On the presence of universalism in East Syrian tradition
On the
presence of universalism[1]
in East Syrian tradition
Warning:
the present post is subject to revision
East Syrian
theologians were influenced by Diodore of Tarsus (fl. 4th century),
his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia (fl. 4-5th century) who is
called the ‘Interpreter/Exegete/Expositor’ in the East Syrian church (also
called ‘Church of the East’), and Evagrius Ponticus (fl. 4th century)[2]. The point of this text is to show that there
a was significant prevalence of the idea in this tradition (this doesn’t
necessarily mean that it was a majority view).
For more
details about Diodore and Theodore see my previous post: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/01/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of_28.html
A
testimony of an opponent: Babai the Great (fl. 6th century):
Let me
start with the testimony of an opponent of ‘universalism’ in the East-Syrian
Church. This testimony is particularly interesting because it provides evidence
that ‘universalism’ was often actively contested in this Tradition. Also, it
provides evidence that Evagrius Ponticus wasn’t always read as an universalist
in the Syriac Traditions.
The article
“Origenism and the Memory of Evagrius Ponticus during the Syriac
Renaissance: Dionysius bar Ṣalībī’s Commentary on the Chapters on Knowledge”
by A. Pirtea (link: https://www.academia.edu/129664834/Origenism_and_the_Memory_of_Evagrius_Ponticus_during_the_Syriac_Renaissance_Dionysius_bar_%E1%B9%A2al%C4%ABb%C4%AB_s_Commentary_on_the_Chapters_on_Knowledge ) quotes the following passage
from Evagrius Ponticus:
“In the world to come, no one will escape from
the prison in which hewill fall. For it is said, “You will not get out of there
until you give the last penny” (Matthew 5:26), which is the retribution for
a small fault”
And Babai’s
commentary on it which makes clear Babai’s eschatological views:
“His [Evagrius’] statement is [directed]
against the evil Origenist thought that is fully assured by the empty hope that
there is no judgment and no punishment, but that all human beings will cast
their bodies off on the last day and will be united with God in one nature. For
he rebukes them from the Scriptures, [showing] that all evil-doers will inherit
punishment forever, together with Satan, their father, and that they will
receive retribution for every small fault [resulting from] transgressing the
Law.”
Isaac of
Nineveh (fl. 7th
century)[3]:
Perhaps,
the most famous East-Syrian figure associated with ‘universalism’ is Isaac of
Nineveh.
Many links
treat the universalistic views of Isaac of Nineveh (also known as Isaac the
Syrian). Some examples of online sources:
A paper by
A. Fokin commenting the eschatological views of Isaac of Nineveh which also
comments on the possible influence of Evagrius on him (while also noting that
Isaac only names Diodore and Theodore as authorities in his support): https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/374137005-apocatastasis-in-the-syrian-christian-tradition-evagrius-and-isaac.pdf
A paper by Isaac’s
translator S.P. Brock which provides long quotes from the ending discourses of
the Second Part (38-41) and presents Isaac’s view: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/sebastian-brock-on-the-universalism-of-isaac-the-syrian.pdf
A blog post
by Fr. Kimel: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/the-triumph-of-the-kingdom-over-gehenna/
Excerpt
from Discourse VI of the Third Part: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2017/06/30/one-is-redeemed-by-grace-and-not-by-works-and-by-faith-one-is-justified-not-by-ones-way-of-life/
Here, I
will add some texts from the First Part which seem to be consistent with
the above textual evidence from the Second and Third Parts. I provide an
English Translation of the Italian translation by S. Chialà, “Discorsi
Ascetici. Prima Collezione”. In the footnotes, I provide the Italian text:
“Sin, Gehenna, and death are not with God at all. They are actions, not
realities. Sin is the fruit of the will; and there was a time when it was not,
and there will be a time when it will no longer be. Gehenna is the fruit of
sin, which is temporal and has a beginning; when it will end is unknown. Death
is an instrument of the Creator's wisdom; it has power over nature only for a
certain time, but it will cease altogether.” (First Part, 26)[4]
“I say, indeed, that even those who will be punished in Gehenna will be
tormented by the wounds of love. The wounds that come from love, that is, those
of those who feel they have failed in love, are harsh and bitter! More so than
the torments that come from fear! The pain that hisses in the heart because one
has failed in love is more acute than all the torments that can exist.
It is absurd to think that sinners in Gehenna will be deprived of love for
the Creator. Love, in fact, is the child of the knowledge of the truth, which
we confess will be granted to the entire universe. But love, with its strength,
acts in a twofold way: it torments those who have failed, as also happens here
below between friends; but love also cheers those who have guarded what is
fitting for it. So it is also in Gehenna: the harshness of the torment, I say,
is the compunction [caused] by love. The delight that it [provokes] intoxicates
the souls of the children above” (First Part, 27; note that the cause of torment is said to be
‘compunction’)[5]
“Forgiveness for any wrongdoing is a sign of compassion, and a change in
one's words toward the offender is a sign of bad judgment. Whoever seeks
correction for healing corrects with love; whoever seeks revenge, however,
lacks love. God corrects with love, not for revenge. Far be it from Him! For He
desires the healing of His own image, and does not retain anger beyond the time
necessary for righting, for He does not desire revenge on Himself. Such is the
purpose of love! Correction done with love is intended to right, and does not
seek retribution [for the wrong done].” (First Part, 45)[6]
“It is not a stranger who spoke to us about [God], so that we doubt his
goodness: the Son himself testified to these things about him. Where is the
equity in God if, while we were sinners, Christ died for us? If then he is
compassionate here below, we believe that he will not change. God forbid that
we should think this impiety: that there is a time when God is not
compassionate. The properties of God do not change as happens with mortals.
There is therefore no time when he does not possess something and then
possesses it; or that something can be subtracted from or added to what he
possesses, as happens with creatures. On the contrary, the qualities of God
belong to him from always and forever, as the blessed Interpreter also said in
his commentary on Genesis.
…
You who have discernment, come, marvel! Who is endowed with a wise mind,
capable of wonder? Let him come, marvel at the grace of our Creator! This is
the retribution of sinners: instead of rewarding them with equity, he rewards
them by granting them rebirth. And in place of the bodies that have trampled
upon his laws, he clothes them with the glory of perfection. This grace that
follows our sin is greater than the grace that brought us into existence, when
we were not yet born.”
(First Part, 50; the ‘blessed Interpreter’ is a honorific title attributed to
Theodore of Mopsuestia in the East-Syrian tradition)[7]
Joseph
Hazzaya (fl. 8th
century):
Joseph
Hazzaya is another author that sometimes is presented as an universalist. Unfortunately,
I cannot link to some of his writings but there are two reviews of the English
translation of one of his work edited by Nestor Kavvadas that affirm the
presence of the doctrine of universal salvation in Joseph:
https://www.academia.edu/36185589/Joseph_Hazzaya_On_Providence_ed_N_Kavvadas_Book_Review_Semitica_and_Classica_10_2017_264_267
(review by A. Pirtea)
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/223182564.pdf
(review by E. Fiori)
While it is not online, I was able to find the
Nestor Kavvadas’ English Edition of the Book ‘On Providence’. In it, Joseph
espounds a version of apokatastasis that, however, excludes one human being,
the ‘Lost One’. [8].
From ‘On providence’, 150-152 (p. 165-166 in the translation):
“150. Now, it is due for us to say
how much time will pass from the blessed Elijah’s coming until the revelation
of Christ our Lord: the blessed Elijah will come from the garden of Eden on the
first day of the fast of our Lord [sc. the Great Lent], and shall keep on
disputing with the Lost one and converting the nations unto himself [sc.
Elijah] up to our Lord’s resurrection. This will be the real resurrection. [It
shall come] after the teaching of the blessed Elijah towards the [peoples’]
assemblies, when all of them will be filled with the Spirit of Holiness and
will forsake the Apostate, turning to the blessed Elijah. Then the Lost one
shall stand alone, and the demon that abode in him will start abandoning him;
and then this man of sin will start eating the flesh of his [own] arms.
151. Now, when the blessed Elijah
will have converted all captives within the aforementioned [number of] days,
then, at the resurrection [day], on the first of Nisan, our Lord’s revelation
from the sky shall occur. The veil of the firmament shall dissipate from before
the face of our Lord and the splendor of His glory; and His voice shall cry on
the earth, and all Adam’s progeny shall rise and be enrobed with the glory of
resurrection. And before the eyes of all angels, humans and rebellious demons,
our Lord shall breathe out on the Lost one and annihilate him by the breath of
His mouth, while all rational [beings] shall be looking at Him. Then, all [of
them], having seen how the Lost one was annihilated, body and soul, shall all
cry [loud] giving glory to God for His so rich, abundant mercies—because they
saw the annihilation of the Lost one and the glory of the resurrection, and
then they understood that all sinners and righteous ones are justified freely
by grace. For when the righteous see the glory with which they are enrobed,
they will not think that it was by virtue of their labours that they were
deemed worthy of that ineffable glory, but that it was given to them freely by
grace.
152. Thus, with our Lord’s cry, all
Adam’s progeny will rise, and the Lost one will be annihilated by the breath of
our Lord’s mouth, whereas the demon that dwelled in him will be handed over to
judgement and vengeance. Thereafter, our Lord shall lead the righteous; and
they shall ascend with Him to the heights of the sky, where they shall all fly
through the air with wings of fire, according to the word of the blessed Paul:
“we shall be caught up together [sc. with those who sleep] to the clouds, to
meet our Lord in the air, and so shall we ever be with our Lord”. May our Lord
deem us worthy to be delivered from the Apostate, and to be raised together
with Him on wings of fire to the heights of heaven. Amen.”
Elsewhere Joseph, in the same work, echoes
Isaac of Nineveh’s view about Gehenna’s torments as due to love: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2025/08/04/and-this-love-is-their-food-and-drink-in-the-gehenna-of-love/
In other works, Joseph appears to have also
endorsed some versions of apokatastasis, quoting Theodore of Mopsuestia as an
authority.
Theodore
Bar Konai (fl. 8th
century):
In his Liber
Scholiorum 2:63, Theodore Bar Konai seemed to consider as permissible views
both the ‘universalist’ position on Gehenna and ‘infernalist’ position on
Gehenna (i.e. that Gehenna’s torments are endless). Here’s the relevant passage
in a French translation:
“63. Est-Il possible que ceux qui (sont) dans
la Gehenne soient favorisés du Royaume?
Certains docteurs l’ont énigmatiquement
signifié, tels Mar Diodore et le bienheureux Interpréte, vu que Dieu n’est pas
seulement juste, mais miséricordieux aussi et qu’il serait beau que, après
avoir supplicié les pécheurs à proportion de leurs péchés, celui qui juge
justement les favorise da la joissance. Et il en est qui disent que leur
supplice reste sans rémission et que, de meme que les verteux ne seront pas mutés vers la
Gèhenne, les pécheurs non plus ne le seront pas vers le Royaume. Pourtant, que les deux (opinions)
soient remises à la sagesse de ce Trésor de tous les biens, car il est clément
et miséricordieux.” (from: https://archive.org/details/csco_432_syr_188_theodore_bar_koni_livre_de_scolies/csco_431_syr_187_theodore_bar_koni_livre_de_scolies/page/102/mode/2up, page 102 of the first volume)
I
translated to English the above paragraph via Google Translate (I do not know
French):
“63. Is it possible that those who are in Gehenna will be favored with the
Kingdom?
Some doctors have enigmatically signified it, such as Mar Diodorus and the
blessed Interpreter, seeing that God is not only just, but also merciful and
that it would be beautiful if, after having tortured sinners in proportion to
their sins, he who judges justly favors them with joy. And there are those who say that their punishment remains without remission
and that, just as the virtuous will not be transferred to Gehenna, neither will
the sinners be transferred to the Kingdom. Yet
let both (opinions) be left to the wisdom of this Treasury of all goods, for He
is merciful and gracious.”
Assuming
that the ‘blessed Interpreter’ is Theodore of Mopsuestia (an impression that is
reinforced with the mention of ‘Mar Diododurs’, likely Diodore of Tarsus),
Theodore bar Konai, like Isaac of Nineveh attribute the position to both
Theodore and Diodore of Tarsus. Notice the contrast between their position and
the more conventional infernalist one described later. Theodore bar Konai
appears to say here that both opinions are ‘allowed’.
The same
passage is also referenced and somewhat translated differently by Ilaria
Ramelli:
“Theodore Bar Konai, while discussing the
question whether those who are in Gehenna can be made worthy of the kingdom,
says:
“Some among the wise and learned, such as Saint
Diodore and the blessed Exegete [Theodore of Mopsuestia], have alluded to this
in an enigmatic way, by adducing that God is not only just, but also merciful,
and that it becomes the One who judges with justice to have sinners suffer in a
measure that is proportional to their sins and then make them worthy of
blessedness.295”” (Ramelli, Ilaria L. E. . A Larger Hope?, Volume 1: Universal
Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian of Norwich (English Edition) (p. 142).
Cascade Books, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Edizione del Kindle.)
Note 295: “295. Liber Scholiorum, 2:63.” (ibid.
p. 146)
Patriarch
Timothus I and a possible condemnation of universalism in the eight century:
Under Patriarch
Timothus I (presided 780-823) apparently the belief in universal salvation
had been condemned. Here is Nestor Kavvadas’ attestation of the condemnation in
his edition of Joseph’s Hazzaya ‘On Providence’ (p.1):
“Joseph Hazzaya’s treatise On Providence1
(OP) is out of this author’s work the piece most deeply interwoven with his biography. Indeed,
for the most part, op seems to be an implicit apology for a specific
theological view. It defends a profoundly pedagogical understanding of all acts
of God amounting to the salvation of all (apokatastasis), a view that
had become intimately connected not only with Joseph Hazzaya (born 710–713),
but also with an important part of the East Syriac mystical tradition which was
“hereticised” by the East Syriac Catholicos Timothy i (reigned 780–823)2 and
then officially condemned by a general synod (786 or 790) that posthumously excommunicated
Joseph.
…
2 Cf. V. Berti, Vita e studi
di Timoteo i, Patriarca cristiano di Baghdad (Paris, 2009; Studia
Iranica.Cahier 41), p. 162, n. 498.”
However, as
evidenced below the belief resurfaced later or continued to be present in the
East Syrian tradition as is clear from the resources below. So, it seems that
the condemnation wasn’t seen as definitive.
Hanun
ibn Yuhanna ibn al-Salt (fl. 10th century):
According
to this article (which was once open source) by John Zaleski “Universal
Salvation in Christian and Islamic Thought: The Arabic Reception of Isaac of
Nineveh”:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/875106/summary
Ibn al-Salt
(10th century) endorsed Isaac of Nineveh’s views. Ibn al-Salt in his
work also mentioned that the teachings of Isaac were not usually mentioned to
the ‘young’ in order to avoid that they took the teaching on ‘universal
salvation’ as an excuse for laziness[9]
and attributed the same caution to Isaac of Nineveh himself.
Here is how
ibn-al-Salt contrasted the position of ‘Mar Isaac’ to those of others (‘some
people’) according to the article:
“1. First Question (mas’ala): Did God, the
Majestic and Mighty, at the time of Adam’s creation, create him for life or for
death?
• Some people (ba‘ḍ al-qawm) have answered that God created him for
life, but that when he was disobedient, he earned death, and so he died.
• But Mar Isaac said: Adam was created for
death before death. The disobedience was the cause of God’s economy and will
for Adam and his progeny.
2. Second Question: Is it permissible or not
for God, the Majestic and Mighty,
to grow angry at the disobedience of created
beings?
• Some people have answered that acts of
disobedience anger God and that repentance makes him content.
• But Mar Isaac said: As for the Creator, the
actions of his servants do not change him, nor do they move him from
contentment to anger or from anger to contentment. This is only said in the
scriptures metaphorically (‘alā l-majāz), just as God is described29
metaphorically as having an eye and an ear and knowledge akin to that of
humans. God’s punishments follow the same course as those of a father
disciplining his child—not the path of revenge, but that of correction for the
one being disciplined.
3. Third Question: Is it permissible in the
justice of God, the Majestic and Mighty, that a person should sin for a short
period of time and then God should impose on him a punishment that lasts
forever (dā’ima30 ilā l-abad)?
• Some people have answered that this is
permissible and not reprehensible.
• But Mar Isaac said: The Creator is too
merciful and generous to do this with his bounty that neither changes nor is
moved.
4. Fourth Question: Will the mercy (raḥma) of God, the Majestic and Mighty,
be universal (ta‘umm) in the afterlife for the good and the evil?
• Some people have answered that God’s mercy
will adhere to the good at the exclusion of the evil.
• But Mar Isaac said: God’s mercy will be
universal for creation in the afterlife, just as it is universal for them in
this life, but it will be particular in accordance with the ranks of the
laborers.
5. Fifth Question: Are the provisions given to
people and their lots in this life preordained, such that every person is given
his lot of these provisions, or is it in accordance with peoples’ efforts, the
troubles they take for gain, their actions, and what they deserve?
• Some people have answered that it is in
accordance with their efforts and what they deserve.
• But Mar Isaac said: It follows the economy of
God and what he has ordained for the intelligent and the ignorant, the
righteous and the wicked, not in accordance with what people deserve in
themselves, nor in accordance with their actions or understanding.
6. Sixth Question: Upon its departure from the
body, is the soul stripped of its knowledge, or does it remain in the same
condition regarding life and knowledge?
• Some people have answered that the soul does
not know anything apart rom the body.
• But Mar Isaac said: In its essence, neither
life nor knowledge will depart from the soul. This is the teaching of the Greek
philosophers.” (pp. 8-9 pdf file)
The author
in a footnote compares these position attributed to Mar Isaac to those found in
the Second Part, 39-40:
“The first question, regarding the death of
Adam, reflects Isaac’s argument that death belonged to God’s prelapsarian plan
for Adam and was not the result of Adam’s disobedience. Brock, Second Part,
39.4. The second question, whether God grows angry at our disobedience,
reflects Isaac’s arguments that human acts do not change God and that
scriptural references to God’s anger are simply “figures” (eskeme) applied to
God. Brock, Second Part, 39.14 and 39.19. The third question, whether or
not the divine punishment will be everlasting, reflects Isaac’s denial, drawing
upon the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus, that
sinners will suffer God’s punishments “forever.” Brock, Second Part,
39.14. Finally, the fourth question, on the universal scope of God’s mercy,
reflects both the general tenor of Isaac’s argument in chapter 39, as well as
his statement at the beginning of chapter 40: “one is the love and mercy [raḥme] from God spread out upon all
creation.” Brock Second Part, 40.1. As the fifth and sixth questions do
not pertain directly to universal salvation, I will not discuss them further in
this article.” (p. 9 pdf file)
Solomon
of Basra (fl. 13th
century):
In the last
chapter of his ‘Book of the Bee’ clearly supports universalism:
https://sacred-texts.com/chr/bb/bb60.htm
This
chapter opens with the words: “some of the Fathers terrify us beyond our
strength and throw us into despair; and their opinion is well adapted to the
simple-minded and trangressors of the law. Others of them encourage us and bid
us rely upon Divine mercy; and their opinions are suitable and adapted to the
perfect and those of settled minds and the pious.” Like in the case of the
testimony of ibn-al Salt, Solomon apparently attests a common practice of
communicating the teaching on ‘universal salvation’ only to the spiritually
trained.
He provides
quotes from the ‘Book of memorials’[10]
and also quotes from Isaac of Nineveh, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of
Tarsus clearly as examples of the latter group (I do not quote the entire chapter
here as I have already quoted in my previous post about Theodore and Diodore).
The first
two quotes of Isaac of Nineveh are from the First Part (Homily 26/28 and
50/51), whereas the third quote is from the Third Part (Homily 6)[11].
It should be noted that, from what I was able
to know the only place where there is a discussion about the meaning of
the world ‘eternal’ is in the last Chapter of the ‘Book of the Bee’, probably
in a quote attributed to Diodore of Tarsus, where it is suggested that
‘eternal/everlasting’ in the Bible doesn’t necessarily mean ‘without end’. Such
a linguistic point doesn’t seem to have been a widespread point of debate.
Here, however, is the relevant part from the link above:
“But if punishment is to be weighed out
according to sin, not even so would punishment be endless. For as regards that
which is said in the Gospel, 'These shall go away into everlasting punishment,
but the righteous into life eternal4;' this word 'eternal' (le-`âlam)[12]
is not definite: for if it be not so, how did Peter say to our Lord, 'Thou
shalt never wash my feet5,' and yet He washed him? And of Babylon He
said, 'No man shall dwell therein for ever and ever6,' and behold many generations dwell therein.
In the 'Book of Memorials' he says: 'I hold what the most celebrated of the
holy Fathers say, that He cuts off a little from much. The penalty of Gehenna
is a man's mind; for the punishment there is of two kinds, that of the
body and that of the mind. That of the body is perhaps in proportion to the
degree of sin, and He lessens and diminishes its duration; but that of the mind
is for ever, and the judgment is for ever.' But in the New Testament le-`âlam is
not without end.”
Patriarch
Timotheus II (fl.
14th century):
Patriarch
Timotheus II is sometimes cited as a proponent of ‘universalism’ in the East-Syrian
Church.[13]
I did manage
to find the testimony of Joseph Assemani (source: https://archive.org/details/assemani-1728-bibliotheca-orientalis-clementino-vaticana-3.2/page/n372/mode/1up (Joseph Assemani, volume 3.2/4, pp. 344-346)). He quotes three passages
from Timotheus II and provides a Latin translation. Unfortunately, some words
were unclear to me and my transliteration might be erroneous. Also, since I
don’t know Latin I used Google to translate – so, of course, the English
translation is unreliable.
Google
translation from Latin to English:
““The deceased are helped by the prayers of
the living, Timothy II, the Patriarch, teaches expressly in his book on the
Seven Sacraments of the Church, chap. 6, led.7. where, having set himself this
question: If everyone is rewarded according to the measure of his labor,
what profit is prayer for the deceased? or the oblation to him for whom it is
offered? he brings a threefold answer, the first of which is:
“Although it is true that none of those who
sow wheat, nor any of those who sow tares, gather wheat; nevertheless, prayer,
however small, helps and confirms the hope of the deceased, if indeed it is
done from the company of the faithful who have hope; just as a person who is
tossed about in the sea, if it is done from the number of those who can swim,
does not determine to move his hands and feet; and thus, repelling despair from
within himself, he is lifted up.”
The other
answer:
“The soul, which is stripped of its body,
is helped by prayers and offerings; for just as the soul acts upon the virtues
of the body, so it can act upon a soul weaker than itself; just as the soul of
Simon, the Prince of the Apostles, acted upon the souls and bodies of Ananias
and Sapphira. And as we read in the Book of Paradise, by a certain manner of
prayers, the souls of certain sinners were transferred from place to place,
that is, from torments to pleasures. Therefore, since the soul of the one praying
is a stronger potentiator than that which has departed from the body, the
weaker one is moved by the weaker one and is enlightened, and is prepared by an
active mind and the Holy Spirit to receive the gift of beatitude, and is
transformed from glory to glory by the Lord Spirit.”
the third answer:
“Christ, the common victim for all, to what
age of men did he benefit when he was sacrificed? Not the first, the middle, or
the last? Or did he indeed benefit the middle; but not the first and the last
at all? But if he benefited all equally, namely the dead and the living; for he
is the grace of all, and of the whole world; it is therefore clear that the
sacrifice of the Lamb of the living God, who takes away and takes away the sin
of the world, is not for the end of utility, nor for the end of use, when it is
offered for the living and for the dead. Therefore the Baptist does not say,
who took away the sin of the world; for he knew that he continually and always
took away and forgave the sins of the world. Not if the irrational sacrifices
of the law, lamb, I say, and kid, and calf, and tortures, and young colts, were
not offered for the end of utility, nor for the end of use, according to the
law, for sinners, but they washed away and cleansed sins, but not in every
part, nor always; for they were a type and image of the Lamb of God, who takes
away and takes away the sin of the world; How much more can the living Lamb of
God cleanse the sins of the living and the dead? But if certain strategists and
soldiers, fighting for the ancient and paternal law, I say Judas, Maccabeus and
his companions, begged pardon for the sins of the sons of his people after
their slaughter and fall; and that while they were sick in the worship of
idols; how much more is Christ our Lord, when he is sacrificed, believed to
forgive the sins of the living and the dead? Therefore the sacrifice of the Son
of God, when offered, benefits all. Sins are not entirely, nor in every
respect, forgiven to the soul; it is clear that the deceased does not resort to
repentance and tears, since he enjoyed the power and free will of his will; yet
in this the kindness and philanthropy of God are often seen, as grace and piety
work even those things which are not done by will. Therefore it is useful, and
of great benefit, that the Lamb of God is constantly sacrificed for us, both to
those who share in the sacrament of his sacrifice, and to him, for whose sake
and for whose sake it is perfected and consummated.””
Latin
text: “Defunctos
suffragiis vivorum juvari, ex professo docet Timotheus II Patriarcha in libro
de septem Ecclesiae Sacramentis cap. 6 . led.7. ubi hac sibi praefixa
quaestione: Si unicuictue pro laboris mensura merces retribuitur , quid
prodest oratio defuncto? aut Oblatio ei, pro quo offertur ? triplicem
relponfionem affert, quarum prima eft:
“Tametsi
verum est, neminem eorum, qui triticum semiant, neque ullum eorum, qui zizania
seminant, triticum colligere; oratio tamen, quantulacmunque fit, defuncti spem
adjuvat et confirmat, si quidem ex caetum fidelium spem habentium fit;
quemadmodum qui in mari fluctuat, si ex eorum numero fit, qui natare possunt,
manus pedesque motare non definit; atque ita desperationem seipso repellens,
sublevatur”
Altera responsio:
“Anima, quae
corpore exuta est, precibus oblationibusque juvantur; nam sicuti anima in
virtues corporis agit, ita agere potest in animam seipsa infirmiorem;
quemadmodum anima Simonis Apostololorum Principis egit in animas et corpora
Ananiae et Sapphirae. Et sicuti in libro paradisi[14]
legitur, ob quemdam precum modum, de loco in locum, idest, ex cruciatibus in
voluptates translatae sunt animae qorumdam peccatorum[15].
Quum igitur anima orantis potentiator firt, quàm ea qua è corpore migravit,
haec infirmior ab invalidiori agitur et illuminatur, atque ad recipiendum
beatitudinis donum à mente activa et à Spiritu Sancto preaeparatus, et à gloria
in gloriam per Dominum Spiritum transmutatur.”
tertia
responsio:
“Christus
communis pro omnibus victima, cuinam hominum aetati profuit, quum immolatus
fuit? Primis ne, mediis, an postremis? An verò mediis quidem profuit; primis
verò ac postremis nequaquam? Sin autem omnibus aequé profuit, defunctis
scilicet et vivis; omnium enim, totiusque mundi gratia est; perspicuum igitur
fir, non fine utilitate, nec fine usu esse sacrificium agni Dei vivi, qui
tollit et aufert peccatum mundi, qunado pro vivis et pro defunctis offertur. Propterca
non ait Baptista,qui abstulit peccatum mundi; Sciebat enim illum continuo et
semper auferre et dimittere peccata mundi. Non si irrationalia legis
sacrificia, agnus, inquam, et haedus, et vitulus, et tortures, et pulli
columarum, non fine utilitate, nec fine usu il lege pro peccatoribus offerebantur,
sed peccata abluebant mundabantque, esti non omni ex parte, neque semper; typus
enim erant et imago agni Dei, qui tollit aufertque peccatum mundi; quanto magis
vivus Dei agnus mundare potest vivorum mortuorumque peccata? Quodsi strategi
quidam militesque pro vetere paternaque lege decertantes, Judasm inquam,
Macabaeus et socii, veniam deprecati sunt pro peccatis filiorum populi sui post
illorum ccaedem casumque; idque quam in idolorum cultu aegrotarent; quanto
magis Christus Dominus noster quum immolatur, creditur dimittere peccata
vivorum mortuorumque? Itaque omnibus prodest sacrificium filii Dei, quando
offertur. Eisi enimi non omnino, neque ex omni parte dimittuntur peccata;
eòscliciet quia defunctas ad poenitateniam et lacrymas non confugit, quum potestate
liberosque voluntatis arbitrio frueretur; in hoc tamen magnopere benignitas et
philatropia Dei plerumque conspicitur, ut gratia et pietas etiam ea, quae non
ex voluntate geruntur, operatur. Utile igitur est, multumque prodest, ut pro
nobis assidue immoletur agnus Dei, tùm iis, qui sacramento immolationis ejus
participes siunt, tùm ei, eujus causa et propter quem perficitur et
consummatur.””
Islamic witnesses of the presence of
universalism in some Eastern (Syriac?) Christians
In the
article “Universal Salvation in Christian and Islamic Thought: The Arabic
Reception of Isaac of Nineveh” by J. Zelenski quoted above, we also find
two Islamic attestations of the presence of universalistic views among
Christians. These two sources do not specify in which tradition these
‘universalists’ were found. But it is safe to assume that there was a
significant prevalence of ‘universalists’ among Middle Easter Christians at the
time:
“Writing a couple centuries after Ḥanūn, the Muslim historian and
heresiographer al-Shahrastānī (d. 1158) related the following concerning
Christian eschatological views:
“Among the Christians are those who affirm the
[postmortem] gathering of spirits without bodies, and those who say that the
recompense of the wicked in the resurrection will be sadness, sorrow, and
ignorance, and the recompense of the good will be happiness, joy, and
knowledge. They deny that there will be sex, eating, or drinking in Paradise.
Among them, Mar Isaac said that God the Exalted
has promised [to reward] the obedient and threatened [to punish] the
disobedient. It is not permissible for God to break the promise, since that
would not befit his generosity, but he does break his threat and does not
torment the disobedient. Creation will return to happiness, felicity, and
blessing, and God will make this universal [‘ammama] for all, since everlasting
punishment [al-‘iqāb al-abadī] does not befit him who is bountiful [jawād] and
true.94”
…
94. Al-Shahrastānī, Al-Milal
wa-l-Niḥal, ed. Aḥmad Fahmī Muḥammad, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (Beirut: Dār
al-Kutub al-‘Ilmiyya, 1992), 2:251.
…
96. Another Muslim author who refers to
Christian belief in universal salvation is the Mu‘tazilī theologian and
anti-Christian polemicist Qāḍī ‘Abd al-Jabbār (d. 1025). Although ‘Abd al Jabbār does not here refer
specifically to the views of Isaac of Nineveh or any other Christian
theologian, he cites the lack of Christian belief in eternal punishment as an
illustration of the “cheapness” of Christianity. See Gabriel Said Reynolds, “A
Medieval Islamic Polemic against Certain Practices and Doctrines of the East Syrian
Church: Introduction, Excerpts, and Commentary,” in Christians at the Heart of
Islamic Rule: Church Life and Scholarship in ‘Abbasid Iraq, ed. David Thomas
(Leiden: Brill, 2003), 223–25.” (pp. 24-25 pdf file)
Final
note
In this
post, I provided evidence that in the Church of the East universalist and
‘quasi-universalist’ were often taught during the Middle Ages, especially
perhaps after Isaac of Nineveh, not without creating controversy.
I do not
know if, nowadays, the ‘apokatastasis’ is still a permitted theological opinion
in the Church of the East. Curiously, it is far more difficult to find
information for the contemporary position. Clearly the fact that these
‘universalist’ or ‘universalist-leaning’ texts had been copied and conserved
suggest that the position had remained somewhat prevalent in this tradition.
[1] By ‘universalism’ I mean the view
that all human beings will be, ultimately, saved or, equivalently that no human
being will be lost for ever.
[2] It is perhaps significant
that Isaac of Nineveh, in his Second Part (39.7-14) mentions Theodore
and Diodore as his main authorities on this teaching. In the West, the doctrine
is mostly associated with Origen of Alexandria and those who are said to be his
faithful followers like Didymus of Alexandria and Evagrius Ponticus (Isaac was
apparently also called, when he became blind, the ‘second Didymus’). It is also
somewhat ironic that, thanks to Isaac, Diodore and Theodore have been more
successful on transmitting the doctrine of universal salvation than anyone else
in antiquity and Middle Ages.
[3] Having bought the Italian
translation of the East Syriac version of the First Part, I can attest
that, according to the translator Sabino Chialà, in many places, the Greek
version has replaced the mentions of Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore ‘The
Interpreter’ and Evagrius with less contentious source. Also,
some homilies are missing or reduced.
[4] “Il peccato, la geenna e la morte,
non sono assolutamente presso Dio. Essi sono infatti azioni, non realtà. Il
peccato è frutto della volontà; e vi fu un tempo in cui non era e vi sarà un
tempo in cui non sarà più. La geenna è frutto del peccato, che è a tempo e ha
un inizio; quando avrà termine non è noto. La morte è uno strumento della
sapienza del Creatore; essa ha potere sulla natura solo per un certo tempo, ma
cesserà del tutto” (Discorsi Ascetici. Prima Collezione, pag. 265)
[5] “Io dico, infatti, che anche quanti
saranno castigati nella geenna, saranno tormentati dalle piaghe dell’amore. Le
piaghe che provengono dall’amore, cioè quelle di quanti sentono di aver mancato
nell’amore, sono dure e amare! Più dei tormenti che vengono dal timore! La
sofferenza che sibila nel cuore perché si è mancato all’amore è più acuta di
tutti i tormenti che vi possono essere.
È assurdo pensare che i
peccatori nella geenna saranno privati dell’amore per il Creatore. L’amore,
infatti, è figlio della conoscenza della verità, che noi confessiamo che
sarà concessa all’universo intero. Ma l’amore, con la sua forza, agisce in modo
duplice: tormenta coloro che hanno mancato, come accade anche quaggiù tra
amici; l’amore però anche allieta coloro che hanno custodito ciò che gli si addice.
Così è anche nella geenna: la durezza del tormento io dico che è la compunzione
[provocata] dall’amore. La delizia invece che esso [provoca] inebria l’anima
dei figli di lassù.” (ibid., pag. 279)
[6] “Segno di compassione è il perdono di qualsiasi torto,
e segno di una cattiva intelligenza è il mutare delle parole rivolte
all’offensore. Chi finalizza la correzione alla cura, corregge con amore; chi
invece cerca di vendicarsi, manca di amore. Dio corregge con amore e non per
vendetta. Non sia mai! Perché egli desidera la guarigione della propria
immagine, e non conserva l’ira oltre il tempo necessario a raddrizzare, poiché
non desidera vendicare se stesso. Tale è il fine dell’amore! La correzione fatta
con amore è volta a raddrizzare, e non si prefigge di ripagare [per il male
commesso].” (ibid. pag. 412)
[7] “Non è un estraneo che ci ha parlato di [Dio], perché
noi dubitiamo della sua bontà: il Figlio stesso ha testimoniato di lui queste
cose. Dov’è l’equità in Dio se, mentre eravamo peccatori, Cristo è morto per
noi? Se dunque egli è compassionevole quaggiù, noi crediamo che non muterà.
Non sia mai che noi pensiamo questa empietà: che vi è un tempo in cui Dio non
sia compassionevole. Le proprietà di Dio non cambiano come avviene per i
mortali. Non vi è dunque un tempo in cui egli non possieda qualcosa e poi la
possiede; oppure che qualcosa possa essere sottratta o aggiunta a ciò che egli
possiede, come avviene per le creature. Al contrario, le qualità di Dio gli
appartengono da sempre e per sempre, come ha anche detto il beato Interprete
nel suo commento alla Genesi.
…
Voi che avete
discernimento, venite, ammirate! Chi è dotato di una mente sapiente, capace di
stupore? Venga, stupisca della grazia del nostro Creatore! Questa è la
retribuzione dei peccatori: invece di retribuirli secondo equità, egli li
retribuisce facendoli rinascere. E al posto dei corpi che hanno calpestato le
sue leggi, egli li riveste con la gloria della perfezione. Questa grazia che
segue il nostro peccato è più grande di quella che ci ha fatti venire
all’esistenza, quando non eravamo ancora.”(ibid. 451, 453)
[8] Here is Nestor Kavvadas’ comment: “This
prefigures what the final outcome shall be: and indeed, in the apocalypse
unfolded in the OP, Joseph clearly presents how the prophet Elijah, at
his eschatological return before the Second Coming, shall convert the entirety
of humanity, including those previously seduced by the Antichrist (the “Lost
one”), to true faith” (p. 10), “The sole exception is the “Lost one” himself,
presented as human being in which a demon dwells (OP 150).” (p.10)
[9] “At last, a learned “father”
remarked that Ḥanūn’s own inchoate views seemed to accord with the teachings of Isaac
of Nineveh; however, the man warned Ḥanūn that Isaac had discouraged the young from
studying his writings, as they were unable to “bear the secrets” of his
teaching.
…
Nevertheless,
Ḥanūn indicates
that the monks of al-Anbār were initially reluctant to discuss Isaac’s teaching
on God’s all-saving mercy. “Mar Isaac,” as one of the elders explained, “said
in his testimony that discussion of mercy [raḥma] should be concealed from the
young, lest it lead them to be at ease with sin.” The monk’s point—a common
objection to promoting universalism—was that the fear of eternal hell is necessary
to prevent immature minds from sin. Nevertheless, once the monks realized that Ḥanūn had already begun to understand
the secrets of God’s mercy, they agreed to explain Isaac’s teachings on the
questions he so eagerly pursued.” (pp.6-7 of the pdf file)
[10] I have yet to find other
references to this book.
[11] For the two quotes of the First
Part, they are included in this link: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/the-triumph-of-the-kingdom-over-gehenna/ For the quote of the Third Part,
see here: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2017/06/30/one-is-redeemed-by-grace-and-not-by-works-and-by-faith-one-is-justified-not-by-ones-way-of-life/
[12] This is the Syriac word for
‘eternal’.
[13] See e.g. “ Timotheus
II., patriarch of the Nestorians, wrote that "by the prayers of the saints
the souls of sinners may pass from Gehenna to Paradise," (Asseman. IV.
p. 344).” (J.W. Hanson, the Prevailing view chap. 5, source: https://www.tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd5.html )
[14] Assemani adds: “(in vitis Patrum)”
(translation: “in the life of
the Fathers”)
[15] Assemani adds: “(hìc intelligit
Timotheus historiam scù fabulam animae Trajani Imperatoris, aliorumque vel
ethnicorum vel malorum Christianorum, quae precibus Sanctorum à Gehenna
liberatae dicuntur.)” (translation: “Here Timothy understands the history and fable of the soul of the Emperor
Trajan, and of other pagans or bad Christians, who are said to have been
delivered from Gehenna by the prayers of the Saints.”)
Comments
Post a Comment