Encourse Wiki

Moral Theology — Topic 11. Moral Aspects of the Sacraments_ Repentance.

Properties3
tagstopic
courseMoral Theology
unitTopic 11. Moral Aspects of the Sacraments_ Repentance.

31 min read

Moral Theology — Topic 11. Moral Aspects of the Sacraments_ Repentance.

Before discussing a possible classification of sins, it is necessary to mention the decision and the subsequent state of man that constituted the essence of original sin. We are speaking of selfishness and setting oneself against God. In this sense, any sin, as a violation of the Creator’s will, is in one way or another connected with selfishness, because man, in his choice (gnosis), goes against God’s will. The extreme form of opposition to God is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which the Savior calls the only unforgivable sin (Matt. 12:31). Everything begins with this sin, because it is essentially a conscious determination of the direction of one’s entire life (John 3:19).

It may seem that classification—as a scientific concept involving the division of certain similar phenomena on various grounds—is absent in the Holy Scriptures, both the Old and New Testaments. This is true in the sense that the people who wrote these texts did not set out to scientifically expound and systematize matters of faith and morality. However, when we turn to the texts of Scripture today, we can discern a certain system in sins, which becomes evident in the punishments that indicate the degree of guilt. Thus, already in the law that Moses received from God on Mount Sinai, we find both sins that are atoned for by restitution (Ex. 21:19) or by sacrifices (Num. 15:22–29), and those that cannot be atoned for by anything and result in the death penalty for the sinners (Ex. 21:14, 15).

The first group of sins concerned interpersonal relationships and was resolved by satisfying the injured party. The commandments, which boiled down to restitution, also limited the victim’s right to seek revenge.

The second group of sins required the offering of one of two “special” sacrifices: either a “sin offering” or a “guilt offering.” These sins were distinguished by the fact that they were committed out of ignorance or unintentionally. However, if a person knew what he was doing and acted maliciously, showing contempt for the law, he was to be cut off from the community.

In turn, in the New Testament, the Apostle John the Theologian speaks of two kinds of sins: “leading to death” and “not leading to death” (1 John 5:16). Like other authors, he did not create a systematic doctrine, but pointed to the degree of distortion in the relationship between God and humanity, which, obviously, can vary. Summarizing the exegetical tradition, these sins can be examined and compared on several grounds.

Firstly, sins can be compared according to the degree of awareness, which is linked to knowledge of the commandments. The Savior Himself pointed out the difference in responsibility between those who know the law and those who do not (Luke 12:47–48), a point that will be discussed later. Likewise, the apostle, speaking of Gentiles who do not know the law, points out that their conscience will be their judge.

Secondly, sins can differ in terms of the degree to which the act was carried out and the harm it caused to the sinner and those around him. A sin committed in thought is not equal to one that is spoken, just as what is spoken is not equal to what is done. This is particularly evident in the context of canon law, which judges a person based on the fact of wh? , but not on what he thought. In this context, it is methodologically convenient to conditionally divide sins into moral sins, which are often violations of specific norms of human behavior, and ascetic sins, which become the cause of an internal ascetic struggle.

Thirdly, sins differ in the degree to which they enslave a person, for whom a thought or action may be either accidental or the result of passionate captivity. It is evident that a person’s thoughts are practically independent of the person themselves, and they are not responsible for them. However, as one comes to accept a thought and becomes entrenched in a particular activity, even the most insignificant sin at first can lead a person to spiritual ruin. This is precisely why the seven principal passions mentioned in the writings of the ascetic Fathers are called deadly sins.

Fourthly, the gravity of a sin depends on how sane and free the person committing it is. Already in the Old Testament, speaking of murder, Joshua points out that it can be committed not only by mistake but also without intent, which can be interpreted in two ways. On the one hand, the phrase “without intent” can indeed mean that murder was not the goal of the action. At the same time, it can also be translated as “without reason” and mean that the person who killed was not in control of their actions. For example, in the case of Saul, his attempt to kill David is explained by the influence of an evil spirit upon him (1 Sam. 18:10), while in Solomon’s judgment we see a woman who had smothered her child (3 Kings 3:19). Furthermore, in a milder sense, the term may refer not so much to a lack of control or even insanity, but rather to temperament, personality traits, and inclinations that also influence a person’s actions. Such inclinations had to be taken into account even when passing judgment on an animal (Exod 21:28–29), let alone a human being.

Finally, most often, when speaking of sins “leading to death” or “not leading to death,” the tradition implies unrepentant or repentant sins, respectively. Emphasizing the need to acknowledge sins, the wise Solomon speaks indirectly of this: “He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper; but whoever confesses and forsakes them will be forgiven” (Prov. 29:13). In turn, the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council write directly on this: “A sin unto death is when some, having sinned, remain in their unrepentance”[1]. At the same time, the emphasis, of course, must be placed first and foremost on repentance. As early as the 20th century, St. Justin (Popovich) wrote: “Every sin in which a person remains voluntarily, willingly, and unyieldingly is a sin unto death,” yet “if a person has committed a sin and repents, then he rises from the dead”[2].

[1] Rule 5 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

[2] Justin Popović, st., Commentary on the First Catholic Epistle of St. John the Theologian. Moscow: Publishing House of the Moscow Metochion of the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra, 1998, p. 160.

  • The Relationship Between the Concepts of Sin and God’s Wrath in Holy Scripture
  • Repentance in Holy Scripture
  • The formation of penitential discipline in the Early Church
  • Classification of Sins
  • Repentance as a sacrament and a phenomenon of religious life

It is important to distinguish repentance as a phenomenon of moral and religious life. During the first millennium, canonical confession as a sacrament was often administered in cases of grave sins mentioned in the canonical collections. However, this did not mean that people who were not excommunicated from the Eucharist were unfamiliar with the experience of repentance. This experience was well known to them, but it was not strictly tied to participation in the sacrament and was associated with constant moral self-improvement.

Unfortunately, due to a misunderstanding of what sin is and misconceptions about God as a God who is angry with the sinner, people who participate in the sacrament often do so to resolve three issues:

  1. To absolve themselves of guilt before God;

  2. To avoid His wrath and punishment;

  3. To gain the assurance that you are forgiven—that is, to stop feeling anxious about what you have done.

However, this logic completely contradicts sacred tradition. In fact, understanding the proper approach to the sacrament of penance is precisely the identification of those moral aspects of it that make participation in the sacrament fruitful.

Undoubtedly, the prayers recited over a person during the sacrament of repentance varied. However, the main purpose of the prayers that were always recited was to appeal to God for the forgiveness of the sinner: “Accept the confession of Your servant, and whatever he has sinned before You—his voluntary and involuntary sins, committed in word, deed, or thought—forgive him, O good and merciful God”[1]. The same idea is found in the second prayer from the Order of Confession: “Lord, relax, remit, and forgive sins, transgressions, and offenses, both voluntary and involuntary”[2]. It is evident that the experience of forgiveness and remission of sins was present among people both in biblical times and later, during the patristic era and in our own time. What, then, is the distinctive feature of the forgiveness of sins offered to a person in the sacrament of repentance? Like every other sacrament, repentance unites a person with Christ. But while in baptism a person is united with Christ for the first time, coming to Him and beginning a new life, in the sacrament of repentance his will to amend his life meets with God’s merciful and healing will, leading to his rebirth into the fullness of life in Christ. This is precisely what one of the prayers of the Order of Confession expresses: “Have mercy now upon Your servant, and grant him repentance, forgiveness, and the remission of sins, forgiving him every transgression, both voluntary and involuntary; reconcile and unite him with Your Holy Church in Christ Jesus, our Lord…”[3]. The effect of the sacrament is twofold: God heals the sinner’s soul and restores him as a living member of the Body of Christ. If, however, repentance is performed simply to rid oneself of a constant sense of guilt, if there is no desire for reunion with Christ, one can say with certainty that it fails to achieve its primary goal and becomes a place of a consumerist attitude toward God, who is used to alleviate spiritual discomfort.

A significant problem associated with the modern practice of the Sacrament of Penance is that, by listing grave sins of action alongside sins of thought, a person becomes accustomed to the idea that they are equal. Thus, those actions for which, according to the canons, a person should be excommunicated from Communion are placed on the same level as the sins about which St. Theophan the Recluse wrote: “These are the sins into which even the righteous fall seven times a day. As soon as they are recognized, they are cleansed by inner repentance; those that remain unnoticed are forgiven through the general prayer for sins, including those unknown to us, every evening”[4]. _Ultimately, this leads a person to regard minor sins as ordinary and inescapable, and consequently to regard as ordinary and inescapable sins that are completely incompatible with the Christian life. ___

At the same time, it is important to remember that the sacrament of repentance does not exhaust all penitential practices, which, judging by many patristic references, must be present in the life of a believer. If one were to ask a modern believer how the soul is assured that God has forgiven its sins, the person would confidently reply that such assurance must come after the sacrament of confession. However, this approach often leads to the formalization of confession, in which a person seeks a formal reconciliation with God. Contrary to modern opinions, the patristic approach turns out to be different.

Modern people are convinced that in the sacrament of penance they receive sufficient purity to be united with Christ in the Eucharist. However, the prayers recited before Communion speak of something entirely different. A person will never be worthy of such union on their own; it always presupposes the mercy and condescension of the Savior Himself. This is precisely why the Eucharist is received by the faithful “for the remission of sins and eternal life.” To properly understand the words of the prayer, one must remember that sin is not a formal guilt, but a spiritual reality that the God-man came to heal.

Undoubtedly, sin, as a distortion of the will, is also corrected by a person’s return to the true path. Thus, St. Basil the Great, in response to the question: “How does the soul know that God has forgiven its sins?” answers: “If it finds itself in the disposition of the One who said: ‘I hate falsehood and abhor it’, because God, having sent His Only-Begotten Son for the forgiveness of our sins, has already forgiven the sins of all on His part”[5]. From these words, it is evident that at the moment of repentance, the main changes must take place within the person, since God loves him unceasingly and is ready to accept him just as the Father accepted the prodigal son.

Furthermore, it is important to remember the penitential prayerful supplications that are voiced by all those praying in the prayer rule and of which St. Theophan the Recluse speaks. In practice, these prayers were associated with a much more profound experience than might appear at first glance. In ascetic practice, this experience is associated with what is called weeping, and it is held in very high regard. Thus, for example, St. John Chrysostom says that “Peter atoned for his sin with tears alone, from which he made for himself a ‘second baptism’”[6]. St. Anthony the Great speaks just as highly of weeping: “Throughout almost the entire world, many people who truly worship Christ, having sinned after Baptism, wept and wailed, and God, accepting their weeping and wailing, forgave the sins of all who acted in this way”[7].

Finally, we must speak of Christian love, about which the Apostle Peter writes: “Above all, love one another deeply, for love covers a multitude of sins” (1 Pet. 4:8), and of mercy, about which St. John Chrysostom writes: “There is no sin that charity cannot cleanse, that charity cannot eradicate”[8].

A document dedicated to the Sacrament of the Eucharist and approved at the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church held on February 2–3, 2015, states that a spiritual father may permit a person who regularly receives Communion to partake of the Eucharist more frequently than he confesses. At the same time, the person himself should not perceive this permission as a reason for spiritual indifference, but, on the contrary, as an invitation to a more independent and conscious moral life.

“Since Divine Scripture says: ‘Turn away from evil and do good ’ (Ps. 33:15), it is clear that ceasing to do evil is the beginning of repentance, but this is not sufficient for salvation. For tell me: if someone ceases to kill, steal, or desecrate graves, is he already saved? By no means. Therefore, with regard to every sin, we ought, after we have ceased [to commit it], to offer to God worthy fruits of repentance for it”[9].

[1] Prayer from the Rite of Communion for the Sick.

[2] Second Prayer

[3] Prayer after Confession

[4] Theophan the Recluse. St. Letters to Various Persons on Various Subjects of Faith and Life. Letter 26. <https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Feofan_Zatvornik/Pisma-o-raznykh-predmetakh-very- i-zhizni/>

[5] Basil the Great St., Shorter Rules, 12

[6]John Chrysostom, St. Works. Vol. 2. Book 1. Homily 3. On Repentance. – Moscow, 1991. p. 332.

[7]Epist. Ammoni. p. 20. Acta Sanctorum. Maii. Vol. III. p. 60*. Separately, a letter by St. Anthony. PG. Vol. 40. Russian trans. in: Christian Reading. 1827. No. 26. pp. 53–54.

[8]John Chrysostom. St. Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles. Hom. XXX. Moscow, 1994. p. 240

[9] Anastasius of Sinai st., Questions and Answers, trans. from Greek, with an introduction and commentary by A. I. Sidorov. Moscow: Sibirskaya Blagozvonnitsa, 2015, pp. 166–167 (Question 36).

Repentance, not as a sacrament but as a phenomenon of religious life, undoubtedly existed in the Old Testament era. The main terms used by Jewish authors are נִחוּם (niḥûm), which can mean “regret, repentance,” but at the same time “comfort” and “reassurance.” For example, addressing God, Job says: “Therefore I renounce and repent in dust and ashes.” In this case, repentance is what takes place in the person’s own heart. At the same time, the psalmist says: “Let Your mercy be my comfort, according to Your word to Your servant” (Ps 118:76). The convergence of the meaning in which a person is the subject of self-improvement with the meaning in which a person becomes the object of God’s comforting action indicates that already in the Old Testament, repentance combines the action of God and of man. Another term used is the word שׁוּב (šûḇ), which is translated as “to return, to turn back, to turn.” For example, regarding the repentance of sinners, David says, “The wicked will turn to You” (Ps 50:15). At the same time, God can be the source of the sinner’s turning: “Turn us back to You, O Lord, and we will be turned back; renew our days as of old” (Lam 5:21).

Given that the relationship with God in the Old Testament is very often described in terms of community, sin and repentance are quite frequently manifested as actions of the entire people. At the same time, Old Testament texts contain very profound experiences of guilt and repentance that are specifically personal in nature.

In the Old Testament, repentance does not mean mere regret or sorrow over what has happened. For regret to become a moral act, it must: firstly, be recognized as a personal, free act by the one who chose sin over righteousness, and, secondly, it must be articulated and confessed. Solomon speaks directly of this necessity in the Book of Proverbs: “He who conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but whoever confesses and forsakes them will be shown mercy” (Prov. 28:13). The psalmist speaks beautifully of this: “But I have declared my sin to You and have not hidden my iniquity; I said, ‘I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,’ and You have taken away the guilt of my sin.” Ps. 31:5

One of the most famous descriptions of repentant feelings in the Old Testament is Psalm 50 of David. It is important to note that already in the third verse, the psalmist asks God for mercy and cleansing. In doing so, he uses two terms in parallel: חָנַן (ḥānan), which in this context means “to have mercy, to be gracious, to spare,” and מָחָה (māḥā h ), which translates as “to wipe away, to erase, to smooth out.” And while the first part of the plea speaks of a change in God’s attitude, the second speaks of a change in the person. David is aware of his condition and its cause. This knowledge is given to him by God, of whom David says, “You have revealed wisdom to me within me” (Ps 50:8). However, the knowledge of wisdom does not stop him from sinning, and therefore he needs more than just mercy, for the issue is not with God but with himself, with the impurity of his heart. That is precisely why, from the depths of his condition, David asks, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me” (Ps 50:12). The emphasis on the transformation of the person himself becomes even greater when the author underscores that the blood sacrifices, which were perceived as an obligatory part of reconciliation with God, are in fact unnecessary, since they are merely a path to the true sacrifice, which turns out to be a contrite spirit, a broken and humble heart. At the same time, despite the hope that clearly resonates in David’s words, purity of heart and mercy are things one can hope for, yet they remain in God’s hands.

The prophetic literature speaks more extensively than other books of the Old Testament about the possibility of repentance. Here, the features of the partnership between a person called to change his life and God, who is ready to cleanse him, emerge even more clearly.

From the human perspective, these actions are described as repentance and turning back: “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy on him, and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon” (Isaiah 55:7). Similar themes can be found quite often; for example, God says through the prophet Ezekiel: “Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, each according to his ways, says the Lord God; repent and turn away from all your transgressions, so that iniquity may not be a stumbling block to you” (Ezek 18:30). The cause of the stumbling block is clearly identified as people’s own actions, not God’s wrath.

Human repentance also involves divine actions, which are described as mercy (רֶחֶם / réḥem), purification (טָהֵר /ṭāhēr), and forgiveness (סָלַח / sālaḥ). These terms often have synonyms, but in the context of moral theology, it is important to note something else. Repentance involves not only human action but also a necessary action on God’s part. Thus, while recalling His temporary wrath, God simultaneously declares, “I will have mercy on you with everlasting love, says the Lord, your Redeemer” (Isa 54:8). Describing the sad consequences of betrayal, “I will cleanse them of all their iniquity with which they have sinned against Me, and I will forgive all their transgressions with which they have sinned against Me and turned away from Me” (Jer 33:8).

In other words, it is quite evident that already in the Old Testament, repentance was understood as “a complete transformation of human life, a radical change in one’s way of life, a turning away from sin toward God, and a commitment to a new way of life”[1]. However, it is important to note that the reality of a change of heart did not depend on the person, but on God, Who could forgive sins.

However, despite the depth of repentance, sacrifices, and washings, it was necessary to repeat them because they did not bring about complete purification. A person returned to the path, but the law of sin continued to reign within him. Everything changed with the coming of the Savior into the world. Repentance, conveyed by the verb μετανοέω, signified a change of mind and ceased to imply a return to the fulfillment of the Law of Moses. In its meaning, it was more radical than any Old Testament repentance, because it restored a person not merely to the righteousness of the Law, nor even to the righteousness of Adam before the Fall. A person renounced a life of sin and attained union with God in Christ.

[1] Yuryevich D., Priest. Biblical Foundations of the Sacrament of Repentance // Orthodox Teaching on the Church Sacraments, Vol. 3. - Moscow: Synodal Biblical-Theological Commission, 2009. - p. 178.

As is well known, after joining the Church, anyone could receive Communion without hindrance simply by virtue of belonging to the Body of Christ. The Apostles began their letters to the communities with addresses in which they called Christians saints, emphasizing that they had now died to sin and lived for God. At the same time, there was an understanding that a person who became a member of the Church did not instantly become completely sinless. Having chosen Christ, a person needed constant ascetic and moral work on themselves. Baptism did not make a person morally perfect, but imperfections did not exclude them from the Church. For example, the Apostle John the Theologian says: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He, being faithful and just, will forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us (1 John 1:8–10). We see that he is addressing Christians, but he does not demand that sinners be expelled from the community, apparently implying that he does not expect them to fall away from the Church. It is noteworthy that, addressing the Corinthian community, the Apostle Paul commands that only a fornicator be expelled from the community, while the shortcomings of the Corinthian Christians, which he also points out, do not become an obstacle for them to receiving the Eucharist. They were aware of their shortcomings and struggled with them, but these shortcomings themselves did not negate the “change of mind” that had taken place in their lives. It is no coincidence that the same evangelist John speaks of the existence of sin leading to death and sin not leading to death (1 John 5:16). The former can be understood as grave sins of deed, for which the death penalty was prescribed even in the Old Testament, while the latter—are easily correctable moral failings, as St. John Chrysostom says: “And according to the law, some sins were incurable, so that they were punished by death, while others received very swift healing”[1].

The attitude toward those who have committed mortal sins has differed from the very beginning. While the Apostle John the Theologian writes that one should not even pray for one who sins unto death (1 John 5:16), the Apostle Paul expresses hope that the incestuous man, whom he himself ordered to be expelled from the community (1 Cor 5:13), will soon be able to return (2 Cor 2:1–11). As is well known, this dispute reached its climax in the schism of the Church with the Donatist and Novatianist groups, who believed that there could be no repentance after baptism. The victory of those who believed that a return to the Church was possible for such people, though it must be accompanied by a long period of correction, led to the gradual formation of rules that defined a boundary beyond which a person needed to renew the sacrament of baptism, which came to be called the sacrament of repentance. The rules emphasized that a person had fallen away from the Body of Christ, into which he had entered through baptism, and that the Eucharist was therefore inaccessible to him. He was “excommunicated from Communion.” At the same time, the essence of excommunication was not disciplinary punishment. By forbidding communion, the bishop affirmed that the state of the soul of a person who had gravely sinned was such that he was simply incapable of being with Christ, since his will was directed toward evil. This is precisely how the Apostle Paul reasoned, when he spoke of unworthy communion in the Corinthian community. The sacrament of repentance, which was necessary for a return to church communion, became linked to the canons. Depending on the gravity of the offense, the duration of healing for the wound inflicted on the soul was assessed. By undertaking ascetic efforts to reform and return to Eucharistic communion with the Church, a person gradually passed through the stages of spiritual healing. Understood in this way, the sacrament of a person’s return to the Church came to be perceived as a “second baptism.”

Parallel to this process of the formation of canonical confession, there existed repentance, which was practiced by every Christian and took the form of a constant and daily inner act. Many Christian teachers adopted a form that was already known in the ancient world and recommended that believers converse with their conscience daily before sleep or at any convenient time, reproaching it for sins. Thus, St. John Chrysostom wrote: “When you go to sleep… begin the judgment of your conscience, demand an account from it, and whatever wicked thoughts you had during the day—whether plotting deceit, or devising schemes against your neighbor, or indulging in lustful desires—bring all this to light during such a time of calm, and set your conscience as the judge of these wicked thoughts…”[2]. Naturally, such a practice of working with one’s conscience could lead a person to seek counsel from someone who had deeper spiritual experience in the struggle against sin. At the same time, a person was required to make daily personal moral and spiritual efforts that led to daily repentance, traces of which can be seen in the evening prayer. A request for forgiveness of sins appears in it about ten times. The meaning of most of these requests boils down to the following: “Forgive me, by Your mercy, for the sins I have committed, and release me from all of them, for You are Good and Lover of Mankind”[3]. It is very important to note that the person reciting the prayer asks God for forgiveness, which means he believes that God forgives the person who turns to Him in prayer. It may seem that everything in these words is quite clear, but in reality, this is not entirely the case.

The fact is that in everyday language, the word “forgiveness” implies the end of a grudge—that is, of bitterness and withdrawal from another person. However, Orthodox teaching about God states that He does not take offense; the apostle writes that God “is not mocked” (Gal 6:7). In turn, this implies that God’s forgiveness must not be understood in the same sense as when we speak of forgiveness between people. Human sin does not affect God, but it affects the person himself and his perception of the Creator. The archetype of all sin is Adam’s sin, the consequences of which have already been discussed. Although a sinner is capable of repenting of sin, he is not capable of healing the wound in his soul or breaking down the barrier created by sin. However, in repentance, a person expresses his desire for salvation, which allows God to heal him without violating his free will. He forgives us, restoring us to a relationship with Him. It is no coincidence that in Psalm 6, David, addressing God, says: “Save me for the sake of Your love (in the Synod, mercy)” (Ps 6:5).

[1] St. John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Psalms.” Homily 18 on Psalm 49, § 7

[2]St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Psalm 49 // Works in 12 vols. Vol. 5. Book

  1. St. Petersburg, 1899, p. 24.

[3]“But forgive my past sins according to Your mercy, and pardon me, O Good and Lover of mankind.” Daily Confession of Sins.

The liturgical renewal, which has already been briefly mentioned, implies a return to a more meaningful participation in the liturgy and a deeper understanding of Eucharistic life. In turn, this means that practices directly related to the practice of Communion require deeper reflection, among which those related to penance occupy the most important place. It can be said with confidence that for many contemporary believers, penance is a sacrament more significant than the Eucharist, because it is associated with a sense of liberation from guilt. Moreover, as discussions with penitents about what Communion is reveal, they perceive it as something that must be performed for purification.

Given the demand for penance as a sacrament, which today simultaneously serves as a venue for mission, catechesis, and pastoral care—that is, activities that have historically been distinct in the Church—it is important to define the moral significance of what constitutes sin, guilt, offense, forgiveness, and reconciliation with God. The necessity of this stems primarily from the fact that it is human nature to project onto these words the meanings they possess in the language of interpersonal communication, whereas in the realm of communication between God and humanity, they may signify something else. The fact that some concepts encountered in the pages of Scripture are anthropomorphisms remains little known to many believers, and they understand these concepts literally.

In the early 9th century, the poem Heliand (The Savior) was composed in Saxony, in which Christ is depicted “not so much as a teacher as in the guise of a warlike king”[1]. It may seem that a medieval poem is simply a monument of medieval literature, but as early as the 20th century, one Catholic theologian wrote: “The crucifixion of Christ is a settling of accounts regarding the honor of God. Sin is not so much disobedience to a rule as an insult to God’s honor, an insult washed away by the blood of Christ”[2]. Unfortunately, at the level of everyday religious consciousness, Orthodox Christians also often believe that God can be literally insulted, thereby provoking His wrath, which is likewise understood in a thoroughly human sense of the word. At the same time, according to St. Anthony the Great, who in this case expresses a view common to the Holy Fathers, “God is good and impassive, and unchanging… God neither rejoices nor becomes angry, for joy and anger are passions… God is Good and creates only good; He harms no one, remaining always the same… By living virtuously, we become God’s own, but by becoming evil, we are cast out from Him. And this does not mean that He is angry with us, but that our sins do not allow God to shine within us…”[3].

Sin is, first and foremost, a contradiction of God’s will, that is, of that which lies at the foundation of all the norms of created existence. Man was created rational and free, capable of independently determining his relationship to the Creator. In the exercise of this freedom, the possibility was inherent of both falling away from God and becoming firmly rooted in goodness. As is well known, desiring to be like God, man consciously chose the path of illusory independence and self-sufficiency, which ended in tragedy not only for him but also for his descendants.

As mentioned earlier, the essence of sin lies in the fact that, by committing a sinful act, a person disrupts his relationship with God and deprives himself of His grace. At the same time, it must be remembered that a commandment is not a legal norm, and its violation is not a criminal offense. A commandment is a law of life; in it, ethics is united with ontology. Deep within the human person, in his mind (or spirit), a choice is made that ultimately leads to a specific action. Naturally, the mind does not make a decision entirely on its own, but under the influence of those forces of the soul that came to dominate it after the Fall and are called passions. The captivity of the mind can be so strong that it is no longer aware of its own actions. The more the mind becomes rooted in sin, the less a person is capable of communion with God.

The flip side of sin—as a violation of the commandment—is God’s wrath. A person judges God’s wrath based on their experience of interacting with other people. Human anger is an emotion directed against an improper action and often against the very person who commits it. Human anger involves aggression and malice, a desire to cause another pain, to punish them. However, all these emotions are completely foreign to God. At the same time, when speaking of God’s wrath, people usually do not take this difference into account and think of God’s wrath in practically the same way as human anger. Accordingly, when committing a sin, on a practical level a person understands it as a formal and legal violation of the law, as a result of which they feel guilty and seek to be reconciled with God in order to avert His punishment.

However, in the context not of everyday but of theological knowledge, sin, although a free choice, is viewed rather as a human misfortune. It does not change God, nor does it cause Him offense, for, as has already been said, there is not a shadow of change in His love. Sin changes the person himself, who becomes guilty. At the same time, guilt is rather a state of separation from God, a defilement of the person, as a betrayal of that holy state to which he is called. In this sense, guilt requires healing, not vengeance. This is precisely why St. Gregory Palamas explains God’s wrath not as an active stance associated with offense or vengeance, but as “the righteous abandonment of the sinner by the Good One [God].” In other words, while preserving human freedom, God does not take revenge or hold a grudge against man, but abandons him, which in itself is perceived by man as punishment. Moreover, being forsaken by God leads a person into slavery to the forces of nature and to their own body, which is also perceived by them as punishment. In other words, being forsaken by God is the result of the manifestation of freedom, on the one hand, and love, on the other. Even though God does not change His attitude toward man and saves him through the Incarnation.

[1] Gurevich, A.Y. Selected Works. The Culture of Medieval Europe. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press, 2007. — p. 78

[2] Cited from Brune, F. That Man Might Become God. 3rd ed., rev. and expanded. Translated from the French by S.A. Grib. St. Petersburg: Aleteya, 2013, p. 290

[3] Anthony the Great, st., Philokalia, vol. 1, 150.

Graph View

Backlinks