Ancient and Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’ in Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia
Ancient and
Medieval witnesses of the presence of ‘universalism’[1]
in Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of
Mopsuestia
Introduction
In this
text, witnesses of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s and Diodore of Tarsus’
eschatological ‘universalist’ views, are reported. As shall we see (pages 2-10 in this document),
the attestations of Diodore’s endorsement of a form of apokatastasis are always
accompanied by an attestation of his disciple, Theodore, endorsing the same
view. All these common testimonies are from Syriac sources, both Eastern-Syriac
- Isaac of Nineveh (fl. 7th century in his Second Part, 39.7-14; for
Theodore only in his Second Part, 3.3.94), Solomon of Basra (fl. 13th
century in his book of the Bee, 60), Theodore bar Konai (fl. 8th
century in his Liber Scholiorum 2.63) - and Western-Syriac - John of
Dara (fl. 9th century in his On the Resurrection of Human Bodies
4.21). At page 8 there is a brief comparison of a passage in Isaac’s Third
Part (discourse 6) about eschatological punishments and the content of one
fragment of Diodore quoted by Isaac himself in the Second Part.
In the case
of Theodore, however, we have additional sources (pages.11-21): the Greek
theologian Photius of Constaninople (fl. 9th century), who mentions
that he endorsed the idea of a limited duration of punishments and a final
restoration, and the Patrologia Latina (perhaps by the Latin writer Marius
Mercator in the 5th century) which provides at least a fragment that seems
to suggest the same idea. Another East Syriac witness, Joseph Hazzaya (fl. 8th
century) who himself supported a qualified form of apokatastasis, is said to
cite Theodore in support for a form of apokatastasis and to refer to a fragment
from a lost work on Priesthood that seems to endorse the same view. Also, Isaac
of Nineveh himself, in another section of the second Part, quotes Theodore’s
work On Priesthood where Theodore seems to say that punishments will have an
end. The last witness I’ll cite is the
harsh critic of Theodore, the Greek Leontius of Byzantium (fl. 6th
century) who accused Theodore of considering the threat of eschatological
punishments as a mere threat. I also cite a fragment of Theodore preserved in
Isaac of Nineveh Third Part which doesn’t seem to directly assert an
universalist view but echoes the language used one fragment that does and is
included in the context of a seemingly universalist passage of Isaac.
Finally, I
added an Appendix with further quotes of Theodore of Mopsuestia seem to further
confirm the other findings and also two quotes of his disciple Theodoret of
Cyrrhus (fl. 5th century) who also seems a supporter of the same
doctrine.
I suggest
the reader to read also the footnotes that provide, in my opinion, interesting
and relevant information.
Common
witnesses about Diodore of Tarus and Theodore of Mospuestia views on
eschatology
Isaac of
Nineveh[2] (fl. 7th century) in the Second Part, discourse
39:7-14 (II.39.7-14) quotes Diodore and Theodore as supporters of this
position[3]
and gives the strongest evidence for this among what we will discuss here:
“ 7 Lest any of those who zealously
imagine that they are being zealous for the cause of truth should imagine that
we are introducing something novel of our own accord, things of which our
former orthodox fathers never spoke, as though we were bursting out with an
opinion which did not accord with truth, anyone who likes can turn to the
writing of the blessed Interpreter[4],
a man who had sufficient fill of the gifts of grace, who was entrusted with the
hidden mysteries of the scriptures, (enabling him) to instruct on the path to
truth the whole community of the Church; who above all has illumined us
orientals with wisdom - nor is our mind's vision capable enough (to bear) the
brilliancy of his compositions inspired by the divine Spirit.
For we are not rejecting his words - far from
it! Rather, we accept (him) like one of the apostles, and anyone who opposes
his words introduces doubt into his interpretations, or shows hesitation at his
words, (such a person) we hold to be alien to the community of the Church and someone
who is erring from the truth. Therefore, although we could demonstrate (our
point) from many passages in a great number of his volumes, nevertheless he
makes the point especially clear at the end of the first volume which he
composed against those who say that sin is present by nature[5].
8. From the blessed Theodore, the Interpreter[6].
After other luminous statements, he says:
"In the world to come those who have
chosen here what is good will receive the felicity of good things along with
praise; whereas the wicked who all their life have turned aside to evil deeds
once they have been set in order in their minds by punishment and the fear of
them, choose the good, having come to learn how much they have sinned and that
they have persevered in doing evil things and not good; by means of all this
they receive a knowledge of religion's excellent teaching and are educated so
as to hold on to it with a good will (and so eventually) they are held worthy
of the felicity of divine munificence. For (Christ) would never have said ‘Until
you pay the last farthing,’[7]
unless it has been possible for us to be freed from our sins once we had
recompensed for them through punishments[8].
Nor would he have said ‘He will be beaten with many stripes’ and ‘he will be
beaten with few stripes’[9]
if it were not (the case) that the punishments measured out in correspondence
to the sins were finally going to have an end.”
9. These
words and others similar to them are what the blessed Theodore has handed down
in his books, clearly and without concealment, openly using straightforward
words that are not obscure for (the benefit) of the understanding and
instruction of lovers of truth, (showing) what opinions it is appropriate that
we should hold concerning God the Creator of all and concerning his
chastisements and concerning the judgment to come.
10. Since, according to our Lord's (own) words,
the testimony[10]
of two men is true and especially so in the case of people who are wondrously
and divinely illumined let us confirm that what we have said with the help of
another witness who was trustworthy like (our) first witness, (someone) from
whose fountain the clear-sounding Theodore himself drank a person of high
intelligence (namely) Diodore[11]
the great teacher of the church.
11 By the holy Diodore Bishop of Tarsus. The
blessed Diodore, wonderful among teachers and instructor of (Theodore), concurs
with (this) opinion and he sets it out in an authoritative way in discourse 5
of his book on providence saying as follows[12]:
"A reward for labours is reserved for the good, one that is worthy of the righteousness
of the Maker, but stripes for the wicked are not for eternity. Thus, not even
in their case is the future condition of immortality of no profit: if they are
tormented as they deserve just for a short time commensurate with their evil
and their wickedness, receiving reward in accordance with the measure of their
actions experiencing suffering during a short while, nevertheless (for them)
delight in immortality is forever”.
He comes back to what he is saying (here) with
greater precision as follows: “If the reward for labours is so great, how much greater
is the time of immortality than the time of contests that is this world;
whereas the punishments are (far) less than the magnitude and number of sins.
The resurrection from the dead should not be considered as belonging[13]
only to the good but it also takes place for the wicked as well. For[14]
God's goodness is greatly to be held in honour. It chastises sparingly.”
12 These are the words and the opinion of the
blessed Diodore[15].
But later on he also says in discourse 6 as follows: “For God, by means of good
rewards, conceals the measure of labours; but in the greatness of grace, He
diminishes the punishment of those who are chastised, and he shortens its
length. But He does not let the torment go on for as much time as the time of
wrongdoings warrants. Although He requires them with less than they deserve - just
as with the good He extends their felicity beyond (its due) measure in time ,seeing
that the reward has no end - it cannot be known as I have already said if God's
goodness will always endure retaining the evil's consequent on guiltiness and
causing hurt to those of fault.[16]”
13 Then reiterating his words he says[17]:
"The decree of judgment and of torment is not to the same extent as the
felicity of the kingdom which will obtain then." And (he has) other
similar words with the same opinion and expressing the same views. He also
introduces into discussion the case of the demons and their great inclination
to evil saying: “that not even their immense wickedness can overcome the
measure of God's goodness”.
14 These and similar astonishing insights and
opinions leading (us) on to love of, and wonder at, the Creator, belong to
these very pillars of the church dealing with (God's) dispensation and the divine
judgment to come, they concern the immensity of God's mercy, which is in its abundance
passes beyond and overcomes the evils done by created beings. Such opinions
will cast out from our way of thinking the childish opinion of God expressed by
those who introduce evil and passibility into His nature saying that He is
changed by circumstances and times. At the same time these opinions of (Theodore
and Diodore) will teach us about (the nature of) His chastisements and
punishments, whether here or there, (instructing us) concerning what sort of
compassionate intentions and purpose he has and allowing (these) to come upon
us, what are the excellent outcomes resulting from them, how it is not a matter
of our being destroyed by them[18]
or enduring the same for eternity, how He allows them to come in a fatherly way
and not vengefully - which would be a sign of hatred. (Their purpose was) that,
by thinking in this way we might (come to) know about God, and wonder at Him
would draw us on to love of him, and as a result of that (love) we might feel ashamed
at ourselves and set a right the conduct of our lives here.” (Isaac of Nineveh,
Second Part, discourse 39.7-14, translated by Sebastian Brock, pp. 165-169)
Solomon
of Basra (fl. 13th
century), Book of the Bee, ch. 60 (link: https://sacred-texts.com/chr/bb/bb60.htm ). While it first quotes a certain
‘book of Memorials’ and Isaac of Nineveh, I believe it is worth quoting in
full:
“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.[19]
In the 'Book of Memorials'[20]
it is thus written: 'This world is the world of repentance, but the world which
is to come is the world of retribution. As in this world repentance saves until
the last breath, so in the world to come justice exacts to the uttermost
farthing[21].
And as it is impossible to see here strict justice unmingled with mercy, so it
is impossible to find there strict justice mingled with mercy.'
Mâr Isaac says thus: 'Those who are to be
scourged in Gehenna will be tortured with stripes of love; they who feel
that they have sinned against love will suffer harder and more severe pangs
from love than the pain that springs from fear.' Again he says: 'The recompense
of sinners will be this: the resurrection itself will be their recompense
instead of the recompense of justice; and at the last He will clothe those
bodies which have trodden down His laws with the glory of perfection. This act
of grace to us after we have sinned is greater than that which, when we were
not, brought our nature into being.' Again he says: 'In the world which is to
come grace will be the judge and not justice.'
Mâr Theodore the Expositor says[22]:
'Those who have here chosen fair things will receive in the world to come the
pleasure of good things with praises; but the wicked who have turned aside to
evil things all their life, when they are become ordered in their minds by
penalties and the fear that springs from them, and choose good things, and
learn how much they have sinned by having persevered in evil things and not in
good things, and by means of these things receive the knowledge of the highest
doctrine of the fear of God[23],
and become instructed to lay hold of it with a good will, will be deemed worthy
of the happiness of the Divine liberality. For He would never have said,
"Until thou payest the uttermost farthing," unless it had been
possible for us to be freed from our sins through having atoned for them by
paying the penalty; neither would He have said, "he shall be beaten with
many stripes," or "he shall be beaten with few stripes," unless
it were that the penalties, being meted out according to the sins, should
finally come to an end.'These things the Expositor has handed down in his books
clearly and distinctly[24].
So also the blessed Diodorus,
who says in the 'Book of the Dispensation: [25]'
'A lasting reward, which is worthy of the justice of the Giver, is laid up for
the good, in return for their labours; and torment for sinners, but not
everlasting, that the immortality which is prepared for them may not be
worthless. They must however be tormented for a short time, as they deserve, in
proportion to the measure of their iniquity and wickedness, according to the
amount of the wickedness of their deeds. This they will have to bear, that they
suffer for a short time; but immortal and unending happiness is prepared for
them. If it be then that the rewards of good deeds are as great (in
proportion to them) as the times of the immortality which are prepared for them
are longer than the times of the limited contests which take place in this
world, the torments for many and great sins must be very much less than the
greatness of mercy. So then it is not for the good only that the grace of the
resurrection from the dead is intended, but also for the wicked; for the grace
of God greatly honours the good, but chastises the wicked sparingly.'
Again he says[26]:[27]
'God pours out the wages of reward beyond the measure of the labours (wrought),
and in the abundance of His goodness He lessens and diminishes the penalty of
those who are to be tormented, and in His mercy He shortens and reduces the
length of the time. But even thus He does not punish the whole time according
to (the length of) the time of folly, seeing that He requites them far less
than they deserve, just as He does the good beyond the measure and period (of
their deserts); for the reward is everlasting. It has not been revealed whether
the goodness of God wishes to punish without ceasing the blameworthy who have
been found guilty of evil deeds (or not), as we have already said before.
* *
* * *
* *
* * *
* *
* *[28] 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 eternal;'[29]
this word 'eternal' (le-`âlam) is not definite: for if it be not
so, how did Peter say to our Lord, 'Thou shalt never wash my feet,'[30]
and yet He washed him? And of Babylon He said, 'No man shall dwell therein for
ever and ever,'[31]
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. To Him be glory and dominion and praise and exaltation and honour
for ever and ever. Amen and Amen.”
Brief
note on Isaac of Nineveh, Diodore of Tarsus and Solomon of Basra
In the
quoted chapter of the ‘Book of the Bee’, the third quotation of Isaac is: “In
the world which is to come grace will be the judge and not justice”. This quote
apparently taken from discourse 6 of the Third Part[32]
of Isaac of Nineveh:
“This is the grace with strengthens the
righteous, preserving them by its being near and removing their faults. It is
also near to those who have perished, reducing their torments and in their
punishment deals with compassion. In the world to come, indeed grace will be
the judge, not justice. God reduces the length of time of sufferings, and by
means of His grace, makes all worthy of His Kingdom. For there is no one even
among the righteous who is able to conform his way of life to the Kingdom.”
(source: 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/ )
I believe
that Isaac here is alluding to Diodore’s teaching, quoted in discourse 39 of
the Second Part, that punishments will be shortened by God in the world
to come:
“But later on he [Diodore] also says in
discourse 6 as follows: “For God, by means of good rewards, conceals the
measure of labours; but in the greatness of grace, He diminishes the punishment
of those who are chastised, and he shortens its length. …” (Isaac of Nineveh,
II.39.12, quoting Diodore of Tarsus’ book on Providence)
The same
fragment of Diodore corresponds to the second fragment quoted by Solomon.
Theodore
bar Konai (8th
century century) and John of Dara (9th century century)
From Ilaria
Ramelli’s book “A Larger Hope”, the author mentions also the the East Syrian (i.e.
belonging to the Church of the East) Theodore bar Konai (or Koni) and
West Syrian (i.e. Syriac Orthodox) John of Dara as also confirming that
Diodore and Theodore endorsed a form of apokatastasis:
“… John of Dara confirms that “Diodore of
Tarsus, in the book that he wrote on the salvific economy, and Theodore, a
disciple of his and the teacher of Nestorius, in many passages claim that
damnation will come to an end” (On the Resurrection of Human Bodies 4:21).
Diodore’s lost work on the salvific economy is the same as quoted by Solomon of
Basra. It may well have disappeared precisely on account of the doctrine of
universal salvation it defended, which came to be regarded by the church with
great suspicion. 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
For Theodore
Bar Konai (or Theodore bar Koni), I found also a French translation of his
book Liber Scholiorum, here: 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 . From the first volume,
second chapter, at page 102 (110 of the pdf file), it is found this French
translation of the relevant paragraph:
“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.”
An English
translation from Google Translate (as I do not know French) gives:
“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.”
The
translation is different from Ramelli’s but the meaning seems to be the same.
Theodore bar Konai seems to allow both the ‘universalist’ and the ‘infernalist’
interpretations (the ‘blessed Interpreter’ is an appellative that was given to
Theodore of Mopsuestia in the East-Syrian tradition, so it seems that Theodore bar
Konai referred also to him).
I have yet
to find an online resource for the statement of John of Dara. However,
from the English translation and edition of Aho Shemunkasho, we find
that, indeed, John recognized the doctrine of temporary hell and apokatastasis
in Diodore, Theodore, Stephen bar Sudayli (a Syriac mystic of the sixth
century) and Gregory of Nyssa:
“[1] Diodore of Tarsus wrote in his book On
Providence, and his disciple Theodore [of Mopsuestia] who is Nestorius’
teacher, states in many passages that there is an end to judgment. The same
interpretation is also taken in the Book of Hierotheus (ܣܘܐܬܘܪܝܐܕ), which is not authentically his,
but someone else composed it in his name, and he is Stephen bar Sudayle.
[2] Likewise, also, Gregory of Nyssa, in his
homily On Exhortation ( ܘܗ ܐܪܡܐܡܒ
ܐܢܝܬܪܡ), and in his [writing] to his
sister Macrina, and in other writings, presents the dogma of apokatastasis (
ܣܝܣܐܛܣܐܛܩܘܦܐ, ἀποκατάστασις), i.e. restoration (ܫ ܝܪܕܢܡܕ ܐܝܢܘܦ), and states that there is an end
to the torture to come.
[3] Apart from this saint, all the doctors of
the Church[33],
both Greeks and Syrians, commonly say that there is no end to the torture. This
[teaching] is well presented by the holy saint Severus in the Letter to
Cesaria the Hypatissa that starts with when I read the writing of the
love of God, of your excellent rational elegance. …” (John of Dara, On the
Resurrection of Human Bodies, 4:21:1-3, edited and translated by Aho
Shemunkasho)
Other Witnesses
of Theodore of Mopsuestia’s universalism
In the case
of Theodore of Mopsuestia, there are more testimonies:
Photius
of Constantinople (9th
century):
“As for our Theodore, he repulses them with
reason and sometimes it is in the best manner and with vigour that he blames
the absurd and blasphemous character of their opinions; and, in returning to
the words of Scripture that the others interpret against their correct meaning,
he demonstrates their ignorance perfectly 1. On the other
hand, this is not always the case, but he seems to us, in many places,
entangled in the Nestorian heresy and echoes that of Origen, at least in that
which concerns the end of punishment.” (https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_copyright/photius_04bibliotheca.htm#177 , the book he comments on is
Theodore’s “Against those who say that men sin by nature and not by
intention”, the same work quoted by Isaac in II.39.8)
Also,
another probable attestation by Photius:
“Read three short treatises by Theodore 1 On
Persian Magic and wherein it differs from Christianity,2 dedicated
to Mastubius, an Armenian and suffragan bishop. In the first book the accursed
doctrine of the Persians, introduced by Zarades,3 concerning
Zuruam,4 whom he makes the beginning of all things and calls
Fortune, is expounded; how that, having offered a libation to beget Hormisdas,5 he
begot both him and Satan. Of the mixing of blood.6 Having set
forth this impious and disgraceful doctrine in plain words he refutes it in the
first book. In the other two books he discusses the Christian faith, beginning
from the creation of the world and at the same time rapidly going down to the
law of grace.7
This Theodore is believed to be Theodore of
Mopsuestia, since he mentions with approval the heresy of Nestorius, especially
in the third book. He also foolishly talks of the restoration of sinners to
their former condition.” (https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/photius_03bibliotheca.htm#81 ; The existence of a book of
Theodore written against the Persian Magic is also attested in the East-Syriac
tradition and was quoted by Dadisho' Qatraya: https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/content.php?url=article&id=525799&journal_code=MUS )
Patrologia
latina
There are
Latin fragments form the same work of Theodore quoted by Isaac and commented on
by Photius in the patrologia Latina (the Latin title reads: “Contra
defensores Peccati originalis” - Here one can find the Latin text of all
the seven fragments: https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Fragmenta_(Theodorus_Mopsuestenus) . The last one is referenced
and translated in the paper by G. Malavasi:
“In the extracts of the Collectio_Palatina there
are other important statements… And again: “Who is so mad that he would believe
to be so great a good that material of endless torment is being prepared for
those who arise, for whom it would be more useful not to rise at all, than to
endure, after the resurrection, the experience of such great evils of such
kind, in endless pains?/ “Quis ita demens ut tantum bonum credat materiam fieri
resurgentibus infiniti supplicii, quibus utilius erat omnino non surgere quam
tantorum et talium malorum post resurrectionem sub inifinitis poenis
experentiam sustinere”, Schwartz, 176.” (source: Malavasi thesis “The
involvement of Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Pelagian Controversy”, https://www.academia.edu/35123005/The_Involvement_of_Theodore_of_Mopsuestia_in_the_Pelagian_Controversy_A_Study_of_Theodore_s_Treatise_Against_Those_who_Say_that_Men_Sin_by_Nature_and_not_by_Will )
The
fragment quoted above apparently uses the same argument used by Diodore of
Tarsus in his Book on Providence mentioned by Isaac and Solomon of Basra: if
punishments will be endless in the age to come, for those who experience them
the resurrection will not be a good. In fact, Theodore’s fragment argues that
it would be better for them to not being resurrected at all. This to me echoes
one fragment of Diodore provided by Isaac of Nineveh (II.39.11):
"A reward for labours is reserved for the
good, one that is worthy of the righteousness of the Maker, but stripes for the
wicked are not for eternity. Thus, not even in their case is the future
condition of immortality of no profit: if they are tormented as they deserve
just for a short time commensurate with their evil and their wickedness,
receiving reward in accordance with the measure of their actions experiencing
suffering during a short while, nevertheless (for them) delight in immortality
is forever”. (Diodore of Tarsus, “On
Providence, 5”, quoted by Isaac of Nineveh, Second Part, 39.10, S. Brock
translation)
Isaac of
Nineveh again in
his Second Part, 3.3.94 (II.3.3.94), provides another testimony of Theodore,
from a lost work “On Priesthood” (unfortunately, there are no online sources
for this part):
“3.94 Chastisement is not an aim with God, nor
is there vengeance on those who have transgressed; rather, ‹his aim› is the
setting aright of those who are subject to judgment, and for the restraint of
others. And where the use of these is not ‹effective›, ‹use is made› of chastisements
and punishments. Nor does God cause pain to anyone with anything like this in
anticipation of events. For it is not in chastising that he takes pleasure, but
in bringing benefit. Because of fear of deviation, chastisements are of use.
Where fear of the former is not present, then neither are the latter. The
blessed Interpreter testifies in the ‘Book on Priesthood’ when he says, “God
uses punishments with regard to us because of our own need”—that is, they give
birth to fear in each soul. “And what is the use of fear, Father?” “Fear,” he
says, “is useful to make us wary.” A demonstration of this is that in the world
to come fear is removed: only love has control. “And when he is going to remove
sin, he will also remove punishment.”[34]
Now when punishments are removed, fear is also removed from there.”[35]
Also, apparently, Joseph Hazzaya (fl. 8th
century) quotes that fragment from ‘On Priesthood’ as attested in a review by
A. Pirtea (see the underlined part) on Nestor Kavvadas edition of ‘On
Providence’, a work where Joseph Hazzaya apparently endorses a qualified form
of apokatastasis[36]:
“Firstly, in what is perhaps his
last work, Joseph apparently feels compelled to respond to criticisms raised
against his theological views. As the original title of OP states,
Joseph insists that he “does not depart from the way of the Interpreter,” even
when upholding some controversial claims with respect to eschatology. Kavvadas
makes the strong case that for Joseph (as e.g. for Theodore of Mopsuestia and
Isaac of Nineveh) the entire history of creation is a “school” meant to prepare
all rational beings for eternal life. Consequently, even the most dramatic
instances of divine punishment described in Genesis (the Flood, the destruction
of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.) have an exclusively pedagogical role and do not
express God’s wrath or vengeance. Kavvadas further stresses the parallels
between Joseph’s exegesis and that of other East Syriac writers, such as Narsai
and Theodore bar Kōnī (see pp. 19-27). Joseph’s “maximalist” interpretation of
God’s providential care for rational beings leads, as Kavvadas argues, to the
inescapable conclusion that the chastisements of hell, which have the same
pedagogical function, will necessarily come to an end. This endorsement of a
form of apokatastasis is expressed by Joseph also in other writings,
where the mystic refers to a key passage from Theodore of Mopsuestia’s On
priesthood seemingly supporting his view(p.10-11)”(source: https://www.academia.edu/36185589/Joseph_Hazzaya_On_Providence_ed_N_Kavvadas_Book_Review_Semitica_and_Classica_10_2017_264_267; underline mine. Maybe the ‘key
passage’ is the same quoted by Isaac of Nineveh in II.3.3.94 )
Leontius of Byzantium (6th century)
Ilaria Ramelli reports another testimony,
Leontius of Byzantium
“And another Greek testimony
confirms these fragments: Leontius of Byzantium (who in turn was a crypto-Origenist)
accused Theodore of supporting universal restoration, deeming eternal damnation
a mere threat, and thinking that Christ will give mercy to everybody. 301 Here
Leontius seems to have misunderstood the teaching in question, for neither
Diodore nor Theodore thought that sinners will not be punished. They rather
thought that punishments will not be eternal, in that they will be therapeutic
and commensurate with sins.”[37]
Here, Leontius seems to accuse him of a sort of
‘ultra-universalism’ in which there will be simply no punishments. As Ramelli
says, here Leontius seems to have misunderstood or misrepresented Theodore’s
position, which endorses a temporary hell. However, maybe Leontius meant that
Theodore believed that eternal hell is ‘a mere threat’, that is a threat
that can be good as a threat for pedagogical reasons (as Origen of Alexandria
believed).
Theodore
fragment in discourse 6 of Isaac of Nineveh’s Third Part
Near the
end of discourse 6 of the Third Part, Isaac of Nineveh quotes another
fragment of Theodore, which is admittedly unclear on the question of ‘universal
salvation’ but, at the same time, it echoes the fragment quoted in II.39.8 and
it is quoted in a context that seems to support the doctrine of apokatastasis.
I’ll provide an English translation of the Italian translation of the text:
“Let us therefore be diligent in all these [occupations], because here is
[contained] all the compassion of God displayed for the whole [human race].
Moreover, let not the being the object of such [compassion] be a cause for our
carelessness, but rather [a cause] for our commitment to righteousness, so that
we are not blamed by [God] because [our] behavior contradicts [such mercy].
As that wonderful saint, Theodore the Interpreter, said in his Commentary
on the Letter to the Romans: “The compassion of God must not be a reason for
relaxation for those who are the objects of this great mercy, but on the
contrary [they] must show great diligence; and we who are evil must be ashamed
in the presence of one who is entirely good and who, [in short] takes care [to
achieve] all these good things so that our being may be honored. Certainly we
will be able to benefit from the resurrection from the dead, without having to
submit to the test of the decreed judgment, reserved for all those who in this
transitory world have entirely given themselves over to evil. However,” he
says, “while the promise of [our] entry into rest is assured, let it not happen
that one of us distances himself from the things above.”
Moreover, this too is not foreign to paternal love: although we behave in
this world as rational creatures and are concerned with all that we ought, we,
in reality, live [all] irrationally, because we do not care in the least to
perceive the life to which we are led: [a life] in which [God] does not consent
to punish for eternity, but [in which we], learning what evils we are guilty
of, receive in ourselves [only] a taste of what [would be due to us].
How great indeed is ignorance! [God] then carries out [his] work according to
his eternal intelligence, which accords with his great love. From here [man]
scrutinizes what is the ultimate purpose of the will of that [intelligence],
from the beginning, discerning what [God] indicates to him in each of the
Economies [realized] by him in every generation. And from this we will then be
awakened, [we] sinners who at that moment will be punished especially by the
sting of love for [God] that follows [our] exodus from here below. For it is
said: He to whom much has been forgiven, loves much. Then will be
fulfilled the word that is written: God will be all in all.
To him be the glory for his wise dispensations,
which surpass [all our] investigation, forever and ever. Amen.”[38]
The
sentence “…without having
to submit to the test of the decreed judgment, reserved for all those who in
this transitory world have entirely given themselves over to evil” clearly mirrors the words “…whereas
the wicked who all their life have turned aside to evil deeds…” of
Theodore’s fragment quoted by Isaac in his Second Part, discourse 39,
paragraph 8. This perhaps strengthens the attribution to Theodore of both
fragments, in my opinion. To itself, the fragment of Theodore quoted here in
discourse 6 of the Third Part is unclear on who are the ‘us’ referred in “while the promise of [our] entry into rest
is assured”. Read
in light of other evidence and in the context of Isaac’s discourse, an
‘universalist’ interpretation of this passage is reasonable but there is,
admittedly, not enough evidence that in this fragment Theodore is actually
making a general point.
Conclusion
This
investigation, in my view, gives us enough evidence to conclude that the
Christian thinker and exegete Diodore and Tarsus (fl. 4th century)
and his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia (fl. 4th-5th
century) were both supporters of the view that eschatological punishments will
be finite and corrective and will lead, eventually, to the salvation of all. Despite
the fact that much of their original works have been lost, the testimonies
reported here strongly suggest that they held these views and they were the
main inspirations of Isaac of Nineveh’s own ‘universalist’ views.
In
particular, we have seen that four ancient and medieval writers attested the
presence of these doctrines in Diodore and Theodore: Isaac of Nineveh (in
his Second Part 39.7-14; for Theodore only Second Part 3.3.94),
Theodore bar Konai (in his Liber Scholiorum 2.63), Solomon of Basra (in
his Book of the Bee, ch.60) – who all belonged to the East-Syrian
Tradition (i.e. ‘Church of the East’) – and John of Dara (in his On the
Resurrection of Human Bodies 4.21) –
who belonged to the West-Syrian Tradition (i.e. ‘Syrian Orthodox Church’). Additional
ancient and medieval sources - Leontius of Byzantium, Marius Mercator, Joseph
Hazzaya and Photius of Constantinople - seem also to support the idea that
Theodore did believe in these doctrines.
The great
respect in which Diodore and, especially, Theodore were held in the East-Syrian
tradition might be part of the reason why Isaac of Nineveh’s writings in which
he supports a form of ‘universalism’ were preserved.
Appendix
Further
quotations from Theodore of Mopsuestia
Other
suggestive quotes from two works preserved in Syrian translation of Theodore of
Mopsuestia translated by Alphonse Mingana, available online (see the footnotes).
From chapter 5 of the Commentary on the Nicene Creed[39]:
"It is with justice, therefore, that our
blessed Fathers said: "He was incarnate and became a man" in
order to show that He was a man, as the blessed Paul testifies, and that He
fulfilled this Economy for the salvation of all. It is with justice then that
our blessed Fathers made use of this word in the profession of faith for the
refutation of the error of the heretics, while conforming with the true belief
of the Church. And on account of the numerous schisms that had taken place
among men concerning that ineffable Economy and concerning the man whom our
Lord assumed, they rightly made use of the sentence: "He was
incarnate and became a man.""
…
" If, however, Divine nature was sufficient for all these things, human
nature which was in need of the grace of salvation from God should not have
been assumed, as according to the opinion of the heretics this same Godhead
would have satisfied the requirements of human nature, and in this case it
would have been superfluous to assume a body at all as the Godhead was able to
perform all its acts. This, however, was not the will of God, who indeed wished
to put on and raise the fallen man who is composed of a body and of an immortal
and rational soul, so that "as by one man sin entered the world, and death
by sin, so also the free gift and the grace of God by the righteousness of one
man might abound unto many." As death was by man so also the resurrection
from the dead (will be) by man, because "as we all die in Adam, even so in
Christ shall all be made alive," as the blessed Paul testifies. Therefore
it was necessary that He should assume not only the body but also the immortal
and rational soul; and not only the death of the body had to cease but also
that of the soul, which is sin. Since according to the sentence of the blessed
(Paul) sin entered the world through man, and death entered through sin, it was
necessary that sin which was the cause of death should have first been
abolished, and then the abolition of death would have followed by itself. If
sin were not abolished we would have by necessity remained in mortality, and we
would have sinned in our mutability; and when we sin, we are under punishment[40],
and consequently the power of death will by necessity remain.
It was, therefore, necessary that sin should have first been abolished, as
after its abolition there would be no entry for death. It is indeed clear that
the strength of the sin has its origin in the will of the soul. In the case of
Adam also it was his soul which first accepted the advice of error and not his
body, because it was not his body that Satan persuaded to yield to him, to
forsake God and to believe that his Helper was a deceiver, in his desire for
higher things; and in following the advice of Satan he transgressed the
commandment of God and chose for himself those things which were contrary to
the commandment of God. It was not his body that had to know these things but
his soul which, on the promise of higher things, yielded and accepted the advice
of the deceiver and lost the good things that it possessed.
It was, therefore, necessary that Christ should
assume not only the body but also the soul. The enemy of the soul had to be
removed first and then for the sake of it that of the body, because if death is
from sin and the same death is the corruption of the body, sin would have first
to be abolished and the abolition of death would follow by itself."
…
"He showed to God that there was no sin in
Him and that it was through injustice that He was enduring the trial of death.
And He effected the abolition of condemnation with ease, and He rose from
the dead by the power of God and became worthy of a new and ineffable life
which He generalised to all the human kind.
This is the reason why our Lord said here: "The prince of this world
cometh, and hath nothing in me." In another passage He said: "Now is
the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be condemned and
cast out, and I when I am lifted up from the earth will draw all (men) unto
me." In the first passage He shows that Satan had not one just cause
for bringing death upon Him, and in the second that He had summoned the Rebel
to a kind of judgment where he had condemned him and cast him out of his
iniquitous power, and that after obtaining these good things He would make all
men partakers of His glory.
Our blessed Fathers said that He became
incarnate so that you might understand that He assumed a complete man, who was
a man not only in appearance but a man in a true human nature, and that you
might believe that He assumed not only the body but the whole man who is
composed of a body and of an immortal and rational soul. It is such a man that
He assumed for our salvation and it is through Him that He effected salvation
for our life, because He was justified and became blameless by the power of the
Holy Spirit, as the blessed Paul said: "He was justified in the
Spirit," and again: "Who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself
without spot to God." If He suffered death according to the law of men,
because He had no sin He rose from the dead by the power of the Holy Spirit and
became worthy of a new life in which the wishes of the soul are immutable, and
He made the body immortal and incorruptible. In this He made us all
participants in His promises, and as an earnest of His promises He gave us the
first-fruits of the Spirit so that we might possess a faith without doubts
concerning future things; and "He established us with you in Christ and
sealed us and gave the earnest of His spirit in our hearts." "
It should
be noted that in an earlier chapter (chapter 3), Theodore writes:
“Inasmuch as they call eye "sight"
and ear "hearing," so also they call a union that never ceases
"bosom," as it is said: "Render unto our neighbours sevenfold
into their bosom," that is to say let them receive punishment
continually and always.”[41]
I’m not sure
how to interpret this passage, to be honest. How can we explain, then, these
seemingly inconsistencies? Textual evidence is, in my opinion, alone is not
enough. Considering that much of Theodore’s (and Diodore’s) work is lost, the
witnesses of later figures are quite important. Other than the various
quotations reported above, we have the important attestations from both
supporters and critics of Theodore and Diodore (and ‘universalism’) which
Perhaps,
Theodore used the language of permanence regarding of punishment in a liberal
way to describe conditions that can be later reversed. This isn’t as
uncommon as it might seem. For instance, both Jerome of Stridon[42]
and Maximus the Confessor[43]
used the word ‘eternal’ to designate ‘bars’ or ‘bonds’ that have been broken by
Christ. The same point is also made in the ‘Book of the Bee’ in the final
section of the ‘book of the Bee’[44].
The point seems to be that the language of permanence doesn’t necessarily
imply literal, irrevocable endlessness.
Also, in chapter
6 of Theodore’s Commentary on the Lord's Prayer, Baptism and the
Eucharist[45]:
"After all those present have recited
loudly: "Holy, holy, holy, the Lord of Sabaoth," and have reverted
little by little to silence, the priest proceeds with the holy service and says
before anything else: "Holy is the Father, holy also is the Son, and holy
also the Holy Spirit," in order to proclaim that they are the eternal and
holy nature, and in order that he may be seen that he understands clearly the
meaning of the praise of the Seraphim which the prophet heard and confided to
writing. He afterwards makes mention also of the ineffable grace of (God) for
which He made manifest the Economy which took place in Christ, and by which the
One who was in the form of God was pleased to take upon Him the form of a
servant, so that He might assume a perfect and complete man for the
salvation of all the human race; and He abolished the old and harsh observances
which were formerly enjoined upon us through the deadweight of the law, and
also the dominion of death which was dating from ancient times; and He granted us
ineffable benefits which are higher than all human intelligence and for which
He agreed to suffer, so that through His resurrection He might effect a
complete abolition of death; and He promised us communion with Him in the
happiness of the future benefits."
I also
personally made a translation (via Google) of the Latin fragments of ‘Contra
Defensores Peccati Originalis’ referenced above that seems to more or less
say the same things:
“For this reason the Lord became the author of
all good things for men, so that just as Adam was the initiator of the first
and mortal state, so too, being the initiator of the second and immortal state,
he would first preserve the natural qualities of the first Adam, while he was
born of a woman, while he was wrapped in swaddling clothes, and gradually
received the increase of age (for Jesus (Luke 2:52), he says, "advanced in
age and wisdom and grace before God and men") while he received
circumcision, while he presented himself to God in the temple according to the
legal custom, and was subjected to his parents, and was given over to lawful
conduct. So also, to fulfill the rest, he finally received death, as a gift of
nature, so that by dying according to the law of human nature and rising from
the dead by divine power, he might become the beginning for all men who receive
death according to their own nature, to rise from the dead and be changed to an
immortal substance. For as we are all made conformable to Adam according to our
present state, so shall we be made conformable to Christ the Lord according to
the flesh in the future. For He has transfigured the body of our humiliation to
be conformed to His glorious body (Philippians 5), and as it was earthly, such
are earthly, and as it was heavenly, such are heavenly; and as we have borne
the image of the earth, so shall we also bear the image of the heavenly (1
Corinthians 15), showing that having become partakers of the first state of
Adam, we necessarily also obtain a partaker of the future state of the second
Adam of Christ the Lord according to the flesh, since He arose from this same
nature, and assumed all that was of nature, and therefore endured death, so
that, assuming the death of nature, and rising from the dead, He might perfect
a nature free from death. And indeed He therefore assumed death, but not sin at
all, but remained entirely immune from it. For what was of nature, that is,
death, He undoubtedly assumed: but sin, which was not of nature, but of the
will, He by no means assumed. But if there had been sin in nature, according to
the saying of this wise man, sin, existing entirely in nature, would
necessarily have taken hold of it."” (link: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/02/latin-fragments-and-english-translation.html )
There is
also another quote that it is attributed to Theodore of Mopsuestia by both
Ilaria Ramelli and J.W. Hanson. Ramelli’s translation reads:
“God has recapitulated all beings in Christ
. . . as though he made a renewal that epitomizes all, a restoration
of the whole creation, through him. . . . This will come to pass in a
future aeon, when all humanity and all powers endowed with reason will adhere
to him, as is right, and will obtain mutual concord and stable peace. (Comm. in
Eph. 1:10)”[46]
J.W Hanson
provided also a Latin text:
“Theodore writes on Rom. 6:6, "All have
the hope of rising with Christ, so that the body having obtained immortality,
thenceforward the predisposition to evil should be removed. God summed up all
things in Christ as though making a concise renewal and restoration of the
whole creation to him. Now this will take place in a future age, when all
mankind, and all powers possessed of reason, look up to him as is right, and
obtain mutual concord and firm peace."
4
...
4"Omnia recapitulavit in Christo quasi
quandam compendio-sam renovationem et adintegrationem totius faciens creaturæ
per eum hoc autem in futuro sæculo erit. quando homines cuncti necnon et
rationabiles virtutes ad illum inspiciant, ut fas exigit, et condordiam inter
se pacemque firmam obtineant"”[47]
Of course, this
quote is hard to read in a non-universalist way.
Theodoret
of Cyrrhus (fl. 5th century)
A
circumstantial, yet interesting, evidence for Diodore of Tarsus’ and Theodore
of Mopsuestia’s universalist inclination is provided, in my opinion, by the
apparent presence of this kind of view in Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ writings.
Theodoret wrote in defence of Diodore, Theodore when the controversy about
Nestorius broke. I managed to find the Greek text and the translation of Ilaria
Ramelli thanks to two generous Reddit users.
Here is how
Ilaria Ramelli translated these passages[48]
:
“That God may be all in all." Now God is
everywhere from the ontological point of view, since God's substance is
impossible to circumscribe, and "in Him we live, move, and exist,"
according to the divine apostle. But from the point of view of good will and
delight, now God is not in all. For God delights in those who fear him, and in
those who hope for his mercy. And even in these, God is not all now. For nobody
is pure from contamination [...] thus, God rejoices in their good deeds, but not
in their evil deeds. But in the future life, when corruption will cease, and
immortality will be provided, passions will have no room. And when these have
been utterly chased away, no kind of sin will be committed any longer. In this
way God will finally be "all in all," for all will have been
liberated from sin, and will have turned toward God, and will no more admit of
any fall into evil.” (from Theodoret’s commentary on First Corinthians 15)[49]
“This will happen more precisely in the future
life. For Paul taught as follows also in his letter to the Corinthians. Indeed,
after saying, "the last enemy will be destroyed: death," and "he
has subjected everything to his feet," he has finally stated: "That
God may be all in all" I have already interpreted this passage more
extensively, yet I shall say something briefly here too. In the present life,
to be sure, God is in all, insofar as his substance is impossible to circumscribe,
but God is not "all in all," because some are impious, and some are
transgressors, whereas God dwells in those who fear him, and in those who hope
for his mercy. But in the future life, when mortality will pass away, and
immortality will be provided, and sin will have no more room, God will be
"all in all."” (from Theodoret’s commentary on the Ephesians)[50]
Here is the
Greek text of a passage of Theodoret’s commentary on the First Corinthians:
“...ἐν δὲ τῷ μέλλοντι βίῳ, τῆς φθορᾶς παυομένης, καὶ τῆς ἀθανασίας χορηγουμένης, χώραν οὐκ ἔχει τὰ πάθη· τούτων δὲ παντελῶς ἐξεληλαμένων, οὐδὲν εἶδος ἁμαρτίας ἐνεργεῖται λοιπόν. Οὕτως ἔσται λοιπὸν ὁ Θεὸς τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι, πάντων τοῦ πταίειν ἀπηλλαγμένων, καὶ πρὸς αὐτὸν τετραμμένων, καὶ τὴν ἐπὶ τὰ χείρω οὐ δεχομένων ῥοπήν.”[51]
Here,
instead, the Greek text of a passage Theodoret’s commentary on the Ephesians:
“Τοῦτο δὲ ἀκριβέστερον κατὰ τὸν μέλλοντα βίον γενήσεται. Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ Κορινθίοις ἐπιστέλλων ἐδίδαξεν. Εἰπὼν γάρ· »Ἔσχατος ἐχθρὸς καταργεῖται ὁ θάνατος·» καὶ, ὅτι
«Πάντα ὑπέταξεν ὑπὸ τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ·» τελευταῖον τέθεικεν· «Ἵνα ᾖ ὁ Θεὸς τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι.» Καὶ ἐκεῖνα μὲν διὰ πλειόνων ἡρμηνεύσαμεν, ἐροῦμεν δὲ καὶ ἐνταῦθα συντόμως, ὅτι κατὰ τὸν παρόντα βίον ἐν πᾶσι μὲν ἔστιν ὁ Θεός· ἀπερίγραπτον γὰρ ἔχει τὴν φύσιν· οὐ πάντα δὲ ἐν πᾶσι, ἐπειδὴ οἱ μὲν δυσσεβοῦσιν, οἱ δὲ παρανομοῦσι· οἰκεῖ δὲ ἐν τοῖς φοβουμένοις αὐτὸν, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐλπίζουσιν ἐπὶ τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ. Ἐν δέ
γε τῷ μέλλοντι βίῳ, τῆς θνητότητος παυομένης, καὶ τῆς ἀθανασίας χορηγουμένης, καὶ τῆς ἁμαρτίας οὐκ ἔτι χώραν ἐχούσης, πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν ἔσται.”[52]
Also, J.W.
Hanson provides a partial translation of both passages (not sure on where Hanson
gets the last sentence of the second quote):
“On I Cor. 15:28, Theodoret says: "But in
the future life corruption ceasing and immortality being present, the passions
have no place, and these being removed, no kind of sin is committed. So from
that time God is all in all, when all, freed from sin, and turned to him, shall
have no inclination to evil." On Eph. 1:23, he says: "In the present
life God is in all, for his nature is without limits, but is not all in all.
But in the coming life, when mortality is at an end and immortality granted,
and sin has no longer any place, God will be all in all. For the Lord, who
loves man, punishes medicinally, that he may check the course of impiety."”[53]
[1] By ‘universalism’, I mean the view
that all human beings will be, ultimately, saved (or, equivalently, that no
human being shall be lost for ever).
[2] It should be mentioned that Isaac
of Nineveh is considered a saint even in Eastern Orthodox and Catholic
churches, despite being a very explicit universalist and revering
Theodore of Mopsuestia who was condemned in the Fifth Ecumenical Council in 553
(see https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum05.htm , anathema 12). Perhaps, Isaac
never heard of the council being a bishop and hermit of the Church of the East
and living in a region where he was probably unfamiliar with what was happening
in the Roman Empire. While in this discourse Isaac mentions Diodore and
Theodore as his main influences, it has been suggested that, perhaps, he also
was also inspired by the writings attributed to Evagrius Ponticus (4th
century) where the universalist views are supported. See e.g.: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/374137005-apocatastasis-in-the-syrian-christian-tradition-evagrius-and-isaac.pdf
[3] Unfortunately, there is no
online resource that quotes the entirety of that part of the homily.
Thankfully, there is a audiobook published in the youtube channel ‘Athonite
Audio’: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqnvnhWiLEg (4:50:37-4:58:05). A large
part of this discourse – excluding the discussion about Theodore and Diodore
can be found here: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/sebastian-brock-on-the-universalism-of-isaac-the-syrian.pdf
[4] A title used to refer to
Theodore of Mopsuestia in the Church of the East
[5] This work has been attested
also by Photius who confirms Theodore’s support of a form of ‘apokatastasis’
(see later) and reported the title: “Against those who say that men sin by
nature and not by intention”. Specifically, Photius asserts that Theodore
appears to follow Origen in the thesis of an end to punishments. As mentioned
later, it seems to be attested also by Marius Mercator under the title “Contra
defensores peccati originalis”, where a seemingly rhetorical question
attributed to Thedore is quoted, which seems to argue an ending to punishments
since, if punishments are endless, it would be better for those who endure them
to be never resurrected (for these other sources on Theodore, see later). This
echoes the first fragment of Diodore, provided by Isaac, in which Diodore says
that precisely because the stripes for the wicked are not for eternity, not
even in their case the immortality is of ‘no profit’.
[6] S. Brock: “The passage is
also cited by Solomon of Basra, Book of the Bee (ed. Budge), ch.60;
Solomon has evidently quoted the passage from Isaac, since he also quotes
Isaac’s ensuing words at the beginning of XXXIX.9.” (p.166). This fragment is
also viable online here (without the paranthesis) in the blog of A. Kimel: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/the-triumph-of-the-kingdom-over-gehenna/ . There is a small difference
between this version and the one quoted by Solomon, however. In particular the
expression “fear of God” after “religion’s excellent teaching” is missing.
Perhaps Solomon had a slightly different version of this passage, but I agree
with Brock that Isaac is the source.
[7] Mt 5:26; Lk 12:59
[8] It is significant that the
analogy of ‘sin’ as ‘debt’ was also used by Gregory of Nyssa in the dialogue
‘On the Soul and Resurrection’ to argue for a limited duration of punishments
that is proportional to the gravity of sins. In the Dialogue, Gregory has his ‘Teacher’,
his sister Macrina the Younger, saying (referencing Mt 18:21-35, Lk 7:41-43,
and Mt 5:26; Lk 12:59): “For the Gospel in its teaching distinguishes
between a debtor of ten thousand talents and a debtor of five hundred pence,
and of fifty pence and of a farthing, which is “the uttermost” of coins; it
proclaims that God’s just judgment reaches to all, and enhances the payment
necessary as the weight of the debt increases, and on the other hand does not
overlook the very smallest debts. But the Gospel tells us that this payment of
debts was not effected by the refunding of money, but that the indebted man was
delivered to the tormentors until he should pay the whole debt; and that means
nothing else than paying in the coin of torment the inevitable recompense, the
recompense, I mean, that consists in taking the share of pain incurred during
his lifetime, when he inconsiderately chose mere pleasure, undiluted with its
opposite; so that having put off from him all that foreign growth which sin is,
and discarded the shame of any debts, he might stand in liberty and
fearlessness.” (source: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf205.x.iii.ii.html )
[9] Lk 12:47-48
[10] John 8:17
[11] Diodore of Tarsus was the teacher
of Theodore of Mopsuestia. Isaac shows he was well aware of this here and
noticed a continuity in their teachings. Interestingly, Isaac seems to use
their teacher-student relation as corroborating evidence for the validity of
their opinion.
[12] S. Brock’s note: “The passage
is freely quoted by Solomon of Bosra, Book of the Bee, ch.60. … It is
now clear from the passage in Isaac that Solomon has paraphrased the passages
from Diodore (Budge’s translation is unsatisfactory). The same passage from
Diodore is evidently also quoted disapprovingly (without attribution and from a
different Syriac translation) by George of the Arabs…” (p. 167). Despite this,
the meaning of the quote is the same. Brock also doesn’t explain why Budge’s
translation is unsatisfactory: is it because Budge made errors or
because Solomon (or someone else) paraphrased and altered somewhat the text?
[13] Budge’s translation of
Solomon’s Book of the Bee has ‘a grace’.
[14] Budge’s translation of
Solomon’s Book of the Bee here is wildly different.
[15] S. Brock: “Discourse VI:
Solomon of Bosra again paraphrases the
passage.” (p.168)
[16] S. Brock: “The Syriac is
obscure here”. (p.168) Budge’s translation of the Book of the Bee is not
helpful.
[17] S.Brock: “…again paraphrased by
Solomon of Basra: since Solomon appears to continue the quotation from Diodore
a little further this means that the must have derived the passages from
another source, not Isaac (in contrast to the passage from Diodore).” (p.168).
I find this quite curious: why would Solomon quote Isaac for the Thedore’s
fragment and another source for Diodore’s? Also, the quotes of Diodore, unlike
the previous, in paragraph 13 do not find an analogue in Budge’s translation of
Solomon of Basra’s book of the Bee.
[18] “[H]ow it is not a matter of our
being destroyed by them”. This seems to be an oblique reference to the view of
annihilationism, the view that for the wicked the punishment is annihilation.
[19] Interestingly, this paragraph
suggests that the teaching that the punishments of hell will be of finite
duration was shared only with those who were considered ‘advanced’ in spiritual
progress. While it is beyond the scope of this text, it is worth noting that
the most famous ancient Christian ‘universalist’ Origen of Alexandria suggested
a similar approach (Contra Celsus, 6.26; source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04166.htm ). And, also, an East-Syrian
Christian writer, Hanun ibn-al Salt reported that Isaac’s teachings on this
topic weren’t shared to the undeveloped (source: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/875106/summary ).
[20] I do not know any reference
to this work outside the Book of the Bee.
[21] I find interesting that the
author of the ‘Book of the Bee’ notices a parallel between the ‘last breath’ of
this life and the ‘uttermost farthing’ (Mt 5:26; Lk 12:59) of the debt sinners
are supposed to ‘repay’. While the author most likely supported the teaching of
everlasting damnation, this kind of parallel doesn’t exclude a teaching of
temporary punishment. Tentatively, I believe that this parallel is based on
James 2:13 which refers to ‘judgment without mercy’ shown to the
unmerciful.
[22] Hanson (1899) provided an
excessively liberal translation of this fragment (except the first sentence)
quoting as a source Joseph Assemani’s Bibliotheca Orientalis (III, p. 323). The
translation reads as follows: “"The wicked who have committed evil the
whole period of their lives shall be punished till they learn that, by
continuing in sin, they only continue in misery. And when, by this means, they
shall have been brought to fear God, and to regard him with good will, they
shall obtain the enjoyment of his grace. For he never would have said, 'until
thou hast paid the uttermost farthing,' unless we can be released from
suffering after having suffered adequately for sin; nor would he have said, 'he
shall be beaten with many stripes,' and again, 'he shall be beaten with few
stripes,' unless the punishment to be endured for sin will have an end."”
(source: https://www.tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd16.html ). In my opinion, this can’t be
regarded as a legitimate translation but an excessively liberal paraphrase.
[23] Isaac’s version of the
fragment doesn’t seem to have a reference to the ‘fear of God’. Despite this,
the passage is otherwise identical.
[24] Here Solomon is quoting from
Isaac’s II.39.9
[25] Solomon seems to have
‘merged’ the first two quotes present in Isaac. A different, but incomplete,
translation of this fragment is provided by Hanson (1899), citing Joseph
Assemani’s Bibliotheca Orientalis (III, p.324) as source: “"For the wicked
there are punishments, not perpetual, however, lest the immortality prepared
for them should be a disadvantage, but they are to be purified for a brief
period according to the amount of malice in their works. They shall therefore
suffer punishment for a short space, but immortal blessedness having no end
awaits them the penalties to be inflicted for their many and grave sins are
very far surpassed by the magnitude of the mercy to be showed them. The
resurrection, therefore, is regarded as a blessing not only to the good, but
also to the evil."” (source: https://www.tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd18.html )
[26] This is roughly the quote
from discourse VI that Isaac quotes.
[27] Unfortunately, it is not
clear where this second quote from Diodore ends from Budge’s translation. Ilaria
Ramelli in her book a “Larger Hope, vol 1” ends the quote just before the
phrase “to Him be glory…”. She perhaps has good reasons to do that. Isaac’s
version of the quote seems to end at the word ‘before’.
[28] The translator E.A. Budge mentions
that there is here a phrase, but that is untranslatable
[29] Mt 25:46. This verse has been
quoted in support for the traditional view of ‘eternal torment’ since antiquity,
e.g. the quote from St. Basil Rules for monks found here: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/02/07/committing-theological-fraud-st-basil-the-great-and-david-bentley-hart/ . Notice that the quote testifies
that some, like Theodore, mentioned Lk 12:47-48 as a ‘proof text’ for the view
that damnation has an end. This part also testifies that in the thirteenth
century, Mt 25:46 wasn’t seen as a ‘proof’ of eternal torment or a final
condemnation. Ilaria Ramelli includes this part in Diodore’s second fragment.
[30] Jn 13:8
[31] Isa 13:20
[32] Source: the Italian
translation of the ‘Third Part’: Isacco di Ninive, Discorsi Ascetici, Terza
Collezione (translated by Sabino Chialà). The Italian
translation of the same passage reads: “Questa è
la grazia che fortifica i giusti, [li] custodisce con la sua vicinanza e
rimette le loro mancanze. Essa è vicina anche a coloro che sono già morti:
allevia le loro torture, e nella sentenza del loro giudizio agisce con
compassione. Nel mondo futuro, infatti, sarà la grazia a fare da giudice e non
la giustizia. [Dio] abbrevia la durata delle sofferenze e, in forza della sua
grazia, rende tutti degni del suo regno, poiché non c’è tra i giusti chi possa
conformare la propria condotta alle [esigenze di] quel regno.” (p.90-91)
[33] He is referring to the
West-Syrian Church (the Syrian Orthodox Church). Interestingly, the Church
venerates as saints Didymus the Blind and Evagrius Ponticus, 4th
century Christian fathers that are generally assumed to be faithful followers
of the universalist Origen of Alexandria.
It should be noted that in this Church at least Evagrius was often read
as not supporting universalist views. See, e.g.: 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 . The article also mentions
that this was true also for some of Evagrius’ interpreters of the Church of the
East. It is unclear if Isaac of Nineveh had access of texts attributed to
Evagrius where the latter endorses a form of apokatasatasis or not. Significantly,
in the quotation provided of the Second Part, 39.7-14 above he mentions
only Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus.
[34] This sentence is consistent with the
other fragment that Isaac quoted in II.39.8: punishments will end once sins
are removed.
[35] Isaac of Nineveh. Headings
on Spiritual Knowledge: The Second Part, Chapters 1-3 (English Edition)
(pp.182-183), translated by S. P. Brock, Saint Vladimirs Seminary Press. Brock comments
(ibid. p. 186): “Theodore of Mopsuestia’s treatise on the priesthood is lost
apart from a few quotations”.
[36] ‘Qualified’ because Joseph seems to
say that all human beings will be saved, except the ‘Lost One’ who will be
annihilated. In his ‘On Providence’ he writes: “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.” (Joseph Hazzaya, On Providence, 151, transl. Nestor Kavvadas
p. 166-167).
[37] Ramelli, Ilaria L. E. . A
Larger Hope?, Volume 1: Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian
of Norwich, English (Kindle) Edition, p.144. Ilaria Ramelli gives this
reference “. Contra Nestorianos et Eutychianos 3; on Leontius see now the
important work by Brian Daley, Leontius of Byzantium: Complete Works” (ibid p.
146)
[38] The
Italian translation reads:
“Siamo dunque solleciti in tutte queste
[occupazioni], perché qui è [racchiusa] tutta la compassione di Dio dispiegata
a favore dell’intero genere [umano]. L’essere, poi, oggetto di una tale
[compassione] non sia per noi causa di noncuranza, ma sia piuttosto [causa] di
impegno nella giustizia, affinché non siamo da [Dio] biasimati perché i
[nostri] comportamenti contraddicono [una tale misericordia].
Come ha detto il mirabile tra i
santi, Teodoro l’Interprete nel [Commentario alla Lettera] ai Romani:
“La compassione di Dio non dev’essere occasione di rilassatezza per coloro
che sono oggetto di questa grande misericordia, ma al contrario [costoro]
devono mostrare grande diligenza; e dobbiamo vergognarci noi che siamo cattivi
davanti a uno che è interamente buono e che, [per dirla] in breve, si preoccupa
[di realizzare] tutti questi beni perché il nostro essere possa essere onorato.
Certo noi potremo beneficiare della resurrezione dai morti, senza dover
sottostare alla prova del giudizio decretato, riservato a tutti coloro che in
questo mondo transitorio si sono interamente consegnati al male. Però – egli
dice – mentre la promessa del [nostro] ingresso nel riposo è assicurata, non
accada che uno di noi si allontani dalle cose dell’alto.”
Inoltre, neppure questo è
estraneo all’amore paterno: pur comportandoci noi in questo mondo da creature
razionali e preoccupandoci di tutto ciò che dobbiamo, noi, in realtà viviamo
[tutto] ciò irrazionalmente, perché non ci preoccupiamo minimamente di percepire
la vita verso cui siamo condotti: [vita] in cui [Dio] non acconsente a punire
per l’eternità, ma [in cui noi], apprendendo di quali mali siamo colpevoli,
riceviamo in noi stessi [solo] un saggio di ciò [che ci sarebbe dovuto].
Quanto è grande infatti
l’ignoranza! [Dio] allora realizza la [sua] opera secondo la propria
intelligenza eterna, che si accorda con il suo grande amore. A partire da qui
[l’uomo] scruta quale sia il fine ultimo della volontà di quell’[intelligenza],
fin dal principio, discernendo ciò che [Dio gli] indica in ciascuna delle
Economie da lui [realizzate] in ogni generazione. E da ciò saremo allora
svegliati, [noi] peccatori che in quel momento saremo castigati soprattutto
dell’aculeo dell’amore per [Dio] che segue il [nostro] esodo da quaggiù. È
detto, infatti: Colui cui molto è stato perdonato, ama molto. Allora si
realizzerà la parola che è scritta: Dio sarà tutto in tutti.
A lui è la gloria per le sue
sapienti dispensazioni, che sorpassano [ogni nostra] investigazione, per i
secoli dei secoli. Amen.”(Isacco di Ninive, Discorsi Ascetici, Terza
Collezione, trad. Sabino Chialà p. 102-103)
[40] While this passage doesn’t say
clearly that sin will end, it does say that when we sin we are ‘under’
punishment. So, it seems to imply that if sin is abolished, punishments
will be removed (Theodore makes this assertion in the fragments of his works ‘Against
those who say that men sin by intention’ and ‘On Priesthood’ that
Isaac of Nineveh preserved in his Second Part).
[42] "Verse 5b-6a.
"the weeds were wrapped about my head. I went down to the bottoms of the
mountains; the earth with her bars was about me for ever:" LXX: 'my head
has penetrated to the base of mountains; I descended to into the earth whose
bars are eternal bonds'. No one doubts that the ocean covered Jonah's head,
that he went down to the roots of mountains and came to the depths of the earth
by which as bars and columns by the will of God the earthly sphere is
supported. This earth about which is said elsewhere, "I consolidated her
columns" [Ps. 74:4]. With regard to the Lord Saviour, according to the two
editions, this seems to me to be what is meant. His heart and his head, that is
the spirit that he thought worthy to take with a body for our safety, went down
to the base of the mountains which were covered by waves; they were restrained
by the will of God, the deep covered them, they were parted by the majesty of
God. His spirit then went down into hell, into those places to which in the
last of the mud, the spirits of sinners were held, so too the psalmist says:
"they will go down to the depths of the earth, they will be the lot of
wolves" [Ps. 62:10.11]. These are the bars of the earth and like the locks
of a final prison and tortures, which do not let the captive spirits out of
hell. This is why the Septuagint has translated this is a pertinent way:
"eternal bonds", that is, wanting to keep in all those whom it had
once captured. But our Lord, about which we read these lines of Cyrus in
Isaiah: "I will break the bronze bars, I will crack the iron bars"
[Is. 45:2], He went down to the roots of the mountains, and was enclosed by
eternal bars to free all the prisoners." (Commentary in Jonah 2:5b-6a;
source: https://historicalchristian.faith/by_father.php?file=Jerome%2FCommentary%2520on%2520Jonah.html )
[43] "For it was
necessary, truly necessary, for the Light and Power of God to enter into that
land of darkness and eternal bars, so that, dispelling the darkness of
ignorance (inasmuch as He is the Light of the Father), and breaking the bars of
evil (inasmuch as He is the enhypostatic Power of God), He might free our
nature, which the devil had cruelly bound in these conditions, giving it the
inextinguishable light of true knowledge and the unshakeable power of the
virtues." (Maximus the Confessor, Ad
Thalassios, Question 64.7; source: https://www.anastasiscenter.org/atonement-sources-ec-maximus-confessor )
[44] I have already cited the last
chapter of the ‘book of the Bee’ above. But the relevant section is this: “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 eternal;’
this word 'eternal' (le-`âlam) is not definite: for if it be not so, how
did Peter say to our Lord, 'Thou shalt never wash my feet,’ and yet He washed
him? And of Babylon He said, 'No man shall dwell therein for ever and ever,'
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.” (see above).
[46] Ramelli, Ilaria L. E. . A
Larger Hope?, Volume 1: Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian
of Norwich (Kindle) English Edition, (p.145).
[47] J.W. Hanson, the Prevailing view,
ch. 16. Source: https://tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd16.html
[48] Shared by user ‘MolluskOnAMission’,
here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianUniversalism/comments/1rh8e2b/comment/o7x379c/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
[49] Compare Gregory of Nyssa’s
commentary on the same passage: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2019/10/04/in-illud-tunc-et-ipse-filius/
[50] In her book, A Larger Hope
vol. 1, she briefly mentions Theodoret in a footnote (p. 146, footnote 303):
“Likewise, commenting on Ephesians 1:10, Theodoret, who followed supporters of
apokatastasis such as Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, attributes
to Christ “the restoration of the whole creation,” when “all rational
creatures” will be in concord and peace.” The wording ‘fhe restoration’
[51] Source: https://archive.org/details/patrologiaecurs46migngoog/page/n179/mode/2up (shared by user ‘AcademiaAntiqua’: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianUniversalism/comments/1rh8e2b/comment/o888ksq/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button )
[52] Source: https://archive.org/details/patrologiaecurs46migngoog/page/n251/mode/2up (shared in the same post)
[53] J.W. Hanson, Prevaling
view, chapter 18, source: https://tentmaker.org/books/prevailing/upd18.html
Comments
Post a Comment