On the authenticity of a quote of Ephrem the Syrian

 On the authenticity of a quote of Ephrem the Syrian

Taken from this discussion:  

https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianUniversalism/comments/1qp5uz0/authenticity_of_a_quote_of_st_ephrem_the_syrian/

The discussion is about this fragment attributed to Ephrem the Syrian (fl. 4th century) that suggests that at least in this work supported an universalist view (in contrast to his seemingly support of 'eternal conscious torment' in other works. See e.g. this video-lecture: : https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2022/04/25/did-st-ephrem-teach-universalism/ ):

"“Whoever speaks evil of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, neither in this worldnor in the coming.” Our Lord has forgiven many people their sins for nothing, without paying, and also his baptism forgives the debts of the believers without asking anything in return. But neither our Lord nor his baptism forgive this sin against the Holy Spirit as long as one is still in this world, as little as his mercy does. Even when someone practices all good works and is perfect in righteousness, this sin can not be forgiven just like that. He will have to make up for it in Gehenna. Even this sin can not prevent someone from being justified in the end: once he has made up for his sin in Gehenna, God will reward this person with the Kingdom." (Commentary on the Diatessaron 10:4; source: "The irresistible love of God: two Syriac Church Fathers about universal salvation in Christ" (pag. 12 of the pdf file), link https://www.academia.edu/36927396/The_irresistible_love_of_God_two_Syriac_Church_Fathers_about_universal_salvation_in_Christ )

From the discussion, the user u/OverOpening6307 (link to post: https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianUniversalism/comments/1qp5uz0/comment/o286w6n/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button):

"Thank you for raising this very interesting question. I honestly had always assumed that Ephrem was not a universalist, although I didn't regard him necessarily infernalist either.

I checked a standard translation, and can verify the passage is authentic.

Ephrem sounds like he allows post-mortem mercy for humans (what we might call “human universalism”), but not “cosmic universalism.” In other words, he treats Gehenna as debt-repayment, but excludes demons.

It is from Ephrem’s Commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron. I used Carmel McCarthy’s English translation of Chester Beatty Syriac MS 709 (OUP, 1993).

In McCarthy, the exact context is the section titled “The Sin that Cannot Be Forgiven” §4-§6 (pp. 166-168).

Section 4 is pretty much similar to what you wrote.

The context is the unforgiveable sin. Ephrem says Christ forgives many sins freely, and baptism cancels believers’ “debts” freely. But blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is different. Jesus did not say it will never be dealt with, but that it will not be forgiven “for free.” His emphasis is that this sin is not simply remitted; it must be “requited.”

So Ephrem says God will demand repayment for it in Gehenna, comparing it to David, whose grave sin had consequences. But even this sin does not block eventual justification. After the person has paid the due penalty in Gehenna, God can still reward them with the kingdom.

The next section then says:

§5. The [words] that he said, He will be guilty of an eternal sin, mean that it will certainly not be forgiven. Take note then of the explanation which is added to the statement, But he will be a debtor. That for which a person is in debt must assuredly be repaid. It will certainly not be remitted him. Our Lord made a distinction between retribution and forgiveness. ... You can polish silver and cleanse it with water, and without the use of fire. But only with fire can you really purify it. Likewise, He will not be forgiven, neither here nor beyond....Perhaps two retributions are being spoken of, namely, he will be smitten here, and tormented there? Not all transgressors will receive retribution here. But those who have blasphemed will be punished both here and hereafter, as in the case of Iscariot, all of whose entrails were poured out.”

The concept is this: forgiveness is free and requires no compensation, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not remitted freely. Ephrem reads the “debtor” language as meaning it must be repaid via retribution (including Gehenna), rather than simply cancelled.

In Section 6 Ephrem says Judas’s end can be seen as God’s anger, but he limits the conclusion to the specific blasphemers of Jesus’s time. People today may speak wrongly without fully realising what they are doing. So repentance remains open for anyone still alive.

He then says: "§6... All sinners then can obtain forgiveness through repentance, whether they have sinned with knowledge, or without knowledge. Our Lord will not say, "He will not obtain mercy," but, It will not be forgiven him. For it can happen that when one has made retribution for one's debt here, one may obtain mercy in the other world. If the judge does not forgive, he shows how great is the fault of the transgressor. But if he forgives through mercy, he shows how great is the grace of the Good One, of him in whom the fullness [of grace] dwells. It is not that [God] does not forgive them if they repent, but rather it is Satan who does not allow them repent of this blasphemy..."

Basically, Ephrem distinguishes between free forgiveness and requital (repayment). My reading is that he is making room for mercy in both modes: some sins are forgiven freely through repentance, while this sin is ‘not remitted’ but can be requited, even in Gehenna, after which he says one ‘may obtain mercy in the other world.’

In that light, the later ‘beyond forgiveness’ language reads as beyond free remission, not necessarily beyond mercy after retribution.”. He also explicitly allows that after retribution “one may obtain mercy in the other world.” However, he also says: "There is no expiation for a demon, either in this world or in the one to come."

So what you have here is best described as purgatorial / debt-repayment Gehenna language with post-mortem mercy for humans - ie human universalism, but not necessarily the “cosmic universalism including demons” belief often associated with Gregory of Nyssa or Isaac of Nineveh."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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, 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. 7 th century in his Second Part, 39.7-14; for Theodore only in his Second Part, 3.3.94 ), Solomon of Basra (fl. 13 th century in his book of the Bee, 60 ), Theodore bar Konai (fl. 8 th century in his Liber Scholiorum 2.63 ) - and Western-Syriac - John of Dara (fl. 9 th century in his On the Resurrection of Human Bodies 4.21 ). There is a brief comparison of a passage in Isaac’s Third Part (discourse 6) about eschatological punishments and the cont...
Read more

On the presence of universalism in East Syrian tradition

On the presence of universalism [1] in East Syrian tradition East Syrian theologians were influenced by Diodore of Tarsus (fl. 4 th century), his disciple Theodore of Mopsuestia (fl. 4-5 th century) who is called the ‘Interpreter/Exegete/Expositor’ in the East Syrian church (also called ‘Church of the East’), and Evagrius Ponticus (fl. 4 th century) [2] .  The point of this text is to show that there a was significant prevalence of the idea in this tradition (this doesn’t necessarily mean that it was a majority view). For more details about Diodore and Theodore see my previous post: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/01/ancient-and-medieval-witnesses-of_28.html An updated version of this post can be found here:  https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/03/on-presence-of-universalism-in-east.html  A testimony of an opponent: Babai the Great (fl. 6 th century): Let me start with the testimony of an opponent of ‘universalism’ in the East-Syrian Ch...
Read more

On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors

  On the possible presence of universalism in some ancient Christians Latin authors Introduction In what follows, I’ll present some evidence for the presence of a doctrine or a sympathy of universalism (i.e. the belief that all human beings will be ultimately saved) in some Latin Fathers. There are some suggestive passages in the writings of Ambrose of Milan and John Cassian. Also, Rufinus of Aquileia, in his quarrel against Jerome of Stridon, while admitting that the fate of the wicked is a mystery shows a clear sympathy for the doctrine of universalism. However, it should be noted that none of the figures I quote in this post have been cited as universalists (as far as I know) before the 19 th century and, also, the interpretation of their texts never seem to have caused controversy among later writers (again, as far as I know) about the possible presence of genuine universalist beliefs or interpolations in their texts. While this fact alone doesn’t exclude an universalist...
Read more