On the presence of 'universalism' in the East-Syrian Christian tradition
On the
presence of 'universalism' [1]
in the East-Syrian Christian tradition
The purpose
of this text is to discuss the presence of universalist and
‘quasi-universalist’ views in the East-Syrian Christian tradition (i.e. the
‘Church of the East’) in the Middle Ages.
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). As it will be apparent, the
so-called ‘doctrine of reserve’, i.e. a tendency to not divulge
‘universalist’ views to those who aren’t spiritually trained, was practised as
also suggested by Origen of Alexandria[3]
and in a text that is preserved in Ethiopic[4].
Given their
influence on later Syrian theologians, I suggest the reader to read my previous
post on Diodore and Theodore: 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.”[5]
Isaac of
Nineveh (fl. 7th
century)[6]:
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/
An excerpt
from 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)[7]
This
passage echoes a famous passage of Evagrius of Ponticus’ Kephalaia Gnostica
(‘Chapters of Knowledge’):
"There was a time when evil did not exist,
and there will be a time when it will no longer exist; but there was never a
time when virtue did not exist, and there will never be a time when it will not
exist. Indestructible, in effect, are the seeds of virtue. I am also convinced
of this by the rich man who was condemned in the Shéol because of his evil and
had pity for his brothers; thus to have pity is a beautiful seed of
virtue" (Kephalaia Gnostica, Evagrius Ponticus, ch. 1,40; source: https://evagriusponticus.net/cpg2432/cpg2432.eng.1990.dysinger-s1.html )
I find
interesting that the passage was left out from the Greek translations of
Isaac’s First Part.
“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’)[8]
“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)[9]
“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)[10]
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 seems
to endorse a version of apokatastasis that, however, excludes one human being,
the ‘Lost One’. [11].
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[12],
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[13].
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/ Also, in the passage quoted in the
link, Joseph writes
"It is in our Lord's love that
all offspring of Adam live their life. Indeed, the blessed apostle, when he saw
that all humans need grace and mercy and that if God's justice were to be
applied, no living flesh would be saved, said that all have sinned, are
deprived of God's glory and are justified by the grace that overshadows them
and by the redemption in Jesus Christ" (On Providence, 58):
Here, he seems to imply that all human beings
will be saved[14].
Indeed, he refers all humans/all offspring of Adam. So, perhaps, the 'Lost One'
was human only in sembiance? After reflecting on this passage, I think that
Joseph can be regarded as an 'universalist', after all. Just earlier, Joseph
wrote:
“Now, although we think that this
was a punishment that was imposed on the transgressors [sc. Cain and Lamech],
instead of this, God poured out profusely His goodness and His mercy upon them.
For everything that He did, does and will do comes from love and mercy. Just
like a father who chastises his children with pity in order to make them wise
and learned persons with enlightened minds, so is the good and merciful God[15].
Every chastisement that He imposes on us is out of providential care, mercy,
and love. Like the blessed apostle said, if you were left without punishment,
you would be strangers and no sons; and again the divine Scripture says that
God chastises the one He loves, like a father chastises his sons. Every
punishment that we go through, we do not perceive it as a cause of joy while it
lasts. But afterwards, it bears the fruits of prosperity. Our Lord, drawing us
towards love and mercy in order that we have equal love for all humans, also
said: “be like your Father who is in heaven, He who makes the sun rise on good
and evil and the rain fall down on the righteous and the wicked” (On Providence,
56)
There are certain passages in ‘On Providence’ in
which Joseph seems to teach ‘eternal torment’. For instance he wrote:
“… for, behold, you are paid back
with judgement for all your guilt, for all vain words that came out of you:
every lustful gazing of your eyes shall be reckoned as adultery [against] you,
and for a thought of hate for your comrade, the Gehenna is reserved for you;
for the pleasures of the present, gnashing of the teeth and eternal crying is
prepared for you.” (On Providence, 202)
However, soon before he says:
“So, they [sc. the angels] said to
themselves, “if God, the Lord of all, takes such care of humans and provides
for their redemption, sometimes attracting them to familiarity with Him by the
good things He pours out upon them, sometimes making them, by means of a
correction that is full of mercy, depart from evil and attach themselves to
good; and if He pays them back the evil they committed with [His] benefits, as
He did not inflict on them any [single] punishment, but is [always] the cause
of eternal benefits for them…” (On Providence, 200)
And earlier he wrote:
“Who marvels not at God’s mercy when
he sees that God’s chastisement gave cause to good [things], and to eternal
life for humans! For He, in exchange for the evil, godless [deeds] committed by
the lawless humans, gave them as a reward for their evil deeds the resurrection
of reviviscence of the dead! He made them immortal instead of mortal, He
clothed them with imperishability instead of perishability[16];
He made disinclined [to sin] them that were inclined [to it], He raised them
that were passible above passions. What son of Adam with a rational mind, when
seeing all these good things that God, the Lord of all, gave to humans through
the resurrection from the house of the dead, will not proclaim God’s
providential care and mercy, will not say that all punishments and
chastisements that God brings upon humans is the cause of eternal life for them?”
(On Providence, 171)
And:
“Likewise, also the blessed Paul,
preaching about God’s mercy and [about the fact] that all humans […] are in
need of it since without it no [living] flesh would be saved, said: “for God
has enclosed all men in disobedience in order to have mercy on all men”,
whereby with “disobedience” he means the will’s inclination [to sin]. Now, the
freedom of will given by God to rational [beings] has the power to choose good
[works] and to reject wicked ones; and if one wills, [one is able] to attach
oneself to the good that is sown in one’s nature; but again if one wants to,
[one is able to] follow the evil that is exterior to one’s nature. But when the
blessed apostle saw God’s judgement, providential care, and mercy that are
unfathomable to the thought and understanding of created beings, he continued
saying: “oh, the depth and riches, the wisdom and the insight of God! No man
can grasp His judgement, and His ways are inscrutable”. Because then [sc. when
saying this] the divine apostle had reached understanding of what God, the Lord
of all, shall do for humans in the world to come: namely, that, in exchange for
all iniquities and godless deeds they committed in this world, even blaspheming
Him, He in His mercy shall make immortal them that were mortal, and disinclined
[to sin] them that were inclined to it; and He shall enrobe them in place of
[their] perishable garment with imperishable glory; He shall give them, in
place of their nature’s enslavement to all evils, a nature that is not subdued
to passions, nor to death and Satan. For their nature shall be uplifted by Him
from the likeness in which it stood to another, ineffable likeness. They shall
inherit a life without limit or end, and He shall grant them the knowledge of
His love, the treasure of His wisdom, the great riches of His lordship. For He
cannot be seen by created beings, neither through the sayings of the
Scriptures, nor through the teaching of the Fathers, but He casts in them [sc.
humans] the fire of His love, revealing to them the glorious treasure of His
greatness. Then, their knowledge of Him will be no lesser than that of the holy
angels, seeing that they too shall be standing in the same place where the
angels stand; thereafter, their knowledge shall descend and step back, like
today: indeed, their knowledge shall ascend on high, but His limit shall
[never] be fathomed, neither by angels nor by humans.” (On Providence, 192)
At present, to be honest, I haven’t read the
whole book. But I would say that despite the presence of certain passages that
seem to suggest otherwise, Joseph’s position seems to be an universalist one[17].
It should be noted that in Antiquity other figures also used the word ‘eternal’
to refer to bars or bonds that are later broken, like for instance Jerome of
Stridon[18]
and Maximus the Confessor[19].
In other works, Joseph appears to have also
endorsed a version of apokatastasis (see the review mentioned at the beginning
of this section and also Kavvadas’ introduction where he also mentions that
elsewhere Joseph is more explicit about it[20]).
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 truly 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’. He himself seems to have
taken an ‘apophatic’ stance on the issue and to have considered the fate of the
‘lost’ a mystery that isn’t knowable to us. However, he doesn’t criticize any
view.
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.””[21]
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 for downloading from this
site: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/875106/summary, now freely readable here: https://it.scribd.com/document/900614949/Zaleski-Universal-Salvation-in-Christian-and-Islamic-Thought ) 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[22]
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’[23]
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 and 50,
using the edition of East-Syrian numbering, 27 and 51 of the English
translations), whereas the third quote is from the Third Part (Homily 6)[24].
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)[25]
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.[26]
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[27]
legitur, ob quemdam precum modum, de loco in locum, idest, ex cruciatibus in
voluptates translatae sunt animae qorumdam peccatorum[28].
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.””
Assuming
that the 'Google translations' are correct, it seems that Timotheus II endorsed
an universalist or 'quasi-universalist' view based on intercessions.
The first two quotes seem to imply that he believed that intercessions
of the living faithful can help the dead who are said
to be unable to repent. The third quote, instead, has a stronger 'universalist'
language and seems to say that Christ's sacrifice will benefit all ("...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"). Again, also in the third
quote we find the idea that the damned are unable to repent
("it is clear that
the deceased does not resort to repentance and tears, since he enjoyed the
power and free will of his will"). Timotheus II seems to argue in the following way: it is
accepted that intercessions can help others, so, arguably, the sacrifice of
God's Son should have much more efficacy than the efforts of human beings on
behalf of others. And since Chris’t sacrifice was on the behalf of all…
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[29]
(notice that two distinct ‘universalist’ views are referenced here):
“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] See e.g. “It is in the
precincts of Jerusalem, then, that punishments will be inflicted upon those who
undergo the process of purification, who have received into the substance of
their soul the elements of wickedness, which in a certain place is figuratively
termed lead, and on that account iniquity is represented in Zechariah as
sitting upon a talent of lead. But the remarks which might be made on this
topic are neither to be made to all, nor to be uttered on the present occasion;
for it is not unattended with danger to commit to writing the explanation of
such subjects, seeing the multitude need no further instruction than that which
relates to the punishment of sinners; while to ascend beyond this is not
expedient, for the sake of those who are with difficulty restrained, even by
fear of eternal punishment, from plunging into any degree of wickedness, and
into the flood of evils which result from sin.” (Contra Celsus, 6:26, source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/04166.htm )
[4] https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/02/hope-vs-justice-iii-apocalypse-of-peter.html
[5] Compare this interpretation
with the interpretations provided by Theodore of Mopsuestia and Gregory of
Nyssa that suggest an ending of punishments. Theodore of Mopsuestia: “For
(Christ) would never have said ‘Until you pay the last farthing,’ unless
it has been possible for us to be freed from our sins once we had recompensed
for them through punishments. Nor would he have said ‘He will be beaten with
many stripes’ and ‘he will be beaten with few stripes’ if it were not (the
case) that the punishments measured out in correspondence to the sins were
finally going to have an end.” (as quoted by Isaac of Nineveh, Second Part,
39.8, translated by S. P. Brock). 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 ). Indeed, the analogy of sins to
debts suggests a proportionality and a measure.
[6] 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.
[7] “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, p. 265). Another English translation: "Sin, Gehenna and Death
do not exist at all with God, for they are effects, not substances. Sin is the
fruit of free will. There was a time when sin did not exist, and there will be
a time when it will not exist. Gehenna is the fruit of sin. At some point in
time it had a beginning, but its end is not known. Death, however, is a
dispensation of the wisdom of the Creator. It will rule only a short time over
nature; then it will be totally abolished." (source: https://classicalchristianity.com/2011/04/02/sin-gehenna-and-death/).
Compare what Isaac says about the fact that Gehenna’s end is ‘not known’ with
Isaac’s statement at the beginning of discourse 41 of the Second Part: “Let us
beware in ourselves, my beloved, and realize that even if Gehenna is subject to
a limit, the taste of its experience is most terrible, and the extent of its
bounds escapes our very understanding. Let us strive all the more to partake of
the taste of God's love for the sake of perpetual reflection on Him, and let us
not (have) experience of Gehenna through neglect.”
[8] “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.” (Discorsi
Ascetici. Prima Collezione, p. 2798)
[9] “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. p. 412)
[10] “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. pp.
451, 453)
[11] 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” (Introduction to ‘On Providence’, p. 10), “The
sole exception is the “Lost one” himself, presented as human being in which a
demon dwells (OP 150).” (p.10)
[12] At one point, Joseph also
says that God treated with mercy demons because instead of annihilating them,
He allowed their existence after the fall: “But now let us talk about God’s
judgment, His providential care, His mercy and great, ineffable goodness
towards the nature of rational [beings]. In the very moment when the demons
thought to do evil, the punishment of justice and of providential care befell
them, and they were cast out from the land where they used to live. And God did
this to them out of His mercy and providential care; because if the punishment
cast on the demons were merciless, He would have totally obliterated them and
made them as if they had never existed.” (On Providence, 40), “If not
the punishment that God imposed on the unclean demons, what else could make known
His providential care and mercy? For it was not He who threw them
out
of their honours, it was they who that forced themselves out of that land of
the living. But God, by denying them His knowledge and thus not letting its
activity be manifested in them, made known that He is just and upright, that he
neither yields to iniquity nor finds pleasure in sin; and by the fact that He
did not obliterate them with the breath of His mouth, and did not make them
like [absolute] nothing, He made known His love and unstoppable mercy. He also
made manifest that He is forbearing, good and sweet, and that He is never
shaken by fury and anger, nor does He hold a grudge against His enemies.” (On Providence, 41)
[13] Paragraph 152 perhaps is
suggesting a difference in the final state among humans if the division that
the author assumes here between the righteous and the sinners is taken as permanent.
If that is the case, we have still a doctrine of quasi-universal or universal
salvation but there will be a difference between the states of human beings.
Something similar is also said in the ‘Rainer fragment’ of an ancient version
of the ‘Apocalypse of Peter’: “I will give to my called and my elect
whomever they ask of me out of punishment, and I will give them a good baptism
in the salvation of the so-called Acherusian Lake in the Elysian Field, a part
of righteousness with my holy ones. And I will depart, I and my elect,
rejoicing with the patriarchs to my eternal kingdom. And I will accomplish with
them my promises, which I promised to them, I and my father who is in heaven.”
(see: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/02/hope-vs-justice-iii-apocalypse-of-peter.html ). Note that the text says a
‘portion of righteousness’ will be given to the damned delivered from
punishments. However, at the same time, we should not forget that Isaac of
Nineveh actually seems have argued that the final state will be the same: “And
it is clear that He does not abandon them the moment they fall, and that demons
will not remain in their demonic state, and sinners will not remain in their
sins; rather, He is going to bring them to a single equal state of completion
in relationship to His own Being in a state in which the holy angels are now,
in perfection of love and a passionless mind.” (Isaac of Nineveh, Second
Part, 40.4, translated by Sebastian P. Brock: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/sebastian-brock-on-the-universalism-of-isaac-the-syrian.pdf ). So, perhaps Joseph too
didn’t see this division as permanent.
[14] He also seems to allude that
if God would punish human without a merciful intent, He would annihilate
humans: “But now [it is made manifest:] if God had imposed on Adam and Eve a
punishment that was merciless, as the surface of the Scripture [says], He would
certainly not have cared either for them, or for all these things they need to
stay alive. But His judgment was mixed with providential care and His care was
mixed with grace. And albeit He pronounced punishment for the guilty, He
intended to reveal His providential care, His mercy and goodness. My brothers,
I weighed justice and grace on the scales of my intellect, and justice as
compared to grace was like a grain of sand compared to a great mountain; and
justice was swallowed by grace and mercy, and was like nothing. For if justice
without grace and mercy had been given sway, no flesh would be left living”,
(On Providence, 42) “And so did God also with the inhabitants of Sodom, when
He made fire and sulphur fall down on
them. You can see how this verdict also is mixed with mercy and grace: for if
that punishment that befell them were merciless, God would not have made for
them too the resurrection from the house of the dead, but would have abandoned
them in dust and ashes as if they had never existed.” (On Providence, 46), “So,
it was for these two aforementioned reasons that the deluge occurred on the face of the earth and not to [inflict]
punishment. Indeed, if this had been a punishment and not been done with mercy
and unspeakable care, He would have annihilated them [sc. humans] by the breath
of His mouth: they would have become like [absolutely] nothing, and He would
not even have rendered them worthy of resurrection.” (On Providence, 156).
[15] Compare this quote from Isaac of
Nineveh’s Second Part: “So then, let us not attribute to God's actions and
His dealings with us any idea of requital. Rather, we should speak of fatherly
provision, a wise dispensation, a perfect will which is concerned with our
good, and complete love.” (Second Part, 39.17, source: https://afkimel.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/sebastian-brock-on-the-universalism-of-isaac-the-syrian.pdf )
[16] This passage reminds the
following quote from Isaac that I quoted earlier: “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 fairness, 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)
[17] Hence one can agree with Kavvadas’
reading: “In Joseph’s configuration, all these strongly pedagogical readings of
the book of Genesis, from the first humans’ sin and their expulsion from
paradise to
Noah’s
deluge to the destruction of Sodom, function as milestones leading to a
specific end-point, the salvation of all. Because, by these punishments described
in Genesis, God did not reduce his fallen rational creatures to absolute
non-being
(as He easily could have done had He wanted to punish their sin with merciless
justice), Joseph says, but even while punishing them with death, He did not
deprive them of future resurrection and—what is more—even granted them
forgiveness “by way of” the death penalty. This prefigures what the final
outcome shall be…” (Introduction to ‘On Providence’, p. 10)
[18] "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 )
[19] "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 )
[20] In his Introduction, Kevvadas
writes: “But the whole op is also shaped by the thought of apokatastasis,
care, love and mercy being the words
that appear most often in the treatise; however, Joseph is careful here to
avoid proclaiming the apokatastasis as explicitly as he does, for
example, in his “Questions and Answers”” (Introduction to On Providence,
p.10)
[21] Ilaria Ramelli, A Larger
Hope?, Volume 1: Universal Salvation from Christian Beginnings to Julian of
Norwich (Kindle Edition), (pp.141-142). She refers to “Liber Scholiorum,
2:63.” as the source of the quote (ibid. p. 146).
[22] “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)
[23] I have yet to find other
references to this book. Of this book the author provides two quotes, the
second of which seems to endorse the idea of endless torments. However, the
first reads: “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. 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”.
Given that there is a last breath, arguably there should be a last farthing.
Also, the text seems to suggest that justice must be satisfied, so the last
farthing must be ‘exacted’. If there is no end of punishments, how could the
demands of justice be satisfied? So, despite the severe language, it is
possible that the author of this book also advanced the idea of an end of
punishments.
[24] See: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/02/sources-of-isaac-of-nineveh-quotes-in.html
[25] This is the Syriac word for
‘eternal’.
[26] 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 )
[27] Assemani adds: “(in vitis Patrum)”
(translation: “in the life of
the Fathers”)
[28] 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 Timotheus 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.”)
[29] The West-Syrian theologian John of
Dara (fl. 9th century) provides an earlier and yet similar
attestation of the presence of two types of ‘universalist’ views in the
same area:
“[4] Some people state: God is just,
and therefore He will define the time of torture there according to the
amount of our sin committed here. If this is true, then there is an end to
judgment. We answer that God’s justice is based on His will and not
because He is forced. This can be confirmed by two [facts]: For God created all
created beings out of nothing. He made the angels as spiritual beings
passionless and immortal, but man knowledgeable and rational. He made some of
them kings, others slaves, others lords, others servants, some rich and some
poor. The animals and the rest are irrational. Thus, where is God’s justice
that produces such a great discrimination? Is it not His will? But if it had
been His justice in contrast as you state, then man is supposed to obey the
animals, as they obey him; and he should fear them, as they fear him; and the
lords should become servants and the servants lords. Since God does not do
this, we know that justice belongs to His will. It is like a king who honoured
one of his servants and rejected the other one, the justice comes from him.
Also, every human being donates his wealth to the one he wishes, and he does
not oppress the one to whom he has not donated. Therefore, God’s justice is
based on His will, and He acts according to His will. For He wishes to have
mercy on the penitents in this world and not judge them justly and give them
time for penitence, [but] the sin of others remains and they are tortured
endlessly: their fire is unquenchable (cf. Matt 3:12) and their worm does not
die (cf. Mark 9:44–48).
[5] Some others state: The evil and
wicked are punished for a certain time, and then the whole coming world
will dissolve and all created beings resolve into nothing, as it was at the
beginning, and ‘God becomes all in all’ (1 Cor 15:28).We answer:
With what you are saying you are removing God’s wisdom (ܗܬܡܟܚ), His kindness (ܗܬܘܒܛ) and His care (ܗܬܘܝܛܒ): His wisdom, for creating the world as a game; His kindness for you
are saying the kindness of good people will cease; if so the good people do not
exist, then also those who usually benefit from the good deeds would not
receive help any more, and consequently His care and concern will cease. For
how should He be concerned and about whom, and how should He care and for whom
should he provide help? But if he who is in need is not deprived of care, then
also those who care do not vanish into nothing. Secondly, the angels, souls and
first elements are of a simple substance and not a compound. How can what has
not been compounded be dissolved? And what does not dissolve, does not vanish
into nothing.” (On the Resurrection of Human Bodies, book 4, chapter 20:4-5,
edited and translated by Aho Shemunkasho)
Comments
Post a Comment