c) Let the opinion of famous people allow for the repeated incarnation of God 116: but it is easy to distinguish here the truth from the lie. Reasonable reflection must say that it would be an insult to the greatness of God if in order to save people it was necessary for God to incarnate more than once and there is no need to repeat for a person what can be accomplished at one time § 190. Relation of dogma to practical reason The union of divinity with humanity in Jesus does not contradict the principles of practical reason; on the contrary, in accordance with his desires; not to contradict because it does not weaken a single sacred duty, does not extinguish a single comforting hope worthy of a person; but reinforces his demands in many respects. By teaching about the deity of Jesus Christ, love for all that is holy is strengthened, as faith in all that is holy is strengthened. By him all our holy duties are strengthened: aa) God loved us before us: should we not love Him? And with what love did He love us? He did not spare his son for our salvation. Shouldn't our love for Him also rise to the point of complete selflessness? And our will must renounce personal rights in order to draw closer to Him, the only living one, just as He took humanity into His personality, bb) The Son of God loved humanity to an immeasurable fullness: shall we not love man? Shall we not forgive a person and respect a person? cc) The putting on of the Son of God in our flesh shows the dignity of our God-created nature and teaches us humility. Was it not in order to recreate His image that He took on flesh? Will we continue to humiliate the restored image of God? If He humbled Himself: we too must humble ourselves, especially since He humbled Himself for our pride. Finally, all our hopes for salvation are strengthened by the teaching about the deity of Jesus Christ. For, after the heavenly Father has sent his Son, without a doubt He will not refuse any gift to anyone who asks for a gift. III. About the works of the savior to save people § 191. What was the work of the Savior of the world? Everything that was accomplished by the promised Savior for people is called by revelation a deed (John 4:34.17:4) and since this deed was accomplished as a result of the decrees of the Heavenly Father, it is also called a commandment (John 10:18:12, 49:14,31). In relation to its consequences, this matter is called the salvation of people; why the very name of the one who came according to the promise is Yehoshua, abbreviated Yeshua, Ιησ ϫ ς Savior (Matthew 1, 21. Luke 2, 11 ff. John 3, 16. 1 John 4, 4. 9) 117 When reviewing great objects, we usually break them down into parts, so that it is all the more convenient to obtain a clear and complete concept. The work of the Savior of the world is a great work, the work of a God-man. To review this matter in contemplative theology, the ministry of the Savior of the world is usually divided into three ministries: prophetic, priestly and royal. This division may be accepted not without reason. 1) The ministry of the Savior of the world in the covenant was revealed in the representative persons of the prophets, high priests and kings, as has already been seen. 2) The very name of the Messiah, that is, the anointed one, indicated in the Messiah a prophet, priest and king, since the prophets (3 Kings, 19, 16), high priests (Isa. 30, 30.) and kings (1 Kings 10, 1. 16, 13) were consecrated to their service by anointing, - and the Savior of the world was anointed with the Holy Spirit. to serve the salvation of people, he is more than a partaker of his own (Ps. 44:3. John 3:34). 3) The concepts of prophet, high priest and king sufficiently express the completeness of the work accomplished by the Savior of the world. As darkened minds, we needed an enlightener; how the guilty before the righteousness of God should have desired a redeemer; Finally, we are haunted by disasters - the fruit of human self-will, and therefore we need a king. Jesus Christ, as the Son of God and the Son of man, fulfilled the needs of mankind. 4) This is how the work of the Savior of the world and the Church of Christ understand 118 However, it is not difficult to notice that the works of the Lord Jesus are higher and more abundant than the titles of prophet, high priest and king. These titles are assigned to Him primarily because He was typified by the prophets, high priests and kings; and the image, the shadow, is far from the same thing as the object itself. This imposes an obligation, when determining the works of the Savior, not to be embarrassed by the educational letter of the law and to follow primarily the spirit of the new covenant. Otherwise, a review of the great work of the Savior of the world may not only turn out to be incomplete, but may lead into such subtleties that are of no use and even insoluble, as completely inappropriate, which happened especially when determining the title of high priest 119 . Thus, without rejecting the representative names as biblical, in accordance with the spirit of the new testament, we must consider the work of the Savior as the work of the prophet-enlightener of the world, as the work of the high priest-redeemer, and as the work of the king. Jesus Christ prophet-enlightener of the world § 192. Contents of the teaching; Jesus is a teacher The ministry of the Old Testament prophets consisted in the fact that, by the inspiration of God, they proclaimed St. truth and taught piety. The prophetic ministry of Christ Jesus, as the greatest of the prophets, was the ministry of an extraordinary Teacher. 1) According to the testimony of the evangelists, the Holy Spirit. apparently descended on Jesus Christ at His baptism in the Jordan (Matthew 3:11.17, Luke 3:22.4,1, John 1:33). This showed that Christ Jesus, as the Son of man, was solemnly consecrated by the power of God to the title of teacher of men, which He then began to solemnly confer (see Acts 10:38) 120 He Himself preached that He should teach, and spoke about this in the words of the prophet: The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, for His anointing, My ambassador, preach good news to the poor, heal the brokenhearted, To preach release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind - to preach the year of the Lord is pleasant (Luke 4:18. 19. Isa. 61:4). At another time, He said about himself that He was sent to preach the kingdom of God (Luke 4:43), to testify to the truth: For this I was born and for this came into the world, that I might bear witness to the truth (John 18:37). The apostles called Christ Jesus a teacher and mentor (Luke 3:49), a prophet who was powerful in word and deed before God and all people (Luke 3:49). 24, 19). 2) That Christ Jesus was a teacher of truth, human history can testify to this. The Christian faith seeks and finds in revealed history the conviction that Jesus Christ was more than an ordinary prophet-teacher. If the Christian faith believes in Christ Jesus in no other way than in the Son of God and the Son of man (§ 179): then when thinking about the God-man Jesus, the full and exact meaning of the Savior’s words becomes clear to it: I am the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). I am the light of the world: if you walk in Me, you will not have to walk in darkness, but you will have the light of life (9:5). Light has come into the world (John 3:19). These words show Jesus to be such a teacher, such an enlightener of the world, as no prophet was; - it is shown that He is the very Light, the very truth, moreover, a life-giving truth, and not cold and sterile. Don’t call yourself a teacher; For one is your teacher, Christ, He said Himself (Matthew 23:20). This means that Christ Jesus is the only and universal teacher, so that in comparison with Him, the apostles do not have the right to be called teachers, but they are only disciples. Ap. John, showing the necessary consequence of the fact that the Word is self-existent light, speaks of the greatest of the prophets, John: not that this is light, but let it testify to the light (John 1:8). And behind this it shows the vastness of enlightenment, poured out by light: this is the true light, which enlightens every person coming into the world (v. 10). In his epistle he says: for the Son of God came and gave us light and understanding, that we might know the true God and that we might be in His true Son, Jesus Christ (1 John 5:20). 3. The prophets were distinguished by their foresight of the future and miracles. When the true light appeared - Christ Jesus: then His words and deeds showed in Him such a manifester of the omniscience and omnipotence of God, which the prophets were not manifesters. a) He testified about himself: no one ascended into heaven except He who came down from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven (John 3:13), that is, he showed in himself the Omnipresent and Omniscient One. Nathanael had not yet appeared to Him, had not yet been invited to Him; and He had already seen him. Philip did not even exclaim to you before: I saw you under the fig tree (John 1:48). And Nathanael exclaimed: Rabbi! You are the Son of God (v. 49). He knew everyone, the eyewitness evangelist testifies, and did not need anyone to testify about man: for He Himself knew what was in man (John 2:24.25). He saw ignorance and doubt in the hearts of his disciples (Matt. 16, 18. John 16, 18), saw unbelief and malice in the hearts of the Pharisees (Matt. 9, 4), saw the past life of the Samaritan woman (John 4, I-19), saw what would happen to Peter, what Judas would do, what the Jews would do, what would happen to Jerusalem (Matt. 26, 34. John, 13, 29–35. Mar. 13), which will follow with the apostles (Acts 2, 1 John 15, 20. 16, 2. 21, 8). He depicted the final future fate of the world as the history of the past (Matthew 16:27; John 5:25–30). b) Likewise, His miracles were not like the miracles of the prophets. He performed such miracles that showed that the laws of the entire visible world were subordinate to Him. Eg. He commanded the winds and the sea, and they obeyed Him (Luke 7:24), walked on the waters and was an apostle. He gave Peter the opportunity to go (Matt. 14:25), fed first five, then four thousand people with a few loaves and fishes, and there was still more left than there was (Matt. 14:15). He said about his humanity: the region of the imam is to lay down (the soul), and the region of the imam is to receive again. And he did it in practice. He was not resurrected, but resurrected by Himself, as a complete manifestation of the omnipotence of God, as the Almighty Himself. § 193. The superiority of the teaching of Christ a) according to the image of the teaching The teaching of Jesus Christ is distinguished by its advantages in the very method of teaching. a) The writings of the prophets were often obscure in their very presentation of thoughts. The Savior's teaching is a cloudless morning, this rising sun shedding rays of joyful light. The Lord Jesus always spoke simply and clearly. You will not find artificial words and figures of speech in His speech, you will not find refined turns of thought; You will not find those subtleties that the Pharisees and scribes loved, nor any others: .. He, as St. Augustine put it, “a teacher of teachers, whose school is on earth, and whose pulpit is in heaven,” spoke as it was necessary to speak for earthly people. His method of teaching was universal, and, moreover, in accordance with the condition of the listeners. He either offered exhortations, or spoke in short sayings, or used comparisons and parables. The latter did not interfere with either the simplicity or clarity of the teaching; on the contrary, they were required by the former and elevated the latter. In the parables, lofty spiritual objects were presented in tangible proximity to the understanding of the believing soul - in them the Lord spoke about earthly things, so that they would believe in heavenly things (John 3:12). Therefore, those whose minds were free from prejudices, and hearts from passions, easily understood the meaning of the parables, or were encouraged to humbly find out their meaning (Matthew 13:10:36); and for the proud opponents of Jesus, always ready to use the truth for evil, the parable is salvation in that it hides the truth from them under the cover of allegory (Matthew 13, 13. 14). As He who knew human hearts, the Savior for a time seemed to reject others from Himself, for example. a Canaanite wife; He approached others with love, for example. to Zacchaeus, to the sinful wife. He taught everyone as needed so that the truth would quickly reach their thoughts and hearts. b) The power of Christ’s teaching was incomparable. This depended aa) and on the meekness of His teaching. He taught with extreme condescension towards sinful souls. He will not break a bruised reed, he will not quench smoking flax, so said the prophet about the Messiah (Matthew 12:20; Isa 42:3). Prophets usually came to people with the burden of the Lord's judgment (Ig. 13:11), and they often pronounced curses on the disobedient. The Lord Jesus often opened His mouth only to pronounce a blessing on the poor in spirit, the meek, the weeping, the persecuted: come to Me, He said, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Learn from Me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls (Matthew 11:28.29). bb) However, when necessary, He strictly denounced errors and vices, regardless of the importance of the persons. His most vicious enemies were forced to say: teacher, we know that you are true and have truly taught the way of God and do not neglect anyone, for you should not look on the face of man (Matthew 22:16). He acted with complete zeal for the glory of His God (John 4:39.9:4). He openly and sharply rebelled against the Pharisees and scribes, despite the respect that they knew how to gain for themselves among the people (Matthew 23). He drove out of the church those who were trading there (John 2:14–16). He testified to the truth before Jewish celebrities (John 18:20.21; Luke 22:69.70) and before Pilate (John 18:23). – cv) The prophets proclaimed their teaching not on their own, but as servants of God on behalf of God. Thus saith the Lord, this saith the Lord, they said. This is not what the Lord Jesus said: “I speak to you,” He said (Matthew 5:22.28.32, 34.39); pointed to Himself as the image of God Himself (John 14:9). He taught as if he had authority (Matthew 7:29). And His word was with power (Luke 4:32). d) Thus, His listeners involuntarily experienced the power of His words. And I all testified to Him and marveled at the words of grace that proceeded from His mouth (Luke 4:22). The servants who were sent to take Jesus did not dare to take Him, and when they returned they answered those who had sent them: “No man said this, like this man” (John 7:46). § 194. b) According to the content of the teaching The teaching of Jesus Christ, in its content, surpasses all human teachings. 1) Jesus Christ offered in His teaching everything that a person needs to know, and a person not of one known country or a certain time, but a person of all countries and all times. a) The Teaching of Christ contains the best food for all the high aspirations of the human spirit. “Whoever wants to do the will of God, said Jesus Christ, knows whether My teaching is from God, or whether I speak from Myself” (John 7:17). This means that the human spirit, as soon as it seeks what it should seek most of all, itself feels and recognizes that there cannot be a purer, more holy, brighter teaching, like the teaching of Christ. The words that I speak are spirit and life, said the Savior (John 6:63), that is, they revive the immortal soul, upset by sin, containing within themselves the power of God. b) Christ Jesus was sent, as He Himself said. to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew 15, 24. 10, 5. 6), since the Jews were already prepared by prophecies to listen to Him. But He clearly called Himself the Shepherd of those sheep that did not belong to the court of Moses (John 10:16): He talked with the centurion and spoke about the upcoming conversion of the pagans (Matthew 8:5-18); was preaching in Galilee of tongues (Matthew 15:26-28); talked with a Samaritan woman and discovered that the time was coming for universal spiritual service to the one God. He announced that His church would exist until the end of the age, and after the resurrection He sent His disciples to preach the gospel to the whole world (Matthew 28:18.19). c) Christ Jesus did not continue to serve as a teacher of the world for long; He continued it as long as it was necessary mainly for the preparation of preachers to the world - apostles 121. But even in a short time, He conveyed a teaching that contains in its spirit, although not in its letter, all the truths necessary for salvation. There was much that His disciples could not yet accept, and therefore He did not speak clearly and in detail about some truths. But the initial essential instructions about everything were given. The apostles, under the control of the Comforter Spirit, only remembered what the Lord Jesus had told them; the comforter, the Spirit of truth, only explained what the Lord was telling them. It is not from Himself to speak, but if He hears, He will tell you: He will glorify Me, because He will receive of Mine and tell you (John 16:13-15). The Evangelist John teaches: grace and truth Jesus Christ came into being. And from His fulfillment we receive grace to rejoice (John 1:15.17). According to these words, the teaching of Christ contains the entire fullness of the truth of God, so that the apostles drew all their instructions only from this fullness. 2) The main content of the entire contemplative teaching of Christ is the gracious news of the love of the Heavenly Father, who sent His Son to earth for the salvation of mankind. These are the most extensive words in meaning: God so loved the world, as He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life (John 3:16). Hence, in particular, a) the Lord Jesus revealed the glory of the triune God in a light in which it was not revealed by the prophets (Matthew 28:19). And then as in. The covenant portrayed God mostly anthropomorphically, the Lord Jesus revealed God the Spirit. The Spirit is God (John 4:24). b) The doctrine of the Redeemer of the world and His sufferings, although it was often proposed in the century. covenant, but a certain accuracy and clarity, with the reconciliation of some disagreements with the divine and glorious face of the Redeemer, it received only in the instructions of the Savior (John 3, 16. Mat. 12, 40. 16, 21). c) The Savior depicts in clear light the damage to human nature (Matthew 15:19; John 3:7). The necessity of grace and the grace-filled means to salvation, what baptism is (John 3:5), the Eucharist, etc., are explained in detail. d) about the afterlife in c. there were only hints of the covenant; The gospel depicted this life clearly and in detail (Matthew 22:30). § 195. Jesus Christ is the lawgiver What is the relationship between the teaching of Christ and the law? covenant? Does it have the force of an indispensable law? Questions are natural in reviewing the position of the Messiah - the enlightener of the world, and to which different answers were given 122. 1) Already because heavenly goodness promised to conclude a new covenant during the Messiah, not the same as was concluded under Moses (Jer. 31, 31. 32), and Moses predicted the appearance of a great Prophet like him - a lawgiver (Deut. 18, 18-23), Jesus Christ, as the true Messiah, could not help but be a new lawgiver. Let there be no thunder or lightning during the promulgation of the teachings of Christ, as there was during the promulgation of the law of Sinai: but this should have been the case according to the prophecy about a Prophet like Moses, where the great Prophet proclaims his teaching meekly (Deut. 18, 18-23.) The relationship of the teachings of Christ to the old law in the writings of the evangelists and apostles are not the same. a) The moral law is set forth in the teaching of Christ more fully and sublimely than in the teaching of c. h. aa) Although Moses also said: You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart: but the extensive meaning of this commandment is shown only in the teachings of Christ, where any mercy to oneself and dear to the heart is recognized as an insult to God (Matthew 5:29-31), - and every unclean thought is condemned as sin (Matthew 5:28). Christ said: if anyone wants to come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and come after Me (Mark 8:34). He declared to a young man who was fulfilling the commandments of the law: if you want to be perfect, go sell your property and give to the poor, and follow Me. bb) Love for neighbors was also prescribed in the law. z.; but it was limited primarily by love for fellow tribesmen. The law approved the right to revenge for an insult, at the disadvantage of love for the enemy. In the teachings of Christ, love for one's neighbor received the meaning of universality in subject and strength. Is it commanded to love everyone, whether he is a stranger or a fellow tribesman, a relative or a stranger, an enemy or a friend? Love your enemies, said the Lord. If you love those who love you, what reward do you take? Do not publicans do the same thing (Matthew 5:44,46). The law says: you shall not kill: and even an angry word is forbidden to a Christian (Matthew 8:21.22): the law said: tooth for tooth; and the Christian is commanded; “If someone hits you on your right cheek, offer him the other” (Matthew 5:39.40). I give you a new commandment, that you love one another as you have loved, said the Lord (John 13:34): a new commandment of love, because you must love another with the same strength, with the same selflessness as Christ loved sinful people - and this is the highest degree of love not seen on earth. cc) The law achieved its goal - the improvement of people - by the severity of external regulations. That is why it was called the yoke of work (Gal. 5), the law of the carnal commandment (Heb. 7:16). Incentives for fulfilling the commandments were offered earthly and temporary, domestic, civil, military happiness (Deut. 28:2; Exod. 20:12; Lev. 26:3). The gospel offers spiritual incentives for a holy life, the benefits of eternal life (Matthew 5, 12, 19. 30. 45; 15, 19; 19; 28. 29; Mark 7, 7). The Gospel law encourages a person to perform exploits primarily with thoughts of God’s love for us and calls for free service to God. Having not accepted the spirit of work, we have become afraid: because we have accepted the spirit of son-bearing, we cry out: Abba Father (Rom. 8:15; John 3:16.17; 15.9.13-15). b) The ritual law of Moses was abolished by Christ Jesus and replaced by special statutes. aa) Although Jesus Christ himself fulfilled the legal truth of Moses, He wisely prepared a decisive abolition of the ritual law. He showed in words and deeds that He is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:6; John 15:17). He predicted to the Samaritan woman that universal worship would be near (John 4:19). In accordance with His spirit, St. Paul preached more often and more persistently than others that the ritual law of Moses is a perishable law (2 Cor. 3:11), and has no force for a Christian. We are not under the law, but under grace (Rom. 6:14). Thus he taught in his letters to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians and Jews. The abolition of the ritual law was a necessary consequence of the very nature of Christianity and Judaism. The ritual law was associated with the temple of Jerusalem and the national character of the Jews (Matthew 5, 32. Gal. 4, 1 - 4); and Christianity is the property of all peoples. Therefore, the first one lost its force as Christianity spread outside Palestine - and finally, when the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed, the ritual law also fell: “it is not absurd to call Jesus Christ and practice Judaism together,” wrote St. Ignatius the God-Bearer 123 In the same way, other Christian teachers showed in the ritual old law the meaning of a temporary medicine adapted to a certain people 124. bb) Jesus Christ gave new statutes corresponding to the renewed humanity. These are the laws: aa) about faith in the coming Messiah, the Son of God: this is the work of God, that you may believe in Him, His ambassador (John 6:29). Let everyone honor the Son as they honor the Father; Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him (John 5:23). bb) On the performance of the sacraments (John 3:5; 6:54, Mat. 28:19); at the same time, circumcision was replaced by baptism (Col. 2:11.12), the Eucharist - the offering of a lamb (I Cor. 11.25); marriage has learned the meaning of indissolubility Mat. 19, 3–9. Mar. 10, 2–9). cc) Establishment of a new hierarchy: then there are the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers (Eph. 4:11 - 13; Luke 6:13). 2) There is no doubt that humanity can be improved more and more by the teaching of Christ. This is the purpose and this is the property of the heavenly teaching, as we have seen. But does the very law of Jesus Christ, in his theoretical and practical thoughts, allow perfectibility? Can it be replaced by something and in anything? Believe in the Son, said Jesus Christ, to have life: but whoever does not believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him (John 3:36). I am the light of the world (John 8:12). He connected the end of the preaching of the Gospel with the time of the end of the world (Matthew 13:30; 24:14). The apostles called the teaching of Christ the gospel of salvation (Eph. 1:13), the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16), the law of Christ - the unceasing, eternal law (2 Cor. 2:11). They taught that no one can lay a foundation other than that which lies, which is Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11). Also (John 5:20), if we or an angel preach the good news to you more than what we preach to you, let him be anathema (Gal. 8). It is fitting for him (Christ) to reign until he puts all his enemies under his feet (1 Cor. 15:25). If everyone transgresses and does not abide in the teachings of Christ, he will not have God. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, you do not accept him into your home and do not say to rejoice in him (2 John 9:10). These sayings, with their clarity, decisively exclude any thought about the legality of any abolition in the teaching of Christ, and with them the thought of the perfection of the teaching of Christ must be rejected as an anti-Christian thought and harmful to people. 125 Likewise, the Church of Christ recognizes the law of Christ as the only teaching in force 126, a universal law - catholic, as intended for all people and for all times 127. In recent times, some have passed off their dream of the perfection of Christianity as new wisdom: but some Gnostics also indulged in this dream and were condemned for it by the teachers of the church as anti-Christian 128 . II. Jesus Christ - High Priest-Reconciler The primary work that the Savior of the world had to do and which no one else could do was the work of reconciling the Justice of God with the sinful human race. This is the work that was typified by the ministry of the Old Testament high priest, who entered once a year with blood for the sins of the people (Eph. 9, 7.25). More precisely, this ministry of the Savior should be called the ministry of reconciliator: such a name is the closest to its subject and to the teaching of the New Testament. Just as the very importance of the subject, so many doubts to which frank thought was subjected, require that 1) the teaching of St. scriptures about the reconciler of the world; – 2) the teaching of the church and 3) considerations of reason 129. When presenting the teaching of the Word of God about the reconciler, we must show: a) is the reconciliation of God with the world really accomplished by the death of the God-man? b) Does St. limit? Scripture influence of reconciliation by known times and famous persons? The reconciliation of God with man is a great mystery. Let us consider with all humble caution the words inspired by God. § 197. Jesus Christ is the reconciler according to the teachings of c. Testament and according to the Forerunner The death of the Lord Jesus, as the true Messiah, back in the century. The covenant was depicted as an atoning death for the sins of people. When considering the prophecies about the Messiah, we have already seen how David portrayed the Messiah as a sufferer, whose torment extends to the point that his bodily composition disintegrates and ends with beneficial consequences for the pagans themselves (Psalm 21). They saw how Isaiah presents Him as an innocent sufferer, brought to the grave for the sins of people (Is. 53:3-10). They saw how bloody sacrifices freed the Jews from external civil punishments and did not save them from internal suffering of conscience, forcing them to sigh for the Reconciler of conscience with God (Eph. 10: 4, 11). In fulfillment of these prophecies and types, the Lord Jesus, as He Himself said (Matthew 26, 24.54.56. Luke 24, 25.27, 44-46), suffered death on the cross. The first preacher about the Messiah Jesus, the forerunner John, spoke about Him in the ears of his listeners: Behold, the Lamb of God takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Lamb of God Λμνός τ ϫ θε ϫ means a lamb designated as a sacrifice to God, according to God’s purpose (Isa. 53:7. Lev. 5:5.6), which were the sacrifices of the Lord (Num. 25:2; Lev. 21:6). To take sin άιρέιν αμαρτίαν, corresponding to the Hebrew nasa avon, means to suffer punishment for the sins of either one’s own (Lev. 22:9.11) or others (Num. 18:22; Psalm 5:7). So the words of the Forerunner mean that Jesus Christ, as the sacrifice of God, will bear punishment for the sins of the world. § 198. According to the instructions of Jesus Christ himself Jesus Christ himself spoke clearly about the meaning of his suffering and death. The bread that I will give, my flesh is, I will give for the life of the world (John 6:51). So His most pure flesh will be given to God so that the world may receive life, Further, in the same evangelist He calls Himself a Shepherd, laying down His soul for His sheep (John 10:11-15) and says that He will die voluntarily in fulfillment of the commandment (Father Art. 17.18). And not only did He say more than once that He must suffer and die voluntarily, in fulfillment of the special will of God for this (Luke 9:22.24; Mark 8:31; John 8:11), but He directly taught that He came to give His soul as a deliverance (λντρον) for many (Matthew 20:28). The word λντρον, especially in connection with αντι, means the price (John 11, 50. Josh. 2, 14), for which a slave or captive receives freedom (Lev. 25, 51. 19, 21; Isa. 15, 13.) or is freed from death (Ex. 21, 30. Nk. 35, 31. 32; 18, 15. Prov. 6, 35); track. Jesus Christ’s sacrifice of his life for people has the same meaning, the meaning of a truly redeeming price, and not accepted in heaven only by condescension. At the last supper, giving the cup of blessing to the disciples, He said: this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28), or as another evangelist reports His words: this cup is the new covenant of My blood, which is shed for you (Luke 22:20). Familiar with V. It is known by the covenant that the blood of sacrifices atoned for the forgiveness of sins (Num. 15:20-25. Lev. 10:21-34.) and, as the apostle says, without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness (Heb. 9:22). It is also known that to leave sin, in the language of scripture, means not to subject sin to punishment, to leave it unpunished (2 Chronicles, 7, 14. Psalm, 40, Gen. 50, 17). Track. the words of the Savior contain the idea that He is a sacrifice for sins, shedding His blood so that the sins of others are left without punishment 130. § 199. According to the teachings of St. Paul: in the letter to the Romans The meaning of the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus in the Epistles of the Apostle is explained in particular detail. Pavel. In his entire letter to the Romans, the apostle explains and proves the idea that neither Jew nor pagan, on their own, can be justified before God, since we are all sinners and shows by whom we are saved. God has proposed (Christ Jesus) purification (ίλαςήριον) through faith in His blood, in the manifestation (έις ένδιξιν) of His righteousness, for remission (δ ׳ ά τήν παρέσιν) before former sins (Rom. 3:25). The Apostle, without saying a word about the teaching of Christ, says, a) that Christ Jesus is the propitiatory sacrifice, the propitiator, b) this is the meaning of His shed blood in Him; c) this meaning of the blood of Christ was not invented by human thought, but was revealed to it by the will of God: God Himself appointed, determined (προέλετο) to be that d) The will of God determined the death of Christ in order to show (έις ενδιξιν) the truth of God, punishing the sins of people in Christ Jesus; The truth of God appeared in that it forgave the sins of people only by punishing Christ Jesus for them. Thus, it is obvious here that to say that the doctrine of the reconciling death of Christ is only an adaptation to opinions about victims means to slander the teaching of the Apostle. The apostle further (5, 2-6) reveals the exact meaning of Christ’s death in detail, a) He (vv. 6, 8) says that Christ died not for himself, but instead of others and by God’s determination. He died for the wicked - for us - these words cannot have any other meaning than that Christ died in our place, suffered death on the cross in our wicked place. Otherwise, it would be necessary to translate the words (v. 7) μολίς γάρ υπέρ διχαί ϫ τις άποθανειται as follows: “hardly anyone would agree to die as an example for the righteous,” - that is, to give them a meaning that does not belong to im. b) The Apostle says: having struck down what was once, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, by whom reconciliation is now received (vv. 10, 11). The meaning of the words - χα t αλλαχθέντες, χαταλλαγή is explained by anostol not only by the fact that he calls people enemies of God, but also by the fact that he presents all people as subject to the wrath of God, executions, condemnation - χαταχρι e α (vv. 12, 16. 18). Attributing the reconciliation of God with people to the death of the Son of God, he otherwise calls this action of the death of Christ justification of life, justification of people (vv. 9, 18. 19). c) Reconciliation and justification of people does not mean for the Apostle the moral improvement of people, accomplished by the will of man under the influence of the thought of the death of Christ 131. Moreover, the apostle does not in any way, not even a single hint, put this state of people in connection with their freedom, except that, according to the apostle, Christ died in our place, reconciliation and justification are exactly the same as the state without Christ - the state of guilt and executions (v. 13); seems universal to the apostle; but the death of Christ was and is not used by many, bb) Justification is clearly represented by the action of the obedience of Christ: this shows the meaning of the form of the verb - · χατασθήαονται will be placed among the righteous by the obedience of one (v. 19). cv) We are not talking about what the apostle directly said above: we think that by faith a man will be justified without the works of the law (3:28). § 200. In the letters to the Galatians and Corinthians In the epistles to the Galatians, the apostle writes: I do not reject the grace of God, even if the law is right, Christ will not die (2:21). This shows that our justification before God is in such connection with the death of Christ that if we could be justified by our own works, then Christ would not need to die; and if He died, then this means that by His death we are justified. Having further said that those who are from the works of the law are under a curse, the apostle teaches: Christ has redeemed us (έξηγόρασεν) from the curse of the law, having become a curse against us (χαταρά) (3, 10. 13). What the Apostle called to the Romans χαταχρίμα: condemnation, here he calls χαταρά curse, and what there is called reconciliation and justification is here called το έξηγοράν redemption. Just as without Christ everyone, even those who did things in accordance with the will of God, are under the weight of the curse, so Christ has redeemed us from the curses of the law. The means to this was that Christ was for us, instead of us, an oath. He was the curse itself - this means that He endured the most severe torment; endured the torment that sinners had to endure. So, according to the teaching of the Apostle, our redemption from the curse is not due to the fact that Christ enlightened us with the light of His teaching and freed us from errors, and not because it is as if on our own we can realize the death of Christ in ourselves and put to death the old man. In his letters to the Corinthians, the apostle clearly and with complete accuracy defines what his expression means: Christ died for us - for the ungodly (Rom. 5, 6. 8). He says: Christ died for all (νπέρ πάντων άπέθανε), and those who live live not for themselves, but for him who died for them and rose again (2 Cor. 5:15). And he also teaches: you bought by nature at a price of ήγορασθήτε γάρ τιμή (1 Cor. 6, 2q. 7, 23). Here a) if the death of Christ is nothing more than an example of an innocent death: then it is not clear why we should live only for Christ alone, when there were and are many innocent sufferers. b) On the other hand, the apostle does not promise us forgiveness of sins for our holy life: but by the very fact that Christ died for us, that we were bought with a price, he encourages us to a holy life, c) Speaking in one place about the great price for which people were bought, and in another showing in Christ the One who died for all, the apostle explains to us some words by others. Christ died for all also means that Christ died as an atoning sacrifice for all. The price they bought is the same as they were bought for the dear price of Christ’s death. In the second letter to the Corinthians, the apostle explains his expression: let us be reconciled to God (Rom. 5:11). Because God in Christ reconciled the world to himself and did not impute their sins to them (2 Cor. 5:10). According to these words, the one who reconciles us to God is God himself; to be reconciled means the same as not imputing his sins to a sinner; and He by whom it was done that sins are not counted as sins by God is Christ Jesus. Thus, the reconciliatory meaning of the death of Christ is by no means a matter of human thought; on the contrary, God himself appointed and Himself fulfilled such a purpose for the death of Christ. In the same epistle, the apostle shows who died for us: He who saw no sin committed sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21), that is, God made the sinless and all-holy one a sacrifice for sin, so that we might be righteous in Him before God. Finally, in the letter to the Corinthians we see that the teaching about the cross, the death of Christ, for the apostle’s contemporaries was either a temptation or madness (1 Cor. 1:21), and so on. was not at all the opinion of the time, but on the contrary was in disagreement with the human thoughts of that time; the Jews expected the Messiah, the king of the earth and the conqueror of nations, and rejected the suffering Messiah; proud pagan wisdom mocked the idea of ​​the importance of the Crucified One. § 201. In other messages We see the same teaching about the death of Christ in other epistles of the apostle. According to his teaching, Christ Jesus gave Himself up to death as a ransom (άντίλύτρον) for sinful humanity (1 Tim. 2, 6. Eph. 1, 7; 5, 2. Col. 1, 14), and it is obvious to everyone; that there is no longer a hint of the meaning of the death that has just been edifying 132. – By the death of Christ, says the apostle, God was reconciled with the sinful human race (Col. 1, 19-22. Eph. 2, 13. 15) and this means of reconciling God with people is the mystery revealed to Christians by God (Col. i, 27) etc. not the opinion of people, smart or stupid. In particular in the letter to the Hebrews (9, 9–10, 18). Jesus Christ is depicted as a high priest, offering a sacrifice for the sins of people and as the sacrifice itself, a) Depicting Jesus Christ as a high priest (9:9 - 15), the apostle has in mind the establishment of the day of atonement, when the high priest made a sacrifice for the whole people (Heb. 9, 7. 25. 7, 27). And there is no doubt that this sacrifice was a ransom for the people, otherwise it had the meaning of a cleansing sacrifice; This is what the apostle also says about her (5:1). Track. The sacrifice of the high priest - Christ - the death of Christ - has the same meaning - the meaning of the atoning sacrifice is also. This is what the apostle shows: now alone, at the end of the ages, for the abolition (είς άθέτησιν - for abolition, for destruction) 133, having appeared as His sacrifice of sin,... alone was offered, to bear up (άναφέρειν - to lift upon oneself) 134 the sins of many (Heb. 9, 26. 28). b) Depicting Jesus Christ as a sacrifice, the apostle either depicts Him as a covenant sacrifice (9: 15-28), without omitting the sight of its reconciling power (vv. 25. 26.), then actually as a reconciling sacrifice, typified by the Old Testament sacrifices of reconciliation (10. 1 – 18). c) The Apostle says that the Old Testament sacrifices of reconciliation in themselves could not cleanse the human conscience (10, 4׳. 11. 12), that they provided only civil justification to people, sanctified the purity of the flesh 9. 13. On the contrary, the blood of Christ cleanses the conscience itself from dead works (9, 14). The predominant power of the blood of Christ, according to the teaching of the Apostle, depends, aa) on the fact that Christ Jesus διά πνεύματος άιώνι ϫ- brought to Himself by the eternal Spirit (9, 14), or since the eternal Spirit signifies His divinity in Christ (Rom. 1, 4. 1 Tim. 3, 16. Heb. 7:24), the deity itself participated in the offering of Christ’s sacrifice as eternal love 135; bb) from the fact that the atoning blood of Christ is the blood of the immaculate, voluntarily offering Himself to God to fulfill the will of God. Moreover, when entering the world he says, “You did not desire sacrifices and offerings, but you made the body for me.” Then reh: here I go; in the head of the book it is written about Me; I will do Thy will, O my God, 136. (10, 5–10. 9, 14). Thus, the apostle speaks of the meaning of the death of Christ in the person of the teacher of truth, and it is not at all appropriate to apply it to human opinions. – As a teacher of truth, he denounces the injustice of Jewish opinions about the meaning of the death of Christ and precisely the high properties of Christ’s ministry and the meaning of the Old Testament ministry established by the heavenly will. § 202. According to the teachings of St. Peter and John The apostles Peter and John learned the same power from the death of Christ. The first teaches: with incorruptible silver and gold you will be delivered (ελντρωθήτε redeemed) from the vain life of the faithful fathers, but with the honest blood like a lamb, the spotless and most pure of Christ (1 Peter 1:18.19). He Himself bore our sins (άνηνεγχεν) in His body on the tree (1 Peter 2:21). The Holy Apostle, also, as the Forerunner, says about Christ that He, like the Lamb, bears sins on Himself, i.e. guilt of sins, punishment for sins, but aa) adds that it is carried on the body and on the tree. The last expression reinforces the idea of ​​​​the weight lifted by Jesus; for the curse was upon him who hung on the tree (Galatians 3:13). bb) Deliverance from punishment for the sins of St. Peter connects it with deliverance from the foolish faith transmitted by the Jewish elders; this is because if by death on the cross the Jews were delivered from the curses of the law given by God (Gal. 3:13): then all the more should they consider themselves free from the burdens imposed by people; c) in clear words, the words of Jesus Christ himself, the apostle expresses the meaning of the death of Christ as the redemptive price (ελυτρωθητε) for our sins, d) Moreover, he speaks of the purity of the Lamb, allowing us to see in this purity the basis of why this Lamb was a sacrifice pleasing to God. He expresses this thought in direct words: for Christ alone suffered for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God (3:18). The Apostle John teaches that Jesus Christ is the intercessor (παράχλητος) - the righteous, the propitiation (ίλασμος) for our sins (1 John 2:2), that He laid down His life for us (3:16), appeared in order to take upon ourselves our sins, while in Him there is no sin (3, 5), - redeemed us with His blood (Apoc. 5, 9), saved people from executions for sin (1 John 1, 7-10; 3, 14). § 203. General conclusion about the power of the death of Christ. Considering everything that has been said so far about the revealed teaching regarding the reality of our reconciliation with God through the death of Christ on the cross, we draw the following general conclusions. a) The teaching about the reconciling death of Christ on the cross is the undoubted teaching of all Holy Scripture, a mystery revealed by God, and not human opinion (Col. 1, 27. 1 Cor. 1, 23. 24. Heb. 9, 8. 11; 10, 7. 8). b) Christ Jesus suffered for people, and His death, and not His teaching and not the strict life of people, is the means of reconciliation; in this form He is depicted as the Redeemer (λύτρο and, λυτρόων. άπολότρωσις, έξηγοράγον) (Matt. 20, 28. 1 Peter 1, 18. 19. 2, 20 . Гал. 3 , !3. 2, 14. 1Кор. 6, 20 , Рим. 3, 24 . Еф. 1, 7 . Иоан. 10. 15 ), как ходатай примиритель ( χαταλάυσων , διχαίων , μεσίτης, παράχλ ητός) (Rom. 5, 10. 12. 18, 10. 1 Tim. 2, 5. 2 Κοορ. 5, 18. 19. Col. 1, 20. 1 John 2, 1) and the eternal high priest, who offered Himself for people as a cleansing sacrifice (Heb. 9 and 10. Rom. 3, 25. 1 John 2, 2. Eph. 5, 2. 1 Peter. 1, 18. 19, Matt. 26, 28, John 1, 29. 10, 51. Isa. 52, 15, 53. 11. 4 – 6.) c) God the Father accepted this sacrifice of the cross as truly and completely reconciling His eternal justice with sinful people (2 Cor. 5, 10. Rom. 5, 10. 11, 18. 19. 3, 25. Kol. 1, 18 - 22, Gal. 4, 4. 5. Eph. 5, 2). d) The power of Christ’s death on the cross lay in the fact that the will of the abundant goodness of God was for the work of Christ (John 6, 38. 1, 28; Luke 9, 22. 24.47; Rom. 5, 20. 3, 24. 25. Heb. 10, 0. 5, 5. 6) and Christ suffered voluntarily in fulfillment of this will (John 10, 17. 18. Heb. 10, 5–10), - compassionate as a Lamb, immaculate and most pure according to humanity (2 Cor. 5, 21. 1 Peter. 1, 19. 3, 18. Heb. 9, 14. 1 John. 2, 1. 3, 5), not ceasing to be the Son of God (John 10:18; Heb. 9:14). § 204. Universality of redemption a) in relation to persons and time The power of Christ's merit, according to the teaching of revelation, extends to all people. The Apostle Paul in his epistles denounces the Jews who thought that the Messiah for the Jews alone is the Messiah Savior, and He proves the universality of Jesus’ merit aa) by the state of people, who are all sinners (Rom. 3, 9.5, 12.15. Gal. 3, 22.23), bb) by the abundance of God’s generous and merciful love for everyone (Rom. 3, 29.30) and finally c) by the fact that it was not difficult for everyone to pass on to the justification of Christ when Adam’s condemnation passed on (Rom. 5:15-18). b) He teaches that one died for all (2 Cor. 5:14), one Redeemer for all (1 Tim. 2:6; Heb. 2:9), just as the Apostle John writes: and He is the purification (ίλασμος) for our sins, not only for ours, but also for the whole world περί τ. δλ ϫ χοσμ ϫ (1John 2, 2.6). Jesus Christ says that His blood is shed for many (Matthew 26:28). The Apostle also writes that the fullness of the gifts of God was poured out on many through the gracious action of one man Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:15, ff. Heb. 9:28). But the same apostle, in the same place, explaining his thought about those justified by Christ, says that through the righteousness of one, blessed justification has been acquired for all people (5:18), and according to the general usage of words, we can say about everyone that there are many of them (1 Cor. 10:33; Isa. 53:13), especially when One is opposed to them. If the words of the Apostle Paul about the forgiveness of previously committed sins (Rom. 3:25) are understood about the forgiveness of sins committed by Jews and pagans before their conversion to Christ; and if his words about the atonement for crimes committed in the first covenant (Heb. 9:15) are taken in a similar sense: and then in revelation we can easily find confirmation of the idea that everyone before Christ received justification through Christ; since everyone has always hoped to receive salvation only through the Messiah (John 15:11; John 8:56; Luke 10:21). The Apostle Paul directly says: it would have been fitting for Him (Christ) to suffer many times (more than once) from the creation of the world (Heb. 9:26), i.e. since there have always been sinners, then if His death had no eternal power; He would have had to suffer and die many times for sinners, beginning from the creation of the world. This clearly shows that Jesus also died for those who lived before Him. The Apostle John calls Jesus Christ the lamb slain from the foundation of the world (Apoc. 13:8). According to the teaching of the same revelation, Jesus Christ satisfied not only for the sins of the times preceding His death, but His sacrifice is a purifying sacrifice for all times. The Apostle John writes that a Christian should not sin; if he sins, let him not lose heart, since there is a propitiator for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for the sin of the whole world (1 John 2:2). In his letter to the Hebrews, the apostle proves the superiority of Christ's high priesthood over the old high priesthood, among other things, by the fact that the atoning sacrifice of Christ extends its effect to all times, has acquired eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12), and just as Christ Jesus himself abides forever, so with His eternal priesthood there is no need, like the Jewish high priest, to repeat his sacrifice: one day at the end of the ages with the sacrifice He appeared with his own to destroy sin (Heb. 7, 23–27. 5, 6 ·, 6, 20: 9, 12–14. 26), with one offering he made the sanctified forever perfect (10, 1V). Revelation, apparently, limits the power of the atoning death of Christ both in relation to persons and in relation to time, when it says that for those who sin after baptism there is no sacrifice (Heb. 10:26), or when the action of the atoning death is either attributed to those who are called (Heb. 9:15), or placed in connection with faith (Rom. 3:26.28) and in general with the actions of freedom (Rom. 14, 15. 1 Cor. 8, 1. 2 Cor. 5, 20, 19). But a) in all such places, by the very fact that they talk about faith, about the actions of freedom, it is shown that they are talking not about redemption alone, but also about the assimilation of redemption, and this latter constitutes a very special action, an action performed by the Comforter Spirit in conjunction with human freedom. Redemption itself is extended to everyone and for all times, forgiveness is declared to everyone in Christ, once for all: but to use or not to use forgiveness is left to everyone at will. (See Heb. 3:14. Rom. 11:20). b) The words of the Apostle (Heb. 10:26) about those who sin after baptism contain the same general idea, applied to a particular case. The Apostle speaks of those who, despite all the importance of the new covenant, trample on the blood of the covenant, and mock the spirit of grace (Heb. 10, 28. 29.), i.e., they consciously become hardened in falling away from Christianity, and therefore put themselves in the impossibility of enjoying the fruits of redemption, and have prepared themselves for the one judgment of the righteousness of God (v. 27. see Matt. 12, 31). Thus, in vain, people would begin to look for another reconciler with God other than Christ Jesus - he does not exist, according to the teachings of revelation. There is no other name under heaven given among men, by which we must be saved (Acts 4:11). Whoever does not believe in the Son will not see the life, but the wrath of God remains on him (John 3:16). § 205. b) In relation to all sins and their consequences The power of Christ's atoning death, extending to all people, also extends to all sins. Our Redeemer suffered punishment for all our sins. The Apostle John teaches: the blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7). There is not a single condemnation now for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). He who gave Himself food for us, may He deliver us from all iniquity (Titus 2:14), says the teacher of languages. Let Jesus Christ satisfy for all our sins: but are all the punishments that have come into the world as punishment for sin destroyed by Him? Revelation a) shows that by the death of Christ people were delivered from eternal death and acquired the right to eternal life. The Apostle Paul teaches that Jesus Christ, by his obedience, blotted out the condemnation that befell the sin of Adam (Rom. 5, 15. 17.) and acquired justification, which includes life and the right to blessedness (vv. 17, 77). Having been justified by Him, we have hope in the glory of God (Rom. 5:1.2). He writes to the Corinthians that one day death will be completely defeated and hell will be defeated (1 Cor. 15, 26. 54-56.) - and this victory is based on the atoning death of Christ (vv. 58, 21, 22, 45. see 2 Tim. 1, 10). In the Epistle to the Jews we read: since then the children have partaken of flesh and blood, and He sincerely partook of the same, so that through death he will abolish (χατάργηση) the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil (Heb. 2:14). Death is the penalty for sin, the devil is the chief of sin (John 3:8); therefore death is in his hands. But when a ransom is brought for us, so that our sins are no longer imputed to us at the court of God’s righteousness, then the ruler of sin, who until then could demand sinners to be condemned equal to his own, no longer has this right; the power of the devil - the power to subject us to eternal death has lost its power - χαταργήται - αεργον ποιειται. b) Revelation shows that the power of Christ extends to such consequences of our sins as troubles of conscience, illness, disorder in the whole world. It makes it clear that these punishments of sin are now softened and retain behind them the power not of executions, but of beneficial means to progress in holiness; Someday they will be completely destroyed, according to the action of the life-giving power of the reconciliator. And aa) it says: having been justified by faith, we have peace with God and access to grace through the Lord Jesus (Rom. 5, 1. 2. Heb. 4, 15. 16, Eph. 3, 12), we have confidence in God’s love for us (Rom. 5, 11). Who can accuse God's elect (Rom. 8:33)? bb) The action of Christ’s redemption extends to the establishment in the souls of the faithful of firmness, triumphing over the sorrows of earthly life, since the sorrows of life are not execution, but the mercy of the wise Father (Rom. 5:3), who are called by his will, all things work together for good (Rom. 8:28); c) according to the teaching of the Apostle: just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will live (1 Cor. 15:22), and this is due to the Redeemer’s obedience on the cross to the Heavenly Father (Rom. 5:19.22). As a result of the same obedience, all material nature expects universal deliverance from serving vanity (Rom. 8:21). And the time will come when a new heaven and a new earth will appear, where righteousness alone will live (2 Peter 3:13); d) the apostle writes that from eternity it was determined by the Father τα έν τοίς ϫ ρανοΐς χ. τα επί τας γής άναχεφαλαιώσθατ εν Αντω (εν Χριςω) to unite heavenly and earthly things under the head of Christ (Eph. 1:10), or as he puts it differently: A αίματος τ ϫ ςανρ ϫ A υτ ϫ, δι Αυτ ϫ, είτε τά επί τής γής , είτε τά έν τοίτ ϫ ρανοίς (Col. 1:20). The apostle does not say that it was necessary to reconcile the heavenly with God 137 The heavenly world (τα έν τοίς ϫ ρανοις), the world of angels, like the world of saints - (Mark 8:38), as servants of God (Psalm 102:21), had no need for reconciliation with God; and revelation speaks of the Redeemer: He does not receive angels, but He receives the seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:16). The apostle reveals the counsel of God, determined to reconcile through Christ all that is in heaven and on earth. This means that without Christ the heavenly was at war with the earthly. And truly, by sin, man is placed in disagreement with everything heavenly and earthly. The Redeemer has washed away the sins of man with His blood, and that which rebelled against man and earth no longer exists, unless freedom again brings about sin; the world is restored through Him (δι Αυτ ϫ) and for Him (εις: Αυτόν); otherwise, through Him and under Him, both heavenly and earthly things are united into one society, so that everything in Him serves God. The Apostle, explaining his words, says: come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, heavenly Jerusalem and the multitude of angels (Heb. 12:22), and calling the angels servants of human salvation (Heb. 1:14), about their relationship to Christ he says: let every knee bow at the name of Jesus, in heaven and on earth and under the earth (Phil. 2:10). § 206. Church teaching about the Conciliator: a) before Pelagius That Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of the world is what the Christian Church repeated most often in its first centuries; She offered this through her preachers and through the mouths of the martyrs, both in symbols and in liturgical actions. Until the time of Pelagius, she offered a frank teaching about the Reconciler of the world in simplicity of words and thoughts, mostly repeating the words of the revelation itself. The fathers of the second 138, third 139 and fourth 140 centuries proposed, as a firm belief of the entire church, the idea that the death of Christ is a sacrifice for the sins of the human race, or as St. Irenaeus, “The Lord redeemed us with his own blood, gave his soul for our souls, his body for our body” 141 Patripassians, not believing in St. Trinity, they said that God the Father Himself suffered for us, however, as is obvious, they believed in the Redeemer. Origen allowed himself to think that the atoning sacrifice was made by Christ Jesus not only for all people, but also for all spirits 142. But Tertullian, even before Origen, wrote: “Christ did not accept any command from the Father regarding the salvation of the angels; the fall was imputed to them as sin, but restoration was never promised to them” 143. Jerome called Origen's opinion self-willed 144 and it was all the more sad that careless connoisseurs of Origen made his guess a subject of contention 145 . Some of the teachers portrayed the work of our redemption in such a way, as if a ransom for us had been brought to the devil. 146 The basis of this was the idea that people, having been subjected to sin, were subject to the power of the father of lies, and that this enemy of God and man could rebel against the goodness of God if sins were forgiven to people without satisfying the truth of God 147. Thus, it was the common belief of the church that God’s justice demanded that a worthy ransom be brought for sinners, and that it be brought by the Son of God 148 . In the symbol of the Ecumenical Council we read: “who was crucified for us.” St. Chrysostom excellently depicted the fullness of Christ's merit. “Much more,” he said, “Christ paid for us than what we owed; not, however, in the sense that the infinite price of Christ’s merit was greater than the infinite truth of God; in the infinite one cannot find either greater or less, but in the fact that Christ not only rejected the disasters that Adam inflicted, but also provided us with much more benefits, that is, grace, life and glory” 149. § 207. b) From the time of Pelagius to the Reformation Since the time of Pelagius, the church began to fight against false opinions about the reconciliator, however, more in the west than in the east, where Pelagius was little known. The Pelagians, not finding any corruption in human nature, did not recognize the need for a reconciliator. According to their thinking, Jesus Christ is nothing more than a teacher of the world, who helped people with his teaching and holiness of life. Pelagius is condemned by the church. But some, in disputes with the Pelagians, pointing to the eternal counsel of God about the Redeemer of the world, limited redemption only to the elect, predestined to salvation 150. The teaching of the Orthodox Church is as complete as St. Damascene in the book about faith 151, and in his songs 152 Since the 12th century, the doctrine of the reconciliator has been subject to various corruptions in the West, partly from freethinking, partly from ignorance and passions. Abellyard and Arnold of Breccia were convicted of Pelagianism. - To the first question: why God, who could forgive sins with a word, demanded the death of Christ, the pious Bernard answered: “Ask God, but I don’t know: it’s written so and that’s enough” 153. Anselm of Canterbury to the question; cur Deus homo? proposed a whole essay. In essence, he did no more than bring his previous thoughts into the form of strict, consistent reflection. His theory, which in its foundations agreed with the general church teaching, was used for evil in the West. Thomas Aquinas, not being able to understand the fullness of Christ's merit, as the great Chrysostom understood it, expanded the limits of Anselm's theory and said that the Son of God brought superabundant satisfaction (satisfactio superalnindans). Duns Scotus and his Franciscan disciples insisted that the satisfaction of Christ does not have a price in itself, but only through the gracious condescension of God (non ex se, sed ex Dei gratuita acceptancee suffecisse). The thought of the Aquinas theologian was taken to a harmful extreme and nevertheless was sanctified by the bull of Pope Clement 4 (1343); From the thought of Aquinas, the scholastics drew a conclusion about the treasury of superabundant deeds, about the difference between the commandments and advice of the Gospel, vol. indulgences. OK. 1350, thousands of wanderers went to Rome for remission of sins, and thousands of others received forgiveness even more easily. Ignorance and passions sanctified the dark superstition. § 208. c) Since the Reformation This situation in the West required reform: but the reform brought new insults to the truth. The followers of Luther inadvertently declared themselves the restorers of the forgotten doctrine of the merits of the Redeemer and, under the guise of hope for these merits, having relieved themselves of the obligation of Christian asceticism, they distinguished, according to the types of self-delusion, in the actions of the Redeemer active obedience and passive obedience (obedientia activa, obedientia passiva). The Calvinists, moreover, limited the merits of the Redeemer to only the elect. 154 The Socinians turned to the Pelagian teaching. For them, the death of Christ is only a guarantee of God’s readiness to forgive us our sins; they said that since it is not easy for us to believe that our sins will be forgiven, God, who cannot be offended by anything, offered the death of Christ as a sign of his desire to forgive sinners 155. The Socinian thought was accepted by mystics and various dreamers (Anabaptists, Mennonites, Quakers, etc.), and even more by rationalists. The latter gave it a different look and even reduced it to the meaning of one opinion of the time. The best of the Protestants with sorrow and indignation refuted these opinions as anti-Christian 156, but the so-called church Protestant school was forced to abandon some of the mistakes of the founders of Protestantism 157. The Roman Church remained stubborn in the mistakes of its dark time - it remained with indulgences and with the abundant merits of the saints, despite the cruel lesson taught to it by the Reformation 158 The Orthodox Church continues to offer its ancient teaching about the atoning death of Christ. We see such teaching in the Orthodox confession of faith, in the definitions of the Jerusalem Council of 1671 and in catechisms. In the first she teaches that a) “The Word suffered for us in the flesh on the cross”; b) “Christ suffered without being involved in any sin”; c) suffered according to the flesh, and not according to the deity, however, the deity was not separated during the suffering; d) the death of Christ was a death, unique both in terms of the severity of our sins and because “Christ on the cross offered Himself as a sacrifice to God for the redemption of the entire human race” 159. St. Demetrius especially loved to reverently reflect on the suffering of the Savior. “It was necessary,” he wrote, that the Son of God himself, having descended from heaven, become incarnate, suffered, and with His blood repaid the debt to God’s justice for human sin” 160. § 209. The doctrine of the conciliator a) in accordance with the theoretical principles of reason Over the course of centuries, freethinking and passions have come up with many objections to the frank teaching about the reconciler of the world. The preaching about the life-giving power of the cross of Christ seduced the Jews and seemed madness to the Greeks; it seemed the same to Christians like them, 161 but in itself it is God’s wisdom (1 Cor. 1:33). Sound reason, without renouncing its principles and the feedback of experience, cannot find in this teaching anything inconsistent with the pure truth 162. The idea of ​​the atoning death of Christ agrees with the requirements of theoretical reason - a) There is no doubt that man is sinful before God both by nature and by habit, and being a sinner he is not able to do anything to justify himself before God. It can't. he can appease the justice of God with his repentance; it does not destroy the consequences of sin and, given our constant inclination towards sin, is not pure and fruitful. He cannot reconcile God with himself and his better life: living in the best way, we only fulfill our duty and our better life contains many things that again accuse us before God; and our previous guilts remain unsorted even in a better life 163 · So man needs outside help. Man has always felt this need, more or less vividly. From history we see that the entire ancient world made sacrifices and now pagan peoples do the same. This means that in humanity there is both a feeling of guilt before God and a feeling of the need to make amends for one’s guilt before Him - there is also faith in redemption and atoning death. There is no need to determine here: did tradition teach peoples to make bloody sacrifices? It is enough for us that the nations held and continue to believe in the redemptive sacrifices – Purifying sacrifices 164, pacifying offerings of people as sacrifices 165 are known among nations. The idea of ​​a sufferer being the culprit of saving people was also quite well known 166 . b) Recognizing the idea of ​​a Redeemer in agreement with the needs of man, the mind cannot but recognize it in agreement with its general concepts about God. aa) Recognizing the work of human redemption as nothing other than the work of God’s boundless freedom (§ 33.185), reason at the same time cannot refuse the fact that this too is in accordance with the concepts of a good and just God. Recognizing Him as good, the mind agrees that human sins can be forgiven. Recognizing Him as just, he believes that sins can only be forgiven if they are satisfied with the truth. God is not only infinitely good, but also infinitely righteous. His goodness is righteous and truth is good. He demands satisfaction for sin, like love for good. Out of boundless love for good, He does not tolerate sin, turns away from it, leaves it to its consequences, or, which is the same, strikes with punishments. Leaving sin without punishment would also mean in God that showing favor to sin. Therefore, He, as infinitely good, as infinitely loving goodness, is infinitely displeased with sin, and is just towards sin. So they are rudely confused when they think that it is unworthy of the Heavenly Father to demand satisfaction for sin. bb) If the demands of infinite justice can be fulfilled by the infinite: then the mind sees in the death of the God-man a worthy satisfaction to the infinite truth of God. The greatness of Jesus, as the true God, not separate from the sufferer Jesus, by the personal union of divinity with humanity in Jesus, imparts an infinite value to the suffering of the reconciler Jesus. That’s why Duns-Scot’s gratuita acceptatio leniency is superfluous; in the same way, it does not agree with the concept of boundless truth and satisfactio superabundans, the excessive satisfaction preached by Aquinas contrary to the sound reasoning of Chrysostom, and to the detriment of pure piety. “Don’t be surprised, in the words of St. Cyril Jerus., that the whole world has been redeemed: for He who died for the world was not an ordinary man, but the only begotten Son of God. The sin of one man, Adam, could have brought death to the world. “Is it not through the righteousness of the One that life will reign” 167 . cc) Sin is a violation of the law. But the law exists from the one who is the legislator. Therefore, sin, breaking the law, violates the rights of the legislator. And if the law, by its immutability, requires reward for breaking the law: then this is also what the legislator requires. So in vain Socinus, covering up the truth with a play on words, says that “God cannot be offended by anything.” By breaking the law, the rights of the lawgiver God are violated, and reward must be given for violating these rights. - Common sense understands that in denouncing Socinus it is not enough to say with Grotius that it is not God, but the law that demands reward for breaking the law; he boldly tells Socinus that the supreme legislator - God, without renouncing his right, cannot help but demand rewards for crimes against the law. On the other hand, the supreme legislator, giving the law, cannot but want both the fulfillment of the law and its safety from violations of self-will; otherwise He must protect the law from crimes by fear of punishment, and thereby inspire respect for the law; and everyone easily sees such a meaning in the terrible death of the Redeemer. d) Is it not in accordance with the truth of God to accuse and punish the innocent and the most holy for the guilty? This would be so if a righteous person, against His will, was given over to suffer for the guilty. But He was not accused by the Heavenly Father; He voluntarily accepted the guilt of people and voluntarily suffered punishment for them. Justice subjected to suffering not the righteous, but the One who appeared before Him in the person of unrighteous humanity. The righteous wanted to give Himself up for the unrighteous in order to equip them and fulfill the will of God’s righteousness. Is this not the kind of thing that the love of one who loves all that is holy could not but accept with love? Justice could not but reward with favor the righteous man who accomplished the feat of the highest, purest love. That is why the righteous man testified: for this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My soul, that I may receive it again (John 10:17). It would be another matter if the death of Christ were only a symbol of the severity of God’s justice, and not a voluntary sacrifice, as others want: then the death on the cross of an unprecedented righteous man would definitely be an insult to the truth of God 168 § 210. a) In accordance with the practical principles of reason The idea of the atoning death of Christ is in complete agreement with the practical principles of reason. a) She agrees with the concepts of reason about the world of moral spirits. It is clear to reason that if there is a world of moral spirits, then without disturbing the order in this world, without causing disorder in it, it is impossible to forgive a sinner, out of kindness alone, without satisfying the truth. The higher world of good spirits is humane: but it loves the truth in itself and in others. The world of evil spirits, not loving the truth in itself, is ready to demand from others the preservation of the truth, especially since the suffering of others is pleasure for it. The thought of moral perfection for finite spirits is not separate from the thought of bliss, just as the thought of sin is not separate from the thought of suffering. Impunity for sin is just as outrageous for good spirits as it is useless for evil ones. b) It is not clear how someone else’s state becomes our state, someone else’s truth becomes our truth? On the contrary: children of criminal fathers suffer punishment for the crimes of their parents. The merits of the ancestors are imputed to the descendants and the services of one person are transferred to the whole clan. The human race is one whole, where nations and people are the same as members in a living physical organism. Our connection with Christ is closer than our connection with any other person - He is our head and God-man. If the fruits of the first sin passed from the forefather to the descendants through natural birth, then shouldn’t the beneficial fruits of obedience to the God-man and the new head of people pass to believers through grace-filled rebirth? c) The thought of our redemption in Christ, in its pure form, does not dispose anyone to negligence and inaction. Revelation shows that the assimilation of Christ's merits depends on our freedom, and therefore requires work and activity; it shows that on our part faith in the merits of Jesus is required, but faith is not fruitless, but faith is living, faith that crucifies the flesh and its passions. If people (for example, Protestants) used the teaching about the merits of Christ for evil, to indulge laziness and relaxation: this does not mean that the teaching itself is not useful for morality; it only means that people do not want to use it, as an insult to the laws of the soul 169 . d) The thought of our Redeemer arouses in us aversion from sin and reverence for the law of God; for it indicates what our redemption from sin cost and how terrible it is to fall under the judgment of God’s justice. e) It is not easy for anyone to agree to die for the righteous himself, as the apostle says. But people understand that the feat of one who sacrifices himself for the salvation of others is a high feat, calling everyone to work for others - it awakens weakened and strengthens strong love for others; – he makes us blush for our cries of self-interest. f) The thought of the Redeemer Jesus fills the soul with sweet and faithful hope in the Heavenly Father: if He, the Heavenly Father, did not spare His Son for us: what after that cannot we expect from Him? While without Christ humanity remains joyless, hopeless, finding nothing to support the soul, oppressed by both sin and the world, with Christ it boldly goes to fight all the troubles of earthly life. g) Finally, the thought of the Redeemer calls the soul to grateful and most complete service to the Lord. Suppressing any attempt at proud dreaming about oneself, it demands from a person the most complete self-sacrifice for the Heavenly Father. Under the influence of this thought, the servant of Christ said: “Who will separate us from the love of God? Tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or danger, or sword? - Neither death nor life can separate us from the love of God in Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 8:35.39). That the Son of God, as true God, as consubstantial with the Father and the Holy. The Spirit is the king and ruler of the world - this can be seen from the concept of God - the Provider of the world. But whether the love of the Son of God extends to the point that He, having enlightened us with His teaching and redeemed us with His blood, does not leave us with His royal cover in the person of the God-man, is another matter. We are poor sinners, poor pilgrims of the earth, surrounded by so many earthly disasters. Does the love of the God-man condescend to these needs of ours? Let us separate in the person of Christ the Son of God the divine deeds and rights from the rights of the Messiah and try to learn from the word of God: a) does Jesus Christ, as the Savior of the world, have the name and power of a king - ruler? b) If He belongs, what kind of kingdom is this over which He is king? c) in what and how is His royal power revealed? d) Will it ever end? § 212. Jesus Christ is king The Old Testament revelation pointed to the true King in the Savior of the world. David (Psalm 2:6) presents Him as the King of Zion, to whom the nations have been given as an inheritance and who will rule them with a rod of iron. Other prophets not only gave Him the name of king (Jer. 33, 5. 6. Ezek. 34, 28. Zech. 9, 2), but represented Him as the Lord of the nations, the eternal Lord, with the power and actions of a king Micah. 5, 2. 6). Dan. 7, 13, 14). In the New Testament revelation, the angel, announcing to Mary the birth of the Messiah, preached: the Lord God will give Him the throne of David His Father and reign throughout the ages (Luke 1:32). This was also announced to the shepherds (Luke 2:11). Naoanael expressed his confession about the Messiah Jesus this way: You are the Son of God, You are the king of Israel (John 1:49). Jesus Christ Himself in answers to Pilates’ question: is He a king? He did not reject the name of the king (John 18:37), just as he accepted the solemn greetings of the people: Hosanna to the Son of David, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord, the king of Israel (Matthew 21:9; John 12:13). About Jesus Christ, who was taken up into heaven, the scripture says that He received not only the name that is above every name (Phil. 2, 9. Heb. 1, 4), but all power in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28, 18. Ephesians 1, 22), so that He punishes everything for Himself (Phil. 3, 21. Cor. 15, 26). The Seer of Secrets, John calls Him having the key of David (Apoc. 3:7) - a sign of royal power (Isa. 22:20.21), one that opens a door, and no one can shut it again (v. 8), i.e., which gives help indestructible to anyone; calls Him (Apoc. 17, 14. 19, 15. 16) King of kings and Lord God, strong to defeat enemies. Depicting the royal title of Christ Jesus in language not proper, the revelation calls Jesus Christ the shepherd (Heb. 13:20. Pet. 2:25.5,4. - Psalm. 79:1) and the head (Eph. 5:23.1, 22. Col. 1:18). Thus, according to the description of revelation, Jesus Christ is a king, not only by name, but also by royal power. § 213. The Kingdom of Christ is not a political kingdom, but a spiritual one The Forerunner, announcing the approach of the kingdom of Christ, although he did not explain in detail the properties of this kingdom, nevertheless made it clear that it is not an earthly kingdom, since he called it the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 3:2) and recognized the forgiveness of sins as belonging to it (John 1:22). Jesus Christ Himself testified that the kingdom over which He is king is a spiritual kingdom. To Pilates’ clear question: is He an earthly king of the Jews, Jesus responded with a denial and said that His kingdom is not an earthly kingdom, but a political one; otherwise He would have protected Himself from His enemies by political measures: My kingdom is not of this world; Even if My kingdom were of this world, My servants would have fought, and I would not have been given over to the Jews: but now My kingdom is not from here. When Pilate, hearing that Jesus did not renounce the name of the King, again asked: Are you a king? Jesus confirmed that He is definitely a King, but His royal work is to spread the truth. You say that I am the king. For this I was born and for this I came into the world, that I may testify to the truth. After this, Pilate saw that the denunciation of the Jews that Jesus wanted to be the king of the Jews, to the detriment of Caesar’s power, meant nothing more than a denunciation of slander and said to the Jews: I find no guilt in Him (John 18:34-38). But even before this, the Pharisees, busy with dreams of the brilliant earthly kingdom of the Messiah, asked the Lord Jesus: when will the kingdom of God come? Having answered them with a speech: the kingdom of God will not come with discretion (μετά παρατηράσεως) ״ Below they say: here, or: onde. Behold, the kingdom of God is within you. (Luke 17, 20. 21). Παρατήρησις in general usage means observation made by the bodily eye; in the sense of the Pharisees, it combines the thought of the brilliance and outward greatness of the object being looked at. So the kingdom of God is not such that it can be imagined as a majestic object of observation for the sensory eye 170. It cannot appear in this or that place, like any polythenic kingdom; on the contrary, everything is arranged in the spirit of 171. The same testimony of Jesus Christ about His kingdom is evident from the fact that a) He required a contrite consciousness of sins (Matthew 4:17) and spiritual poverty (Matthew 5:3) to enter His kingdom. b) He taught his people that they must renounce all desire for earthly peace if they want to be in the peace of Christ (Mark 9:47; Luke 18:29), and predicted cruel disasters for Himself and for them (Matthew 16:22; 10, 16–18; Luke 9:18). c) Strictly denounced the earthly ambitions of the sons of Zebedee (Mark 10:35) and Peter (Matthew 16:23), and when asked who is greatest in the kingdom, he pointed to the child (Matthew 18:1). d) He clearly said that He did not come to be served, but to serve others (Matthew 20:28), He tried to hide His glorious deeds - His miracles from the attention of people (Matthew 9:30.8, 4. John 5, 14.9, 12.) and when the people wanted to proclaim Him an earthly king, He hid. Although the apostles, before the resurrection of Christ and even before the most solemn descent of the Holy Spirit on them, expected, together with the Jews, the visible kingdom of the Messiah - the political kingdom: until this expectation in itself should have weakened after the ascension of Christ, and then, as they were enlightened by the Holy Spirit, they saw and said that the kingdom of Christ is actually a spiritual kingdom. They taught that the kingdom of Christ is truth, peace and joy produced by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 14:17), a kingdom opposite to the dark kingdom of the spirit of malice - the devil (Col. 1:13), a kingdom that embraces both heaven and earth (Eph. 1:10), and is unshakable (Heb. 12:28). The apostles, by their very deeds and lives, testified to the spirit of the kingdom of Christ. St. Paul, on behalf of the apostles, wrote: I remember that we are God’s messengers of the last manifestation, like death rows: for shame we have become the world, both angel and man. We are buoys for Christ's sake, weak, dishonest, etc. (1 Cor. 4:9 – 13). § 214. Earthly temporary reign of Christ Christ Jesus, at the very inauguration of the office of the Messiah and His forerunner, preached: the time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is drawing near (Mark 1, 15. Mat. 3, 1. 4, 17. Luke 10, 9. 11). These words, obviously, contain the meaning that one time ended with the appearance of Jesus Christ into the world, and another began (2 Tim. 4:6), and this last time is called the time of the kingdom of God. The Savior pronounced the same testimony about the time of the initial appearance of the kingdom of God, or the kingdom of Christ, when he said that from the days of John the Baptist the kingdom of heaven is taken by force and intelligent seekers achieve it - αρπάζουσιν αὐτήν (Matthew 11, 12. Luke 16, 16). If they are already taking the kingdom of God, then this shows that the kingdom of God has come. To the Pharisees who accused Jesus Christ of having relations with the spirit of evil, Jesus said: if through the Spirit of God I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God will come upon you (Matthew 12:28). The Pharisees themselves connected with the time of the appearance on earth of the kingdom of the Messiah the time of weakening of the devil's power, and the Savior, with their own way of thinking, exposes the injustice of their opinion about Him; shows that if He casts out demons by the power of God: then this, in their judgment, is a sign that the kingdom of God has already come, has appeared among people: this is the meaning of the last words according to their use (see Sol. 2, 16. Rom. 9, 31. Phil. 3, 16). The Lord Jesus prophesied in the hearing of the Jews: Amen, I say to you, for there are none of them who stand here, who have not tasted death, until they see the kingdom of God come with power (Mark 9:1). These words were spoken, according to the Evangelist Mark (8, 34), to the people and disciples, according to Luke (9, 23.) to everyone; ερλεσθ & αι εν δυναμει like ερλεσθαι εν σαρ x ι (John 4:2), means to be endowed with power. So, before some of those who are to come taste death, and this also means that before they die (John 8:52, Heb. 2:9), the kingdom of God must open in its power; track. it was not in force before on earth; at the indicated time it will appear endowed with power. No matter how humble the royal power of Christ seemed in earthly life: He himself, ready to die, confessed before his Father: what you gave to me, you have kept (John 17:12). This means that in earthly life He showed your royal power as much as He considered necessary. § 215. Gradual revelation of the royal power of Christ, after the death of Christ After death on the cross, the royal glory of Christ was gradually revealed more and more. 1) It manifested itself by bringing the Old Testament righteous out of hell. The teacher of languages ​​speaks of Christ: having ascended on high, you took captivity captive, and gave to man. And he who came up, as he did before, went down into the depths of the earth: he who came down is also the one who ascended above all the heavens, that all things may be fulfilled (Eph. 4:8-10). Ap. Peter writes: Christ suffered for us alone, the righteous for the unrighteous, that He might bring us to God: for having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the Spirit, He went forth to preach about Him and those in spiritual prison (1 Peter 3:18, 19). It is our duty to preach the gospel to the dead, so that they may receive judgment according to man in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit (1 Peter 4:6). These apostolic sayings are explained one by one: a) further countries where Christ went, according to Paul, correspond to the prison of spirits announced by the preaching of Christ, according to Peter. What kind of place is this? This is not a tomb and the descent into prison is not the burial of Christ in the tomb, as the new Protestants vainly interpret: there was no one to preach in the tomb and no spirits could be found. On the other hand, the name of the underworld usually refers to the place where the spirits of the dead arrive (Deut. 32, 22. Psalm 85, 12, 138, 15.) So it is clear that the apostles are talking about the descent of Christ into hell. b) When was it that I. Christ descended into the prison of spirits? He suffered, having been put to death in the flesh, but revived in the spirit, and a sermon came down about him and those in spiritual prison. According to these words, Christ descended into the prison of spirits while he was dead in the flesh; then, being alive in spirit, through the action of divine power he descended into the prison of spirits. The church hymn sings: to the grave carnally, but to hell with the soul like God 172. c) according to a. Peter, the spirits of the prison heard the lofty teaching of Christ who had descended to them, and this sermon was proclaimed to them with the purpose that they could live according to the spirit, after the flesh was punished with temporary suffering. Ap. Paul clearly says that captivity was taken in prison, or the captives of the prison received freedom through the power of Christ the righteous. – What kind of prisoners? The words of the ap. Peter is forced to limit their number to those who were able to listen to Christ the righteous. This is how the church teachers explained the apostles. Eg. St. Gregory of the two-words writes in: “stick to what the faith of the universal church teaches, that is, that the Lord descended into hell and snatched from its confines only those who during their lives were preserved by Him in faith and good activity” 173. “The Lord descends,” says St. Irenaeus, into the underworld of the earth, and there he announces his coming and the remission of sins to those who believe in Him; and all those who were waiting for Him believed, that is, in those who foretold His coming and served His orders, the righteous, the prophets and the patriarchs” 174. 2) The second degree of the royal glory of Christ Jesus was His glorification by resurrection from the dead. To me is given all authority in heaven and on earth, says the Risen One to his disciples (Matthew 28:18). Ap. Peter tells the Jews about the risen one: “Let all the house of Israel know with certainty that God has made this very Jesus, whom you crucified, Lord and Christ” (Acts 12:36). Ap. Paul shows that in the resurrection from the dead Christ Jesus was called, that is, revealed, the Son of God in this, according to the spirit of holiness (Rom. 4:25). In relation to people, His resurrection is the basis of their general resurrection: Christ is raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who died.... Just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will live. He is the head, and believers are His members. If the boss lives, then He will not leave those under Him in the power of death (1 Cor. 15 20-23). As for the reality of the resurrection of Christ: it is beyond any doubt. Foretold by the psalmist (Ps. 15:10; Acts 2:29-31) and the deliverance of Jonah from the belly of the whale (Matthew 12:39.40), many times foretold by Christ the Savior (Matthew 16:4.21; 17:9.23; 20:17-19; 26, 31; John 2, 10, 17), this event was witnessed by eyewitnesses. The resurrected One appeared to two disciples on the way to Emmaus and explained the Scripture (Mark 16, 12. 13; Luke 24, 1 – 35); appeared to ten disciples and after 8 days to 11 disciples, at which he allowed His wounds to be touched and ate food (Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36–43; John 20:19–30); appeared on the Sea of ​​Tiberias while fishing and ate bread and fish (John 21:1-14); appeared to his 500 faithful (1 Cor. 15:6) 175. 3) A fuller revelation of the royal power and glory in Christ Jesus followed with His ascension into heaven. The Ascension into heaven took place on the Mount of Olives (Acts 1:12), which belonged to Bethany (Luke 24:50; Mark 11:1), on the very mountain on which His dying suffering took place (Luke 22:44). He ascended into heaven visibly, so that the disciples accompanied him with a long vision of him ascending to heaven; the two angels who appeared explained to them that with the same glory Christ Jesus would appear on earth when he came to judge the world (Luke 24:50, 51; Acts 1:9). They say that the event is described only by St. Mark and Luke 176. But it's not fair. According to the story of St. John, the Savior predicted to the disciples: if you see the Son of man ascending, where he was before (John 6:62), where θεωρειν - to see means to see with bodily eyes, like John. 14, 19. and after the resurrection he said to Mary: I will ascend to my Father and your father (John 20:17). The ascension of Jesus Christ into heaven was preached by the Apostle Peter (Acts 2:33–35; Peter 3:22) and Paul (Eph. 4:10; Heb. 9:24; Acts 13:35–37). Track. the reality of the event is beyond doubt. What does Jesus' ascension into heaven mean 177? This is not the same as the ascension of Elijah into heaven, which is said: Elijah was taken up into heaven (2 Kings 2:11). Elijah was transferred to a higher country, but heaven, the abode of bliss, was not yet opened (John 3:13). Christ Jesus, according to the revelation, not only “entered into heaven itself” (Heb. 9:24), passed through the heavens (Heb. 4:14), was exalted above the heavens (Heb. 7:26), and this signifies glory unattainable for Elijah, but He sat down at the right hand of God the Father (Mark 16:19; Luke 24:50; Acts 2:33 – 35 ; Heb. 12, 2). What does this mean? Sitting at the right hand of the king, in the language of scripture, means not only participation in royal honors (1 Kings 2, 19. 22. Mark 20, 25), but also participation in royal power, in the power of governing the kingdom (1 Kings 3, G; Deut. 17, 18; Mark 10, 37; Matt. 20, 21). Accordingly, the sitting of Christ Jesus at the right hand of God the Father means participation in the glory and power of the Ruler of the universe. This is what St. says about it. fathers, for example St. Hilary 178. This is what St. testifies. scripture Ascended to heaven, according to St. Peter, received power over the angelic world: having ascended on high, the angel submitted to Him and the authority and powers (1 Peter 3:22). Ap. Paul teaches that the sitting of Christ Jesus at the right hand of God the Father contains His authority over all the powers of earth and heaven (Eph. 1:20–23; 4:10). The Savior, talking with his disciples about his departure from the earth, said: I am going to prepare a place for you. And if I prepare a place for you, I will come again and take you to myself, so that where I am, you too will be (John 14:2.3). You don't have it, but I'm coming. If I do not go, the Comforter will not come to you: if I do go, I will send Him to you (John 16:7). And ap. Peter testifies: the right hand of God is exalted and the promise of St. You have received the Spirit from the Father, this outpouring, which you see and hear (Acts 2:23). This means that the actions of the ascended are before our eyes. Invested with power over heaven and earth, Christ the King, in order to preserve his church, continues to this day to provide shepherds and teachers for the church (Eph. 4:7 – 11, 16), which is why they are called associates of the kingdom of God (Col. 4:11). “He is always able,” says the apostle about the ascended Christ, to save those who come to God through Him, being always alive to intercede for them (Heb. 7:25). This means that the Savior, our king, no matter what earthly temptations may be, protects every believer with his protection; or as the apostle says otherwise (Rom. 8:34. 37): He is “at the right hand of God and intercedes for us,” therefore “we overcome all things by the power of God the Father who loved us.” § 216. The eternal reign of Jesus Christ The Apostle Paul teaches about Christ: δετ θθβασιλευειν, άχρί and αν παντας τ. έχθρβς υπό τ, πόδας αυτοΰ. These words can either be explained this way: “He must reign until He puts all enemies under His feet”; or like this: “He must reign even to the point of conquering all his enemies.” Further the apostle says: όταν δέ υποταγή, Αυτῶ "τά πάντα, τότε x αὶ Ἀυτός ό Ύ ὶός υποταγήσεται τῶ ύποταξάντι A υτῶ τά πάντα . And these words can be translated either like this: “when he puts all things under him, then the Son himself will submit to him who put all things under him,” or: “since he puts all things under him, then it is clear that the Son Himself was subject to Him who put all things in subjection” (1 Cor. 15:25.28) Against the first and in favor of the latter explanation is that a) αχρις θ, just as εως does not always mean a limit beyond which any action or state will not continue; on the contrary, it shows only the duration of a state or action (Matt. 28, 20. Tim. 4, 13) 179. b) Jesus Christ, as the Son of man, was and remains under the authority of the Father; It is impossible to understand the words of the apostle in such a way that it is as if the time is still ahead when the Son will submit to the Father, who has subjected everything to Him. c) The Apostle means to show that even our last enemy (death) will be defeated; to prove this thought, he points out that the royal power of Christ must one day overcome everything. But since at the same time there was bewilderment whether such power of the Son would not degrade the power of the Father, the apostle says: since, according to the word of the singer (Psalm 109:1), the Father will submit everything to Him, then from this it is already clear that the Son is always subordinate to the Father 180. Track. the apostle does not want to limit the royal power of Christ to a certain limit, on the contrary, he exposes his power, and thus he himself leads our thought to the endless continuation of the kingdom of Christ; he says that only the influence of enemies on the kingdom of Christ will cease (vv. 26 and 28), and His royal power will never weaken due to anything; on the contrary, it will one day be revealed in such power and in such glory that everything hostile to God and Christ will be humbled. So the apostle speaks not of a cessation, but of a new state of the kingdom of Christ. since in the new situation the kingdom of Christ appears to the apostle to be in many ways different from the previous situation: then in fairness it is necessary to call the kingdom itself the new kingdom of Christ. The kingdom of Christ, which now appears among people, even according to the experiences of people themselves, is the kingdom of the grace of Christ; it is glorious in the experience of victory over the stubbornness of sinful people, but it is darkened by sinful people and the spirit of malice operating in sinners. And the kingdom that will follow the earthly kingdom will be a kingdom of glory unclouded by anything. Ap. John saw in revelation: and the seventh angel sounded, and a great voice sounded in heaven, saying: “This is the kingdom of the world (the kingdom) of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign forever and ever.” And this kingdom, as John saw, will come when the time comes to judge the dead (Apoc. 11, 15, 17). We see the same idea in other words of the seer (Apoc. 22, 13. 21, 22). In the new kingdom of Christ, which will appear after the temporary kingdom of grace, there will be no tares, but only pure wheat (Matthew 13, 39. 40. Luke 13, 25-30). there will be nothing unclean (Cor. 6:9), there will only be those who labored with selflessness throughout time for the glory of God (Matthew 25:34. 46. Acts 14:22. Eph. 5:5. Apoc. 22:15) and they will enjoy indescribable joys (2 Peter 1:11; James 2, 5). “Event of prophecies about Jesus Christ” in Christ. Thurs. 1843. part 2. pp. 456–490, light article, translation from French First Easter 2, 13. after the Lord entered into public ministry. The second 5. 1. is called a holiday, as Easter is called by other evangelists (Matthew 26, 5. Mar. 15, 5. Luke 23, 17); before that, four months before the harvest, the Lord visited Samaria (4:35) and then went to the holiday; and at that time the Jews had no other holiday except Passover. This is how St. Irenaeus understood the holiday. lib. 2. sar. 22 and 3. Third Passover 6, 4. after which Christ fed a multitude of people with several loaves of bread. On the last Easter (13:1) He suffered. Cheat. in the chronology Thurs. 1838 IV, 318 answer to the question: “in what year was Jesus Christ born”? Weeks of Daniel - in the ridge. read 1844. 1, 481. De bello iud. lib. 4. e. 6. § 2. About the weeks Theodoret interpret. in Danielem s. IX. t. 2. The later Jews, not being able to deny that the prophecies about the time of the coming of the Messiah were fulfilled with accuracy, turned to different schools and became confused in their thoughts. Some fell into some kind of despair and began to say that the Messiah was not promised, for example. argued R. Albo in the book ikkarim; others postponed his coming until the next century and world, like R. Manasses Ben Israel in the book: de resur. mortuor. lib 2. p. 3. Others began to shower curses on the one who would begin to determine the time of the coming of the Messiah: “may the soul of those who calculate the times (of the Messiah) be destroyed.” Others say that the time of the coming of the Messiah is delayed because of the sins of Israel. Many other similar, often funny, opinions about the Messiah and his coming were collected by Buxtorf de synagoga iudiaca p. 50. Basil 1661. at Ugolina Thesavrus t. 4. r. 1153. in Shikarad a Ius iudeorum, in Schstien: Horae hebraicae. Such a diversity of interpretations, as is clear, exposes itself in its wicked arbitrariness, especially since not one of these interpretations was known to the ancient Jewish church. Against the fact that Jesus Christ was born from the tribe of David, they argue that Jesus originated not from Joseph, but from Mary (Luke 2:18), whose origin is supposedly unknown, But a) if St. Matthew in his genealogy exposes Joseph as a descendant of David 1, 16. then since, according to Jewish custom, Joseph could choose a bride for himself only in his Davidic tribe: Mary, the mother of Jesus, betrothed to Joseph, was, like Joseph, from the tribe of David, and not of unknown origin, b) The genealogy of Jesus, exhibited by St. .Luke, there is actually a genealogy of St. Mary, as well as the genealogy of St. Matthew represents the ancestors of Joseph, aa) Joseph comes from St. Matthew from David through Solomon 1, 16. 6; and at St. Luke's genealogy of Jesus' ancestors comes from David through Nathan 3, 36; track. this is another genealogy, the genealogy of Mary; bb) at the saints Matthew, Joseph's father James 1. 16, and St. Luke says about Jesus: “He was, as they thought, the son of Joseph, Eli”, etc. 3, 23. Eli or Eli is a shortened pronunciation of Eliakim; Eliakim and Joachim are unambiguous names: the Lord is the helper, and they were used one instead of the other. And according to the narrative of Jacob of the 2nd century, the parent of St. Mary was definitely Joachim. - Why St. Did Luke call Eli-Joachim the father of Joseph? According to Jewish custom, a daughter, in the absence of a brother, is the heir of her parents' property, and the one who takes her assumes the rights of the son of her parents. So Joseph, having become engaged to Mary, became the son of Joachim-Eli. See Maldonati sot. in s. Mathsei sar. 1, 16. Hottingeri de genealogia Iesu in sylloge disser׳ tat. Lngduz batav. 1732. Kuinoel prolegom. comra. § 4 Eckerman (Thelog. Beitrage st. 1) and some others, in refutation of Collins, wrote that dilapidated conditions. the doctrine of Jesus as the Messiah is not essential in Christianity, but belongs to Judaism. This is an extreme against which the history of mankind rebels. If the Jews did not recognize Jesus Christ as the Messiah of the prophet and handed Him over to death, then this says as little against faith in the Messiah Jesus as it says little against faith in Moses and the prophets as messengers of God that the Jewish people so many times rebelled against Moses and did not allow the prophets to die by their death; it is even necessary to say more: the corruption of the Jewish people during the time of Jesus Christ was so great, according to the testimony of history, as it was not during the time of Moses and the prophets. What can we expect from the high priests, the buyers of their dignity, from the Pharisees and scribes, who sought only glory, from a people corrupted by both prejudices and the example of the highest? !.A look at today's Jews" in Christ. Thurs. 1834 III, 280. Ibid. 1837 IV, 333. how could the Jews not recognize the Messiah in the person of I. Christ. Bel (Diction. crit. edit. 1734. p. 721. 722) and those like him did not understand what they demanded of reason when they demanded that it put forth from its principles evidence of the necessity of the incarnation of God, as if the incarnation of the Son of God was not a matter of the will of God, but a matter of nature. - The clear and real state of the matter is this: the incarnation of the Son of God is open to man. All that remains is to accept it with your soul. What is needed for the soul to accept and not reject it? It is necessary that in the pure, God-created needs of the soul there is nothing inconsistent with the frank thought of the incarnation of God. If this is the attitude of frank thought to the soul: then only criminal self-will, wicked stubbornness, and not a soul that values truth can reject it. Kirill Alex. Dialog. IX. r. 723 Chrysostom: “if it is said that God sent his Son in the likeness of flesh: do not conclude from this that the flesh of Chrysyuva was not the same; the word likeness was added because human flesh is called the flesh of sin, and Christ did not have sinful flesh, but only one similar to our sinful and sinless one.” Demon. XIII after Roman. Tertullian: “says that Christ was in the likeness of the flesh of sin; it is not that he took on the likeness of flesh, as if it were an image of the body, and not reality; but he understands the likeness of sinful flesh. The flesh of Christ was not sinful, equal to the flesh of him whose sin was; was with nature, but not with Adam’s sin.” De carne Christi § 16. 61. Strauss (Glaub. 2, 96), dissatisfied with the birth of Christ Jesus from the Holy Spirit, writes: “if the birth of the sinless Jesus was necessary: ​​a simpler way would be - the sanctification of the natural act of birth in both parents.” But a) from the experiences of Isaac and the Forerunner it is clear that the sanctification of the act of birth would not have freed Jesus from hereditary corruption, b) If Mr. Strauss, rejecting the path of the wisdom of God chosen for the sanctification of Jesus, knows a better way: he should have revealed this wonderful path with all clarity. Otherwise, one can only think that he is. pointing out to the wisdom of God how she should act, she does not understand what she is saying. St. Cyril Alex. “we say that the word then received the name Christ Jesus when it became flesh.” A letter to the queen from Damascus in exposition. faith IV ch. 6 Bretschneider Dogmat. 1, 608: “σωματίκώς means either the same as in the human body (Phil. 2:7), so that it could be visible with the eyes, or truly, in contrast to a ghost, not deceptively.” But here this or is out of place. The initial meaning of the word should be retained in any case, as long as possible. And here the initial meaning of the word is bodily in complete agreement with the connection of speech, Christ on the cross cries out: My God, my God, have you forsaken me? (Matthew 27:46). Strauss (2, 146) says: “human nature, being impersonal in itself, could not have its own feelings, therefore it could not cry. On the contrary, Christ says: “He left me.” Human personality is obvious, therefore the suffering of humanity is also certain. The sinless one, in the consciousness of his purity and innocence, being under a curse (Gal. 3:13), naturally cries out: why does innocence suffer? Here the work of the will of the sinless man was expressed. See conversations about the sufferings of the Savior 9. 1–8. 171–176. Сuo1859. g. For a detailed refutation of the Lutheran opinion about the omnipresence of Jesus’ humanity, see Feofan Prokopovich. Theol vol.III lib IX· ser. 8. The same church fathers wrote against the Judaizing Christians and against the Gnostics - St. Ignatius (Er. ad. Eph. 7. ad. Trall. 9, 10. ad. Smyrn. 2–5.), Justin (diol. cum Tryph. 100.), Irenaeus (Haer. III, 18–22. VI, 1.), Tertullian (de carne Christi, c. 5, 18. adv. Prax. 2, 27). Only Verok and Telik, deviating from the teachings of Noetov, deviated (in the 3rd century) to the extreme that they affirmed the absorption of humanity by the Divine in Jesus, and the saints were convicted of this. Hippolytus. Adv. Veronem et Helicem § 5. etc. But the phenomenon of Veron was a private phenomenon, unnoticed by anyone except Inpolit Apollinaris was denounced by: Gregory of Nazianzus (Ep. ad. Nectar, orat. L1, LII.), Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Athanasius and the second ecumenical council (can. 1, VIII). In Alexandria, before the ecumenical council, they did not even name the face of Apollinaris in the conciliar judgment (361), but only his thoughts. Irenaeus (contr. haer. 3, 19. § 1.), Origen (cont. cels 3, 41.), Methodius (conv. virg. § 4, 8.), Gregory of Nyssa (adv. Evn. orat. 2. § 5.) sl, Cyril Prot. Nestoria 1, 3. Irenaeus says: “commixtio et communio hominis” (Haer. 3, 19). Cyprian Filius Dei in virginem illabitur, carnem Spiritu cooperante induit. Deus cum homine miscetur. (De vanit. idolatr. p. 15). Augustine wrote: Verbo itaq Dei ad unitatem personae copulatus et quodammodo commixtus est homo (De Trinjt VI, 20.30). Sl. Ephraim in Asseman Bibl. Ori. Tj. p. 80. The Nestorians pointed out expressions from the ancient fathers that seemed to show only a temporary and visible, and not an internal union of two natures in Christ. These are the expressions: Christus-homo deificatus, Dominicus, a Yerbo homo assumtus, Immanitatem Christi inst• rumentum vel templum esse divinitatis. After St. Kirill Alex. (cont. Nest. 1, 1.), Leontius, the Byzantine rightly answered: non de vocibus nobis est disceptatio, sed de ipsis rebus, et harum nempe naturarum unione et naturali cohaesione, quam Patres secundum substantiam factam senserant. Adv. Hoetum § 17. seq. about the same evidence from history. Socrates 3, 7. Advers Praheam. With. 27. ff. § 26. Ad. Rgaheam. With. 16. sd. de senim s. 13.31.49. Cont. Arian. or. 3. paragraphs 31, 32. 35. Orat. 39. “The Son of God takes upon Himself to be and be called the son of man, without changing what He was, for He is unchangeable, but accepting what He was not.” - Orat. 3. r. 497: “two natures flocked into one and did not become a subdivision, but One in a subordinate nature•.-Orat. 35. r, 575; “He accepted your rudeness, having partaken of the flesh through the mind.” – Orat. 51. r. 742: “the mind (μιγναται) is united with the mind (νδς), as with something closer and more akin, and through the mind with the flesh.” St. Chrysostom, Homil, in asscens. § 2. in Math. 26, 30. § 3. 4, in Рsalm. 8, 4. 1. Epiphanius, Aucoratuf: ״He who took on human nature with divinity did not change in nature.– Isidore Pelusiot lib. 1. Epistol. 419. The Holy Virgin Mary was called the Mother of God by Origen (Socrates der. ist. VII. ch. 32), St. Dionysius alep. (at ate, to Pyle most.), St. Alexander Alex. (in Theodorit cer. history 4. Chapter 4), St. Athanasius (cont. Arian. orat. 3. n. 29). - The theologian Gregory writes: “the word was born from the Virgin. purified in soul and body by the Holy Spirit.” Orat. 38. Epist. ad epistet. t. 1,720 Nestorii Sermo 1. de incarn. § 6. Adv. Arium et Macedon. Sermo 3.-Kirill Alexander. ep. ad Clerum Constant. § 8, Kyrill alexandr. Anathem. 1.2 epist. ad E. Iohan. ap. Mansi, t- V. p. 303.-But none of the teachers of the church, either now, or in disputes with Eutychiene, taught that the Virgin Mary from her mother’s womb appeared sinless.-On the contrary, Blessed. Fulgentius Bishop wrote: Caro qvippe Mariee, qvee in iniqvitatibus fuerat humana solemnitate concepta, caro fuit peccati, qvae Filium Dei genuit in similitudine carnis peccati. De incarn. ei. grat. $6. Statement of Faith cero of the Cathedral Concil. coli Mansi t. 7. p. 108, 10. Sl. Muneaher Dogmenq $81-83. Christ. Thurs. 1847 IV, 112–140. St. Damascus wrote special works about the personal union of two natures in Christ, namely - a) about the complex nature against the acephalites, - b) about two wills and actions, - c) against the Nestorians, - d) against the Jacobites, - e) about right thought. - In his dogmatics (περί ο p θ, πίς). Damascus separates more than twenty chapters (the third book) for teaching about the face of Jesus Christ. In ch. 13–18 the properties and actions of the two natures in Christ are superimposed and among other things it is said: “Christ took on a living body with a rational soul; the soul controlled the body and was itself controlled by the Divinity of the word. So it is natural that He, as God and man, had more than one will. - Then he proves that there are two wills in Christ. In ch. 19 writes: “God-manly action means that in God incarnate human action was the action of the Divine, i.e. that is, deified, not uninvolved in the Divine action, - equally, the Divine action was not uninvolved in human action.” In chapters 20–29 he speaks of the actions of the humanity of Jesus and the participation of the Divine in them. Review, especially its dogmatics, or Evening Songs of the Virgin Mary Orthodox Confession of faith, rep. 38–42. The Orthodox confession does not know the conception of Mary in the womb of her mother, free from hereditary corruption, while the Pope recently proclaimed the dogma of the immaculate conception. The Pope's business is the audacity of self-will. -a) “We agree without further ado that the idea of ​​the virgin birth cannot be derived from revealed dogmas; St. Scripture, to tell the truth, does not clearly state that such an extraordinary advantage was acquired by Mary”: this is what Cardinals Lambruschini and Garjacher further declared. to dad himself. b) None of the church fathers hinted that anyone other than the Lord Jesus was free from original sin (note 24, 27) and not many of the fathers, who thought to cover up the invention of self-will, do not speak at all about Mary’s freedom from hereditary corruption. – At table 17, some of the Russian southern teachers, including St. Demetrius, carelessly repeated the opinion of some Westerners: but those admonished in Moscow corrected this mistake, as did St. Demetrius at the second edition even. menai. At the same time, the work of Sebaste Cyminitus was translated in Moscow, refuting the false opinion about St. Virgo. (Read archive, 1857, part 2. 1858, part 1. 1859, part 1). The objections of pagan philosophy against the incarnation of God the Word were cleverly raised by Celsus, but Origen answered them clearly and without giving the right to appeal in his work against Celsus. Bel only repeated what Celsus had said long ago and rejected by Origen, 32 Hom. de Incarnat 25 t. 1 p.m. 505. Feuerbach (D. Weson. d. christenth. s. 49, 53): “the incarnation is nothing more than the sensory manifestation of the human nature of God... God appears in the incarnation only by what He is, as a human being.” What is this? Transformation of deity into humanity? No . For Feuerbach, God incarnate is “the appearance of man who has become God.” If we don’t consider this German idle talk: a person can approach God, but he cannot become God. It's a well-known fact! This is what everyone who is not crazy in the sense thinks. If Feuerbach covers up his godlessness with idle talk, so much the worse for him. Irenaeus adv. haer. v. 1.n. 1. Tertullian: Totas veritas fuit (Christus); maluit, crede, non nasci, qvam ex aliqva parle mentiri et qvidem in Semetipsnm De carne Chris. c. 5. Augustine: Si phantasma fuit corpus Christi, fefellit Christus; et si fefellit, non est veritas. Est avtem veritas Christus. Non ergo phantasma fuit corpus Eius. De qvaest. 83 qvaest, 14. St. Ignatius: “if He suffered only in a ghost, as the godless, that is, unbelievers, claim, being themselves ghosts: then why should I be in bonds? To Trallian. 10. St. Irenaeus: “When we begin to suffer: it will seem that he is deceiving, convincing us to substitute another cheek. if he himself did not tolerate the same in practice.” Adv. hocr. III, 18. n. 6. St. Irenaeus: “in former times it was proclaimed that man was created in the image of God, but it was not shown, for they had not yet seen the Word, in the image of which man was created... We could learn no other way than by seeing the teacher and receiving His word with our ears.” Adv. haer. lib. 5. p. 1. § 1. p. 16. § 2. Bl. Aviustin: “There are fools who say: Could the wisdom of God save man otherwise than by the perception of man and birth from a woman? We tell them: without a doubt she could, but if she had acted differently, even then she would not have pleased your stupidity.” (De agone Christi» ti p. 11). Holy Demetrius growth: “What need is there for God to be born in the flesh of humanity? Is there any other way to save the human race? Nothing is possible with God.” Letop. dept. 1. p. 75. However, about the conformity with the concepts of God and man of the chosen method of reconciliation, see below in the doctrine of reconciliation § 204. 205. Strauss (Glaub. 2, 208) happily recalls that the Indians told Christian missionaries: “it is strange that among Christians God incarnated only once, but with us he incarnates often.” Is it difficult for Strauss to see that there is no reason to consider the faith of Christians strange, while the faith of the Indians is more than strange, simply absurd as an insult to God? Yehoshua is actually Jehovah who saves, just like Jehoram is high. Known: Yehoshua the son of Nun, assistant and successor of Moses (Isa. 17, 9. 24, 13), high priest, son of Jozedek, contemporary of Zerubbabel (Zech. 3, 1. Air. 1, 12) and other persons of Tsar. 6, 14. 18. 2 Kings. 23, 8. The abbreviated Yeshua appears in later times - in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah; on Nehem Ave. 8, 17. 7, 7. 2Ezra 2, 2. 3, 2, Greek, translators in both cases read: Ιησ ϫ ς. – Iascha help Isa. 45, 20. Yep. 2, 17. Ps. 3, 8. in the Form giphil hoschua bud Ioschia, rarely Iehoschia delivered, saved. Ps. 118, 6. 7, 2. 34, 7. 44, 8 Eusebius: “all of them (prophets, high priests, kings) are related to the true Christ, the divine (ενθεον) Word, who is the one bishop of all, the one king of all creation and the one initial prophet (αρχηπρόφητης) of the father over the prophets. .. All those sanctified by Him in the universe to this day honor Him as a king, revere Him more than a prophet and glorify Him as the true and only bishop of God.” Cer. East. 1, 3. Legal. confession 1. answer 34. “The name Christ means anointed one. In dilapidated in the covenant those who were anointed were called Christs, priests, kings and prophets, into which three offices Christ was anointed, however, not in a common manner with others, but primarily before all other anointed ones.” Also spacious. Christ katikh, part 2 Eg. Protestant dogma, and after it Roman dogma, distinguishing three actions in the title of high priest: purification (expiatio), intercession (intercessio) and blessing (benedictio), asked: how does Jesus Christ intercede, or what too, prays in heaven, when He is There in the glory of the Son of God? It’s clear that they didn’t know how to respond to this! Strauss (Glaub. 1, 421) says: “there is an obvious inconsistency in the fourth Gospel, that the dignity of Jesus as the Son of God is then 1:14. derived from the dwelling of the word in Him, then 1:33 is shown in the descent of the Holy Spirit on Him.” But only an absurd mind sees inconsistency there, where there is none at all. If St. John shows the dignity of Jesus both in the fact that the Word dwells in Him, and I in the fact that the Holy Spirit descended on Him: this is the simplest thought, closest to the understanding of everyone. – The descent of the Holy Spirit onto Christ Jesus at baptism shows that the Savior had no need for that rapture into heaven, which the Socinians invented, appointing a forty-day fast as the time of rapture. The opinion of the Socinians in vain points to the words of John to support it. 3, 13; 6, 12 which speak of the incarnation of the Son of God. It was invented only in order to show in the person of Jesus Christ nothing more than a teacher. – Falkovscy Theolog. 1, 416. 417. Just as arbitrary is the opinion of those rationalists who want to see in Jesus Christ either a student of the Jerusalem-Alexandrian school or a listener of the Essenes. Contemporaries knew well that although Jesus Christ, with the knowledge of St. writings amazed the most learned rabbis Mat. 22, 32–36; John 6, 15; Onion. 2, 46. 47. but He did not learn from anyone John. 7, 15; Mat. 13:55. and was brought up not in Jerusalem, but in Nazareth, humbly sharing with Joseph the labors of carpentry, Luke. 2, 51; 4, 16. We are not talking about the fact that Jesus Christ spoke about the Resurrection of the body, about the rest of the Sabbath, and about food, which was not at all what the Essei taught, and He freely spoke among people in cities and villages, while the Essei lived in the deserts. See Elkon Tinga de I. Christo doctore θεοδιδάχτω, minime Esseno. Groniu. 1805, Bandelin ub. d. Bildung d. grossen Propheten von Nazareth, Lubec. 1809, The solemn service of the teacher of the world lasted three and a half years. See paragraph 172 above, paragraph 66. Irenaei Falkovsey Theol. 1. 418. An Christus. nt propheta, sit novus legislator? Affirmat Socinns cum Pontificiis, Arminianis et Anabaptistis: sed Lutherani et Calviniani negant. Nos mediam tenemus viam. Iriney adv. hor. W. 12. Tertullian a do ludaca sar. 2–5. St. Justin dialog, s, Tryph. r. 227–240. St. Chrysostom against the Jews W Words and conversations of Philaret arch. Chernig, 1, 24– 28. 2 .123 – 127. Chern St. Ignatius to Smir. § 6, St. Justin. Apol 2. § 1. Chrysostom on the last. Rome. Demon. 8. § 1. 4. Eusebius Demonstr. evang. 1, 5. in Psalm. 32, 8. Augustine de civit. Dei X, 25. Clement Alex. Strom. VI, 5, 17. Origen sont, Cels. IV, 9. Augustine de utilit. cred. With. VII. § 13. p. VIII. § 20. Chrysostom on Mat. demon XV. § 6. 7. Irenaeus adv. haer. III, 5, 12. IV, 25. § 1. Tertullian praescr, haer, 23, 26) de carne see § 3. Origen comm. in Iohan. tom. 27. § 23 After the Sotsivians, rationalists took the death of Christ as an example of high self-sacrifice, reinforcing the teaching of Christ; such as Eberhard. Neje Apologie d, Socrates, Steisbard: Syltem d. reiner Philosophie, 1794. The same idea was expressed differently: the death of Christ is the suffering of the new man for the old; these are Kant: Religion innerhalb d. Grenzen d. blossen Vernunfst, s. 91 Tiftrunk: protestant. Lehrbegrift, 2.13. s.274. Others declared that the teaching of St. writings about the atoning death of Christ are nothing more than an adaptation to the opinions of that time about atoning sacrifices: this is Weischeider: Institut. Theologiae § 141. The work of a dogmatist is not like polemics: but when presenting a positive teaching, he must also take into account the opinions of his opponents. Some would like to see more often in the Savior’s instructions the idea of ​​the reconciliatory meaning of His suffering and death. But the Savior Himself said that His disciples were not yet able to comprehend everything and that the Comforter Spirit would explain many things to them. The thought that the beloved teacher should suffer and die was so difficult, so strange for His disciples, that every time the Savior reminded them of it, it greatly outraged them This is how Theodoret explained it, especially the neologists De Bemme and others, Switzer in Thesavro ecelcs. proves from Hesychiai that άντίλύτρον actually means the price given as a ransom for freedom or life. In accordance with the abolition (άθέτησιν) of the previously former commandment (Heb. 7:18), the abolition of sin is the same as τό εξαλέιφειν αμαρτ. the blotting out of sin (Col. 2:14), the abolition of punishment for sins (Isa. 43:25, Jer. 18:25) and taken away from legal proceedings (Psalm 90:8.51, 11. Jer. 18:27). Αναφερειν αμαρτιας αιρειν αμαρτιας John. 1, 29. Is. 53, 11 5• take the punishment for sin In some Greek lists, as in the Slavs, it reads: Bring with the Holy Spirit. But a) Athanasius, Theodoret, trans. writes, Arab. and Armenians, and other Greeks. the lists suggest: By the Eternal Spirit: b) it is easy to notice that the reading: By the Eternal Spirit was canceled due to the unclear meaning, but it is not clear why they would want to replace the reading: by the Holy Spirit, reading by the Eternal Spirit, if that is, the first reading, clear in itself, was an apostolic reading. See Novum Test. graec. ex cod. Mosqv. ed. Math. t. 3. p. 449. 450. Tholuck. Comm z. Briefe an d. Hebraeer. s. 312–314. Words dpzns from Ps. 39, 7. 8. according to translation 70. In the original and in Syriac. lane “You will pierce my ear.” According to the explanation of the Khalds, Paraphrastus. “You dug into my ear to receive your ransom, your salvation.” The ear is a symbol of obedience; pierces the ear - declares that a person with a pierced ear is a man of obedience, a submissive slave. Ref. 21, 6. Is. 50.5. 1 Samuel 15, 22 • LXX. put the signified instead of the signifier. It is in vain to translate into glory, and thereby reconcile all things to yourself, and into rusek. with Himself: for a) it would be necessary to read then; αποχαταλλαξαι εαυτω, as 2 Cor. 5, 18, 19. b) εις αντον never means - with Oneself. A natural and scriptural translation; through Him and for Him to reconcile everything. St. Clement (Rom.): “Let us gaze unflinchingly at His blood, let us meditate on how precious to God is His blood shed for our salvation” Cor. Ch. 21, r. 150. 161. Ch. 7. 15. St. Ignatius ad. Eph. 1 ad Trall. 2 ad Smyrn. 2. St. Polycarp writes (p. 8): “Christ bore our sins in the body on the tree, He who did not commit sin, He endured everything for us, so that we may live in Him.” Justin M, apol. Ch. 61. 91. 106. Conversation. with Trif. § 106. Tertullian adv. Iud. With. 13 de patient, p. 3. 9. Clement Alex. Cohort. ad gent. With. 1. 4. Strom. lib. 7. e. 2. Cyprian Ep. lib. 4. Er. 6. 2. Qvam gravis sit causa hominis Christiani servum pati nolle, cum passus sit prior Dominus et pro pecatis nostris nos pati nolle, cum peccatum suum proprium non habens passus sit ille pro nobis; Filius Dei passus est, ut nos fi- hos Dei faceret, cj. ad. Demetrianum p. 225. Ep. 78. ad Caecilium. Afanasy de incarn. c. 7.t. 1. p. 69. 73. 77. 93. Kirill Jerusalem. announced 3, 9. 4, 7. “He was truly crucified for the sins of us all.” Ambrose M.E. 71. Gregory is called. “Christ is called deliverance as freeing us who are held under sin, as having given himself for us as a ransom, as a cleansing sacrifice for the universe.” Creation III, 100. St. Ephraim: “The impassive Master suffered for us, the only sinless one was crucified for us... for us the wicked Christ our Savior was put to death.” Demon. on ps. 48. Creativity. V, 368. S. Ceis. V. 11. 17. in. Ioh. t. 1. 40. in ep, ad Hoebr. 1. § 4, 5. 10. Sl. Haetius Origeniana lib. 2 gvjest. 3. § 20. s. After many disputes and many anxieties, in 544 the Council of Constants. condemned the so-called Origenians for the idea that “Christ had to be crucified for the demons and that He had to suffer more than once in future centuries for the spirits of wickedness in high places.” Walcli Entvvuxf Historie d. Ketzer. Lpz. 1761–786. Origen in Math. t. 16. § 8. Gregory of Nyssa Orat, сatech. c. 22 – 27. Ambrose epist.,72. § 8. Jerome Comm. in ep. eph. With. 1. Leo b. Serm. 22, 3. 4. Theodoret: “He did not want to grant us freedom by omnipotent power alone, and he opposed more than one mercy to the murderer of the human race, so that he would not accuse mercy of injustice: but he came up with a way that breathed love and was adorned with righteousness.” De Provid. Orat. 10. t. 4. p. 443. Ilarii Com. in Math, c. 3 p• 318. Gregory b. in Evang. c. 1. Hom. 16, 2. Irenaeus adv. haer. 5, 16. § 3. Athanasius de incarn. c. 9. 20. Kirill Hierarch. announced 13. § 23. 33. Gregory is called. Orat. 36. Creativity. IV, 175–177. Ilarius ad ps. 53, 12. Passio suscepta est voluntarie, offucia ipsa satisfactura poenali, Hom. 10. in. 5 cap. er. ad Rom. t. 4. p. 123. Apnov Praedestinatus 1643. Paris lib. 1. c. 90. lib. 2 p.m. 508. De fide orthodoxa c. 15. “He dies, accepting death for us and sacrifices Himself for us to the Father. We sinned before the Father and He had to accept the price of redemption for us, so that in this way we could be freed from condemnation. - But the blood of the Lord was not offered to the tormentor of the human race” ch. 27. Even though you were, O Christ, from wicked men, Your death is my belly” (Oct. Chapter 7). “By your cross, Christ the Savior of death, the power of death was destroyed. (chapter 3). Christ our Savior, the hedgehog on you, having nailed the handwriting on the cross, blotted out (chapter 2) Tractat, de error. Abelaidi from 8 20 Criticism of the Protestant theory of reconciliation - protest. Brechneidera Dogmat. § 152. Socin lib. de servatore. T. 2. p. 204. Kremlin de cavsis mortis Christi. 1655. Known among the Socinians: the Lithuanian Simon Budny, about whom see Plyuchard's Lexicon 6, 250–252. Excyclops. sl. 2, 297. 298. and Franz. Davidis, a resident of Sedmigrad, a Socinian preacher in Sedmigrad and Poland, who finally fell into Judaism; Batory locked him in prison, where he went mad and died in 1579. About him Fulirmanus Handwonterbuch kircheng. 1, 586. 587. Steidlan ub. d. Zweck n. Wirkung Todes Iesu. (Goitng Biblioth. B. 1). Storr ub. d Zweck Todes Iesu. 1800. Tholuck d. Lehre von Sunde u. voii Uersohner, stug. 1844. Beck ub. d. Lehre d. Sehrist ub. d Yersohaung dorch Christum, in Thibing. Zeitscbrift 1831. Genktenberg, Tolyukk, Gevernik, Olshausen, Delitzsch, Guericke, Boehmer. See rules 28 and 43 Trident. Concil. fess. 25.contin d. 4. Catheches. Bom 1. 5. 15. Bellarmin de induigent Pravos, confessor 44 – 47. Letop. St. Dmitry, dept. 1. page 75. Read. his tin on the passion of the Lord (vol. 5, 28. ff.) Kissing the wounds of your Lord (vol. 1, 242). Grateful remembrance of the passion of Christ (vol. 2, 232. ff.). 2 On the teaching on the erection of the cross (vol. 3, p. 246) Catechism of M. Philaret on the 3rd member of the creed. Eg. for Wegscheider and Strauss, who in their dogmatines repeated all the previous blasphemies of paganism and Judaism against the Redeemer Jesus. Cheat. words for conversation Phil. arx. Chern, 1, 52 07. 127–130. Chern. 1863. Feuerbach rejects the Gospel teaching on reconciliation in a very unphilosophical way. He writes (Wesen d. Christent. s, 211): in the race (Gattung) lies justification, reconciliation, healing of indivisible persons, - But if all the indivisible are sinners: how can the race be holy? “Not everyone, says Feuerbach, is sinful in the same way.” But not as Feuerbach imagines - “One has an inclination to lie, the other does not have it. But this other one suffers from pride.” “The third has a penchant for drunkenness, the fourth has a penchant for women, and the fifth does not have these shortcomings” - So be it, but the fifth suffers from greed for money. “Morally, they reward each other mutually.” But they multiply the mass of sins for the whole, and even for the indivisible there is more harm than help. - So, both in parts and as a whole, people are not at all what they should be - and the private rewards of one shortcoming for another do not provide justification either for the parts or for the whole. - Strauss’s objection is also not successful (Glaub. 2, 292): “if one person, even if he is a God-man, could do more than he had to do for himself: it is not clear why other individuals, supported by him, are not able to do the same”? Heavenly reinforcements are already allowed here. And yet “other personalities,” even supported by heavenly help, are not able to do more than they should, because they are not able to become god-men. Pliny says: Vulgata priscis temporibus obtinuit opinio, februa esse omnia, qvibus malefactorum conscientiae purgarentur, delerentur peccata. The Greeks had χαθάρματα and Plutarch (in vita Romuli) attributes to them the power to sanctify χαθαρίζειν and to turn away the wrath of God. The words άγιάζειν, χαταλλάσσεειν, χαθαρίθαι, expiare, lustvaro, placare are known in Greek and Roman religion (Seiler ub. VersohnungsTodo Christi 1 13 s. 110). Tertulian, zealous against pagan errors, said: Tinguit ct ipse diabolus qvosdam et expiationem delictorum de lavacro repromittit. Do proescr. c. 40. The book of shu-king says: “I bring a black boar before Tien the Spirit and the king, so that the crime of the godless Giya will be imputed to me.” (Schmit Ur Offenbaruiig. s. 212. 1834. Laudshut.) Macrovium: Aliqvandin obcervatum est, ut pro familiarum sospitate pueri mactarentur Manie Deis, matri larum. (Satyra 1, 7), Until later times, the Romans had human sacrifices as propitiatory sacrifices: piacula, etc. V. in piaculum caedere hostiam. (Roman Antiquities of Adam, ed. M. 1824. part 2. p. 102). There are known sacrifices to Molech that were made in Phenicia and Carthage. Similar things happened in Greece and Gaul. In Peru, the fathers themselves sacrificed their children (Lettres americanes. La Comte Sione Rmaldo Carli Par. 1788). Creuzer Symbolyk Th. 2.s. 270. f. Announcement XIII. § 2. Сd. Ambrose: “He alone could redeem us with his death, who is both God and man; a simple man is never able to do that” In Lue. sar. 7. St. Basil: “What can a person find so much chain to give in redemption of his soul? But one thing was found that was equivalent to all people together, which was given as the price of the redemption of our souls; this is the holy and valuable blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He shed for us all... If man could not deliver us, then he who saved us is not a man.” Demon. to the psalm. 48. § 4 Creation. V, 360. St. Irenaeus: “he (Paul) shows the one and the same Christ, who suffered and is the Son of God - who died for us and saved us with his blood at a certain time - He is one and the same Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who by his suffering reconciled us to God.” Adv. haer. 3. p. 18. As for Strauss’s theory of reconciliation, (Glaub. 11, 334) borrowed from Hegel (Worles. ub. relig. 11, 238), according to which “infinite self-equality is at the same time unlimited difference and finitude” and the incongruity of man with God is destroyed by itself: then this theory, in addition to the fact that it disagrees with revelation, is irreconcilable with common sense meaning. Self-existent identity or unity is an absurd dream. Complete reality belongs to God, apart from man, since He is the self-existent initial personality. The infinite self-equality of God's being is not at all infinite difference and finitude: difference in itself is incompatible with the self-equality of God's being. God lives and acts by himself; and man acts on his own. Man's enmity with God is a man's business and remains irreconcilable if a person does not have the strength to overcome himself in evil; Likewise, the truth of God remains with its demands if there is no satisfaction from humanity Protest. Knapp (Vorlesung. II, 252) recently wrote: “it is enough for our peace to know and be convinced that the punishment for sin has been abolished.” - But a protest. Boehmer (Glaubcnswissen. 2, 214. Breslav 1813) writes: “this opinion is psychologically incorrect. The sinner is not completely calm as long as he knows in his conscience that he has a responsibility in the form of the obligation to bear punishment.” Elsner (in observ. in no. t. p. 26) proved in some places from secular writers that παρατηρειν means to observe, παρατήρησις observation. Therefore, it was in vain that Coppe read this: tum, cum homines expec, tabunt. See lexicon Schleusneri, Clavis Wahl, Kuinol ad h. 1. See Schleisner has Demoseen's words; translation LXX Ps. 108, 22. 39. 22. Is. 16, 11. Dan. 10, 16. Εντός νμών does not apply personally to the Pharisees, who did not all establish the kingdom of God within themselves, but is a general saying expressing the relationship of the kingdom of God to people. Easter Damask. St. Epiphanius: “crucified on the cross, buried, descends into hell with his deity and soul, captivates captivity.” Ho_eres XX. Apollinaris did not allow a human soul in Christ. Convicting him, they asked the question: “Why did Christ descend into hell, when His body was in the tomb, and He was omnipresent as a deity”? Afanasy Prot. Apollin. 1.§ 13, 14; 11, 17. Adv. ho_er VI, 12. § 1. Cyril Ierus also said. announced 14, item 19, Vasily V. demon on ps. 48. Art. 16. (creative father V, 371), Gregory the Theologian in the Word on the Theologian. 3 (works III, 75), in the song to Christ (works IV, 358). Chrysostom the demon. on Mat. 2, 1. (g. 1. p. 23), Tertullian (de anima p. 7. 55), Clement Alex. (Strom. lib. 1. p. 6), Origen (In lib. Reg. Hom. 2 pp. 493 – 498. S. Cels. 2 § 43), St. Justin M. (Dial. p. Truh), Erm (Past. lib. 2. Simili 9. § 15. The answer to the question why the Risen One did not appear to the Jews? on Sunday Thurs. XIX, 17, XXI, 23. Strauss (Leb. Iesu 2, 689) passes off the appearances of the Risen One to the disciples as spiritual visions; with him, the “really dead” is not “really” alive. So according to Hegelian philosophy! They have a story - not a story, but the dreams of a crazy person! See the words and conversations of Filar. arch black 1, 79 – 82. Chernigov. 1863 g “The same name of the Lord, by which God and Christ are sanctified, the privilege of sitting at the right hand of God, the honor of seeing all enemies subdued under His feet, clearly signify the eternity of the being, which belongs to Him and to God.” Comm. in Math, p. 23. No. 8. See Clavis Wahl, Glassii Phil s. p. 382. Οταν sometimes means because. See Rome 2, 14, τοτς – pleonasm ττ You might be interested in: