| The early Christian understanding of creation and of man " " s ultimate destiny is inseparable from pneumatology; but the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament and in the early Fathers cannot easily be reduced to a system of concepts. The fourth-century discussions on the divinity of the Spirit remained in a soteriological, existential context. Since the action of the Spirit gives life «in Christ,» He cannot be a creature; He is indeed consubstantial with the Father and the Son. This argument was used both by Athanasius in his Letters to Serapion and by Basil in his famous treatise On the Holy Spirit. These two patristic writings remained, throughout the Byzantine period, the standard authorities in pneumatology. Except in the controversy around the Filioquea debate about the nature of God rather than about the Spirit specificallythere was little conceptual development of pneumatology in the Byzantine Middle Ages. This does not mean, however, that the experience of the Spirit was not emphasized with greater strength than in the West, especially in hymnology, in sacramental theology, and in spiritual literature. «As he who grasps one end of a chain pulls along with it the other end to himself, so he who draws the Spirit draws both the Son and the Father along with It,» Basil writes. 305 This passage, quite representative of Cappadocian thought, implies first that all major acts of God are Trinitarian acts, and secondly that the particular role of the Spirit is to make the «first contact,» which is then followedexistentially, but not chronologicallyby a revelation of the Son and, through Him, of the Father. The personal being of the Spirit remains mysteriously hidden, even if He is active at every great step of divine activity: creation, redemption, ultimate fulfillment. His function is not to reveal Himself, but to reveal the Son «through whom all things were made» and who is also personally known in His humanity as Jesus Christ. " " It is impossible to give a precise definition of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit and we must simply resist errors concerning Him which come from various sides.» 306 The personal existence of the Holy Spirit thus remains a mystery. It is a «kenotic» existence whose fulfillment consists in manifesting the kingship of the Logos in creation and in salvation history. 1. The Spirit in Creation |
| John Anthony McGuckin Holy Spirit SERGEY TROSTYANSKIY The subject of the Holy Spirit is one of the deepest mysteries in the church. He is the Sanctifier who never becomes incarnate and whose personal being always stays mysteriously hidden, though universally extensive. From the beginning to the present day the Holy Spirit has never been a subject to comprehend, or an easy subject to speak about. Sergius Bulgakov suggested that this will not change until that time beyond time when the glorified church in Heaven, at the last day, will be able to look upon the true icon of the Holy Spirit, in the form of the glorious communion of elect saints, the completion of the sanctifying operations of the Divine Spirit in the cosmos; as then it will have a more graphic understanding of his hypostatic reality. In the meantime, the church knows him through his fundamental energy of sanctifying believers, molding them into conformity with the redeeming Christ. This mysterious character is equally present in the history of the expression of the church’s theological tradition. Orthodox pneumatology passed through a number of stages in its development. The basic insights of the New Testament authors presented the Spirit as a personal being. They concurred with the Old Testament view that the Spirit raised up judges, prophets, and seers, friends of God who led the people correctly in worship and belief, speaking as of God himself ( Judg. 3.10, 6.34 ; Neh. 9.30; Is. 11.2 ). The Old Testament also associates the gift of the Spirit with creativity ( Gen. 1.2 ), with the finding and making of beauty (especially human craft and skill: Ex. 35.31 ). However, the proper terminology capable of expressing the Spirit as a personal subsistence (hypostasis) of the trinitarian God was yet to be developed. The profound teachings on the Spirit as presented by Jesus in the final discourses in the Gospel of John have always been the church’s goal and inspiration for all pneumatological thought. The early patristic authors, in their turn, attempted to comprehend the Spirit in terms of his operations and relations to the Father and the Son. These attempts were not without certain historical and semantic confusions, witnessed among the early 2nd-century writers such as Theophilus of Antioch, and other early fathers concerned with understanding God’s work of creation and revelation. |
| 14.18. Sedet Christus ad dexteram Patris, non ut dexteram corpoream habeat Pater, sed dextera Patris beatitudo est sicut sinistra miseria. XV. De Spiritu Sancto. 15.1. Spiritus Sanctus creator est sicut Pater et Verbum, testante propheta: Spiritus Domini fecit me et inspiraculum Omnipotentis uiuificauit me. 15.2a. Spiritus Sanctus Patris et Filii est, et inde unum sunt Pater et Filius, quia nihil habet Pater quod non habeat Filius. Non enim res una et duorum consubstantialis poterit semel ab eis procedere et simul inesse, nisi unum fuerint a quibus procedit. 15.2b. Spiritum Sanctum pignus accepit ecclesia, ut per eum uno corpore unum fierent credentes, per quem Pater et Filius unum essentialiter sunt, ipso saluatore ad Patrem dicente: Vt sint unum, sicut et nos unum sumus. 15.3. Christus non tantum a Patre sed etiam ab Spiritu Sancto se missum testatur, dicente propheta: Accedite ad me, et audite: non a principio in abscondito locutus sum. Ex tempore antequam fieret, ibi eram, et nunc Dominus misit me, et Spiritus eius. 15.4. Spiritus Sanctus pro eo quod consolator sit Paraclitus nuncupatur, nam latine paraclisis consolatio dicitur. Et reuera, dum dona sacramentorum distribuit, consolationem animae praebet. Credo equidem quod magnam laetitiam sentit, qui aliquid reuelante Spiritu dicit. 15.5. Donum Sancti Spiritus in membris ecclesiae singillatim diuiditur, et in singulis singula dona tribuuntur. Christus autem omnem plenitudinem gratiarum habuit, de quo ita legitur: Plenus gratia et ueritate. In Christo ergo omnis plenitudo gratiarum est, nam singulis electis singula tribuuntur dona. 15.6. In Spiritu Sancto omnis gratia donorum consistit. Ipse enim prout uult gratiam donorum largitur; aliis dans sermonem sapientiae, aliis scientiae, aliis fidem; atque ita unicuique uirtute Sancti Spiritus, diuisio gratiarum tribuitur, et in omnibus idem unus habetur. Ipse enim etiam ineffabilia docet, quae proferre humanus sermo non potest. 15.7. Ante aduentum Domini tantum prophetae et pauci ex omni populo iusti donum Sancti Spiritus merebantur. Post aduentum autem Domini, Spiritus Sanctus cunctis est credentibus distributus, iuxta quod per prophetam Dominus loquitur dicens: Et erit in nouissimis diebus, effundam de Spiritu meo super omnem carnem. Cunctis enim nunc gentibus gratia Sancti Spiritus tradita est, neque in paruis ut in populo Israel, sed in omni credentium multitudine Spiritus Sancti gratia manet. |
| Quis autem dedit caeco visum? Homo? Inpossibile. Quod filius dei: tu credis in filium dei? Respondit ille: quis est, domine, ut credam in eum? Dixit ipsi Iesus: et vidisti eum et qui loquitur te cum ipse est. Quod ex eadem substantia et potentia: ego et pater unum sumus. 9. Et rursus: pater in me et ego in ipso. Unde dictum in Paulo: qui in forma dei exsistens non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalia deo. Ista igitur significant et unam esse substantiam et unam potentiam. Quomodo enim: ego et pater unum sumus et quomodo: pater in me et ego in patre, si non a patre substantiam habuisset et potentiam, genitus de toto totus? Et quomodo: non rapinam arbitratus est aequalia esse patri? Non enim dixit: non arbitratus est aequalia esse, sed: non arbitratus est rapinam. Vult ergo inferior esse non volens rapinam arbitrari aequalia esse. In istis enim arbitrari est aut non arbitrari rapinam esse aequalia, qui sunt aequalia. Sed putavimus aequalia secundum potentiam dictum esse. Primum non est illud Arrii dogma, quod maior est pater dignitate, potentia, claritate, divinitate, actione; aequalia enim dixit. Et si secundum istud aequalia, inpossibile secundum istud aequalia esse, si non et substantia eadem; dei enim idem ipsum est et potentia et substantia et divinitas et actio; omnia enim unum et unum simplex. Huc accedit: si ab alia substantia erat filius et si maxime ex nihilo, quae illa substantia recipere valens istas divinitates et potentias? Aequali enim aequale conectitur et simile simili. Aequalis igitur filius et pater et propterea et filius in patre et pater in filio et ambo unum. 10. Sed ista nunc. At vero alia Iohannis videamus. Ipse salvator dicit: ego sum resurrectio, quod ipse vita. Quis autem iste? Martha dicit: quoniam tu es Christus filius dei, qui in mundum venisti. Quod non sic filius, quemadmodum nos: nos enim adoptione filii, ille natura; etiam quadam adoptione filius et Christus, sed secundum carnem: ego hodie genui te; si enim istud, solum hominem filium habet, sed: ante |
| Si autem non, quae audacia est dicere: hoc deus, hoc Christus est, hoc pater, hoc filius? Nos autem dicimus patrem ut patrem, filium ut filium. 2. Et primum, ut ille versiculis quinque quod adserebat docuisse se credidit filium factum esse, non natum, sic nos filium natum primum sacra omni lectione docebimus. Deinde id ipsum, hoc est substantialiter filium, permittente dei spiritu ut possumus adseremus. Atque ex hoc primum sumatur exordium. Paulus ad Ephesios: huius rei gratia flecto genua mea ad patrem domini nostri Iesu Christi, ex quo omnis paternitas in caelis et in terra nominatur, ut det vobis secundum divitias gloriae suae virtute confortari per spiritum suum in interiore homine, habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris, in caritate radicati et fundati ut possitis conprehendere cum omnibus sanctis, quae sit latitudo et longitudo et altitudo et profundum, scire etiam supereminentem scientiae caritatem Christi, ut inpleamini in omnem plenitudinem dei. Ei autem, qui potest super omnia facere abundantius quam petimus aut intellegimus secundum virtutem, quae operatur in nobis, ipsi gloria in Christo Iesu et ecclesia in omnes generationes saeculorum. Quid ex his apparet? Possibile esse cognoscere deum et dei filium et quomodo pater, quomodo filius. Est autem et illud in evangelio secundum Iohannem: deum nullus vidit umquam nisi unigenitus filius, qui est in gremio patris, ille exposuit. Possibile igitur dicere de deo et idcirco et de filio. Quis enim de patre exposuit? Filius. Quis iste? Qui est in gremio. Non solum igitur processit, sed et in gremio semper est filius, sufficiens doctor de patre. Quid enarravit? Quoniam deus? Et Iudaei ante hoc et ethnici enarrarunt. Quid ergo enarravit? Patrem deum, se autem filium, et quod ex eadem substantia et quod a patre exierit. Dicit enim: neque me nostis neque patrem meum. Si enim me nossetis, nossetis et patrem meum. Hoc numquam diceret, nisi filius et filius substantialiter: si me nossetis, nossetis patrem. Figmentum enim si esset, non ex ipso pater nosceretur, sed potentia dei et divinitas, ut Paulus dixit: invisibilia enim eius a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta noscuntur, aeterna quoque eius virtus ac divinitas. |
| Nam exsistentia est intellegentia quae et vita est. Apparens ergo et exsistens est deus de deo. Et quoniam in quolibet uno de tribus cuncta sunt, esse, vivere, intellegere, cum intellegentia intellegentiam genuerit, genitus est filius, et omnia habet filius quae pater et habet a patre. Item, quoniam haec omnia sunt per quae creantur omnia – quaecumque enim sunt, accipiunt suum esse, suum vivere, suum intellegere – filius, cum haec omnia sit, quippe imago patris, et actu actuoso sit, id est ut hoc praestet ceteris pro natura exsistentium, est necessario universis totis que cunctis g-logos, id est vis et potentia per quam quae sunt ut sint esse provenit, per quem deus fecit et facit omnia et sine quo nihil fit. Hoc appellant alii motum activum, verbum activum, rationem operantem. Quoniam tamen, cum a patre operetur, inest in illo vis patria, in se operatur. Unde multa ita dicuntur ut, cum ipsius sit quod facit, tamen ipse in patrem refert omnia, ut pater me misit et non meam, sed patris facio voluntatem. Et mille talia. Adtendamus tamen istum locum, inveniemus quasi ipsum per se facere ut sua sponte: non est arbitratus rapinam se aequalem deo; et item: se exinanivit et formam servi sumens, qui habebat domini. Ista omnia sunt sua voluntate facientis. Sed potest credi ipse facere, cum in ipso pater sit, ex quibus sunt et illa: ego do vitam in aeternum et ego sum ianua, ego vita, ego veritas; item: sicut enim pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et filius quos vult vivificat. Haec vera, haec varia et in omnibus magis vera intellegentia facit et filium in patre esse et in filio patrem, et tamen ut alter et alter sint et unum tamen duo sint. Quoniam autem alter pater, alter filius, quippe cum pater filii fons, filius ut flumen quod excurrit ex fonte – in fonte autem ut manens aqua et quieta est, pura, immaculata, sine scatendi specie, sibi occulto motu plenitudinem suam suggerens; item ut flumen motu apertiore per diversa discurrens, terrarum quas sulcat qualitatibus et adficitur et quodammodo patitur, sic et filius aqua sua sua que substantia, quae patris est, semper purus, inmaculatus, inpassibilis, regionibus per quas discurrit locis que vel supracaelestibus vel caelestibus vel intracaelestibus, nunc spumat ut occurrentibus saxis quae sunt ex generibus animarum, campis quietus excurrit – recipit igitur passiones, non in eo quod substantia est, sed in actu atque operatione. |
| Unde et idem et alter. Etenim cum hic dictum: cum fuisset in forma dei, utique aliud accipiendum quod forma est, aliud deus. Sed videris sit calumniae locus, ut forma dei sit in ipso deo forma, ut sit una et indiscreta substantia. Quid? Sequentia quemadmodum intellegemus: non est arbitratus rapinam se aequalem deo? In sua exsistentia positi est se cum altero credere vel dicere aequalem. Quid vero illud est: se exinanivit et formam servi suscipiens? De Christo accepimus quod mortuus est. An de deo? At hoc nullus dixit umquam. Deinde cum dicitur de patre: qui filium suum excitavit a mortuis, nonne satis clarum est alium esse patrem, alium filium, alium esse suscitantem, alium esse suscitatum? Ergo forma dei, aliud forma, aliud deus est. Et est quidem deo forma, sed filius dei forma in manifesto, dei vero in occulto. Sic enim omnia et exsistentia et vita et cognoscentia, dei intus in occulto, filio in manifesto; sic cetera: g-chYrUma, g-plUrYma, imago, lumen verum, veritas, spiritus, motus, actio, operatio, vita, et a semet ipso vita, voluntas, virtus, sapientia, verbum, deus, deus vivus et cetera alia omnia. Sed haec veluti foris et in manifesto, illa in se atque circa exsistentiam vel ipsa[m] potius quod est exsistentia, haec autem in actu agente quod est in manifesto. Postremo haec omnia filius habet, sed patre dante, quod vehementer expressum in eo quod cum filius habeat a se vitam, a se, inquit, sed adiunxit: pater ei dedit ut haberet a se vitam. Vera igitur imago atque exsistentia in omnibus eadem, sed patre dante. Ergo g-homoousion et pater et filius, sed patre dante. De eo enim quod diximus patrem, esse vivere intellegere, exsistentia genita est ut vita, intellegentia. Et haec est dei forma, haec est filius. Sed filius cum in patre est, unum totum, intus deus agens, operans, se utens, se fruens, fons atque in se plenitudo omnium. 31. Sed quoniam, uti docuimus, intellegentia vi potentiae suae necessario, dum in semet sese vertit, intellexit semet ipsam, hoc quodam modo gemina facta, velut intus et foris, filius est genitus ab exsistentia patris. |
| 398. РГБ ОР. Ф. 425. К. 4. 399. В предыдущем письме. 400. 2 Тим. 2. 5. 401. Супруга Семена Александровича Брянчанинова. 402. А. А. Сухарев — сын Агафоклеи Марковны Сухаревой, о ней см. Настоящее издание, т. 3, с. 571. 403. …нет ни Еллина, ни Иудея, ни обрезания, ни необрезания, варвара, Скифа, раба, свободного, но все и во всем Христос (Кол. 3. 11). 404. См.: Мф. 16. 25; Мк. 8. 35; Лк. 9. 24. 405. Ср.: Ин. 15. 19. 406. Публикация и комментарии В. В. Кашириной. 407. РГБ ОР. Ф. 214. Опт-370; Опт-371. 408. РГБ ОР. Ф. 214. Опт-370. Л. 159–172. 409. РГБ ОР. Ф. 214. Опт-370. Л. 151–159. 410. Историческое описание Козельской Введенской Оптиной Пустыни и состоящего при ней скита св. Иоанна Предтечи/Сост. Лев Кавелин. Спб., 1847. Ч. 2. С. 51. 411. РГБ OP. Ф. 214. Опт-370. Л. 31 об. 412. РГБ OP. Ф. 214. Опт-371. Л. 366. 413. РГБ OP. Ф. 214. Опт-370. Л. 217 об. — 226 об. 414. РГБ ОР. Ф. 214. Опт-371. Л. 218–218 об. 415. РГБ OP. Ф. 214. Опт-371. Л. 366. 416. РГБ ОР. Ф. 214. Опт-371. Л. 369 об. 417. РГБ ОР. Ф. 214. Опт-371. Л. 368. 418. См.: РГБ ОР. Ф. 214. Опт-361. Л. 166–179. 419. Настоящее издание. Т. 4. С. 430–443. 420. См. с. 633–650. 421. РГБ ОР. Ф. 214. Опт-370. Л. 217 об. — 226 об. 422. На полях рукописи помета: зри. 423. В ркп.: Т. е. самоукорением. — В. К. 424. На полях рукописи помета: зри. 425. Феодор (Перехватов), схимонах. Постриженник знаменитой Нямецкой обители и духовный наставник преп. оптинского старца Льва (Наголкина). 426. В ркп.: Это слово «открыл» теперь ясно подтверждает слова многих знавших покойного старца о дарованном ему свыше даре прозрения. — В. К. На полях рукописи помета: зри. 427. На полях рукописи помета: зри. 428. В ркп.: т. е. преграды. — В. К. 429. В ркп. примеч.: Вне обыкновенного порядка. 430. В ркп. примеч.: С час или сколько бы то ни было. 431. В ркп. примеч.: члены. 432. В ркп. примеч.: членами. 433. В ркп. примеч.: в тебе. 434. В ркп. примеч.: искренно. 435. РГБ ОР. Ф. 214. Опт-371. Л. 368–369. 436. Преп. оптинского старца Льва (Наголкина). |
| 4078 4 Ezra 5:26; LA.B. 39(23:7); b. Šabb. 49a, 130a; Exod. Rab. 20:6; Song Rab. 2:14, §§1–2. Johnston, Parables, 595, cites Mek. BeS. 3:86ff.; 7:27ff. but notes that it is not frequent enough to constitute a standard metaphor. Although Augustine applied it to the Spirit (Tract. Ev. Jo. 6.13.1), he noted some applied it to the church (6.11.2). 4079 B. Ber. 3a; cf. Abrahams, Studies, 1:47. One may compare the prophetic doves of Dodona (alluded to in Sib. Or. 1.242–252; the term is different from here). 4080 Abrahams, Studies, 1:48–49 (followed by Barrett, Spirit, 38; cf. Taylor, Mark, 160–61), cites only Gen. Rab. 2 and Ya1. Gen. 1(where the interpretation seems dominated more by exegetical principles than by standard tradition); Lachs, Commentary, 47, adds b. Hag. 15a (or the Spirit as an eagle in t. Hag. 2:5). A link with the Spirit naturally became common in early post-Synoptic Christian tradition, however (Odes So1. 24:1; 28:1; and the interpolation in T. Levi 18). The Hebrew Bible does sometimes portray God as a bird (e.g., Ps 91:3–4 ). 4082 Against the arguments of Odeberg, Gospel, 33–36; Lightfoot, Gospel, 104; Dahl, «History,» 136, which effectively assume that the Johannine community would more readily read the Jacob narrative through late rabbinic tradition on the Hebrew than through the LXX. 4084 Turner, Spirit, 59 n. 5, is surely right that the Baptist would not have seen the Spirit rest «permanently» on Jesus; but in view of Johannine usage elsewhere (3:36; 19:31), the Gospel audience would probably understand the term this way. 4086 In Mek. Pisha 1:154–155 (Lauterbach, 1:14), the Spirit of the Lord rested on the prophets, and «rest» could function as a designation for the Spirit of prophecy. In t. Pisha 2the Spirit of prophecy «rested» on Rahab. 4091 E.g., Colwell and Titus, Spirit; Cerinthus in Irenaeus Haer. 1.26.1; Hippolytus Haer. 10.17. Even in Mark, this reading is open to challenge. Cf. Morton Smith " s view that Jesus» Spirit reception was originally a deification story like some in magical papyri (Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 165); this fails to reckon with the Palestinian Jewish origin of the story (see above) and the retention of its traditional Jewish meaning as late in the history of tradition as Mark 1:9–11 . |
| THE FILIOQUE QUESTION This brings us to the controversy over the filioque, the Western addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed stating that the Holy Spirit " proceeds from the Father and the Son». As an Orthodox theologian, I consider the Augustinian and Thomist doctrines on the filioque to be incomplete, rather than erroneous or heretical. The intuitions of the patristic and Byzantine tradition, extending from the Cappadocian Fathers to Gregory of Cyprus and culminating in the creative work of St Gregory Palamas, allow us effectively to enlarge and deepen the approach to the mystery of the procession of the Holy Spirit within its proper theological framework, in which Augustinian theology may perhaps find its place. Firstly, the notion of a double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son is less questionable in St Augustine than it is in the rationalist theological scheme that considers first the eternal generation of the Son without mentioning the Spirit, and then, only in the second place, the procession of the Holy Spirit. The Cappadocian Fathers remind us, and this is taken up again by St John of Damascus, that the generation of the Son and procession of the Holy Spirit operate simultaneously. One should not therefore discuss the generation of the Son without addressing at the same time the procession of the Holy Spirit, and vice versa. Thus, contemplation and theological discussion of the trinitarian mystery should always have a ternary character, appropriate to the mystery of the Tri-Unity. In other words, one should never consider the relation of two divine hypostases without speaking at the same time of the third hypostasis, in such a way that each divine hypostasis eternally unites in himself the two others. Binary language (in other words, first Father and Son, then, in a following section, Father, Son and Spirit) betrays and contradicts the equality of theological language with regard to the trinitarian mystery. Because of the complete reciprocal inherence of the divine hypostases, the Son and the Spirit are each in the other. The Spirit rests on the Son ; he is in the Son insofar as is also the fullness of the Father " s love. St Gregory of Cyprus introduces an idea that is implicit in the previous patristic tradition when he says that the Spirit represents the eternal, intra-trinitarian manifestation of the Son, pouring forth eternally from him. 68 |
|
|
