Moral Theology — Topic 4. Moral Sentiments.

The Concept of Duty __

The testimony of conscience forms in a person an awareness of their responsibility to God and the necessity to follow the moral law, which they recognize as necessary and obligatory. In philosophy, this feeling and awareness is called duty and is described as an inner demand to follow the moral law by fulfilling one’s obligations. In Kant’s moral philosophy, duty is presented as a requirement that is not contingent on either circumstances—whether external or internal—or on the purpose or consequences to which an action may lead. The requirements of duty are formulated as imperatives and are divided into external norms in relation to the person and an internal sense of obligation.

As a moral category, duty, of course, was not immediately understood. The very experience of duty arises from entirely everyday situations. It is no coincidence that historically, the Slavic word дългъ, долгъ, primarily meant “a loan, a debt, a tribute,” which etymologically corresponds to *дьлгъ “a long, extended period”[1]. It is assumed that originally, a debt was not something the person themselves was aware of, but rather what the “creditor” who had lent the money had been waiting for, for a long time[2]. Interestingly, the English words “debt” and “duty” are cognates, both derived from the Latin *debere—to owe, to be under obligation. Similarly, “obligation” comes from the Latin “obligatio”—“commitment, binding”—which, in turn, is derived from the verb “obligare”—to bind, to oblige. Just as the Russian word “обязанность” (obligation) is related to the root “вязать” (to tie). What all these words have in common is not a subjective experience of debt, but its connection to the person to whom one is indebted—the objective necessity for a person to be accountable for those relationships, whether financial or moral. Thus, its primary meaning is linked to the idea of “being bound” by a promise, a debt, or a law, both physically and metaphorically.

The Category of Debt in Scripture

Surprisingly, the category of debt, so familiar to us, is completely undeveloped in the Old Testament. Even at the lexical level, Old Testament law, when it speaks of debt, refers to a mundane, rather than a moral or spiritual, concept. When revealing Himself to Abraham, God does not say that Abraham must go to the Promised Land, because their relationship is built not on obligation but on trust. Even the sacrifice of Isaac is portrayed in Scripture as a completely voluntary act and, for that reason, the most valuable to God. In a similar way, when making a covenant with people, God does not compel them to enter into the covenant, but invites them to it. The commandments are not simply to be observed as ordinary rules; they must be followed as leading to life and protecting from death.

When the law speaks of debt, it refers primarily to the lender, not to the borrower. In Moses’ time, people borrowed money simply to survive. If they needed money or food, it meant they were in dire straits and needed support. That is precisely why the law restricted the collection of debts from those called “neighbors” (Deut. 15:11) and prohibited charging them interest (Exod. 22:24, Lev. 25:35–37). The law restricted cruelty toward the poor and mandated the cancellation of debts during the so-called Sabbath year (Deut. 15:1-11). Moreover, the law allows one person to pay a debt on behalf of another (Lev. 25:25). Showing leniency toward someone who, though in debt, finds themselves in difficult circumstances—this is what the righteous person considers the norm (Neh. 5:10). Moreover, in the book of the prophet Isaiah, God is ready to be the Redeemer for people’s debts: “Fear not, O worm Jacob, O Israel, you who are few in number—I will help you, says the Lord, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel” (Isa. 41:14).

Unlike the Old Testament, the New Testament already introduces the concept of debt in a spiritual and moral sense. However, the approach to the idea of debt itself is close to that of the Old Testament. Two main themes mentioning debt turn out to be closely connected. First, in the Lord’s Prayer, “Our Father,” when addressing God, a person asks, “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12). As the word for “debt,” the evangelist uses the term οφείλημα, meaning a financial obligation. It is clear from the words of the prayer that a person has obligations to God and that these can be forgiven, but in the same way that a person forgives what they consider to be obligations on the part of others. Thus, this petition turns out to be a clear parallel to the parable of the debtor, in which the evangelist uses the concept of “loan” (δάνειον) (Matt. 18:27). Here, too, the man not only finds himself indebted to the king, but also has debtors of his own. It is noteworthy that neither the prayer nor the parable implies that the debt can be repaid. In both cases, the debtors are urged to ask for forgiveness, the condition for which turns out to be the forgiveness of others.

In this sense, the Apostle Paul retrospectively reveals a special connection between debt and the law. He tells those who are circumcised that they “are obligated (οφειλέτης) to fulfill the whole law” (Gal 5:3). In the case of fulfilling the law, however, God is in debt to man, because “to the one who works, his wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation (οφείλημα)” (Rom 4:4). Considering that “there is no one righteous on earth who does good and does not sin” (Eccl 7:20), everyone is a debtor to God and can hope only for mercy (Ps 102:13–14). Having refused to cooperate with God in paradise, under the covenant at Sinai, man received the burden of the law, which in reality he could not bear (Acts 5:10). In turn, in the New Testament, he is freed from all formal obligations but receives a single substantive one: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law” (Rom 13:8). Moreover, in the New Testament, God does not merely give this new law as a new obligation. He dies for humanity on the cross, healing our disobedience through His obedience. Along with the new commandment, the Lord, through the sacraments, gives humanity the strength to fulfill it.

The verb “δεῖ,” associated with the concept of duty, appears over a hundred times in the New Testament and is translated as “it is necessary, one must, it is inevitable.” The multitude of variations on this form of obligation clearly demonstrates that, in the world after the Fall, ontological duty—the fulfillment of which is salvific for humanity (John 3:7, John 4:24), can coexist with a necessity that has become such only within the framework of the fallen world (1 Cor. 11:19, Acts 14:22). Moreover, the Lord Jesus Himself freely enters into this world of necessity. It is no coincidence that He tells His disciples that He “must suffer many things…” (Mark 8:31, Luke 24:7). The condition of the fallen world is such that alongside righteous or necessary obligations there also exists what “must” be done from a human perspective, but “must not” be done from God’s perspective (John 4:20, Acts 15:5).

Responsibility and Duty in the Personal Life of a Christian

People may experience feelings of responsibility and duty in different ways. To a large extent, these experiences depend on upbringing, though they may also be linked to individual neurobiological characteristics. If such types of duty coexist in the world—such as natural duty, conditioned by the state of the fallen world, and human traditions—one must approach the experience of duty with extreme caution. A person must be aware of the extent of their responsibility, of what they truly owe and to whom. By using their capacity for reason and recognizing the specifics of their situation—gender, age, family, and social status—a person is able to discern the spheres of responsibility and establish a hierarchy of duty, ranging from the observance of the commandments to non-sinful social customs. Taking the Savior and the saints as examples, we can see that, on the one hand, the Lord called on His disciples to take up their cross, while on the other hand, He Himself did not seek to outwardly transform the world into which He had entered. He healed the sick and gave of His strength, yet He found time for fellowship with loved ones and for rest. Each of us has a duty to God, the Church, family, society, and the state, and we must pray for wisdom while, at the same time, acknowledging our inability to fulfill everything that feels necessary.

Fulfilling or failing to fulfill one’s duty entails intense emotional experiences of one’s own righteousness or guilt. The Orthodox ascetic tradition does not allow a person to take pleasure in their own righteousness. Often, such emotions are associated with delusion and must be subjected to the strictest scrutiny. The same applies to the feeling of guilt that arises in the human soul after committing sins.

[1] Etymological Dictionary of the Modern Russian Language / Compiled by A.K. Shaposhnikov: in 2 vols. Vol. 1. – Moscow: Flint: Nauka, 2010. – p. 236

[2] See Klein E. A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language, p. 406.

The fulfillment or failure to fulfill a duty, which a person perceives as a call of conscience, gives rise to feelings of righteousness and guilt, respectively. Both of these categories are of paramount importance to human history and play a significant role in every religion and culture. Due to human sinfulness, the experience of guilt is reflected in religious life to a much greater extent. At the same time, the experience of righteousness is also encountered, although it is more often described not as one’s own but as an assessment of another’s righteousness.

The Concept of “Guilt” in the Language of Scripture __

The term עָוֹן (ʕāwōn) is translated as “crime, iniquity, guilt, and punishment.” It is with this very word that Moses describes Cain’s punishment (Gen. 4:13), which he perceives as too severe. Likewise, this is the term used to denote the “iniquity of the fathers” for which God punishes the children according to the second commandment of the Decalogue (Ex. 20:5). Etymologically, this word derives from the verb עָוָה (ʕāwā h) (Isa. 21:3, Ps. 37:7), which is translated as “to bend, to twist.” This means that “guilt” and “punishment” in this context coincide by no accident; guilt, as the result of an action, signifies a change in a person that leads to suffering. In this case, sin is a distorted and perverted action.

The term רָשָׁע (rāšāʕ) refers to an evil person, guilty of acts against God and people. This word is used to describe the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:23), and it is the one David most frequently uses when speaking in the Psalms about sinners and the wicked (Ps. 1:1, 4, 5; Ps. 10:5, 6, etc.). The etymology of the term is difficult to determine, but the word likely goes back to the meaning “to be out of order.” If this etymology is correct, then the essence of guilt in this sense lies in the fact that a person does not live up to the plan intended for them.

Finally, the verb אָשַׁם (ʔāšam), which is translated as “to sin, to be guilty, to bear guilt, to be found guilty,” points to a breach of relationship that arises as a result of sin. The etymology of the root šm is difficult to determine; connections are found in Arabic, where the root atima means “to sin, to stray from the path, to go beyond the bounds of what is permitted, to be guilty.” Guilt, as denoted by this verb and its cognates, can imply punishment as a consequence of guilt. Note that this term was also used to refer to the sin offering, which was usually brought for sins committed unintentionally (Lev. 4:13), in which prohibitions were violated (Lev. 5:17). Often, the context involves defilement (Lev. 5:2, 3, 4). In this case, the concept of guilt is associated with defilement, which is the opposite of holiness and righteousness. Having become guilty, a person becomes a debtor to God, and __ʔāšam is a debt that must be repaid (Lev 6:4, Num 5:7). In the New Testament, it is no coincidence that Christ speaks of debts in the prayer He gives to His disciples (Matt. 6:12, 14). Given that the idea of personal responsibility develops gradually, initially such guilt (ʔāšam), as a state of defilement (that is, lack of holiness), could arise accidentally. Furthermore, it could extend to a people, a city, or a land. That is, the original idea of such guilt lies in the fact that something holy—that is, belonging to God—can become unclean, rejected by God, and must return to a holy state.

In the language of the New Testament, guilt is also denoted by several terms.

The noun ἔνοχος is translated as “guilty of sin, liable, subject to judgment.” It is with this very word that the evangelist Mark conveys the words of the high priest, who says of Christ that he is liable to death (Mark 14:64). The Apostle Paul applies this same term to those who are “guilty” against the Body and Blood of Christ (1 Cor. 11:27). The term ἀιτίον is translated as “cause or guilt.” Pontius Pilate utters it three times when he asserts that he sees no reason to execute Christ, since he finds no fault in Him (John 19:4). Furthermore, the only time the Apostle Paul uses the term ὑπόδικος, it refers to one who is “on trial,” one who must “answer for his deeds.” He speaks of the world, which is “all guilty before God” because it has not fulfilled the law (Rom. 3:19).

However, despite the importance of these terms, it can be said that in many respects they are of a polis, that is, a social nature and are connected with judgment and accountability. At the same time, in a theological sense, the term that conveys the state of guilt is ἁμαρτία, which is translated not only as sin or transgression but also as culpability. The state of “ἁμαρτία” signifies precisely the discrepancy between the original purpose—which can be understood as God’s plan for the world—and the outcome to which a person arrives. It is noteworthy that in Russian, the word “vina” is cognate with the Lithuanian “vaina” (“mistake”), which in turn derives from *vinah—“sin”[1] .

It is important to note that none of these words carries the exclusive meaning of a subjective feeling. They are experienced as objectively given, rather than based on human opinion or sensation. This is because, in the biblical worldview, guilt is a violation not of human institutions, but of divine commandments. Here there is no doubt as to whether a person is guilty or not, since the Lord Himself is the judge. In fact, this is the main difference between legal and psychological guilt and guilt in the theological sense, since a person is found guilty or sinful before God. A vast number of problems related to guilt stem from the fact that a person is guided by society and their own feelings, rather than by God’s commandments. If the guilt tormenting a person is false, it can be healed by the correction of conscience.

Theological and Moral Understanding of the Concept of “Guilt” in the Old Testament __

First, it is important to distinguish between guilt and the feeling of guilt. In biblical culture, God is the source of the commandments revealed to humanity. This means that if a person is guilty, they are objectively guilty and must repent and make amends. But what can serve as a marker of wrongdoing? A sense of guilt or a sense of righteousness. Why might conscience remain silent? Because we are right, or because we have suppressed it. Why might conscience speak? Because we are wrong, or because it sets the bar too high.

Depending on which commandment had been broken, people could experience guilt individually (Deut. 24:16, Ezek. 18:2–4) or collectively (Exod. 20:5–6; Isa 65:7, Jer 14:40). As part of the community, everyone was bound together; a person could suffer for the community’s sin, but the community could also suffer for the sin of a single person (Hos 7:24–26). However, it is evident that over time the concept of personal guilt became more individualized (Deut. 24:16), a point emphasized with particular force by the prophet Ezekiel in chapter 18, when he stated that “each person will die for their own iniquity” (Ezek. 18:18).

As is well known, the Law of Moses prescribed the offering of sacrifices for unintentional sins. However, a deliberate violation of the law could practically never be atoned for by sacrifices, because the punishment for sin consisted either in some rectification of the situation or in the death of the sinner. The guilty party died (Num. 16:32, 1 Kings 2:27–36) because they were cut off from the source of life.

However, by the time of the prophets in Israel, the idea arose that guilt and innocence should be considered primarily in terms of good and evil, rather than in terms of what pertains to worship. Even while observing all the rules, people may find themselves unable to enter into communion with God if “on the day of fasting they pursue their own will,” “fast for strife and contention” (Isa 58:3–7). In a similar vein, the prophet Micah asks: “But can the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams or countless streams of oil? Shall I give Him my firstborn for my transgression and the fruit of my womb for the sin of my soul?” and immediately answers, “O man! it has been told to you what is good and what the Lord requires of you: to act justly, to love acts of mercy, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:6-8). Furthermore, the prophets emphasize not sacrifices but repentance, which is the most essential condition for returning to God. One of the most striking examples of the experience of guilt is Psalm 50, which is attributed to King David. He acknowledges his guilt, and the awareness of his sin does not leave him; yet at the same time, he boldly turns to God and asks for the cleansing of his heart and the renewal of his spirit. Here we already see that true healing from guilt comes not through blood sacrifices, but through a “broken spirit” and a “contrite heart” (Ps. 50:19).

The call to repentance resounds as a leitmotif in the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the other prophets. And if in the book of Deuteronomy God says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today: I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life, that you and your descendants may live…” (Deut. 30:19), then to the people who have broken their faithfulness to the covenant and are experiencing guilt as a loss of independence, the destruction of the country, and other calamities, God addresses them with the words, “I take no pleasure in the death of the one who is dying, says the Lord God; but turn and live!” (Ezek 18:32).

Finally, implicitly in the Old Testament, there emerges an understanding that man is incapable of returning to God on his own in the true sense of the word. Fulfilling the law is practically impossible, and repentance does not lead to the beginning of a new life. Guilt, as separation from the Source of being, is inescapable; falling away from the source of holiness has plunged man into defilement, into a world of evil, determinism, and death. In this situation, God Himself comes to man’s aid. It may seem that repentance leads a person to purification, but in reality it is only a condition for God to purify a person from sin (Ps 31:5). Moreover, He does this not so much for the sake of people as for His own sake and the fulfillment of His plan (Ps 24:11, 78:9, Jer 14:7). And if asham is a debt that must be paid, then according to the law, instead of the one who cannot do so on their own, a close relative—a redeemer—does so; for the prophet Isaiah, this redeemer is the Lord Himself (Isa 43:14).

Human Guilt in the New Testament Context __

The Incarnation of God radically changes the concept of guilt, as is clearly evident in the Gospels and the Epistles.

First, we must note that the concept of guilt is practically no longer perceived as an external one. In a situation where the disciples are rebuked by the Pharisees for eating with unwashed hands, Christ formulates a completely new approach to uncleanness: “It is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth that defiles a person” (Matt. 15:11). Of course, in a certain sense, similar ideas are found among the prophets, but it is in the New Testament that they receive a theological foundation. For Christ, guilt can no longer be merely formal or accidental, unlike how it was understood in the Old Testament.

Second, the degree of responsibility—and thus of guilt—depends on knowledge (Luke 12:47–48, 23:34). However, the changes taking place are not based so much on social or psychological factors; the changes concerning the experience and bearing of guilt turn out to be much deeper. Following in the footsteps of the prophet Isaiah, the Apostle Paul writes that in Christ we have “redemption through His blood and the forgiveness of sins” (Col 1:14) and “are justified freely by His grace” (Rom 3:24–25).

Thus, guilt, as an ethical and anthropological category, can be described as a disease of the nature, caused by a person’s sinful act. In this case, the feeling of guilt is the “pain” of the soul, which is evidence of an improper state. In this case, the question arises: “Can a person forgive themselves?” And the answer is simple: “Not only can they, but they must.” He must, if by forgiveness we mean correction and the abandonment of sin—that is, the restoration of what God intended for the person.

Guilt in Law and Psychology

In modern society, the problem of guilt is one of the most complex; it troubles a vast number of people. The English writer G.K. Chesterton once said that the doctrine of original sin is the only one that requires no proof, since everyone feels its reality within themselves and knows of their own imperfection through the experience of realizing that imperfection. However, judging by the texts, in many cultures the idea of personal guilt—which was experienced as an internal problem—was preceded by the idea of shame, as something arising from social censure. The experiences of Adam and Eve are described precisely as shame, the emotional turmoil felt by the inhabitants of ancient Mesopotamia, just as the fear experienced by Homer’s heroes largely boiled down to the fear of being disgraced after committing an act disapproved of by society.

In the modern world, the concept of guilt is primarily a subject of interest in the legal and psychological sciences. From a legal perspective, guilt is a person’s attitude toward their socially harmful action or, conversely, inaction, which is expressed in the form of intent or negligence. For its part, psychology describes guilt as a negative emotion in which a person recognizes the discrepancy between their action and societal expectations. In assessing their action, a person may refer to both real and imagined norms. It is important that a person must recognize these norms as binding upon themselves; they must be capable of fulfilling them and of realizing the moral consequences of their actions. Guilt may relate to a specific action or inaction, as well as more broadly to actions and even life as a whole. It may be experienced by individuals or groups who are aware of their responsibility for what has been done.

As is well known, psychologists speak of the existence of healthy or genuine guilt, which arises in a situation of real conflict between an action and the principles by which a person strives to live, and neurotic or destructive guilt, which arises from imaginary grounds. Genuine guilt leads a person to change their life, to forgiveness, and to reconciliation. It can result in a self-sacrificing attitude toward others, born of an awareness of responsibility and a desire to rectify the consequences of one’s actions. Destructive guilt leads to a constant and inescapable sense of guilt that does not allow for productive change or reconciliation, which in turn leads to the destruction of the individual.

In the 20th century, an important milestone in the understanding of guilt was Karl Jaspers’ work «The Question of Guilt: On the Political Responsibility of Germany», in which he discusses four types of guilt: criminal guilt, understood as a violation of the law; political guilt, understood as a crime against humanity; moral guilt, involving a violation of norms; and metaphysical guilt, understood as an awareness of solidarity—and thus of the guilt of all for every evil[2] . At the same time, guilt can be imposed from the outside (criminal, political) and felt from within (moral, metaphysical). In the context of a theological understanding of the category of guilt, it is particularly important to pay attention to the latter two types. Moral guilt proves important because only it can lead a person to repentance, renewal, and inner progress. This guilt can be imposed on a person only by the person themselves, and no one can judge another except “in inner unity with them”[3] . In turn, the sense of human connection and everyone’s responsibility to one another arises from the very essence of humanity, which Jaspers formulates as follows: “The need to live together, or not to live at all.” The result of experiencing metaphysical guilt is a change in worldview, an active life, and humility before God.

Very often, when people today ask how to get rid of a sense of guilt, they are spoken to as if they were asking how to trample on their conscience more successfully and reliably. In fact, theology fully agrees that not all guilt is harmful, but not all guilt is beneficial either. The problem with secular society is that it has rejected divine criteria and invented its own. And all the types of guilt listed by Jaspers can be both true and false.

The feeling of guilt.

After the Fall, the conscience, like any power of the soul, is damaged and in need of healing. It can be lax, but it can also be overly sensitive and can literally consume a person. Guilt is an objective category; the feeling of guilt is subjective. Feeling this inescapable guilt, which his damaged conscience instilled in him, a person knew no peace, as F.F. Zelinsky convincingly explains using ancient material:[4] . In turn, through baptism, a person received an answer to the plea, “Create in me a clean heart, O God.”

Man could not change the past. Judas could not, and Peter could not. But what could happen? Healing. His conscience was cleansed by the blood of Christ from dead works, so that, through ascetic effort, he could experience inner peace with his conscience and a heartfelt sense of reconciliation with God. Undoubtedly, his moral life is a path on which he commits sins, experiences pangs of conscience, feels guilt, offers repentance, and strives to amend his ways. In this context, self-reproach plays a major role in the Church’s ascetic heritage as an element of penitential standing before God. In it, a person recognizes himself as sinful and guilty before God, even before “beginning the process of repentance.” However, the main difference between self-reproach and neurotic guilt, which can be very similar to it, lies in a person’s conception of God and a correct understanding of himself in this relationship. While neurotic guilt leads to despondency and a constant, neurotic search within oneself for the slightest flaws, self-reproach leads to humility and an awareness of one’s own weakness, from which arises a longing for God as the only one who can save. Moreover, a Christian who walks the right path, even in constant self-reproach, is firmly convinced of God’s mercy; he keeps “his mind in hell,” yet “does not despair”[5] .

When becoming involved in church life, a person may come to the church and talk at length about their guilt without intending to reform. A truly Christian approach involves not merely confession, but also a desire for reform. A feeling may be an indicator of a problem, but to heal it, one must resolve the problem itself. It is important to realize that the past does not change in the process, but it ceases to influence the life of a person who, thanks to God’s forgiveness, begins their journey with a clean slate.

[1] Fasmer M. Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language. In 4 vols. Vol. 1. Moscow: Progress, 1986. p. 316.

[2] Jaspers K. The question of German guilt / Karl Jaspers ; translated by E. B. Ashton. – New York: Dial Press, 1947.

[3] Ibid

[4] F.F. Zelinsky, The Idea of Moral Justification // From the Life of Ideas. – Vol. 1. – p. 5.

[5] Sofroniy (Sakharov), Archimandrite Venerable Silouan the Athonite. — 3rd ed. — STSL, 2011. — p. 48

Responsibility
Duty
Guilt
Righteousness as a Category of Moral Consciousness

The legislative and executive functions of conscience correspond to moral feelings: the former to feelings of responsibility and duty, the latter to a sense of moral righteousness or guilt.

The Concept of Responsibility

The history and etymology of the words used to denote this concept in different languages allow us to define its meaning more precisely. For example, in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, there was the verb נָשָׂא (nasa’), which meant “to understand, to take, to bear” and, in a figurative sense, could mean bearing the burden of responsibility (Lev 5:17; Ezek 18:20).

Thus, the ancient Greek εὐθύνα is translated as “correction, punishment, call to account”[1]. In Athens, this was the name given to the public examination of officials after the end of their term of office. The Latin verb respondere, from which the English word “responsibility” is derived, meant “to promise in return, to answer”[2]. This verb itself derived from re+spondeo—“to promise, to make a covenant,” which in turn went back to the root *spond-eie—“to make libations, to offer a sacrifice”[3], that is, effectively to take an oath or make a sworn covenant. It is worth noting here that we find nearly exact parallels of such covenants made with sacrificial blood in the Old Testament (Gen 15:10; Gen 21:28–31; Jer 34:18). Finally, the Russian word “responsibility” shares a common root with words such as “answer, greeting, assembly, council, will,” etc.; it contains the root “vet’,” which goes back to the Indo-European *wek-t-os “spoken, uttered, agreed upon”[4]. In other words, this root and its cognates could have meant “social agreement,” “common position,” which arises through discussion, an agreement that in ancient times was usually reinforced by an oath.

Thus, responsibility can be defined as an awareness of the obligations that arise within a shared worldview, between a person and those who are an authority to them, and to whom they will have to answer for what they have said (Matt. 12:36) or done.

Responsibility in Scripture

Although the concept of “responsibility” does not exist in the Holy Scriptures, the phenomenon itself is mentioned quite often indirectly. This is because it inevitably arises within a single moral framework that exists for at least two parties. This moral framework itself is created by what is called aבְּרִית (brîṯ)—“covenant” or “agreement”—and is conditioned by the commandments. Although the word “covenant” first appears in the words God addresses to Noah, it is quite evident that the concept of responsibility already emerges in the Garden of Eden, while the unwillingness to bear responsibility appears immediately after the Fall. However, the nature of this covenant did not presuppose consent, just as the law of universal gravitation or the information conveyed by a red traffic light does not presuppose consent. In making such a “covenant” with Adam, God does not offer him one of several possible paths, as people do when entering into a contract on mutually beneficial terms. God is the Creator; He does not consult with man about which laws to lay as the foundation of the world’s existence; He creates the world as He wishes to see it. At the same time, when speaking of the “covenant” given to Adam, it is worth emphasizing that the commandments were not something completely external and alien to him; he was not merely required to accept them, agree with them, and internalize them as an imposed norm. In communicating the commandments to man in Eden, God relies on the moral law that already exists within man and expects from man what is entirely natural for him. Moreover, according to Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev): “By creating man free, God bound His life to man’s life, for He took upon Himself responsibility for man’s destiny”[5].

By refusing to keep the commandments and attempting to shirk their responsibility, people—especially in the person of Cain and his descendants—begin to create their own civilization with its own moral norms. Thus Lamech, addressing his wives, says that “if Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold,” thereby making it clear that notions of responsibility for murder had become significantly stricter since the time of Cain (Gen. 4:24).

The conclusion of the Covenant between God and the people of Israel led to the emergence of what might be called collective responsibility. Moreover, given that, unlike the covenant with Adam or Noah, the covenant at Mount Sinai was freely entered into by the people; they themselves agreed to a special, intimate relationship with God, which simultaneously implied His protection and their responsibility to keep the commandments He had given them. However, within the framework of Old Testament concepts of responsibility, two distinct lines emerge. Thus, in the context of the relationship with God, collective responsibility predominates. For example, the punishment for the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Num. 16:19–33) could have resulted in the death of everyone, though in the end only those closest to them perished. Such instances of the entire society being defiled for the sin of a single person were not isolated (Josh. 22:17, 20). At the same time, in the context of interpersonal relationships, responsibility extends only to the one who has sinned (Lev. 5:1). In fact, most of the laws we find in the Pentateuch speak of individual punishment for sin, as evidenced by the following prohibition: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; each shall be put to death for his own crime” (Deut. 24:16; cf. Ezek. 18:20). In turn, this principle applies not only to responsibility for sins but also to the granting of salvation for righteousness (Ezek. 14:14).

Finally, the theme of responsibility for sins is revealed in a special way in the prophet Isaiah’s account of the suffering servant, of whom it is said that he “was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him… and the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:5,6). In the context of a discussion about responsibility, this means that a person whose life is filled with sin was no longer able to return to God, since he had stepped outside the moral realm shared with Him. God condescends to him in his irresponsibility, shares its fruits with him, and renews the Covenant.

In the New Testament, the Savior speaks figuratively about the mechanism by which responsibility arises. Thus, He says: “Settle matters with your adversary while you are on the way…” (Matt. 5:26). Commenting on these words, St. Abba Dorotheus says: “It [conscience] is called an adversary because it always resists our evil will and reminds us of what we ought to do but do not do; and again, of what we ought not to do but do”[6]. These words clearly depict the nature of responsibility and the process by which it arises from the reminder that conscience addresses the person. This very testimony is realized in a person “in a natural way”[7]; in the voice of conscience, the saints hear from the Word Himself that “in no case is it fitting to use natural energies in a manner contrary to this [natural] way.” Developing their spiritual vision, they “learned to strive steadily, in harmony with the proper logos of nature, toward its [i.e., nature’s] Author”[8].

New Testament conceptions of responsibility in part continue those of the Old Testament, at the same time emphasizing more so the personal and individual aspects. A continuation of the Old Testament line of collective national and hereditary responsibility can be seen in the words of the Jews who brought the Savior before Pilate. After he tried to absolve himself of responsibility and washed his hands, they said, “His blood be on us and on our children” (Matt. 27:25), which indicates their understanding of responsibility as a collective category. In turn, Christ emphasizes personal responsibility. Moreover, this responsibility is not only before God but also before people. For example, one who sins must be called to account, first personally, and then before the other members of the Church (Matt. 18:16). The Apostle Paul also speaks of personal responsibility, emphasizing: “Each of us will give an account of himself to God” (Rom. 14:12). However, Christian understandings of personal responsibility must, as far as possible, be filled with love and forbearance toward one’s neighbor. It is no coincidence that the apostle, on the one hand, says: “Bear one another’s burdens, and in this way fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2). Here he uses the word βάρος, which can mean an unbearable burden that is very difficult for a person to carry. The apostle calls us to share in a person’s distress and to stand by those who are suffering. At the same time, emphasizing personal responsibility, literally in the following verses, he writes: “Let each one examine his own work, and then he will have reason to boast only in himself and not in another, for each one will bear his own load” (Gal. 6:4–5). Here, the word “load” is translated from the Greek φορτίον, which in military service referred to a soldier’s knapsack—that is, the standard individual burden that a person could carry on his own.

Responsibility for Sin Through Ignorance __

When turning to God in prayer, Christians ask for forgiveness for sins, both known and unknown. Moreover, they traditionally refer to the principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” which exists in jurisprudence. At the same time, the modern concept of a legal offense does not fully coincide with religious notions of sin and defilement. A legal offense affects a person’s standing in society and indicates that their behavior does not align with societal notions of the norm. Sin, in turn, affects a person’s relationship with God; it hinders their communion and indicates that their behavior does not align with the very norm of humanity, with the logos of nature, which God embedded in it at creation.

Sin committed through ignorance is first mentioned in the Old Testament. Thus, the law states: “If anyone sins and does anything contrary to the Lord’s commandments—something they ought not to have done—and becomes guilty through ignorance and bears the burden of sin, let him bring to the priest as a guilt offering a ram without blemish, according to your estimation, and the priest shall make atonement for his offense, in which he has transgressed through ignorance, and he shall be forgiven” (Lev. 5:17,18). On the surface, this legal provision may seem similar to the well-known legal principle, “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” However, the essence of this provision is not to point to liability, but to the fact that sin, even unconscious sin, points to the existence of an inner problem. If a sin is committed, it always affects the soul, but the possibility of divine intervention and the gracious healing of the sinner depends on how conscious the person was of the contradiction to God’s will.

The theological basis for this approach can be found in the difference in inner disposition that precedes known and unknown sins. “He who knew will be beaten much,” says the Savior, “and he who did not know will be beaten less.” Why? Because for the one who did not know, sin does not become a conscious stance of opposition to God, whereas the one who knew consciously enters into confrontation. In the Christian tradition, the ability to determine whether a person consciously commits evil or does so out of ignorance belongs only to God (Luke 23:24) or to a person acting in the Holy Spirit (Acts 3:17, 1 Tim. 1:3).

This is precisely why, at Pilate’s trial, the Savior says, “Greater is the sin of the one who handed Me over to you” (John 19:11), and as He dies on the cross, He turns to the Heavenly Father with the words: “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34). From these words of the Savior, it clearly follows that the responsibility for sins committed in ignorance is not equal to that which follows from conscious sins. There is also a well-known case described by St. Abba Dorotheus, in which two slave sisters were bought in infancy—one by a Christian woman, and the other by a harlot. Reflecting on their responsibility for the sins they might commit in the future, the saint asks: “Can we say that God will judge both of them equally? How is that possible! If both fall into fornication or some other sin, can we say that both will face the same judgment, even though both have committed the same transgression?”[9].

The Age of Moral Accountability

Since ancient times, all peoples have understood that a child enters adulthood gradually, assimilating moral norms and religious doctrines. If the capacity for responsibility is linked to knowledge, it must be linked to the ability to assimilate that knowledge. However, it is not merely a matter of knowing something, but also of being able to apply that knowledge in practice. To put the path of good or evil into practice, a person must have developed the ability for self-control and self-restraint. It is no coincidence that Solomon writes, “…he who controls himself is better than one who captures a city” (Proverbs 16:32). At the same time, it is clear that this ability does not appear in a child immediately.

The Scriptures do not specify a particular age at which moral responsibility begins, but there is evidence that children, until a certain time, “do not know… either good or evil” (Deut. 1:39). The apostle reasons similarly when he says: “Everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child” (Heb 5:13). They grow out of this stage gradually, through instruction in the law. In the book of Deuteronomy, God says directly: “If your son asks you in time to come, saying, ‘What do these statutes, ordinances, and laws mean, which the Lord your God has commanded you?’ then you shall say to your son, ‘We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt, but the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand, <…?> and the Lord commanded us to observe all these statutes, so that we might fear the Lord our God, that it might go well with us all the days, to preserve our lives, as it is now; and in this will be our righteousness, if we strive to keep all these commandments before the Lord our God, as He has commanded us” (Deut. 6:20–25). Ultimately, there must come a time in a child’s life when he begins to distinguish between good and evil (Isa 7:15–16)[10], yet Scripture does not specify exactly when this occurs. The reason for this silence can likely be attributed to the varying conditions in which people grow up. They may differ in intellectual and psychological abilities, temperament, education, etc. Moreover, although the Apostle Paul writes that Gentiles can perform righteous deeds without having the law (Rom 2:14-15), God says that some people, even as adults, cannot “distinguish their right hand from their left” (Jonah 4:11), that is, they do not fully distinguish between good and evil. The Gentile lacks “knowledge and understanding” (Isaiah 44:19) to fully realize the sinfulness of his path.

Already in the New Testament, the Savior, pointing to children, says that “the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matt. 18:2). However, the understanding of this verse cannot be reduced solely to a child’s intellectual or moral capacities. The image of an infant ready to be taught turns out to be twofold. On the one hand, newborn infants are those who are ready to receive the truth (1 Pet 2:2) and have not yet experienced evil behavior (1 Cor 14:20). Speaking of this, St. John Chrysostom writes: “What does it mean to be ‘infantile in malice’? It means not even knowing what evil is”[11]. On the other hand, the immaturity of children’s worldview makes their reasoning imperfect (1 Cor 13:11); they turn out to be “tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph 4:14), so that Christians should not be children in their minds, but should be “mature” (1 Cor 14:20). Combining these two approaches, we can say that a child, as a being in whom evil has not yet taken root, is inclined toward good but lacks knowledge of exactly how good is achieved in each specific case.

Although the Holy Scriptures themselves contain no specific mention of the age of moral maturity, the Old Testament tradition already held that it begins at 13 years and one day for boys and at 12 years and one day for girls. The essence of this coming of age was that from this age onward, a person was expected to observe the Law of Moses and became a “son of the commandment” (בַּר מִצְוָה‎ - bar mitzvah) and a “daughter of the commandment” (בת מצוה‎ - bat mitzvah).

In turn, within the Christian tradition, there were various opinions regarding the age at which a person becomes accountable for their actions. One of the earliest and most authoritative views, due to its inclusion in the canonical corpus, is the eighteenth rule of St. Timothy of Alexandria (†385). In response to the question, “From what age are a person’s sins judged by God?”, the saint replied: “According to each person’s knowledge and understanding, some are judged from the age of ten, and others from later years”[12]. However, the authority of the source did not prevent St. Anastasius of Sinai in the second half of the 7th century from answering this question somewhat differently: “In this regard, God makes many distinctions. For everyone is judged according to the knowledge and understanding [they have acquired]: some are judged beginning at the age of twelve, and others at a later age[13]. It is noteworthy that both authors emphasize the importance of acquiring knowledge in the process of developing responsibility and speak of the gradual nature of its formation.

Spheres of Responsibility

As a person grows older, they become aware of their obligations not only to God but also to their family, colleagues, and others around them. In this regard, we can speak of levels or spheres of responsibility that depend on a person’s age and their position in society. In a practical sense, responsibility can be expressed in the care a person shows toward those to whom they are accountable (Eccl 5:8). Over time, different levels or spheres of responsibility may conflict with one another, creating so-called conflicts of duty.

For humans after the Fall, it became “natural” in relationships with others to focus on themselves and their own desires. In answering God’s question, Adam effectively shirks responsibility for his actions, shifting the blame onto his wife and the Creator (Gen 3:12). Later, in the figures of the righteous Noah, Abraham, and other patriarchs, we see people who feel their responsibility to carry out God’s work on earth. However, this path is not easy; it involves falls, during which people may prioritize their own, family, or social interests over God’s, thereby disrupting the hierarchy of spheres of responsibility.

In the New Testament, the need for a person to feel a sense of responsibility for God’s work is emphasized by the Great Commission that the Savior gives to His disciples (Matt. 28:19–20). However, this path does not imply neglecting family and social duties. On the contrary, their proper Christian fulfillment serves as a witness that supports the work of the mission (Matt. 5:16). Emphasizing the importance of caring for one’s neighbors, the Apostle Paul writes: “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim 5:8). At the same time, while for the head of a family “his own” are close relatives, for a manager they are subordinates, and for a head of state—the people. In this regard, it is important to note that, from a theological perspective, the responsibility created by conscience is a responsibility before God. At the same time, in the process of socialization, conscience is enriched by the norms of the community in which a person lives and becomes a source not only of natural but also of social virtues.

It is evident that in life, these spheres of responsibility often conflict. A person may literally be torn between responsibility to the family and responsibility to superiors. For a religious person, the highest form of responsibility is responsibility to God. However, this responsibility should not be perceived as “just one of many,” since it encompasses all responsibilities, and each finds its place and measure in accordance with the commandments.

[1] Lampe, G.W.H. A Patristic Greek Lexicon. Oxford University Press, 1961, p. 715.

[2] Kleins Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the English Language - Unabridged, One-Volume Edition. — Elsevier, 2003. — p. 1335.

[3] Vaan Michiel de. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Brill Academic Publishers, 2008. — p. 582.

[4] Etymological Dictionary of the Modern Russian Language / Compiled by A.K. Shaposhnikov: in 2 vols. Vol. 2 Flint: Nauka, 2010. — p. 347

[5] Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), Orthodoxy.

[6] Dorotheus of Gaza, Abba, Venerable. Edifying Teachings, Epistles: Questions of the Venerable Dorotheus and Answers Given to Them by the Elders Barsanuphius the Great and John the Prophet. Sergiev Posad, 2007. p. 64.

[7] Maximus the Confessor, St. Selected Works / St. Maximus the Confessor [trans. and intro., comment. and app. by A. I. Sidorov]. – Moscow: Palomnik, 2004. — p. 276.

[8] St. Maximus the Confessor. On Various Doubts of Saints Gregory and Dionysius / St. Maximus the Confessor. – Moscow: Institute of Philosophy, Theology, and History of St. Thomas, 2006. p. 97.

[9] The edifying teachings and epistles of our venerable father Abba Dorotheus. With the addition of his questions and the answers to them by Barsanuphius the Great and John the Prophet — Moscow: Blagovest, 2010. — p. 113.

[10] The reference to Isaiah’s prophecy should not be confusing. The uniqueness of the Messiah, who, even before reaching the age of reason, already chooses good and rejects evil, precisely emphasizes that for all other human children this is normal.

[11] Homily 36 on the First Epistle to the Corinthians

[12] Canonical Responses of His Holiness Timothy, Bishop of Alexandria, the sole representative of the 150 Fathers present at the Council of Constantinople

[13] Questions and Answers / St. Anastasius of Sinai; trans. [from the Greek], with commentary by A. I. Sidorov. - Moscow: Sibirskaya Blagozvonnitsa, 2015. - 670 pp.

The Concept of “Guilt” in the Language of Scripture __

However, despite the importance of these terms, it can be said that in many respects they are of a polis , that is, a social nature and are connected with judgment and accountability. At the same time, in a theological sense, the term that conveys the state of guilt is ἁμαρτία, which is translated not only as sin or transgression but also as culpability. The state of “ἁμαρτία” signifies precisely the discrepancy between the original purpose—which can be understood as God’s plan for the world—and the outcome to which a person arrives. It is noteworthy that in Russian, the word “vina” is cognate with the Lithuanian “vaina” (“mistake”), which in turn derives from *vinah — “sin”[1].

First, it is important to distinguish between guilt and the feeling of guilt.

In biblical culture, God is the source of the commandments revealed to humanity. This means that if a person is guilty, they are objectively guilty and must repent and make amends. But what can serve as a marker of wrongdoing? A sense of guilt or a sense of righteousness. Why might conscience remain silent? Because we are right, or because we have suppressed it. Why might conscience speak? Because we are wrong, or because it sets the bar too high.

The call to repentance resounds as a leitmotif in the books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the other prophets. And if in the book of Deuteronomy God says: “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today: I have set before you, life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life, that you and your descendants may live…” (Deut. 30:19), then to the people who have broken their faithfulness to the covenant and are experiencing guilt as a loss of independence, the destruction of the country, and other calamities, God addresses them with the words, “I take no pleasure in the death of the one who is dying, says the Lord God; but turn and live!” (Ezek 18:32).

Finally, implicitly in the Old Testament, there emerges an understanding that man is incapable of returning to God on his own in the true sense of the word. Fulfilling the law is practically impossible, and repentance does not lead to the beginning of a new life. Guilt, as separation from the Source of being, is inescapable; falling away from the source of holiness has plunged man into defilement, into a world of evil, determinism, and death. In this situation, God Himself comes to man’s aid. It may seem that repentance leads a person to purification, but in reality, it is only a condition for God to purify a person from sin (Ps 31:5). Moreover, He does this not so much for the sake of people as for His own sake and the fulfillment of His plan (Ps 24:11, 78:9, Jer 14:7). And if asham is a debt that must be paid, then according to the law, instead of the one who cannot do so on their own, a close relative—a redeemer—does so; for the prophet Isaiah, this redeemer is the Lord Himself (Isa 43:14).

Human Guilt in the New Testament Context __

Guilt in Law and Psychology

In the 20th century, an important milestone in the understanding of guilt was Karl Jaspers’ work «The Question of Guilt: On the Political Responsibility of Germany», in which he discusses four types of guilt: criminal guilt, understood as a violation of the law; political guilt, understood as a crime against humanity; moral guilt, involving a violation of norms; and metaphysical guilt, understood as an awareness of solidarity—and thus of the guilt of all for every evil[2]. At the same time, guilt can be imposed from the outside (criminal, political) and felt from within (moral, metaphysical). In the context of a theological understanding of the category of guilt, it is particularly important to pay attention to the latter two types. Moral guilt proves important because only it can lead a person to repentance, renewal, and inner progress. This guilt can be imposed on a person only by the person themselves, and no one can judge another except “in inner unity with them”[3]. In turn, the sense of human connection and everyone’s responsibility to one another arises from the very essence of humanity, which Jaspers formulates as follows: “The need to live together, or not to live at all.” The result of experiencing metaphysical guilt is a change in worldview, an active life, and humility before God.

The feeling of guilt.

After the Fall, the conscience, like any power of the soul, is damaged and in need of healing. It can be lax, but it can also be overly sensitive and can literally consume a person. Guilt is an objective category; the feeling of guilt is subjective. Feeling this inescapable guilt, which his damaged conscience instilled in him, a person knew no peace, as F.F. Zelinsky convincingly explains using ancient material:[4]. In turn, through baptism, a person received an answer to the plea, “Create in me a clean heart, O God.”

Righteousness as a Category of Moral Consciousness __

Although righteousness is rarely found as a current state, it is one of the central moral categories. Just as eschatology largely determines the development of dogmatics, so correct conceptions of righteousness determine the practical life of a Christian, telling him what he should strive for.

In folk culture, which is largely Christian in content, righteousness was perceived as a state that was, on the one hand, unattainable due to the sinfulness of human life, and on the other hand, real—that is, one that can be strived for through righteous deeds and experienced in the testimony of conscience. A person could not consider himself righteous, since such a claim is often regarded as a state of delusion, but he could strive for a righteous life. He remembered Job, who asked: “Who can be born pure from the impure? None” (Job 14:4), and at the same time, by acting according to his conscience, he felt that his conscience was clear. Furthermore, while reading the Psalter and other books of the Old Testament, he constantly encountered references to the righteous, who through their lives found favor in God’s sight (Ps 10:7, 33:16, 36:17, Prov. 10:7, 10:25). A well-known proverb stated: “A city is worthless without a saint, a village without a righteous person,” implying that righteous people undoubtedly exist and preserve the world from moral degradation.

In contrast to traditional folk culture, modern society, in its values and fundamental moral categories, is secular and does not strive for a righteous life, rightly believing that the very concept of righteousness is unthinkable outside a religious context. Thus, if a modern person acts contrary to their own notions of what is right, they usually feel guilty; but if they act according to their conscience, they do not speak of a righteous act; they speak of a sense of self-satisfaction or inner harmony. Of course, different schools of psychology have different names for this feeling, but it is important to understand that, unlike in the Christian tradition, in psychology it is entirely free of suspicion. For example, in cognitive psychology, there is the concept of a cognitive map of the world, to which a person may or may not conform. Conformity to this map of the world is called coherence or consonance. At the same time, each person may have their own map, corresponding only to their own perceptions or those of their group.

The Concept of “Righteousness” in the Language of Scripture __

To understand the nature of righteousness from a theological perspective, it is worth turning to the language of Scripture.

In the language of the Old Testament, the word צְדָקָה (ṣḏāqā h) means “truth, righteousness, beneficence, well-being.” Scholars interpret it in various ways: as legal “conformity to the law,” organic “conformity to one’s own nature,” ethical “righteousness,” and justice ([6]). Semantic parallels to this term are seen in both the Egyptian maat and the Akkadian mesaru and kettu. The Egyptian word, which is also the name of the goddess of justice, signifies not only truth but also the order of things established by the Creator. Initially, however, the term meant straightness and evenness.

In the Septuagint, as in the New Testament, the concept of righteousness is often conveyed by the word dikaiosyne, which means righteousness, justice, and lawfulness. The Greek word dikaiosyne derives from the root dik-, which signifies “custom, law, justice, and lawfulness.” Originally, in Greek culture, righteousness was a social virtue. A righteous person is one who fulfills their duties toward people and the gods. It is important to note that, by using this established Greek term, the authors of both the Old Testament and the New Testament imbue it with traditional Jewish and biblical meanings.

In the Slavic language, before the emergence of the abstract concept of “righteousness,” the broader concept of “pravda” was used with the same meaning; its etymology is difficult to determine. It is believed to derive from the Indo-European *pro-uo-s—“directed forward,” “significant,” “as it should be.” It is compared to the Latin pro-bus – good, honest, beautiful. For Proto-Slavic *pravъ, the primary meaning was “straight, level,” which developed both into the verb pravit “to make straight, to level” and into “pravy” (true, proper; cf. the origin of the word canon), as well as into “pravednik” (righteous person).

Righteousness in the Context of the Old Testament __

Of course, from the perspective of Scripture, only God can be called righteous in the true sense of the word. In relation to human actions, the word “righteous” was often used in the sense that the action was performed within the context of the Covenant with God. For example, the Book of Genesis calls righteous those people who responded to God’s call, trusted His promises, and carried out His will, regardless of the circumstances in which they found themselves. At the same time, the word “righteous” began to be used far more frequently precisely after the Covenant was established. The essence of righteousness lies not so much in ethical conformity to norms as in the very restoration of communion with the Creator, which was merely expressed through the observance of the law.

After the Fall, full righteousness becomes impossible for humanity. At the same time, sin did not strike humanity immediately and completely (cf. Ps. 142:1–2), so among Adam’s closest descendants there are people who are called righteous: Abel (Matt. 23:35), Enoch (Wis. 4:10–15), and Noah (Gen. 6:9). All of them were distinguished by the fact that they built a special relationship with God: Abel’s offering was “pleasing,” and Enoch and Noah “walked with God.” From the very beginning, human righteousness has not been external or formal in nature, but is described as the fruit of inner work. We may recall the faith of the patriarch Abraham, which God credited to him as righteousness. Here, “credited” does not imply a formal recognition of faith as a righteous act; rather, God accepts and acknowledges Abraham’s faith as his state in which he is capable of communion with God. The story of Abraham’s righteousness becomes a model of the righteous relationship between God and man. He is called “the friend of God” because the righteous person is one who communes with God face to face (Ps. 16:15). He is the one to whom God grants righteousness (Isa. 46:12–13, 50:7–8), accepting a person into fellowship on the basis of that inner struggle he undertakes for the sake of this fellowship (Ps. 23:3–5, Isa. 56:1, Dan. 9:18). At the same time, external conditions may be most unfavorable; for example, regarding Lot, the Apostle Peter says that he led a righteous life in Sodom and was tormented daily by the depravity of those around him (2 Pet. 2:7). Sometimes, the righteous, by their very presence, prevent society from perishing (Gen. 18:26–32), but when society is deeply corrupt, this proves impossible (Ezek. 14:14).

In the era following the conclusion of the Covenant at Sinai, human righteousness is expressed not only in faith but also in just judgment (Ps. 105:30–31, Wis. 2:34). However, righteousness is often interpreted even more broadly, as the fulfillment of the law in general (Deut. 6:25, Ps. 102:18, Isa. 48:18). This, in turn, leads to righteousness being perceived by the people as a guarantee of a happy and long life (Prov. 10:2, 11:4, 11:16, 12:28, Ezek. 18:19), although in reality the righteous may suffer (Job 2:3–7) and even perish (Eccl. 7:15). The image of the suffering righteous person seems paradoxical against the backdrop of the ideas repeatedly expressed in the Book of Proverbs. However, it is revealed in particular detail by the prophet Isaiah when he speaks of the suffering Servant of the Lord (Isa. 52:13–53:12). Furthermore, it is worth noting that after the Exile, the idea of personal righteousness underwent a distinct development. In the Psalms, the concept of the righteous emerges as referring to specific individuals or a group of people (Ps. 1:5, 33:16, 36:29), a notion that would later be reflected in the phenomenon of the so-called tzaddikim.

As was the case with responsibility and guilt, righteousness in the era of the prophets is contrasted as internal and external. With external righteousness, a person’s religiosity will be false if there is no truth within them (Amos 5:25–26). A person who considers himself righteous is not righteous without God (Isa. 57:12, 64:6).

New Righteousness in Christ __

Given that the concept of righteousness is tied to remaining in the Covenant, the very necessity of the New Covenant implies that people need renewal and rebirth. This is precisely why the New Covenant begins with the idea of repentance as conversion (Matt. 18:3), and of preparing paths for God that must become righteous and straight. At the same time, the Messiah comes not to the righteous, but to sinners (Matt. 9:13, Mark 2:7, Luke 5:32), who are only to become righteous (Luke 1:17, Luke 15:7). It is important to understand that this is characteristic not only of that time but manifests as an archetype in the life of every person. Everyone, wherever and whenever they live, upon encountering God experiences an awareness of their sins, repentance, and hope in God, Who can heal them.

The central idea of the New Testament teaching on righteousness is, on the one hand, the assertion of the insufficiency of formal righteousness (Rom. 3:19), and on the other hand, a call to attain righteousness in fellowship (1 John 2:29, 1 John 3:7) with Christ, who alone (Rom. 5:18) fulfilled God’s will regarding Himself and was obedient in all things, on the other. At the same time, from an eschatological perspective, righteousness proves to be the criterion of God’s Judgment (Matt. 13:49, Col. 3:25), and the resurrection of the dead itself can be spoken of as the resurrection of the righteous (Luke 14:14).

The renewal of the Covenant, which consisted of a special relationship between God and humanity, could not avoid a conflict between established forms of righteousness and the Messiah’s understanding of it (Matt. 5:21–47). The evangelist Matthew addresses the theme of this conflict in the greatest detail, since he was originally writing primarily for Jews. Given that the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees formally boils down to strict observance of the Law, Christ considers their respect for the law to be right (Luke 11:42), in contrast to the form in which they clothe it (Matt. 23:3). Indirectly, He even acknowledges them as righteous (Matt. 9:13, Mark 2:17), but their righteousness is outward and hypocritical (Matt. 23:25–33; Luke 11:42–52).

Given the practical nature of righteousness, it cannot remain merely an internal state but is manifested in deeds; it can be felt by the person themselves as a good testimony of a clear and good conscience (Luke 18:9), and it can also be manifested in the testimony of those around them (Luke 15:16, 2 Cor. 11:15), but this does not resolve the problem of possible error, which, especially in the context of subjective perceptions, may result from a dormant conscience or self-justification (Matt. 23:23). At the same time, the problem with the Pharisees’ righteousness was not that the Pharisees were not righteous enough, but that entering the Kingdom of Heaven requires not merely the fulfillment of the laws, but a new quality of righteousness, which is accessible through partnership with Christ (John 15:5). The good fruit of which the Messiah speaks (Matt. 7:17–19) is not merely a large number of good deeds, but their different quality (1 John 3:7).

It is significant that in the Gospels, Jesus Christ never once calls Himself righteous, although we know that “the prince of this world” has no hold on Him (John 14:30). At the same time, He describes His mission as “the fulfillment of all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15), which consists in the entire work of salvation (Matt. 5:20, Matt. 27:19, 24). Of course, this work itself is unrepeatable and has a unique and ahistorical character. At the same time, the life of Christ in His humanity not only can but must become an example for His disciples. It is no coincidence that He says that one can follow Him only by taking up one’s cross (Matt. 16:24). The most important category in the life of Christ, the God-man, is the Will of God, which He calls “the Father’s will” (John 4:34, 5:30, 6:38, etc.), to which He is obedient even unto death (Phil 2:8). An analysis of the use of the word “will” in the apostolic epistles shows that, with very few exceptions, the apostles, when using it, have in mind the will of God. For the disciples, this will, consists of their striving to lead a righteous life (Matt. 7:12, Matt. 23:23; John 7:24) in the image of the Teacher. Moreover, the traditional forms of righteousness—prayer and fasting—are singled out by Christ because they are subject to the greatest distortions in everyday life. Following the prophets, the Savior places greater emphasis on substance (cf. Isa. 58:6).

While Old Testament righteousness consisted mainly in the fulfillment of the law, when speaking of New Testament righteousness, the emphasis is traditionally placed on love for God and people. Naturally, these commandments were not new in themselves and were already of paramount importance in the Old Testament. In reality, however, the novelty of the commandment of love (John 13:34) lies in the fact that the disciples’ love is rooted in His love (John 15:9), which alone is capable of healing relationships between people and with God (Matt. 5:17, 5:27–30; 5:38–42). In this sense, Jews and Gentiles find themselves in practically the same position. If in the Old Testament a person was capable of righteousness, if Gentile morality was possible because the works of the law are “written on the heart” (Rom. 2:15), then all the more so is the pursuit of righteousness by Christ’s disciples possible. However, the most important condition for this righteousness is the awareness of one’s own weakness and the impossibility of being righteous by one’s own efforts.

Although everyone who “acts righteously,” no matter what nation they live in, is acceptable to God (Acts 10:35), the fullness of righteousness is impossible, since “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Even in the Old Testament it is said that before God “no one who lives will be justified [i.e., will be righteous]” (Ps. 142:2). Of course, this refers to human righteousness, whereas the New Testament speaks of the new righteousness of Christians (Phil. 3:8–9), which is made available through the redemption and justification of man, accomplished and granted to man by Christ. In fact, one manifestation of God’s righteousness is the justification of “those who believe in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26). Without delving into the dogmatic teaching on human salvation and justification, it is necessary to emphasize that it is the foundation of a Christian’s entire moral life. The complete subjection to sin that characterized Adam’s descendants is transformed into the fullness of righteousness to such an extent that it allows the apostle to speak of a new slavery, “the slavery of righteousness” (Rom. 6:18). Christ turns out to be the Lord’s servant, a role the old Adam did not fulfill; and just as people became sinners through the disobedience of the old Adam, so through obedience to Christ, they can “be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19). Just, that is, revealing in their lives God’s plan for them, thanks to the freedom from sin granted by Christ through His victory.

The New Testament teaching on righteousness may seem not merely lofty, but an unattainable ideal that remains confined to the pages of Scripture. However, despite the loftiness of the teaching on attaining righteousness in Christ, we live in the world and must confirm our choice by doing righteous deeds (1 Pet. 2:21). After pointing out to the disciples the need to “put on the new self,” which is “created after God in righteousness” (Eph. 4:24), the apostle immediately speaks of the need to lead a moral life and offers very specific moral recommendations. For example, he calls on us to abandon lying and speak only the truth to our neighbors, not to be angry, not to steal, but to work with our own hands and help the poor. (Eph. 4:25–28 and following). It turns out that, in practice, Christian righteousness is fully consistent with traditional obedience to the commandments (1 Tim. 6:22; 2 Tim. 2:22; Titus 1:8).

“Self-reproach” and “a clear conscience.”

What, then, is the fundamental difference between Christian righteousness, and is it worth striving for a clear conscience?

Based on Scripture, we can say that righteousness, at its core, is a person’s conformity to God’s plan for them. However, this conformity is never a given in a person. Righteousness is always merely a goal and is in the process of becoming. A person cannot attain true righteousness, but can achieve it by passing through certain stages of spiritual development. This is because, after the Fall, the conscience needs to be tested and strengthened. The first step on the path to righteousness is the realization of one’s true wretched condition. The parable of the tax collector and the Pharisee is a wonderful example of how the primary realization that marks the beginning of the path to God is a person’s awareness of the abyss at the edge of which they stand—and from which only God can save them.

At the same time, the parable speaks not of the end of the path, but of its beginning. Great Lent, before which it is read, is not valuable in and of itself, but is valuable as a path to Easter. This means that the repentant and humble feeling it is meant to awaken in a person is a means for further spiritual development. An important feature of the stages of the spiritual life is the intertwining of the initial stages with the subsequent ones. A person who, at the beginning of the journey, recognized their weakness and humbly turned to God for help, even after growing spiritually stronger, does not cease to feel their powerlessness and the need for humility. They understand that righteousness is never guaranteed (Ezek. 3:20) and is the result not so much of their own efforts as of God’s gift (Phil. 3:9).

At the same time, however, he actively strives to live with a clear conscience and, listening attentively to it, to avoid its reproaches. Traditionally, the lives of the ascetics, whose writings formed the basis of Christian ascetic teaching, are associated with constant repentance and self-reproach, as mentioned above. However, no less than self-reproach, they strove to attain a clear conscience. Thus, Abba Agathon asserted that a monk “must not bring himself to the point where his conscience accuses him of any deed”[7]. There is nothing strictly monastic in this combination of a humble and attentive spiritual life with the pursuit of a clear conscience; it is the norm of life for every Christian.

[2] Jaspers, K. The Question of Guilt: On Germany’s Political Responsibility.

[3] Ibid

[6] Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 12, pp. 243–246.

[7] Ancient Paterikon, arranged by chapters. Moscow, 1899. p. 207. (11.8)

Encourse Wiki

Explorer

Moral Theology — Topic 4. Moral Sentiments.

Moral Theology — Topic 4. Moral Sentiments.

Graph View

Table of Contents

Backlinks

Encourse Wiki

Explorer

Moral Theology — Topic 4. Moral Sentiments.

Moral Theology — Topic 4. Moral Sentiments.

Related Concepts

Graph View

Table of Contents

Backlinks