Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα Panagia. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων
Εμφάνιση αναρτήσεων με ετικέτα Panagia. Εμφάνιση όλων των αναρτήσεων

Σάββατο 9 Οκτωβρίου 2021

Γιατί ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ Ἐπανάσταση συνέβη τὸ 1821 καὶ ὄχι νωρίτερα; Μερικὲς σκέψεις γιὰ τὴν ἔναρξη τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς Ἐπανάστασης

Ἔκδοση Ἱερᾶς Μητροπόλεως Τριμυθοῦντος

Ἰδάλιο - Κύπρος 2021

ΑΦΙΕΡΩΜΑΤΙΚΟΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ

ΕΠΙ Τῌ ΕΥΚΑΙΡΙᾼ ΤΗΣ ΣΥΜΠΛΗΡΩΣΗΣ 200 ΕΤΩΝ

ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΕΝΑΡΞΗ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΩΝΑ ΤΟΥ ΕΘΝΟΥΣ

ΚΑΤΑ ΤΩΝ ΤΟΥΡΚΩΝ

(1821-2021)

Ἑλληνικὴ Ἐπανάσταση


ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ

ΕΠΑΝΑΣΤΑΣΗ


ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ

ΕΠΑΝΑΣΤΑΣΗ

ΑΦΙΕΡΩΜΑΤΙΚΟΣ ΤΟΜΟΣ

ΕΠΙ Τῌ ΕΥΚΑΙΡΙᾼ ΤΗΣ ΣΥΜΠΛΗΡΩΣΗΣ 200 ΕΤΩΝ

ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ ΕΝΑΡΞΗ ΤΟΥ ΑΓΩΝΑ ΤΟΥ ΕΘΝΟΥΣ

ΚΑΤΑ ΤΩΝ ΤΟΥΡΚΩΝ

(1821-2021)

Ἔκδοση Ἱερᾶς Μητροπόλεως Τριμυθοῦντος

Ἰδάλιο - Κύπρος 2021

Ἐπιμέλεια:

Ἀνδρέας Ζαχαρίου – Ματθαῖος Ματθαίου

ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΗ ΕΠΑΝΑΣΤΑΣΗ

Ἀφιερωματικὸς Τόμος

ἐπὶ τῇ εὐκαιρίᾳ τῆς συμπλήρωσης 200 ἐτῶν ἀπὸ τὴν ἔναρξη

τοῦ Ἀγώνα τοῦ Ἔθνους κατὰ τῶν Τούρκων

(1821-2021)

ISBN: 978-9925-7822-0-8

Copyright

Ἱερὰ Μητρόπολις Τριμυθοῦντος

Τ.Θ. 11001, 2550 Ἰδάλιον

Τηλ.: +357-22527000, Fax: +357-22526363

E-mail: info@imtrimythountos.org.cy

Ἱστοσελίδα: www.imtrimythountos.org.cy

Γενικὴ ἐπιμέλεια - Ἐποπτεία Τόμου

Α. Ζαχαριου

Ἐπίκουρος Καθηγητὴς Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς

Πανεπιστημίου Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani, Τιφλίδα

Διόρθωση δοκιμίων - Ἐπιμέλεια κειμένων

Μ. Ματθαιου

Φιλόλογος

5

ΠΕΡΙΕΧΟΜΕΝΑ

ΠΡΟΛΟΓΟΣ ....................................................................... 7

ΣΥΝΤΟΜΟΓΡΑΦΙΕΣ ......................................................... 8

ΧΑΙΡΕΤΙΣΜΟΙ

Χαιρετισμὸς Ἀρχιεπισκόπου Νέας Ἰουστινιανῆς καὶ

πάσης Κύπρου κ.κ. Χρυσοστόμου Β΄.................................11

Χαιρετισμὸς Μητροπολίτου Κερκύρας, Παξῶν καὶ Δι-

αποντίων Νήσων κ. Νεκταρίου......................................... 15

Χαιρετισμὸς Μητροπολίτη Τριμυθοῦντος καὶ Προέ-

δρου Λευκάρων κ. Βαρνάβα..............................................17

ΜΕΛΕΤΕΣ

Εἰρήνης Ἀβρ. Ἀρτέμη,

Γιατί ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ Ἐπανάσταση συνέβη τὸ 1821 καὶ ὄχι

νωρίτερα; Μερικὲς σκέψεις γιὰ τὴν ἔναρξη τῆς Ἑλλη-

νικῆς Ἐπανάστασης ......................................................... 21

Χριστόδουλου Β. Βασιλειάδη,

Θεόδωρος Κολοκοτρώνης. Ὁ γέρος τοῦ Μωριᾶ .............. 29

Κωστῆ Ἰω. Κοκκινόφτα,

Κύπριοι ἀγωνιστὲς στὴν Ἑλληνικὴ Ἐπανάσταση ............ 43

Περιεχόμενα

6

Ἀθηνᾶς Ν. Κονταλῆ,

Ἑλληνικὴ Ἐπανάσταση καὶ Μοναστήρια. Τὸ παρά-

δειγμα τῆς Ἱερᾶς Μονῆς Φενεοῦ Κορινθίας .................... 61

Γεώργιου Μ. Κουννούσιη,

Τὸ κοινοτικὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ κοινωνικὸ ἔργο τῶν Ὀρθο-

δόξων τὴν περίοδο τῆς Τουρκοκρατίας ........................... 81

Πέτρου Ἀθ. Παναγιωτόπουλου,

Ἡ ἔνοπλη συμμετοχὴ τοῦ Κλήρου στὸν Ἀγῶνα τῆς

Ἐθνεγερσίας .................................................................... 99

Γιάννη Ἀ. Παπαγεωργίου,

Ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ Ἐπανάσταση τοῦ 1821 κάτω ἀπὸ τὸ πρῖ-

σμα τῶν γεωπολιτικῶν συμφερόντων τῆς Βρετανικῆς

Αὐτοκρατορίας ...............................................................141

Φαίδωνος Θ. Παπαδόπουλου,

Ἐξισλαμισμοὶ καὶ λινοβαμβακισμὸς στὴν περιφέρεια

τῆς Μητρόπολης Τριμυθοῦντος ...................................... 155

Γεώργιου Ἰω. Στούκη,

Νεομάρτυρες: Ἀγωνιστὲς τῆς πίστης καὶ τῆς ἐλευθερί-

ας ....................................................................................175

Ἀγγελικῆς Δ. Χατζηιωάννου,

Ὁ ἅγιος Γρηγόριος ὁ Ε΄ (1746-1821) καὶ ἡ στάση του

ἀπέναντι στὴν Ἑλληνικὴ Ἐπανάσταση .......................... 205

Βιβλιοπαρουσιάσεις ....................................................... 227

21

Γιατί ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ Ἐπανάσταση

συνέβη τὸ 1821 καὶ ὄχι νωρίτερα;

Μερικὲς σκέψεις γιὰ τὴν ἔναρξη τῆς

Ἑλληνικῆς Ἐπανάστασης

Δρ. Εἰρήνης Ἀβρ. Ἀρτέμη

Συνεργαζόμενο Ἐπιστημονικὸ Προσωπικό, ΕΑΠ

Σύντομη ἱστορικὴ ἀναδρομὴ στὴν περίοδο τῆς Τουρ-

κοκρατίας

Ὁ Ἑλληνισμὸς ἐπὶ 400 χρόνια γνώρισε τὴν τουρκικὴ κα-

τάκτηση καὶ μαζί της ὅλα τὰ δεινὰ ποὺ ἐπέβαλλαν οἱ

κατακτητὲς στὸν ὑπόδουλο ἑλληνικὸ χριστιανικὸ πληθυσμό.

Στὶς 29 Μαΐου τὸ 1453 ἡ ἅλωση τῆς Κωνσταντινούπολης, τῆς

Ἑπτάλοφης, εἶναι πιὰ γεγονός. Σιγὰ – σιγὰ ὅλες οἱ περιοχὲς

τῆς Βυζαντινῆς Αὐτοκρατορίας πέφτουν στὰ χέρια τῶν Τούρ-

κων. Φυσικὰ εἶναι καὶ κάποιες ποὺ βρίσκονται ἤδη ἀπὸ τὸ

1204, γιὰ μεγαλύτερο ἢ μικρότερο χρονικὸ διάστημα, στὴν

κυριαρχία τῶν Λατίνων καὶ κυρίως τῶν Βενετῶν, τῶν Γενου-

ατῶν καὶ τῶν Φράγκων. Τὸ «ἑάλω ἡ Πόλις» σήμανε, λοιπόν,

τὴν ὑποδούλωση τοῦ ἑλληνικοῦ κόσμου σὲ ξένους ἀλλόπιστους

κυριάρχους γιὰ περισσότερους ἀπὸ τέσσερεις αἰῶνες. Μέσα

σὲ δύσκολες συνθῆκες, τὸ ἑλληνικὸ Ἔθνος στηρίχθηκε κυρίως

στὴν ὀρθόδοξη πίστη καὶ τὴν ἑλληνικὴ γλῶσσα. Διατήρησε,

Εἰρήνης Ἀβρ. Ἀρτέμη

22

ἔτσι, τὴν ἰδιαιτερό-

τητά του καὶ διεκ-

δίκησε μὲ βήματα

σταθερὰ τὴν ἐλευ-

θερία του μὲ τὴ με-

γάλη Ἐπανάσταση

τῆς Παλιγγενεσίας

τοῦ 18211.

Στὴν περίοδο

τῆς Τουρκοκρατίας

οἱ Ἕλληνες εἶχαν

νὰ ἀντιμετωπίσουν

τὸ παιδομάζωμα.

Ὁ Ἀσιάτης δυνά-

στης πίστευε πὼς

ὅ,τι εἶχε κατακτή-

σει τοῦ ἀνῆκε. Ἔτσι σχεδὸν πάντα ἔπαιρνε ὅ,τι ἤθελε ἀπὸ

τὸν Ἕλληνα Χριστιανὸ ραγιᾶ. Μία εἰκόνα τῆς τραγικῆς ζωῆς

τῶν Χριστιανῶν ραγιάδων τῆς πρώιμης Τουρκοκρατίας μᾶς

δίνει ὁ ἐκπρόσωπος τοῦ δόγη τῆς Βενετίας, κάτι σὰν πρέσβης

στὴν Κωνσταντινούπολη, ὁ ὁποῖος γράφει στὸν δόγη του στὶς

4 Ἀπριλίου 1579 τὰ ἑξῆς: «…οἱ Χριστιανοὶ ὑπήκοοι Ὀθω-

μανοὶ τόσον ἐκείνης τῆς χώρας (τῆς Πελοποννήσου), ὅσον

καὶ τῆς Ἑλλάδος, εὑρίσκονται τώρα εἰς ἐσχάτην ἀπόγνωσιν

καὶ ἀνέκφραστον λύπην, διότι εἰς διάστημα εἴκοσι πέντε

ἡμερῶν ὑπέστησαν ὅλας αὐτὰς τὰς ἀνυποφόρους ἐπιβα-

ρύνσεις, ἤτοι νὰ καταβάλλουν τὸ συνηθισμένον “χαράτσι”,

νὰ πληρώσουν τὴν ἀγγαρείαν, ποὺ ὀνομάζεται “ἀβαρίτς”,

διὰ τὸν ἐξοπλισμὸν τῶν γαλερῶν, νὰ δώσουν τὰ παιδιά

των, ἵνα τὰ κάμουν ἀζαμογλάνια (παιδομάζωμα), νὰ δώ-

1. Κ. Παπαρρηγόπουλου, Ἱστορία τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ Ἔθνους, τόμ. ΙΗ΄,

ἔκδ. National Geographic, Ἀθήνα 2005, σσ. 10-15.

Σημαία τοῦ ναύαρχου Ἀνδρέα Μιαούλη,

μὲ ὀκτὼ ὁριζόντιες γραμμὲς καὶ κυανὸ

σταυρό. Συλλογὴ Ἐθνικοῦ

Ἱστορικοῦ Μουσείου

23

Γιατί ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ Ἐπανάσταση συνέβη τὸ 1821 καὶ ὄχι νωρίτερα;

σουν ἀδιακρίτως κατοικίαν καὶ τροφὴν εἰς τοὺς σπαχῆδες

ποὺ συναθροίζονται διὰ τὸν κατὰ τῆς Περσίας πόλεμον,

καὶ τέλος νὰ ἀπογυμνωθοῦν ἀπὸ τοὺς σπαχῆδες καὶ ἀπὸ

τὸ ὀλίγον ἐκεῖνο ποὺ τοὺς ἀπέμεινεν εἰς τὰ χωρία των, τὰ

ὁποῖα εἶναι πτωχὰ καὶ πληρώνουν τοὺς σπαχῆδες οἱ κάτοι-

κοι καὶ μὲ τὸ αἷμα των ἀκόμη!»2.

Τὰ φοβερότερα ἴσως δεινὰ τοῦ σκλαβωμένου ραγιᾶ θὰ

μποροῦσαν νὰ χαρακτηριστοῦν τὸ παιδομάζωμα καὶ ὁ ἐξι-

σλαμισμός. Μὲ τὸ πρῶτο οἱ ραγιάδες ἔχαναν τὰ παιδιά τους,

ἀφοῦ ἀρχικὰ διάλεγαν ἀγόρια ἕξι ἢ ἑπτὰ ἐτῶν, κατόπιν ὅμως

τὰ ἀγόρια ποὺ ἁρπάζονταν ἦταν ἡλικίας δέκα ἕως δεκαπέντε

ἐτῶν3. Τὰ παιδιὰ αὐτὰ ἐπάνδρωναν τὰ τάγματα τῶν Γενίτσα-

ρων4 καὶ τὸν ἀνώτατο διοικητικὸ μηχανισμὸ τῆς Αὐτοκρατο-

ρίας. Ὁ θεσμὸς αὐτὸς παράκμασε ἤδη ἀπὸ τὶς ἀρχὲς τοῦ 18ου

αἰ. Μία ἄλλη πληγὴ γιὰ τοὺς ραγιάδες, ὅπως προαναφέρθηκε,

ἀποτελοῦσε ὁ ἐξισλαμισμὸς ποὺ εἴτε γινόταν λόγῳ ἀφόρη-

των καταπιέσεων εἴτε ἐξαιτίας τῶν μεγάλων προνομίων ποὺ

λάμβαναν οἱ προσήλυτοι, οἱ ὁποῖοι πολλὲς φορὲς ἔφταναν νὰ

γίνουν μέχρι βεζίρηδες καὶ πασάδες ἀκόμη5: «Μέσῳ τῆς ἐξω-

μοσίας ὁ βαθιὰ πληγωμένος καὶ ἀπογοητευμένος ραγιᾶς

ἔκανε τὸ ἀπεγνωσμένο βῆμα τῆς ἀλλαξοπιστίας, γιὰ νὰ

λυτρωθεῖ ἀπὸ τὰ δεινὰ τοῦ ζυγοῦ τῆς δουλείας καὶ νὰ κα-

λυτερεύσει τοὺς ὅρους τῆς ζωῆς του»6.

2. Ἱστορία τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ Ἔθνους – Ὁ Ἑλληνισμὸς ὑπὸ ξένη κυριαρ-

χία (1453-1669), Τουρκοκρατία – Λατινοκρατία, τόμ. Ι΄, ἔκδ. Ἐκδοτικὴ

Ἀθηνῶν, Ἀθήνα 2009, σ. 65.

3. Κ. Παπαρρηγόπουλου, Ἱστορία τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ Ἔθνους, τόμ. ΙΗ΄,

σ. 18.

4. Στὸ ἴδιο, σσ. 18-22.

5. Στὸ ἴδιο.

6. Ἀθ. Δέμου, «Ἡ ζωὴ τῶν Ἑλλήνων – ραγιάδων στὰ χρόνια τῆς Τουρ-

κοκρατίας», Πρωινὸς Λόγος, 23 Μαΐου 2014.

Εἰρήνης Ἀβρ. Ἀρτέμη

24

Τέλος, στὴν περίοδο αὐτῶν τῶν σκοτεινῶν χρόνων οἱ ὑπό-

δουλοι Ἕλληνες εἶχαν νὰ ὑποστοῦν τὸ χαράτσι7, τὸν κεφαλικὸ

φόρο8, τὴν ἀγγαρεία γιὰ τὸν ἐξοπλισμὸ τῶν γαλερῶν, ἐνῶ

ἕνα σημαντικὸ μέρος τῶν μορφωμένων Ἑλλήνων μετανάστευ-

αν σὲ Φράγκικες περιοχές. Χαρακτηριστικὴ περίπτωση εἶναι

ἐκείνη τῶν Φαναριωτῶν ποὺ μεταλαμπάδευσαν τὶς γνώσεις

τους σὲ περιοχὲς τῆς Εὐρώπης ποὺ κατέφυγαν, συμβάλλοντας

ἔτσι σημαντικὰ στὴν ἀνάπτυξη τῶν τεχνῶν καὶ τῶν ἐπιστη-

μῶν στὶς χῶρες αὐτές.

Ὅλα τὰ παραπάνω χαλύβδωσαν τὴ θέληση τῶν ὑπόδου-

λων γιὰ ἐλευθερία καὶ ὅταν οἱ συνθῆκες ὡρίμασαν διεκδίκη-

σαν τὴν ἐλευθερία τους, τὴν ἐθνικὴ ταυτότητά τους γιὰ τοὺς

ἴδιους καὶ ἕνα ἐλεύθερο Κράτος.

7. Τὸ χαράτσι βασίστηκε σὲ ἀρχὴ τοῦ Κορανίου καὶ ἡ καταβολή του

συμβόλιζε τὴν ὑποταγὴ τῶν ἀπίστων, ἐξαγοράζοντας τὴν ἀνεκτικότητα

τοῦ κράτους. Ὡς βασικὸς τακτικὸς φόρος, εἶχε διττὸ χαρακτῆρα. Ἀπὸ τὴ

μία ἦταν φόρος ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (haraci muvazzaf) καὶ ἀπὸ τὴν ἄλλη φόρος

ἐπὶ τοῦ εἰσοδήματος (haraci mukaseme). Ὁ πρῶτος ἦταν πάγιος ἐτήσιος

φόρος ποὺ βάρυνε τὴ γῆ καὶ ὄχι τὴν παραγωγή. Ἦταν δηλαδὴ ἔγγειος

φόρος.

8. Ὁ cizye ἢ κεφαλικὸς φόρος: Αὐτὸν τὸν φόρο τὸν κατέβαλλαν κάθε

χρόνο μόνο οἱ μὴ μουσουλμάνοι ὑγιεῖς ἄνδρες, οἱ ἱκανοὶ γιὰ ἐργασία, καὶ

προοριζόταν γιὰ εἰδικὸ τμῆμα τοῦ αὐτοκρατορικοῦ θησαυροφυλακίου. Τὸ

ποιοὶ ὅμως ἦταν ἱκανοὶ γιὰ ἐργασία ἐπαφίετο στὴ διάκριση τῶν εἰσπρα-

κτόρων ποὺ πάντα ἔδειχναν ἕναν ὑπερβάλλοντα ζῆλο, ὅσο ἡ ἀξιοσύνη

τους μετριόταν καὶ ἡ ἀμοιβή τους ἐξαρτιόταν ἀπὸ τὸ ποσὸ ποὺ θὰ προ-

ωθοῦσαν στὴν Κωνσταντινούπολη, στὸ σουλτανικὸ ταμεῖο. Ὁ κεφαλικὸς

φόρος εἶναι τὸ τίμημα ποὺ μὲ βάση τὸν ἱερὸ νόμο πλήρωναν οἱ «ἄπιστοι»

προκειμένου νὰ ἐξασφαλίζουν τὴ ζωή τους καὶ τὴν ἄδεια νὰ κατοικοῦν

στὴν ἐπικράτεια τοῦ Ἰσλάμ, διατηρώντας τὴ θρησκεία τους μὲ τὴν ἐγγύ-

ηση καὶ τὴν προστασία τοῦ Κράτους. Ἀπὸ τὴν πληρωμή του ἐξαιροῦνταν

οἱ γυναῖκες, τὰ ἄνηβα παιδιά, οἱ κληρικοὶ καὶ οἱ ἀνάπηροι καὶ ὅσοι ἀπα-

σχολοῦνταν σὲ κρατικὴ ὑπηρεσία. Φυσικὰ καὶ ὁποιοσδήποτε ἄλλος ποὺ

δὲν ἦταν μουσουλμάνος εἶχε τὴ δυνατότητα νὰ ἀπαλλαγεῖ ἀπὸ αὐτόν, ἂν

βέβαια ἀσπαζόταν τὸν Ἰσλαμισμό.

25

Γιατί ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ Ἐπανάσταση συνέβη τὸ 1821 καὶ ὄχι νωρίτερα;

Τὸ ξέσπασμα τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς Ἐπανάστασης τὸ 1821

Στὴν Εὐρώπη τοὺς δύο τελευταίους αἰῶνες ἐκτυλίσσο-

νταν σπουδαῖες κοινωνικὲς καὶ πολιτικὲς ἀνακατατάξεις.

Ἤδη στὴν Ἀγγλία τὸν 17ο καὶ 18ο αἰ. κυρίαρχο ρόλο ἀρχίζει νὰ

παίζει τὸ κεφάλαιο καὶ ἡ συσσώρευσή του στὰ μέλη τῆς νέας

ἀστικῆς τάξης9. Στὰ τέλη τοῦ 18ου αἰ. οἱ κοινωνικὲς καὶ πο-

λιτικὲς ἐντάσεις ἐντείνονται μὲ ἀποκορύφωμα τὸ ξέσπασμα

τὸ 1789 τῆς Γαλλικῆς Ἐπανάστασης. Ἐκτὸς ἀπὸ τὰ διάφορα

πολιτικὰ καθεστῶτα ποὺ ἄρχιζαν νὰ παρακμάζουν ἐκείνη τὴν

ἐποχή, καταλυτικὸ ρόλο εἶχαν καὶ οἱ ἰδέες τοῦ Διαφωτισμοῦ

ἢ Αἰῶνα τῶν Φώτων. Πρόκειται γιὰ τὴν οἰκονομική, κοινωνικὴ

καὶ γενικότερη ἰδεολογικὴ κρίση ποὺ ἔθετε σκοπὸ τὴ βελτί-

ωση τῆς ἀνθρώπινης κοινωνίας καὶ μιλοῦσε γιὰ ἰσότητα τῶν

πολιτῶν, ἰσονομία, ἀμφισβήτηση κάθε εἴδους αὐθεντίας καὶ

ἀνεξιθρησκία10.

Οἱ ἰδέες αὐτὲς βρῆκαν γόνιμο ἔδαφος καὶ στοὺς Ἕλληνες

μορφωμένους ποὺ ζοῦσαν ἐκείνη τὴν ἐποχὴ στὴν Εὐρώπη, σὲ

μερικοὺς κληρικούς, σὲ Φαναριῶτες, ἀστοὺς καὶ ἐμπόρους,

ἀλλὰ κυρίως στὸν Ρήγα Φεραῖο καὶ τὸν Ἀδαμάντιο Κοραῆ11.

Αὐτοὶ τὶς υἱοθέτησαν καὶ προσπάθησαν νὰ τὶς μεταδώσουν

στὸν ὑπόδουλο Ἑλληνισμὸ μέσῳ βιβλίων ποὺ τυπώνονταν

στὴ Λειψία, στὴ Βιέννη καὶ σὲ ἄλλες εὐρωπαϊκὲς πόλεις, μὲ

ἄνοιγμα σχολείων στὴν ὑπόδουλη πατρίδα καὶ συγχρόνως μὲ

φλογερὰ κηρύγματα. Ἔτσι πνευματικὰ ἄρχιζε ὁ Νεοελληνι-

κὸς Διαφωτισμὸς νὰ προετοιμάζει τὸ ἔδαφος γιὰ τὸν ἔνοπλο

ξεσηκωμὸ τῶν Ἑλλήνων12.

9. Γ. Μαργαρίτη, Σπ. Μαρκέτου, Ν. Ροτζώκου, Κ. Μαυρέα, Ἑλληνικὴ

Ἱστορία – Νεότερη καὶ Σύγχρονη Ἑλληνικὴ Ἱστορία, Γ΄, ΕΑΠ, Πάτρα

1999, σ. 31.

10. Στὸ ἴδιο, σσ. 32, 30.

11. Στὸ ἴδιο, σ. 57.

12. Στὸ ἴδιο, σ. 195.

Εἰρήνης Ἀβρ. Ἀρτέμη

26

Στὴν ἐπανάσταση τῶν Ἑλλήνων βοήθησε πολιτικὰ καὶ

ἀπὸ τὴν ὑψηλὴ θέση ποὺ κατεῖχε τότε στὴ Ρωσία ὡς Ὑπουρ-

γὸς Ἐξωτερικῶν ὁ Ἰωάννης Καποδίστριας. Αὐτὸς κατόρθωσε

νὰ ἐμποδίσει τὴν καταστολὴ τῆς ἔνοπλης ἐπανάστασης τῶν

Ἑλλήνων στὰ διάφορα μέρη τῆς ὑποδουλωμένης Ἑλλάδας

ποὺ εἶχε ἀρχίσει νὰ ἐκδηλώνεται σὲ διάφορες χρονικὲς στιγ-

μές. Ἔτσι, ἐνῶ στὴ Βιέννη ἡ Ἱερὰ Συμμαχία Ἀγγλίας, Γαλ-

λίας, Πρωσίας, Ρωσίας καὶ Αὐστροουγγαρίας, στὸν ἀπόηχο

τῆς ἥττας τοῦ Ναπολέοντα τὸ 1815, ἀποφάσισε νὰ καταπνί-

ξει ἔνοπλα τὶς ἐπαναστάσεις στὸ Πεδεμόντιο καὶ στὴ Νάπο-

λη, ἄφησε τοὺς Ἕλληνες νὰ ἀντιμετωπισθοῦν μόνο ἀπὸ τοὺς

Ὀθωμανοὺς κατακτητές13.

Σημαντικὸ ρόλο εἶχε καὶ ἡ ἵδρυση τῆς Φιλικῆς Ἑταιρείας

ἕνα χρόνο πρίν, τὸ 1814. Ἐκεῖ στὴν Ὀδησσὸ δημιουργεῖται ἡ

Φιλικὴ Ἑταιρεία μὲ σκοπὸ τὴν πλήρη προετοιμασία τῆς Ἐπα-

νάστασης14. Ἔτσι οἱ συνθῆκες ὡρίμαζαν μέρα μὲ τὴ μέρα. Οἱ

προηγούμενες ἐπαναστάσεις, ὁ Διαφωτισμὸς μὲ τὶς ἰδέες του

περὶ ἐλευθερίας καὶ ἡ ἵδρυση τῆς Φιλικῆς Ἑταιρείας προε-

τοίμασαν κατάλληλα τὸ ἔδαφος γιὰ τὴν ἔναρξη τῆς μεγάλης

Ἐπανάστασης τὸ 1821.

Φυσικὰ ὑπάρχουν πολλὲς ἀντικρουόμενες συνθῆκες γιὰ

τὶς αἰτίες, οἱ ὁποῖες προκάλεσαν τὴν ἐξέγερση τῶν Ἑλλήνων

ἀκριβῶς στὴ συγκεκριμένη χρονικὴ στιγμή. Εἶχαν προηγηθεῖ

κάποιες ἐπαναστάσεις, ὅπως ἐκείνη τοῦ Λάμπρου Κατσώ-

νη, ποὺ εἶχαν προλειάνει τὸ ἔδαφος. Ἄλλοι ὑποστηρίζουν ὅτι

ἡ ἐξέγερση ξέσπασε μέσα σὲ βαθιὰ οἰκονομικὴ κρίση, ποὺ

ὑποβάθμιζε τὴ θέση τῶν Ἑλλήνων, κάνοντας τοὺς φτωχοὺς

ἄθλιους καὶ τοὺς πλούσιους πένητες. Παράλληλα ὑπῆρχε ἡ

ἄποψη ὅτι ἐπειδὴ οἱ Ἕλληνες πλούτιζαν καὶ μορφώνονταν

δὲν μποροῦσαν πιὰ νὰ ἀνεχτοῦν μὲ στωικότητα τὴν κατά-

13. Στὸ ἴδιο, σ. 58.

14. Στὸ ἴδιο, σσ. 58-60.

27

Γιατί ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ Ἐπανάσταση συνέβη τὸ 1821 καὶ ὄχι νωρίτερα;

κτησή τους ἀπὸ τοὺς Ὀθωμανούς. Ταυτόχρονα δημιουργεῖται

μία συμμαχία ὅλων τῶν πλούσιων Ἑλλήνων, ἐμπόρων, κα-

πεταναίων, Φαναριωτῶν, προυχόντων μὲ σκοπὸ νὰ ξεφύγουν

ἀπὸ τοὺς Τούρκους15. Ἐπιπλέον, οἱ Ἕλληνες μὲ τὴν ὕπαρξη

τῶν Κλεφτῶν καὶ τῶν Ἁρματολῶν εἶχαν ἤδη καλλιεργήσει τὴν

ἱκανότητα στὸν ἀνταρτοπόλεμο καὶ πολλοὶ ἀπὸ αὐτοὺς εἶχαν

ἀναπτύξει σπουδαῖες πολεμικὲς ἱκανότητες.

Ἕνας ἄλλος σημαντικὸς παράγων γιὰ τὸ ὅτι ἡ Ἐπανά-

σταση ἔγινε τὸ 1821 ἦταν τὸ ὅτι σπουδαῖοι Ἕλληνες σὲ πο-

λιτικὸ καὶ στρατιωτικὸ ἐπίπεδο βρέθηκαν νὰ κυριαρχοῦν στὸ

προσκήνιο τῆς συγκεκριμένης χρονικῆς στιγμῆς καὶ ποὺ πα-

ρόλες τὶς ἀδυναμίες τους καὶ τὰ πάθη τους πάνω ἀπὸ ὅλα

ἔβαλαν τὴν ἐλευθερία τῆς πατρίδας τους. Ἔτσι σπουδαῖο

ρόλο διεδραμάτισαν οἱ ἀδελφοὶ Ὑψηλάντη, Ἀλέξανδρος καὶ

Δημήτριος, ὁ Καποδίστριας, σὲ στρατιωτικὸ ἐπίπεδο, ὁ Κολο-

κοτρώνης, ἡ Μπουμπουλίνα, ὁ Καραϊσκάκης, ἡ Μαυρογένους,

ὁ Παπαφλέσσας, ὁ Λόρδος Βύρωνας, ἀλλὰ καὶ οἱ Φιλέλληνες

ποὺ στήριξαν τὴν Ἐπανάσταση, καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοὶ ἀνώνυμοι

καὶ ἐπώνυμοι ποὺ θυσίασαν τὴ ζωὴ καὶ τὴν περιουσία τους

γιὰ νὰ δοῦν τὴν Ἑλλάδα ἐλεύθερη.

Ἐκτὸς ὅλων τῶν ἀνωτέρω σημαντικὸ ὑπῆρξε τὸ γεγονὸς

ὅτι οἱ Ἕλληνες σὲ ὅλα αὐτὰ τὰ χρόνια τῆς σκλαβιᾶς διατή-

ρησαν τὶς παραδόσεις τους, τὴ γλῶσσα τους καὶ τὴ θρησκεία

τους. Ἐὰν τὰ εἶχαν χάσει θὰ ἐξαφανίζονταν ἀπὸ τὸ προσκή-

νιο τῆς ἱστορίας, ὅπως τονίζει καὶ ὁ ἀρχαῖος Ἀθηναῖος ἱστορι-

κὸς Θουκυδίδης.

Συμπεράσματα

Ἡ πτώση τῆς Βασιλεύουσας τὸ 1453 ὑπῆρξε ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς

πιὸ ζοφερῆς περιόδου γιὰ τὸν Ἑλληνισμό. Σιγὰ – σιγά, ἐκτὸς

15. Στὸ ἴδιο, σσ. 60-61.

Εἰρήνης Ἀβρ. Ἀρτέμη

28

μερικῶν ἐξαιρέσεων, ὅλες οἱ περιοχὲς τῆς Βυζαντινῆς Αὐτο-

κρατορίας ποὺ ἀφοροῦσαν τὸν ἑλλαδικὸ χῶρο κατακτήθηκαν

ἀπὸ τοὺς Ὀθωμανούς. Οἱ Ὀθωμανοὶ ἔφεραν τὸν σκοταδισμὸ

στοὺς Ἕλληνες. Οἱ συνήθειές τους ἦταν ἐκείνη τὴν ἐποχὴ πολὺ

μακριὰ ἀπὸ τὸν πολιτισμὸ τόσο τῆς Βυζαντινῆς Αὐτοκρατο-

ρίας, ὅσο καὶ τῶν Εὐρωπαίων. Τὸ παιδομάζωμα, ὁ κεφαλικὸς

φόρος ἢ χαράτσι, ὁ ἐξισλαμισμὸς καὶ τόσα ἄλλα δεινὰ ἦταν

ἐκεῖνα ποὺ ταλάνιζαν τὸν ἑλληνικὸ πληθυσμό16. Μέσα στὴν

περίοδο τῆς τουρκικῆς κατάκτησης οἱ Ἕλληνες στηρίχτηκαν

στὴν Ἐκκλησία, τὴ θρησκεία τους, καὶ διατήρησαν τὴν πα-

ράδοση, τὴ γλῶσσα τους καὶ τὴν ἱστορία τους. Ἔτσι μέσα

τους καλλιεργοῦσαν τὸ ὄνειρο τῆς λευτεριᾶς. Οἱ καταστάσεις,

ἰδεολογικές, πολιτικὲς καὶ κοινωνικές, ἄρχισαν νὰ ἀλλάζουν

ἄρδην στὴν Εὐρώπη. Ἡ ἐπανάσταση τοῦ Καπιταλισμοῦ ποὺ

ἄρχιζε νὰ συντελεῖται σὲ διάφορες εὐρωπαϊκὲς χῶρες, ἡ Γαλ-

λικὴ Ἐπανάσταση, ὁ Διαφωτισμός, ὁ Νεοελληνικὸς Διαφωτι-

σμός, οἱ πρῶτες πολεμικὲς συγκρούσεις τῶν Ἑλλήνων μὲ τοὺς

Ὀθωμανοὺς ἄρχιζαν νὰ λειαίνουν τὸ ἔδαφος γιὰ τὴν ἐξέγερση

τῆς Παλιγγενεσίας τὸ 1821. Τέλος, οἱ σημαντικοὶ καὶ ἱκανοὶ

ἄνθρωποι σὲ στρατιωτικό, πολιτικὸ καὶ γενικότερα διπλωμα-

τικὸ ἐπίπεδο, ποὺ ὑπῆρξαν ἐκείνη τὴ στιγμὴ στὸ προσκήνιο

τῆς ἱστορίας, διαδραμάτισαν καταλυτικὸ ρόλο στὸ ξέσπασμα

τῆς Ἐπανάστασης τοῦ 1821.

16. Κ. Παπαρρηγόπουλου, Ἱστορία τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ Ἔθνους, τόμ. ΙΗ΄,

σσ. 10-15.

ISBN: 978-9925-7822-0-8

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRIUNE GOD ACCORDING TO ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM

 VOX PATRUM 34 (2014) t. 61

Eirini ARTEMI*

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRIUNE GOD

ACCORDING TO ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM

1. The Τriune God. One God in Trinity and Three Persons in one God.

The Trinitarian teaching is the central doctrine of the Christian religion. The

Christians believe in one God who has three persons. The truth that in the unity

of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,

these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Our faith in the

Triune God is not a man-made discovery, but revelation from God. He who is

unapproachable for man, reveals Himself to man and becomes approachable.

Isidore of Pelusium strongly underlines that, the hypostases of the three

Persons of God are equal, because “one being a substance of the divine

Trinity”1. The Triune God is known “in their own hypostases”2. The divine

nature doesn’t exist outside the hypostases of the Holy Trinity, nor vice versa,

and they do not exist without the knowledge at their own nature. The revelation

of the three divine Persons of the Triune God, each person is a perfect God,

refutes the heretical beliefs of Montanus and of Sabellius. Montanus claimed

that he was the organ of the Paraclete3. Also, Sabelius taught that there is one

God in three hypostases but a “triprosopos Hypostasis”, so he negated the

existence of the three divine persons4. Isidore wants to exercise controversy

to the remaining of supporters of various sects, such as the Arians, Sabellians,

Apollinaristes and several others. He points out that the essence of the Godhead

is one and the three persons of the Holy Trinity have the same essence,

but the hypostasis is something different, and every person has the divine own

substance5. It is therefore a big mistake if someone refers to “the shrinkage of

hypostasis as a compound of substance”6. Anyhow, Christ revealed the divine

* Eirini Artemi – Theologist & Classical Philologist, MA & Ph.D. of Theology of National and

Capodistrian University of Athens, email: eartemi@theol.uoa.gr.

1 Isidorus Pelusiota, Epistula I 59 (Gorgonio), PG 78, 220C.

2 Idem, Epistula I 67 (Timotheo Lectori), PG 78, 228A.

3 Cf. idem, Epistula I 243 (Hermino Comiti), PG 78, 332A-B.

4 Cf. idem, Epistula I 247 (Hermino Comiti), PG 78, 332D.

5 Cf. idem, Epistula I 247 (Hermino Comiti), PG 78, 332D - 333A; C. Fouskas, Isidore’s of

Pelusium Theology, Athens 1967, 12.

6 Isidorus Palusiota, Epistula I, 247 (Hermino Comiti), PG 78, 332D.

328 EIRINI ARTEMI

truths and He defined “in name of the divine Trinity it is pointing out that the

word substance would mean the union”7.

The Pelusiote writes that God is not only the Father, as the Jews supports,

but the Triune God is the three consubstantial Persons. The Triune God can

be understood only if “He expands in three Persons and He «shrinks» in one

God as far as the oÙs…a – nature”8. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the saint

Father notes, is spread out through the Old Testament9 and it was used even by

Philo. The latter attempted to do a sort of “spiritual interpretation” of the Old

Testament in his works10.

Isidore is of the opinion to distinguish nature and hypostasis to the Triune

God, so he justifies the existence of the singular in the Bible when he refers

to God: “and the Lord rained down burning asphalt from the skies”11 and “the

Lord, our God, is one Lord”12. Already in the Old Testament the Triune God appears

as the Creator of man and the entire world. He is created not by the Father

alone, but from the Father through the Son and is perfected “in the Holy Spirit”,

with one will and one energy. “In the beginning God created the Heaven and

the earth […] and the spirit of God was moving over the face of the water”, the

Old Testament tells us characteristically, using in Hebrew the word Elohim for

God, which is a plural form. At the same time, he explains when in the Bible,

instead of the singular plural is used, the reference is made to hypostases of

Godhead13: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness”14.

This phrase, which comes from that passage of man’s creation, reveals the existence

of the three persons of God. The plural of the phrase “let us make” is

not considered as plural form of politeness, but it shows the identity of the will

and energy of hypostases. At the same time, the phrase is filled with the singular

form of the phrase “in the image” of God, states the substance identity of the

persons of the Triune God. The meaning of “in our image” (imago Dei) refers

to the “inner man” because God is unformed, indestructible and intangible. It

involves the rationality which the Creator gave as dowry to the spiritual nature

of man and its necessary complement, the independent element of the human

nature, with which the human is a moral personality, susceptible of any progress

and that the man may become a “partaker of the divine nature”.

Any suspicion of many Gods’ existence or about being a person to God

in Jewish conception is rebutted because “While the identity of nature is divided

into hypostases and the property of concluded”. Any suspicion of many

7 Idem, Epistula Ι 20 (Hieraci Clarissimo), PG 78, 196Α.

8 Idem, Epistula ΙΙ 142 (Paulo), PG 78, 585Α. Cf. idem Epistula ΙIΙ 27 (Agatho Presbytero),

PG 78, 748D - 749Α.

9 Cf. idem, Epistula ΙΙ 143 (Paulo), PG 78, 585B.

10 Cf. ibidem, PG 78, 585B-C.

11 Idem, Epistula ΙΙI 112 (Alypio), PG 78, 817C (cf. Gen 19, 24).

12 Ibidem (cf. Deut 6, 4).

13 Cf. ibidem, PG 78, 817A.

14 Ibidem, PG 78, 817C (cf. Gen 1, 26). Cf. idem, Epistula ΙΙ 143 (Paulo), PG 78, 588B.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRIUNE GOD 329

Gods or about being a person into God in Jewish conception is rebutted because

“While the identity of nature into hypostases is divided, and the property

(„diÒthj) of hypostases is united to a substance”15.

Compelling argument on which the above view is corroborated, they

are the God’s word: “there is no God but me: I am the Lord, and there is no

other”16. With these words, God reveals the common substance between the

divine persons, and, at the same time, He stresses that there is no hierarchy

or series between the divine existences, because God is superior to numbers

and to times17. The Holy Father drew the conclusion that “The first and second

number or the first and the second series have no place on the venerable and

royal Trinity”18. In another letter, he returns to toggle the use between singular

and plural number, thus underlining the consubstantial divine Persons,

namely the identity of nature and at the same time the distinction of hypostases:

“Those, which exceed the singular number in the Holy Scriptures, express

the difference of hypostases but the singular number expresses the identity of

nature”19. Ηe notes with emphasis that we sometimes refer to God with singular

or with plural number. This breaks down the various teaching of heretics,

like Sabellius, of Arius, Eunomius of the oldest prevailing views about God.,

such as the absolute monotheism of the Jews or the crowded pantheon of the

pagans, here Isidore means mainly the religious views of the ancient Greeks

and Romans20. It is worth mentioning that Isidore specifically names those

heretics who troubled the congregation of the Church with their teaching in the

order that they appeared on the scene of history. Thereby indirectly he shows

that he is aware of the church history as well as of the role that the heretics they

had played to their day.

God is one and at the same time Trinity because, “if the divinity divided into

properties („diÒthtej), but He concludes in value and in oÙs…a”21. Here, Isidore

identifies the meaning of the word “properties” („diÒthtej), with the sense of

the term existence (oÙs…a). He underlines that God is One and the Persons have

the same power (ÐmodÚnama), consubstantial and equal among them. While,

therefore, the deity is distinguished in hypostases, but he does not cease to be

a God, because the hypostases are united in substance, and they have the same

“value”, so there is one God with three consubstantial and eternal persons22.

15 Idem, Epistula ΙΙI 112 (Alypio), PG 78, 817B.

16 Ibidem (cf. Is 45, 6).

17 Cf. idem, Epistula ΙΙI 63 (Theopompo), PG 78, 772D; idem, Epistula ΙΙI 18 (Agatho Presbytero),

PG 78, 744D - 745A.

18 Idem, Epistula ΙΙI 18 (Agatho Presbytero), PG 78, 744D. Cf. idem Epistula ΙΙI 63 (Theopompo),

PG 78, 772D.

19 Idem, Epistula ΙΙI 27 (Agatho Presbytero), PG 78, 748D.

20 Cf. ibidem PG 78, 748D - 749Α.

21 Idem, Epistula ΙΙI 149 (Eutonio Diacono), PG 78, 841B.

22 Cf. ibidem: “The divinity is widen in hypostases and He concluded in the substance and his

value follows”; idem, Epistula ΙΙ 143 (Paulo), PG 78, 589B.

330 EIRINI ARTEMI

God is a plurality in unity. The unity of nature, the same substance of the Persons,

implies the same power of them (ÐmodÚnamo). The same substance of

the Persons is the base for the unitary and the simplicity (¢sÚnqeto) of God.

Isidore pointed out, finally, and for once again, that the things refer to the Triune

God should not be delivered in silence or be forgotten by the Christians. By this

he pointed how momentous is ultimately the truth of theology.

2. The nature and the acts of the Triune God according to Isidore’s of

Pelusiote teaching. There are numerous passages in the work of Isidore that

teach that God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit are distinct

persons and yet each hold the attributes of deity. The orthodox Christian

theology has always affirmed that the one true God is triune in nature – three

co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial persons in the Godhead. Isidore underlined

that the divine nature is eternal and immortal. He observed: “in God

the eternity means that God is always and with no beginning”23 and he added

that the properties of immortality, which is attributed to God differ from those

which attached to created beings. “These beings as the angels and the soul

are better than the others which were created in spoilage”24. Isidore insists

that it is important for Christians and generally for people to have constantly

in mind that when they speak for God, they use words from the finite human

vocabulary, because “the divine is above any number, any time highest of any

concept”25. Nothing, therefore, is so special feature for God “as the eternal”26.

Therefore, His infinity is not subject to any alteration, development and progress

which characterize only the creation and not the Creator27:

“God is without beginning, without end, eternal and everlasting, uncreate,

unchangeable, invariable, simple, uncompound, incorporeal. He cannot have

any good or bad change in His nature, For I, the Lord, do not change, but although

He is unchangeable, He has the power to improve and to put in a better

situation anyone who prays to God”28.

The divine nature who is without beginning, without end, infinite, eternal

and everlasting, uncreate and unchangeable29 is beyond time and place. For

this reason we should not seek to know “how” the Godhead actives, because

He is omnipotent as God and acts “well and in order to give hope to human

being”30. The divine nature is “light being interceptor”31 is considered, Isidore

23 Idem, Epistula ΙΙI 149 (Eutonio Diacono), PG 78, 841B.

24 Ibidem.

25 Ibidem.

26 Idem, Epistula ΙΙI, 18 (Eutonio Diacono), PG 78, 744C.

27 Cf. idem, Epistula V 349 (Jacobo Lectori), PG 78, 1541C - 1544Α.

28 Ibidem (cf. Mal 3, 6).

29 Cf. idem, Epistula IV 124 (Aigyptio Presbytero), PG 78, 1197Β.

30 Idem, Epistula IV 183 (Paulo Diacono), PG 78, 1276Α.

31 Idem, Epistula I 248 (Dracontio Presbytero), PG 78, 333Α.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRIUNE GOD 331

said again, infinite, without beginning, and without end32. God’s nature resembles

eternal light which illuminates and brightens humanity33. The eternity

of the divine nature is synonymous here with immortality34. Thus, Isidore characterized

the divine nature as immortal and showed their difference between

Creator and creature.

God then is infinite and incomprehensible and all that is comprehensible

about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility. But all that we can affirm

concerning God does not show forth God’s nature, but only the qualities of His

nature35. The deity should be accepted only by his existence and his actions.

Also, no one should make the slightest effort to investigate the essence of

God36. This is impossible either to humans no to angels. The discourse of the

essence of God is “unachievable and without any manner pregnable”37. Here

Isidore had been influenced by John’s Chrysostom work. “The nature of God is

incomprehensible, according to Chrysostom, not only His oÙs…a (substance)

alone, but his wisdom also is incomprehensible even to the prophets. He is not

to be compared even to the supernal virtues or to anything else; it is crime and

folly to presume curiously to explore his nature; he is incomprehensible even

to the angels, and so forth”38. The discourse of God’s essence “unachievable

and with no way pregnable”39. The dominant view about God is His description

as “Lord and Creator and Superintendent and He who knows beforehand

the things and guardians”40. Our faith for God must be demonstrated in practice

by our works, otherwise it has no value to God41.

The divine nature is often likened to fire: “For our God is a consuming

fire”42, because the fire scatters much light around it and cleaned everything

that will come to her way. Fire is the basis of material and technical Culture and

protects humans from the incursions of wild animals. Similar to fire the divine

nature illuminates with heavenly light the souls of all those who fight for the

purity in their lives. God makes these people like stars, which they have no own

32 Cf. ibidem.

33 Cf. bidem.

34 Cf. idem, Epistula ΙΙI 63 (Theopompo), PG 78, 772D.

35 Cf. idem, Epistula ΙΙI 214 (Lampetio Episcopo), PG 78, 893C.

36 Cf. ibidem.

37 Ibidem.

38 Joannes Chrysostomus, De incomprehensibili Dei natura II 3, PG 48, 714A-B.

39 Isidorus Pelusiota, Epistula ΙΙ 299 (Theodosio Scholastico), PG 78, 725D.

40 Ibidem.

41 Cf. idem, Epistula IΙΙ 158 (Casio Magistratum Gerenti), PG 78, 853B. Cf. Is 19, 23: “Wherefore

the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do

honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the

precept of men” and Mt 15, 8-9: “This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth

me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for

doctrines the commandments of men” (Biblical texts are cited according to the King James Bible).

42 Idem, Epistula Ι 2 (Dorotheo Monacho), PG 78, 181A (cf. Deut 4, 24; Heb 12, 29).

332 EIRINI ARTEMI

light, but they manage to make the world bright. God prevents people’s souls

from Satan’s arrows. The divine nature becomes the foundation for building

a better world that will be the antechamber of the Kingdom of Heaven.

The pride is foreign to the divine nature. Although God could be bragging

compared with all logic creatures, visible and invisible, because He is the creator

of all creation, the absolute master of the whole universe, “the supervisor

on the earth”43 He makes the earth to shake, “He looketh on the earth, and

it trembleth”44 and He is superior to everyone and everything45. Through the

making of creation someone can see and realize the omnipotence of God.

He created the angels, “But I the Lord, your God, founded the heaven and

built the earth, whose hands built the entire army of angels in the heaven”46,

water and nebula, “and the water above the heavens praises the name of the

Lord, that he said and it became”47. He placed the clouds as a garment around

the sea48. He created animals, and with wisdom He equipped them all, in order

to continue to perpetuate their species49. Finally, on top of creature, God put

the man50 and made him king51 and ruler of nature52. So God created man in his

own image, in the image of God created he him, in order to become with his

option equal to God. So the exhortation of Christ put into practice: “To become

similar to your Father in heaven”, because the creature ensures “in the image”

and the option the “likeness of itself”53.

The three persons of the Holy Trinity “anointed” man as king of all creation,

which is work of their hands, “With glory and honor You, God, crowned him

and You make him to rule over the works of Your hands”54 As it be mentioned

above, God made man “in His image and His likeness”, providing him the opportunity

and the power, so he can freely choose the virtue, in order to be equal

to God, man’s creator55. The Triune God as omnipotent and creator, knows the

most innermost thoughts of his creation, of his creature and sees in his heart,

“God knows the human heart, because He is the only creator of hearts”56. The

God does not deprive any man to have the opportunity to put into practice his

thoughts, otherwise the God would deprive from His perfect creature the ability

43 Idem, Epistula Ι 99 (Gelasio Duci), PG 78, 249C.

44 Idem, Epistula IV 107 (Theodosio), PG 78, 1173A (cf. Ps 103, 32).

45 Cf. idem, Epistula V 506 (Alypio), PG 78, 1617B.

46 Idem, Epistula Ι 343 (Silvano), PG 78, 380A (cf. Hos 13, 4).

47 Ibidem, (cf. Ps 148, 4).

48 Cf. ibidem (cf. Job 38, 9).

49 Cf. idem, Epistula IΙ 119 (Ophelio Grammatico), PG 78, 560Β.

50 Cf. idem, Epistula IIΙ 95 (Isidoro Diacono), PG 78, 804Α.

51 Cf. idem, Epistula IΙ 115 (Dorotheo), PG 78, 556C.

52 Cf. idem, Epistula IIΙ 208 (Petro Monacho), PG 78, 889C-D.

53 Idem, Epistula IIΙ 95 (Isidoro Diacono), PG 78, 804Α (cf. Mt 5, 48).

54 Ibidem, PG 78, 801C (cf. Ps 8, 6-7).

55 Cf. idem (cf. Gen 1, 26).

56 Idem, Epistula Ι 17 (Paulo), PG 78, 192A.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRIUNE GOD 333

of choice. Moreover the three Persons of God endowed man with an immortal

soul, “which is not consubstantial with pre-eternal, no beginning and creative

holly nature”57. The adjective immortal for human soul is misused, because,

once, the soul was created and did not pre-exist. On the other hand the term immortal

is taken literally meaning only for the eternal and pre-existing God.

Isidore underlines that the Triune God exists “beyond” of the world and

therefore the human being fails to know Him through his own forces. God

reveals His idioms but He never reveals His oÙs…a – nature. Isidore urges

that the deity should be accepted only by His existence and actions, and the

human should not make any effort to investigated God’s substance, because

it is impossible for people and for the heavenly hosts too. Isidore teaches that

the Immaculate and ineffable divine nature is far from any time and place, so

there is no significance into the numeric “order” of the persons of the Trinity.

3. Epiphany – Revelation of the God Father. The word “epiphany”

comes from two Greek words, the preposition “™p…” and the verb “faine‹n”,

and can variously mean, “to shine upon”, “to reveal”, or “to appear, manifest”.

In the Old Testament, there are crowd of epiphanies of God Father. Sometimes,

he appears as an angel58, sometimes as a fire59. There are times that the Father

shows Himself with various other ways. So He makes “visible” His presence in

57 Idem, Epistula V 187 (Aegypto Presbytero), ed. M.P. Évieux, SCh 454, Paris 2000, 128, line

2 (= PG 78, 1444C).

58 Cf. Gen 6, 7-14: “And the angel of the Lord found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness,

by the fountain in the way to Shur. And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and

whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the

Lord said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands. And the angel of the

Lord said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude.

And the angel of the Lord said unto her, Behold, thou art with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt

call his name Ishmael; because the Lord hath heard thy affliction. And he will be a wild man; his

hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence

of all his brethren. And she called the name of the LORD that spake unto her, Thou God seest

me: for she said, Have I also here looked after him that seeth me? Wherefore the well was called

Beerlahairoi; behold, it is between Kadesh and Bered. And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram

called his son’s name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael”; Gen 32, 24-30: „And Jacob was left alone; and

there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not

against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob’s thigh was out of joint, as

he wrestled with him. And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee

go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob. And he said,

Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and

with men, and hast prevailed. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he

said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called

the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved”.

59 Cf. Ex 3, 2: “And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst

of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed”;

Ex 19, 18: “And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire:

and the smoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mount quaked greatly”.

334 EIRINI ARTEMI

the world. He reveals His will midst of the prophets and His Epiphany and allow

people to know Him midst of his actions, because nobody can ever see God’s

face and then he can live by anyone live, as God told Moses: “And he said, thou

canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live” (Ex 33, 20).

In the New Testament the Father makes a manifest midst of the Second

Person of the Holy Trinity, revealing His will and declares unequivocally, “He

who has seen Me has seen the Father” (Jn 14, 9). Anyhow, the Son is the enhypostatic

icon of the Father. At this point, the Psalmist’s words put into practice:

“The light of thy countenance O Lord, is signed upon us” (Ps 4, 7).

Isidore notes that God the Father was revealed to Jacob and fought with

him. However, He did not reveal His name. In this way Isidore explains that

the name of God is not under the law and beyond the law60. God appears Himself

to mane people who live in God and God lives in them: “and it is no longer

I who live, but Christ lives in me” (Gal 2, 20).

Isidore emphasizes that God didn’t talk to righteous people midst writings

of the Old Testament “to the olds”61, but He spoke to them directly, “by Himself,

He finds the pure and unimpeded opinion to them without mediators’ teaching”62.

To document the above opinion, Isidore brings the facts about Noah63 and Abraham64

as examples. In the first, God reveals Himself and advises him to build

an ark, by which Noah and his family and all kinds of animals in pairs would be

saved by the upcoming Cataclysm. After the flood of forty days, God concluded

a covenant with Noah, giving the promise that He will never again destroy the

creation of World with Cataclysm. On the other hand, with regard to Abraham,

God talks to him and promises him that his descendants would become whatsoever

in number the stars of the sky and grains of sand of the sea65, while He

foretells the birth of his son Isaac from his decrepit wife Sarah66.

The Father revealed himself in an indirect way, midst the Cherubim, that

were over the ark of the covenant, testament. The Cherubim, “Being the

60 Cf. Isidorus Pelusiota, Epistula Ι 453 (Theodosio), PG 78, 432Β (cf. Gen 30, 32).

61 Idem, Epistula IIΙ 106 (Isidoro Diacono), PG 78, 812Α.

62 Ibidem.

63 Cf. ibidem. Cf. Gen 7, 1: “And the Lord said to Noah, Take all your family and go into the

ark, for you only in this generation have I seen to be upright”.

64 Cf. idem, Epistula IIΙ 106 (Isidoro Diacono), PG 78, 812Α. Cf. Gen 12, 1-4: “Now the Lord

said to Abram, Go out from your country and from your family and from your father’s house, into

the land to which I will be your guide. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee,

and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and

curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. So Abram departed,

as the Lord had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old

when he departed out of Haran”.

65 Cf. idem, Epistula IIΙ 296 (Agatho Presbytero), PG 78, 972Α (cf. Gen 15, 5; 16, 10).

66 Cf. ibidem. Cf. Gen 17, 19: “And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and

thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant,

and with his seed after him”.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRIUNE GOD 335

chariot ant the throne of God”67. They revealed Him for whom the Ark of the

Covenant and the Temple of Solomon were constructed “He who has His seat

on the winged ones (Cherubims), let His glory be seen”68. By this way, they

proclaim that the God is inseparable and unformed. Further They emphasize

that the God is the ruler and poet all and, simultaneously, “beyond any kind

of nature and human contemplation”69. Finally, the God speaks to the Jewish

people midst of Moses and the other prophets and thus He reveals His will

every time70.

In the New Testament, the God Father, as He revealed Himself through

Jesus Christ, is the beginning and the end of all Virtues: “Therefore you shall

be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect”71. Midst of the Holy Spirit,

the Father will reveal His will to His apostles and He will recall all to them72.

Generally, the Pelousiote father points out that in the Old Testament the

Father God reveals Himself to various people of the Israel with direct and indirect

way. People like Noah, Abraham, Jacob and Moses had the opportunity

to “Know” the God the Father who He is revealed. These people worked as

the means midst of whose the plan of God for the salvation of man would be

revealed to chosen people of Israel. The father, however, reveals Himself by

an indirect way, through the words of the prophets, who were enlightened by

the Holy Spirit. They seem His will. Finally, in the New Testament, the Father

is revealed through the Son’s Incarnation.

4. Epiphany – Revelation of the God Word. The Epiphany of the God

Word directly related to the fleshless revelation, as the Word of God, and the

incarnate one as Logos became man. In the Old Testament, God’s Word is initially

fleshless. In no way He presented as independent person and entity, but

only He reveals Himself during His contact with the world, when He reveals

His existence.

The verb “™pifa…nei” as well as the noun „™pif£neia” both occur in the

Greek New Testament. In 2 Timothy joyously declares:

“God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life-not because of anything

we have done but because of his own purpose and grace. This grace was

given us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time, but it has now been

revealed through the appearing [™pif£neia] of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who

67 Idem, Epistula ΙV 73 (Eusebio Episcopo), PG 78, 1133Α.

68 Ibidem (cf. Ps 80, 1).

69 Ibidem.

70 Cf. idem, Epistula ΙV 205 (Olympio Presbytero Scholastico), ed. M.P. Évieux, SCh 422, Paris

1997, 284, lines 64-67 (= PG 78, 1296C).

71 Idem, Epistula IIΙ 95 (Isidoro Diacono), PG 78, 804B-C (cf. Mt 5, 48).

72 Cf. ibidem, PG 78, 812B. Cf. Jn 14, 26: “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom

the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance,

whatsoever I have said unto you”.

336 EIRINI ARTEMI

has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the

gospel” (2Tim 1, 8-10).

In the Old Testament, the Word of God does not only reveal the will of

the Father but He shows His creative abilities. He creates the world visible

and invisible and shapes man together with the other two Persons of the Trinity.

Isidore underlines that Isaiah saw “incarnation” of Savior73. In the New

Testament, the pre-eternal Logos, consubstantial with the Father and the Holy

Spirit, becomes perfect man and remains, at the same time, and perfect God.

He incarnated in order to free people from the bondage of the original sin and

to reunite man with God the Creator. By this way the incarnate Word of God

reveals Himself throughout the world, calling people to repentance and moral

perfection. So the human race could achieve their subjective salvation.

The Son appeared to the human race as man with hymns of victory celebration74.

Of course, Isidore means, the fact of Christ’s birth in Bethlehem,

in the course of which Angels were going up and down from the sky and were

chanting “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward

men” (Lk 2, 14). By this way they were confirming this supernatural event to

the simple and humble shepherds. They, with a pure heart and a sincere intention,

accepted without any cunning and frankly this divine revelation.

The appearance of the Son to people, as one of them, was happened because

of the charity of the Creator Father. By the theophany of Logos in the

earth, the veil of Love was spread in the whole Creation75. As clean and living

water of truth, the Lord blotted man, the image of God, from the dirt of sin,

which marred the beauty of human nature. He gave, therefore, the ability to

people to get rid of tunics of sin and togged “kosmhqoàn” again with the virtues

of their situation before the fall. So, when the King of Heaven appeared

in the earth, He established doctrines, which would be a compass for people

in order live an angelic lifestyle on earth76. Thus, God’s revelation in history

and His “incorporation-™nswm£twsh” into the existence of the fallen man, in

other words His Incarnation, He alters the fallen man to a “new man”.

Christ, however, revealed His divine glory by his Metamorphosis on

Mount Thabor. There, He revealed to His reputable disciples the uncreated

light of His glory. The latter will be fully revealed at the Second Coming of

Christ on earth. At the same time, by the presence of Moses and Elijah, Christ

affirmed his sovereignty over the living and the dead people, over the past, the

present and the future77.

73 Cf. idem, Epistula ΙV 154 (Anatolio Diacono), SCh 422, 356, lines 7-9 (= PG 78, 1240Β).

Cf. Is 26, 9.

74 Cf. idem, Epistula Ι 436 (Zosimo), PG 78, 421D.

75 Cf. idem, Epistula ΙV 15 (Epimacho Lectori), SCh 454, 446, line 10 (= PG 78, 1064Β).

76 Cf. idem, Epistula ΙV 103 (Dionysio Scholastico), SCh 422, 486, lines 17-21 (= PG 78,

1104Β-C).

77 Cf. idem, Epistula Ι 239 (Alphio Presbytero), PG 78, 329Β. Cf. Lk 9, 28-31: “And it came

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRIUNE GOD 337

Generally, Isidore focuses the spotlight on the fact that, in the Old Testament,

Logos is revealed, mainly through the making of creation and reveals

His will to the righteous of the Old Testament. The fleshless Word reveals the

Triune God and His will to Patriarchs, Prophets, Judges. In the New Testament,

the Word manifested as a incarnated. He is who became from fleshless

incarnated. As incarnated he would redeem the human leavens from the shackles

of Satan and restore the broken relationship between God and man. By the

illumination of the uncreated light of the divine glory, during His Transfiguration

on Mount Thabor, Christ revealed that He is the only God and He has

power to life and death.

5. Epiphany – Revelation of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit reveals

Himself to man from the time of creation of the universe until the end of the

world. In his letters, Isidore of Pelusium notes that the Holy Spirit is manifested

through oral and written revelation gradually and progressively. The

progressive revelation of the triune Godhead, firstly of God Father, then of

God Son and, later of God Holy Spirit, is a process of God’s condescension to

people’s inability to understand the mystery of the Godhead.

In the Old Testament, as someone can see from the Psalms and prophets,

there is a knowledge of the Divine Word and the Spirit of God. There is no

knowledge of the Divine Word and the Divine Spirit as hypostasis. These two

persons were considered as energies, because the world of the Old Testament

was narrowly enclosed within the boundaries of one God. This point of view

was provided in the sense not of the Christian monotheism, but of the sense

beyond the Christian “™noqeŽsmoà”, that One God in One Hypostasis “™n m…v

Øpost£sei”78. In the Old Testament, which typically it is regarded as the first

stage of the divine revelation, the reference to Holy Spirit’s person and action

was hidden79. The action of the Holy Spirit has no source outside of the divine

nature of Spirit. Nor does He act independently of the Father and the Son.

Among the three divine hypostases there is unity of volition and actions. The

actions of the Spirit is uncreated and eternal, as the other persons’ of the Holy

Trinity actions.

Ηoly Isidore spoke in his letters about the Holy Spirit’s theophany midst

of his actions. He knew that the actions of the third hypostasis of the Triune

God bestows at creation and rational beings, but they do not limited there. His

to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into

a mountain to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment

was white and glistering. And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:

Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem”. Also

cf. Mt 17, 2-3; Mk 9, 3-4.

78 Sophronius Sacharoph, Principles of orthodox asceticism, transl. in Russian and French text

from monk Zacharia, Essex 1996, 111.

79 Cf. Isidorus Pelusiota, Epistula ΙI 143 (Paulo), PG 78, 589A.

338 EIRINI ARTEMI

actions play an important role to Word’s of God incarnation. In particular, in

several letters of Isidore, he supports the doctrine of seedless Conception of

Jesus Christ and notes that Holy Spirit played an important role in the incarnation

of the divine Logos: “By Holy Spirit there is Word as infant enfleshed

(sesarkomšnoj) in Virgin’s womb”80. He expresses the view that it is difficult

to be understood the way that Theotokos conceived. This is characterized as

“god-like […] and not conceived in human’s mind”81. The Spirit is the One

which, by attending the Baptism of the Lord confirms the ÐmoousiÒthta of

the Son with the Spirit and the Father. He provided the testimony of the divinity

of Incarnate Word82.

Also, the fact of God’s speaking through the fire of the fuming Mount Sinai

(cf. Ex 19, 19) is paralleled by Isidore with the descent of the Holy Spirit to

the Apostles (Acts 2, 1-4) on the day of Pentecost. All of these examples indicates

that everything happened “in order to be known that God is one and the

same into both Testaments, although the second one has many differences to

the first”83. By this parallelism Isidore achieved to present that both Testaments

have common base the revelation of God and His plan of salvation of mankind,

and, moreover, Isidore makes an evidence that the Holy Spirit is God, too.

The Holy Spirit, however, “the heavenly force”, as Isidore taught, has

“active presentation” after Christ’s Ascension. By this way, Christ’s disciple

would have companion and assistant in the preaching of the Gospel, that “He

always memorises everything to you”84. Characteristically, their master had

promised to them that “the divine Spirit would descend upon the twelfth Apostles

the tenth day after Christ’s Ascension, and the whole fifty days between

after His Resurrection day, as Lord announced a few days after his promise

that He would be transferred to heaven”85.

The day of Pentecost is the fullness of time for the mission of the Holy

Spirit to the Apostles. They will cultivate the souls of all people, by the teaching

and the preaching of the Word Incarnate. By this way, people will have the

opportunity perform spiritual fruits. The revelation of the Spirit to students on

the day of Pentecost appeared unto them “cloven tongues”86 like as of fire, and

it sat upon each of them. The tongues are not from fire but they look like fire,

but it looks like fire. The “like” helps us to realize that the Spirit is beyond

aesthetic perception, because He is neither fire nor wind, nor dove, nor anything

that has a material substance. The fire, after all, is an often way for God’s

revelation. The result of the revelation of Holy Spirit on Pentecost is the same

80 Idem, Epistula Ι 18 (Hermino Comiti), PG 78, 193A (cf. Mt 1, 20).

81 Ibidem.

82 Cf. idem, Epistula Ι 67 (Timotheo Lectori), PG 78, 228A.

83 Idem, Epistula Ι 494 (Timotheo Lectori), PG 78, 452A.

84 Idem, Epistula IΙI 106 (Isidoro Diacono), PG 78, 812Β (cf. Jn 14, 2-6).

85 Idem, Epistula Ι 400 (Archiae), PG 78, 453Β-C (cf. Acts 2, 4-8).

86 Idem, Epistula IV 66 (Hermino Comiti), PG 78, 1124A (cf. Acts 2, 3).

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRIUNE GOD 339

Holy Spirit like fire Who continues to burn and brighten people’s souls. Their

lighting is the only way for the conquest of their heavenly salvation.

On the day of Pentecost, therefore, the Holy Spirit illuminates and teaches

(dadouce‹) Lord’s disciples, in order to understand fully what they were

taught by Christ and to preach them to all over the world. By this way, They

became brighten lighthouses. By the light of the saviour preaching, they would

chases away the darkness of the devil’s delusion. On this day, Pentecost, the

whole action of the Spirit will be granted. This action brings the kingdom of

God to the hearts of people of all nations. The Holy Spirit, as Alexandrian Father

highlighted features, “by fire He was given to Apostles”87. Isidore stresses

emphatically that the Spirit appeared unto the Disciples of Christ on the day

of Pentecost. By this teaching, he refutes Montanus. The latter taught that the

Spirit had not descended to the Disciples of Christ at Pentecost, but later only

to him. He argues that he claimed this theophany, without doing anything important,

but because he recognized his dissolute life in public88.

Isidore likened the Spirit’s revelation like a fire from an oil lamp, from

which many candles are illuminated. The ardency, that comes from the Spirit’s

fire, gives impetus to every faithful man to look to the sky and break the shackles

of sin which keeps him tethered to earth. The Spirit permutes man, He

redeems him, He takes him to deification. We must not, of course, forget that

the Holy Spirit acts in the Church because of Christ’s redemption. This faith

is a necessary and a fundamental prerequisite for the intake of human being to

the new creation and base of the creation by the believers in the Holy Spirit.

The believers should accept continually the divine Spirit’s donation in order to

be rendered Spiritual (pneumatofÒroi). Of course, we must not forget that the

grace of the Spirit is not a permanent and inalienable possession of the faithful

men and women. In contrast, the energy and sanctification of the Spirit are

solely charismatic gifts of God, which always are reallocated to the believers,

but they remain eternally in Church.

Isidore, however, returns to ™pifwt…sewj fact, to the descent of the Spirit

to the Lord’s disciples in the form of fire, because by this form, God Father

had spoken to Moses89, in order to show the consubstantiality of the Spirit

with God Father. The outpouring of the Holy Spirit to the apostles made them

look drunk in the eyes of those who knew them, according to the testimony of

Luke in the Acts90. The Apostles, that moment, felt the sweetness of the grace

of the Spirit. For this reason they felt a sober drunkenness, the living of the

true life, the deification of man, the communion with God. The same Holy

Spirit was the instrument that turned them inside, empowered them spiritually

and enabled them from simple fishermen in order to become preachers of the

87 Idem, Epistula Ι 494 (Timotheo Lectori), PG 78, 453A.

88 Cf. idem, Epistula Ι 243 (Hermino Comiti), PG 78, 332Α.

89 Cf. idem, Epistula Ι 494 (Timotheo Lectori), PG 78, 453A (cf. Ex 24, 17).

90 Cf. idem, Epistula Ι 168 (Zoilo Presbytero), PG 78, 293Β (cf. Acts 2, 13).

340 EIRINI ARTEMI

Gospel to all mankind. And the communion with God begins – for everyone

of us – with the sacrament of baptism.

The Holy father generally characterized the Divine as a fire and, in particular,

the Holy Spirit. This can be justified because Isidore remains faith in the

Holy Bible, which often bear witness that the Divine reveals to man by the image

of fire, like in the revelation of God to Moses through the burning bush (Ex

24, 17), as it was mentioned before. Then, a conclusion can be drawn that, as

fire purifies everything that gets in her way, so the Holy Spirit sanctifies a man

and turns him from burden of the earth to citizen of the kingdom of God. The

Spirit removes the rust of sin, like fire exempts iron from the rust. The fire burns

the waste, but it purifies the gold. Another characteristic feature of the fire is its

move upwards, towards the sky. For this reason, the fire is one of the most appropriate

types, in order the Third Person of the Holy Trinity to make His presence

felt in the world. His main concern is to lead man upwards, to make him

equal to God. At this point, Holy Isidore might imply that, as the Holy Spirit

appeared in the form of fire at Pentecost, so the preaching of the Apostles, resembles

fire, which spread to the world, to cleanse from sin and to transform it.

The Holy Spirit is revealed through the Scriptures. The research of the

Divine Scriptures, “it has as message the precise knowledge of God”91 and reveals

“the will of the Spirit”92. The Spirit “searches all things, even the depths

of God”93, He knows the most accurate knowledge of God with the Father and

the Holy Spirit, and He declare it”94, as He is Himself one of the three Person

of the Holy Trinity. The above passage of the first epistle to Corinthians is paralleled

to the one of the Romans, which notes “He who searches our hearts”95,

in order to show the consubstantiality of the Spirit to the Father. Isidore exports

the conclusion that midst of the Spirit believers are enabled to acquire “precise

attention” for the Father and for the Holy Spirit Himself96. From this conclusion,

Isidore does not exclude the Son from having the accurate knowledge for

the Triune God. Neither does he leave the slightest heretic suspicion. The latter

would happen, if there was the use of the adverb “only” in the clause, which

refers to the possession of the perfect knowledge of the Father and the Spirit.

***

The holy Isidore supports the progressive revelation of the Triune God,

which begins with the revelation of God Father, in the Old Testament, it continues

with the revelation of His incarnate in the New Testament, and finally,

91 Idem, Epistula ΙΙΙ 92 (Ophelio Grammatico), PG 78, 796D.

92 Ibidem, PG 78, 796D - 797A.

93 Ibidem, PG 78, 797A (cf. 1Cor 2, 10).

94 Ibidem.

95 Ibidem (cf. Rom 8, 27).

96 Cf. ibidem.

THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRIUNE GOD 341

after the day of Pentecost by the Holy Spirit’s relevance. In these three periods

of human history, the Holy Spirit always plays an active and important role. He

creates the first man along with the other two persons of the Triune God. He is

revealed “mist of clouds” in the Old Testament. He makes His revelation into

the events of Christ’s arrest, into Incarnate Word and the baptism. Still, it is the

“finger” with which Christ cast out demons. Finally, after the Ascension, the

Lord becomes the driver and the assistant in order to preach this divine word

everywhere of the world and prepare people to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Pelousiote Father, referring to the dynamic revelation of the Spirit in the

Historical “mainstream”, he combated all falsehoods of Montanus and heretical

beliefs in the letters of falsehoods Montanus. And other heretical beliefs

of “Πνευματομάχων: who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost” and they

had survived to his day. Although, as we noted above into letters of Isidore,

he did not deal with the dogmatic teaching of the Church in detail. However,

Isidore seems, to know very well about the issues and doctrines. He trackers

on theology of earlier church fathers, who left an indelible mark on the formulation

of doctrine.

Isidore agrees that the knowledge about God transcends to every human’s

thought and word and it (knowledge) is based entirely on the fact of God’s

revelation, which can be understood only through the grace of the Holy Spirit.

He accounts for the people to know that God exists and not to seek “what by

nature is” our God. Consequently, Isidore makes some effort to explain, that if

the teaching of the Church for the Triune God, on Christ and on the Holy Spirit

is based solely on logic, it is doomed to fail but to lure them into the deception

of heresy, together with those who share their views. For this reason, the heretics,

although they read the Bible, they do not let themselves be filled with the

true light of the Third Person of the Trinity, so does not this lead to good faith,

thus he will be cut off from the Body of Christ the church. The correct faith

will help the knowledge of God, since the first is the key to enter the mystery

of the Holy Trinity.

Isidore converged on the view that knowledge of God cannot be achieved

by relying solely on finite human intellection, without even the assistance is

provided by the same Triune God and phase in history. Otherwise, the Spirit

will reveal the uncreated truth by shadow. Only has Christ the ability, as good

sewer to sow in the hearts of those who are worthy, as the disciples and Apostles,

the exact knowledge of the doctrines and to desire any good thing, such

as giving the opportunity to every man who feels thirsty for the divine truth.

Consequently, the Knowledge for the Christ Christognosia is closely associated

with the Triadognosia and it should provide the knowledge of the Divine

Incarnation of the Logos. The latter is the revelation of the Trinity in Christ

and Christ is revealed as one of the Trinity.

342 EIRINI ARTEMI

WIEDZA O TRÓJJEDYNYM BOGU WEDŁUG IZYDORA Z PELUZJUM

(Streszczenie)

Bóg jest niepojęty i ten fakt musi być zaakceptowany przez każdy umysł ludzki.

Możliwe jest jednak poznanie Go poprzez Jego dzieła, ale do tego niezbędny jest

wolny od grzechu umysł i posiadanie takich cnót, jak mądrość, sprawiedliwość,

miłość i wiara. Tylko wtedy Bóg będzie mógł „mieszkać” i „przechadzać się” w nas,

i da nam szansę spotkania Go. Izydor z Peluzjum porównuje prawdziwą wiedzę

o Bogu do „wina”, co wynika z obecności wcielonego Boga Logosu na Ziemi

i objawienia jego nauczania. Ponieważ Pan opisuje siebie jako winorośl, pewność

wiedzy o Nim jest nazywana „winem”. Bóg jest Jeden i Trójjedyny. Dowód ten

pochodzi z Biblii. Peluzjota wyjaśnia, że liczba pojedyncza w Biblii, która jest

używana odnośnie Boga, odnosi się do wszystkich trzech Osób Bożych, które są

współistotne, liczba mnoga zaś odnosi się do hipostazy Boga w Trójcy Jedynego.

Izydor podkreśla, że znajomość Boga wymaga wielkiej dojrzałości duchowej

i mądrości. Wiara ludzi we wcielone Słowo Boże objawia się pośród Boga w Trójcy

Jedynego i pomaga racjonalnemu stworzeniu wspiąć się do rzeczywistości niebieskiej

i „rozmawiać” z Bogiem. Osoba przyodziana godłem prawdziwej wiedzy

o Bogu, danej jej przez światło Ducha Świętego, czyni ją zdolną do walki z tymi,

którzy nadużywają prawd doktryny Kościoła.

Key words: Isidore of Pelusium, Triune God, Christus, knowledge of God,

oÙs…a, ™pif£neia, sesarkwmšnoj.

Słowa kluczowe: Izydor z Peluzjum, Trójjedyny Bóg, Chrystus, wiedza

o Bogu, oÙs…a, ™pif£neia, sesarkwmšnoj.

Nikolaos Asproulis & Olga Sevastyanova (eds.), Ex Patribus Lux: Essays on Orthodox !eological Anthropology and Georges Florovsky’s !eology, Volos: Volos Academy Publications, 2021, ISBN: 978-618-5375-12-6 Ionuț Biliuță

 RES 13 (2/2021), p. 364-368 DOI: 10.2478/ress-2021-0035

* Ionu! Biliuta, Gheorghe #incai Institute for Social Sciences and the Humanities,

Romanian Academy, 10A Al. Papiu Ilarian, Tg. Mures, 540074, Mures, Romania,

ionut.biliuta@academia-cj.ro.

Nikolaos Asproulis & Olga Sevastyanova (eds.), Ex Patribus Lux: Essays

on Orthodox theological Anthropology and Georges Florovsky’s theology,

Volos: Volos Academy Publications, 2021, ISBN: 978-618-5375-12-6

Ionu! Biliu!a*

Fr. Georges Florovsky’s (1893-1979) towering personality and his impact on

the development of Orthodox theology in the twentieth century has recently

caught the eyes of church historians and theologians alike. Furthermore,

his particular interest in establishing a clear-cut synthesis in the spirit of the

Church Fathers helped launch the “neo-Patristic synthesis” and the revitalization

of patristic studies throughout all of Christendom. $is collection

of theological essays edited by Nikolaos Asproulis and Olga Sevastyanova

revisits two relevant avenues of research in the contemporary theological milieu,

especially in Eastern Christianity. With a preface by Fr. Andrew Louth,

the collection of essays brings together experienced researchers and young

Ph.D. students in a shared e%ort to appraise recent progress in theological

anthropology and the seminal legacy of Fr. Florovsky. Although the two

topics stand as distinct, the editors successfully bridge the conceptual gaps

between various approaches and the far from all-encompassing, tantalizing

perspectives of contemporary Orthodox theology.

$e &rst section of the book (p. 19-61) discusses the various permutations,

misconceptions, reinterpretations, and supporting evidence relating

to the development of theological anthropology through several approaches

stemming from various intellectual avenues of analysis. $is section comprises

&ve contributions that deal with: the impact of ascetical patterns on the

perceptions of theological anthropology in the views of St. Symeon the New

$eologian († 1022) and St. Sophrony Sakharov († 1993), according to Emil

M. Marginean (p. 19-25); the category of spiritual obedience in the Philokalia

and its relevance for any theological discussion about the creation of man as

discussed by Mihai-Iulian Grobnicu (p. 33-43); and the challenging essay by

Natalia Doran that emphasizes once again the centrality of humanity and its

mediating role between materiality and transcendence (p. 43-51).

One most crucial contribution of this section focuses on the status and

privileged role of man in God’s creation and is authored by Eirini Artemi,

a reputed scholar of St. Cyril of Alexandria’s works and contribution to the

development of Christian doctrine. Entitled “Human Image and Likeness of

365

Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

God in the Anthropology of St. Cyril of Alexandria and his Commentaries

on the Pentateuch,” Artemi’s chapter provides the reader with a complete

outline of Cyrillian theological anthropology which is endowed with “the

Christocentric character” that “gives less emphasis to the creation of man

than to his future salvation through Christ to a Christological ‘refashioning’

of human anthropology.” (p. 28) No wonder that in Cyril’s perception,

in'uenced by ancient Greek philosophy and the language of the Bible, the

categories of image and likeness with God stand as other words for Christ’s

Incarnation and have less to do with the actual process of crafting Adam. (p.

29) According to Dr. Artemi, in Cyril’s terminology, likeness signi&es every

human person’s inner and innate ability to achieve his dei&cation in union

with Christ. At the same time, image implies the similitude between man

and holiness that can be achieved through communion with Christ and the

Holy Spirit (p. 30). $erefore, for the Alexandrian father of the church, the

&gures of the two Adams link, not just two biblical realities (that of creation

of man and atonement), but also the two dimensions of Christological redemption

and pneumatological-driven dei&cation. (p. 31)

Raul-Ovidiu Bodea proposes to the reader another challenging perspective

regarding contemporary theology through the specter of existentialism

that opposed two of the most relevant thinkers of our age: Martin

Heidegger (1889-1976) and Nikolai Berdyaev (1878-1948). Comparison

may seem far-fetched and highly unlikely, however, due to the contextual distance

between the two and their interests in philosophical trends. $rough

the concept of “authenticity” perceived by the author as a litmus test, Bodea

&rst analyses the concept of Heidegger that assigns authenticity a “non-normative”

role, where “authenticity is not equated to the notion of goodness,

and inauthenticity with a notion of badness.” (p. 53) As an attribute of the

Dasein, authenticity is achieved through responsibility and actualizing a potentiality

in its structure. (p. 55) For Berdyaev, who read the &rst works of

Heidegger thoroughly, the discussion about the status of man and his ontological

relation with creation should keep in mind the reality of God and

that the very notion of man is a social construction, although “the individual

person is more valuable than society.” (p. 56) While Heidegger perceived

anxiety as paving the road to authenticity and the actualization of man’s mission,

Berdyaev considers authenticity a creative act that allows any man to

break the chains of worldly anxiety and reach his eschatological potential (p.

57). Accordingly, Bodea introduces his theological resolution for Berdyaev’s

conundrum with Heidegger’s works and existentialism’s main dilemmas:

“for Berdyaev, authenticity would mean becoming divinized in Christ and

through Christ which is the task to be achieved by all of humanity.” (p. 58)

366

Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

$e second section intends to open the 'oor for a relevant discussion

about the intellectual legacy of Fr. Florovsky in the contemporary

theological milieu and his critical reception. (p. 61-116) Composed of &ve

contributions, the &rst section, by Dionysios Skliris, starts with a complete

re-evaluation of the notion of contingency in the theology of creation

in Florovsky’s view. (p. 61-68) Tracking down the sources of Florovsky

in the theological works of Karl Barth (1886-1968), Oscar Cullmann

(1902-1999), Jean Daniélou (1905-1974), and also in the Sophiology of

Sergei Bulgakov (1871-1944), Skliris emphasizes the contingency of creation

to preserve the freedom of divine dignity over the created world.

“Considering the world as ‹contingent’ is tantamount to saying that there

is no inherent reason in Divine Being for its creation, that it could not

have existed at all, the latter being exalted as God’s absolutely free love

towards his creatures.” (p. 62)

Furthermore, in establishing his views on the contingency of the created

order Florovsky took inspiration from the Western Fathers, especially

from Augustine of Hippo (354-430), and Duns Scotus (1265/6-1308)

respectively instead of the usual Byzantine sources to prove the idea that

because of human freedom, creation should be depicted as “radical otherness

in relation to God.” (p. 66) $e only concession to Byzantine theology

and Palamite spirituality relates to his undertaking of the theology of divine

reasons (!"#$%) planted in creation by Divine Wisdom. It leads to a paradox

– transcendent because of their integration in the Logos and immanent due

to His incarnation.

Viorel Coman proposes a critical assessment of Florovsky’s “Christian

Hellenism” by raising awareness among theologians about the problematic

nature of the relation between Christianity and culture on the one hand and

the impossibility of expressing and communicating divine truth through

other idioms and languages of knowledge other than patristic conformity

with the Greek Fathers of the church. (p. 79-89) Coman formulates only two

reasons why the acculturation of the Eastern Christian message in the contemporary

world stands no chance of success. First, according to Coman, the

“escapist attitude” of Florovsky, which was meant to cover up the unpleasant

historical context and the provocations Christianity faces today, privileges

only past ancient and pre-industrial social realities and proves detrimental

to present and future vernaculars. (p. 85) Secondly, Florovsky is unable to

escape the foundational Greek matrix for any future theology both linguistically

and conceptually until the eschaton, a limitation that hinders any actualization

of the message of the Gospel or change in theological reasoning. (p.

86) Furthermore, the exclusivist signi&cance of Christian Hellenism hinders

367

Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

any possibility of developing a dynamic and actual theological idiom, and

Florovsky’s passive attitude should give way to new avenues of research.

Nikolaos Asproulis explores the points of continuity between Fr.

Sergei Bulgakov and Fr. Georges Florovsky and projects these points of continuity

and contingencies onto the main challenges of contemporary theology.

(p. 101-117) By employing Paul Valliere’s distinction between “Church

dogmatics” and „Church and World dogmatics,” Asproulis raises four methodological

points that should realign the perspective for further discussions

about the role of theology in the contemporary world and debates between

Florovsky’s and Bulgakov’s disciples. $e &rst underlines the importance of

Bulgakov’s “humano-theology” in explaining the chasm that seems to describe

God-world relations. Regarding religion in the contemporary world,

Florovsky’s perspective proposes “a theological justi&cation of God in and for

the world,” contrary to any secular project explaining this relationship. (p.

110) Secondly, one of the most striking di%erences between the two relates

to their understanding of the relation between history and nature. According

to Asproulis, Bulgakov wins the debate with Florovsky by developing a “theology

of nature” and, thus, following in the footsteps of medieval scholasticism,

addressing one of the most signi&cant pitfalls of Greek patristics–its

reluctance to attend to the problem of Being. $irdly, with his emphasis

on renewal of the theological approach to the world, Bulgakov’s commitment

to social issues that stemmed from his years as a university professor of

economics a%ected an already strained relationship with the o(cial church

which was more concerned with asceticism and individual redemption. (p.

114) Florovsky, on the other hand, with his &xation on history and personal

responsibility, paved the way for a reconsideration inside the church of the

secular concerns about the main challenges contemporary societies face. In

his &nal point, Asproulis argues that more than Florovsky’s legacy that silently

approved the principal scienti&c dogmas of our age, Bulgakov’s disciples

carefully addressed the relevance of technology, theology, and science at the

beginning of the twenty-&rst century. (p. 115)

Like any collection of essays that unites experienced and young scholars,

there is a feeling of inequality in quantity and essence when reading all

the contributions. Partially a criticism, as previously mentioned, this comment

should also be taken as a positive aspect of the entire project. Another

thing the editors in general and the authors should have paid attention to is

the comparative dimension both on theological grounds and the ecumenical

openness of Eastern Christianity towards other denominations. Even though

there are notable exceptions to the rule (Bodea, Lursmanashvili, Coman,

Sevastyanova, Asproulis), most of the other texts failed to exit their comfort

368

Book Reviews / Buchrezensionen

zone and reach for other Christian denominations, alternative theologies, or

even Orthodox theologians.

Overall, the collective e%ort of the editors and authors should be

praised to the fullest. $e cutting-edge points raised in the pages of the book

by some contributors, the intention of moving forward ossi&ed Orthodox

theology in the direction of conceptual as well as ecumenical modernity, and

the determination of instilling a critical spirit towards the dogmatic framework

should represent su(cient argument to read and recommend this book

for various graduate and undergraduate classes in theology, philosophy, and

sociology of religion.

ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΣ ΜΑΚΡΑΚΗΣ Η πορεία του στο χριστιανικό χώρο, η δράση του και οι παρεκτροπές του.

 Δρ. Ειρήνη Α. Αρτέμη

Phd & MA Θεολογίας

πτ. Θεολογίας και Κλασικής Φιλολογίας

ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΣ ΜΑΚΡΑΚΗΣ

Η πορεία του στο χριστιανικό χώρο, η δράση του

και οι παρεκτροπές του.

ΑΘΗΝΑ 2013

THE HERETIC GNOSTIC AND THE REAL “GNOSTIC” IN CHRIST ACCORDING TO THE TEACHING OF IRENAEUS OF LYON

 VOX PATRUM 38 (2018) t. 69

A R T Y K U Ł Y

Eirini ARTEMI*

THE HERETIC GNOSTIC

AND THE REAL “GNOSTIC” IN CHRIST

ACCORDING TO THE TEACHING

OF IRENAEUS OF LYON**

Gnosticism was a mixture of a philosophical and religious movements

which appeared in pre-Christian times. There are many religious historians

who support that its source was in the Jewish community of Alexandria and

was later picked up by some Christian groups in Judea and the Galilee1. The

apostle Paul supported the belief that the heresy of gnosticism was the religion

of angels (cf. Col 2:18). The Gnostics recognized a divine hierarchy above the

angels who were thought to be more important than Christ.

The Gnostics believed that matter, whether it be the physical universe or

the human body, was evil. It is obvious that there was a great tension between

spirit and matter. This affected many of their beliefs and especially the way

they perceived the world and God’s interactions with it. Gnosis (knowledge,

“insight”) was the only way for examining the universe, humanity, the salvation

of mankind and of course Jesus Christ2. In gnostic Christianity, spiritual gnosis

was not just knowledge of facts or figures or an intellectual understanding of

theological ideas. Rather, it was an experience. This knowledge or gnosis was

subjective in its nature. The gnostic didn’t just believe in God, he or she experienced

God. Spiritual gnosis could not be attained through the intellect. It was

a special initiatory knowledge given to the few who were ready to receive it.

Through devotion and spiritual practice, the gnostic had a revelatory experience

that modified human perception, and transfigured the individual3.

* Dr Eirini Artemi – Theologist & Classical Philologist, Post Doc of Ancient Greek and Byzantine

Philosophy of University of Patras, MA & Ph.D. of Theology of National and Capodistrian

University of Athens, Lecturer in the Hellenic Open University; e-mail: eartemi@theol.uoa.gr.

** This paper was presented in 10th Annual Conference in Saint Petersburg State University of

Aerospace Instrumentation, Research and Education Centre for Religion, Philosophy and Culture Studies,

Asia – Pacific Early Christian Studies Society, 9-11 September, 2016, Saint Petersburg, Russia.

1 Cf. B.A. Pearson, Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity, Minneapolis 1990, 17;

idem, Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature, Minneapolis 2007, 14; K. Scouteris, History

of Dogma, vol. 1, Athens 1998, 282-283.

2 Cf. J. Daniélou, Les traditions secrètes des Apôtres, “Eranos Jahrbuch” 31 (1962) 17.

3 Cf. S. Papadopoulos, Patrologia, vol. 1, Athens 1991, 145-150.

40 EIRINI ARTEMI

So, gnosticism was one of the earliest heresies to arise in the Christian

Church and it was known mainly from Irenaeus’ of Lyon writings, who was

one of its chief early opponents. Not all Gnostics believed exactly the same

thing, but the general outlines of the belief were fairly clear. The Gnostics

were dualists, teaching that there were two great opposing forces: good versus

evil, light versus darkness, knowledge versus ignorance, spirit versus matter.

According to them, this world, the material cosmos, was the result of a primordial

error on the part of a supra-cosmic, supremely divine being, usually called

Sof…a (Wisdom) or simply the ΛÒgoj (Word). This being was described as the

final emanation of a divine hierarchy, called the Pl»rwma or “Fullness”, at the

head of which resided the supreme God, the One beyond Being4.

Since the world is material, and leaves much place for improvement, they

denied that God had made it. “How can the perfect produce the imperfect,

the infinite produce the finite, the spiritual produce the material”? they asked.

One solution was to say that there were thirty beings called aeons (a„înej),

and that God had made the first aeon, which made the second aeon (a„èn),

which made the third, and so on to the thirtieth aeon (a„èn), which made the

world. This, Gnostics pointed out to the initiate, was the true inward spiritual

meaning of the statement that Jesus was thirty years old when he began to

preach. As anti-gnostic writers pointed out, this did not help at all. Assuming

the Gnostic view of the matter, each of the thirty must be either finite or infinite,

material or non-material, and somewhere along the line you would have

an infinite being producing a finite one, a spiritual being producing a material

one5. Also, to the Gnostics salvation had a totally different meaning from its

Christian meaning. In gnosticism, salvation was to be alerted to the existence

of the gnostic’s divine spirit and then, as a result of this knowledge, to escape

from death from the material world to the spiritual6.

For Christians, salvation means deification anf salvation began with the

incarnation. Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit dwell in one another in

a constant movement of reciprocal love, so humans are, made in the image

and likeness of the Holy Trinity, called to dwell in that same Trinitarian movement

of love. The salvation began with the incarnation, in which God became

human. God incarnated as Jesus was both true God and true man. He had two

natures, not separate from each other, and not confused with each other. The

crucifixion was God’s loving act to break down the barrier of sin between God

and humanity. Christians are saved by God’s grace alone, we are not capable

of saving ourselves, no matter how good we are. This salvation is a process,

worked out by participating in and cooperating with the grace of God. It is an

ongoing, everlasting process of moving from glory to glory, becoming more

and more holy and God-like forever. This is called theosis.

4 Cf. ibidem.

5 Cf. S. Hoeller, Gnosticism, new light on the ancient tradition of inner knowing, Illinois 2002, 2-55.

6 Cf. Scouteris, History of Dogma, vol. 1, p. 296.

THE HERETIC GNOSTIC AND THE REAL “GNOSTIC” IN CHRIST 41

Generally, gnosticism was a very powerful spiritual phenomenon and the

result of a mixture of different religions, such as paganism, Christianity, Persian

and Greek philosophical theories, and:

“devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations

rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith”7.

One of the main things which separated the Gnostics from Christians was

the mysticism of their beliefs. It began with their views of God and creation8.

They viewed the One which they called the true God as having a feminine part

which was the Spirit. In accord, they also held that Jesus came from God and

the Spirit to form the Trinity. In the gnostic version of creation of the world

the Spirit of God was referred as the Wisdom of God or Sophia who was

also a feminine creative force. So gnosticism was a very dangerous heresy for

the Church and threatened Christians9, because it divided the believers into

two categories, the “perfect” and “purified” Christians who obtained the real

Knowledge and the simple believers who obtained only the faith in Christ10.

To sum up, the ancient gnosticism claimed a secret knowledge superior

to that of the Church, in effect challenging the teaching authority of the bishops.

Also, it held that the spiritual was superior to the physical and that the

true Christ was a pure spirit being, thereby rejecting the incarnation11. Early

Christian Gnostics conceived a division in God prior to creation wherein the

material world became the production of the “lesser god” of the division. It

led Gnostics to devalue the material world within which a only select few

possessed a “spark” of divinity, experienced as a longing for the “true God”

beyond hapless matter. The escape route was gnosis or knowledge, a type of

“awakening” that not all were capable of undergoing.

1. Irenaeus of Lyon and the theology of the holy tradition. Irenaeus of

Lyon (Lugdunum) is considered by many to be one of the greatest Christian

theologians of the second century. Irenaeus is well known for his work Against

Heresies, c. 175-185 CE, a theological classic in which he defended the Christian

faith against the heresy of gnosticism. For Irenaeus, the real theological

tradition is the tradition of the Christian Church and it is gift from God:

7 Cf. 1Tim 1:4.

8 Cf. Scouteris, History of Dogma, vol. 1, p. 297.

9 Cf. Scouteris (History of Dogma, vol. 1, p. 299) argued that the Christian gnosticism cannot be

countered in Christian heresies, because it rejected the most Christian doctrines and adopted peculiar

teachings. But it was a great problem for the Christian Church for many centuries.

10 Cf. R.E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform,

Illinois 1999, 88.

11 Cf. R. Arakaki, Irenaeus of Lyons: Contending for the Faith Once Delivered, “Again” 27

(2005) n. 3, https://sethearl.wordpress.com/2006/09/03/irenaeus-of-lyons-contending-for-the-faithonce-

delivered/ [access: 28.08.2016].

42 EIRINI ARTEMI

“For this gift of God has been entrusted to the Church, as breath was to the

first created man, for this purpose, that all the members receiving it may be

vivified; and the (means of) communion with Christ has been distributed

throughout it, that is, the Holy Spirit, the earnest of incorruption, the means

of confirming our faith, and the ladder of ascent to God. For in the Church,

it is said, God has set apostles, prophets, teachers, and all the other means

through which the Spirit works; of which all those are not partakers who do

not join themselves to the Church, but defraud themselves of life through their

perverse opinions and infamous behaviour”12.

Irenaeus supported that the holy tradition was given to the Church and

this was the basic distinction between the real tradition of the Church and the

tradition of gnosticism13. The tradition of the apostles, made clear in the entire

world, can be seen clearly in the Christian Church by those who wished to behold

the truth. The bishops were the true successors of the apostles so they kept

the true tradition without adding any insane ideas, without any errors14. Christ

didn’t give any secret tradition to the Gnostics only, that they only should be

worthy and believing15. The Church Father explained that the members of the

Church, baptised Christians received that preaching and faith from Christ, who

is the divine source through his apostles. The words of the apostles and prophets

are Christ’s words and the very foundation of the Church (cf. Eph 2:19-

20). Although the Church scattered in the whole world, carefully preserved it,

in this real tradition as if living in one house, the Gnostics had no relation to

it16. So for Irenaeus, the apostolic tradition was one and public, not private or

secret. Lastly, the apostolic tradition, was pneumatic, in other words, spiritual,

guided by the Holy Spirit, and it is the final arbiter of truth in the Church.

Perhaps, some scholars would underline that the father of Lyon separated

the oral apostolic tradition from the written tradition in scripture. He didn’t do

anything like that. He thought both the oral tradition and the written tradition,

the scripture as equal, and the both reveal the will of God. Scripture and the

Church’s unwritten tradition are identical in content. The grace and the will

of God enlightened the authors of the gospels to hand down to believers the

preaching of Christ, so the scriptures became the ground and the pillar of the

Christians’ faith17, and the compass for the life of every Christian, the rule of

12 Cf. Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses III 24, 1, ed. A. Rousseau – L. Doutreleau,

SCh 211, Paris 1974, 472-474, transl. A. Roberts – W. Rambaut, ed. A. Roberts – J. Donaldson

– A. Cleveland Coxe, ANF 1, Buffalo – New York 1885, 458; revised and edited for New Advent by

K. Knight, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103324.htm. Cf. 1Cor 12:28.

13 Cf. ibidem III 4, 1-2.

14 Cf. ibidem III 3, 1.

15 Cf. ibidem I 25, 5.

16 Cf. ibidem III 12, 5.

17 Cf. ibidem I 9, 4.

THE HERETIC GNOSTIC AND THE REAL “GNOSTIC” IN CHRIST 43

faith18. So, according to Irenaeus, the scriptures provide the basis of real faith,

and tradition is appealed to as confirmation of the scripture19,

“to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with

the Lord’s Scriptures”20.

The development of the oral tradition in the Church didn’t mean the counterfeiting

of the context of faith but the better understanding of the God’s

words and the perception of the divine economy21. Man may not forget, Irenaeus

supported, he has finite mind and the infinite nature of God cannot be

fully conceived by the human beings:

“there are some things (the knowledge of) which belongs only to God, and

others which come within the range of our own knowledge, what ground is

there for complaint, if, in regard to those things which we investigate in the

Scriptures (which are throughout spiritual), we are able by the grace of God

to explain some of them, while we must leave others in the hands of God, and

that not only in the present world, but also in that which is to come, so that

God should for ever teach, and man should for ever learn the things taught

him by God? As the apostle has said on this point, that, when other things have

been done away, then these three, faith, hope, and charity, shall endure”22.

2. The Heretic Gnostic and the Real “Gnostic” in Christ. Irenaeus of Lyon

confronted the heretical teaching of the Gnostics with the theological teaching

of the Church. Because of his confrontation with the Gnostics, he placed appropriate

importance to the continuity of teaching within the Church23. He believed

that the truth was in the Church only and this was the only effective and powerful

weapon against any heretical opinion. In his treatise Against Heresies, he

expounded and defended the orthodox Christian faith and refuted gnosticism24.

The bishop of Lyon explained that the real “gnostic” in Christ differed

from the heretic gnostic, because the first participated in the recapitulation of

the nature of the human race because of the incarnation, passion, death and resurrection

of Christ. The heretic gnostic falsified the oracles of God, and proved

himself an evil interpreter of the good word of revelation25. He underestimated

18 Cf. ibidem I 9, 5.

19 Cf. ibidem V 20, 2.

20 Ibidem, ed. A. Rousseau – L. Doutrelau – Ch. Mercier, SCh 153, Paris 1969, 258, ANF 1, 548.

21 Cf. ibidem I 10, 3.

22 Ibidem II 28, 3, ed. A. Rousseau – L. Doutreleau, SCh 294, Paris 1982, 274, ANF 1, 399. Cf.

1Cor 13:13.

23 Cf. K. Ware, Patterns of Episcopacy in the Early Church and Today, An Orthodox View, in:

Bishops, But What Kind? Reflections on Episcopacy, ed. P. Moore, London 1982, 1-24, esp. p. 11.

24 Cf. Papadopoulos, Patrologia, vol. 1, p. 296.

25 Cf. Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses I, Prolegomena I.

44 EIRINI ARTEMI

the real meaning of God’s revelation through His creation of the universe26. By

this way instead of realizing the real divine truth, the heretic gnostic supported

blasphemous and impious opinions27. Also he had pessimistic attitude for the

life. The world was seen as being evil at the time of its origin, because it had

been created by an inferior God. Only the deliverance from the material world

could bring happiness28.

The heretic gnostic didn’t have access only in the lower psychic level of

salvation, but he himself had attained the higher pneumatic salvation also29.

In order to be saved the person had to freely choose to believe and to do good

works. The psychic level of salvation was decisive in that it opened the person

to the possibility of attaining the pneumatic level. Receiving the gnostic

tradition was only a first step towards the goal of gnosis30. At the pneumatic

level the gnostic person was reborn through spiritual resurrection and directly

experienced the divine Truth through gnosis-knowledge31.

The knowledge which existed in gnostic men came from other sources:

“either the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered,

but of which they boast that beyond all others they had a perfect knowledge.

They gathered their views from other sources than the Scriptures”32.

It was aptly characterized in the personal mystical experience of the gnostic as

Self-Knowledge being the Knowledge of God33. So he was spiritual – a pneumatic

Christian who had gained connection to the higher spirit and who possessed

the inner meaning of scripture and opposed to simply physic Christian.

The gnostic believed that he obtained the knowledge of God through questions,

trying to find answers about God, but in reality he managed to cast away

the firm and true knowledge of God34. James George Bushur argues that according

to Irenaeus, the heretic gnostic fell into the abyss of error because

he arrogantly sought after the divine essence and must resorted to tenuous

speculations. For Irenaeus, the theological task began with humility. The real

gnostic in Christ should recognize his own weakness before he was prepared

to declare the fullness of God’s power35:

26 Cf. ibidem.

27 Cf. ibidem.

28 Cf. Scouteris, History of Dogma, vol. 1, p. 299.

29 Cf. Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses I 6, 1-4.

30 Cf. ibidem I 6, 2.

31 Cf. ibidem.

32 Ibidem I 8, 1, SCh 264, 112, ANF 1, 326.

33 Cf. ibidem II 28, 2.

34 Cf. ibidem II 28, 1.

35 Cf. J.G. Bushur, Joining the end to the beginning divine providence and the interpretation of

scripture in the teaching of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, Durham 2010, 47.

THE HERETIC GNOSTIC AND THE REAL “GNOSTIC” IN CHRIST 45

“But learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling

power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue

that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature,

but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives,

and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that

is, both with regard to God and with regard to man”36.

The real gnostic in Christ’s desire and love for the knowledge of the divine

being was as dependent upon God’s will to reveal himself as a creature’s desire

to live was dependent upon God’s gifts of food, drink, and breath37. This true

believer captured the higher knowledge from his love to Christ and his belief

in Christ’s deity, incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. So he had true faith

because he had followed the rule of faith which was based on the knowledge

and praise concerning God38. According to Irenaeus the real gnostic in Christ,

the believer had the true knowledge which was the teaching of the apostles,

and the ancient order of the Church found throughout the world; and the character

of the Body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, to whom

the Apostles committed that the Church which was in each place39.

The gnostic in Christ was a “spiritual” man. In him the Holy Spirit was

joined to the soul and body and lightened his mind in order to know God40. He

didn’t attain salvation by learning secret knowledge of his spiritual essence:

a divine spark of light or spirit. He didn’t then need any secret knowledge to escape

from the prison of his body at death. His soul cannot ascend to be reunited

with the Supreme God at the time of his death41. So the gnostic in Christ didn’t

disregard the order and connection of the Scriptures and didn’t dismember and

destroy the truth and moreover the real salvation in Christ42. He realized that the

Apostles’ words in the Scriptures were in full agreement with the tradition of

teaching that had come down to the Church leaders of his day43.

The believer, who had the true knowledge for God, was made perfect because

of his love for God and his righteousness to his neighbour,

“As in the law, therefore, and in the Gospel (likewise), the first and greatest

commandment is, to love the Lord God with the whole heart, and then there

follows a commandment like to it, to love one’s neighbour as one’s self; the

author of the law and the Gospel is shown to be one and the same. For the precepts

of an absolutely perfect life, since they are the same in each Testament,

36 Ibidem. Cf. Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses V 2, 3, SCh 153, 38-40, ANF 1, 528.

37 Cf. Bushur, Joining the end to the beginning divine providence, p. 47.

38 Cf. Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses II 28, 3; E. Osborn, Irenaeus of Lyons, Cambridge

2001, 160.

39 Cf. Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses IV 33, 8.

40 Cf. ibidem V 6, 1; V 8, 2; 1Thess 5:23.

41 Cf. Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses V 6, 1.

42 Cf. ibidem.

43 Cf. ibidem III 3-4.

46 EIRINI ARTEMI

have pointed out (to us) the same God, who certainly has promulgated particular

laws adapted for each; but the more prominent and the greatest (commandments),

without which salvation cannot (be attained), He has exhorted

(us to observe) the same in both”44.

He knew that he could not have attained the absolute knowledge of God in

this life, because there were some things (the knowledge of) which belonged

only to God45. Irenaeus underlined that:

“we are able by the grace of God to explain some of them, while we must

leave others in the hands of God, and that not only in the present world, but

also in that which is to come, so that God should for ever teach, and man

should for ever learn the things taught him by God”46.

Finally, the knowledge of God could not become property of man, unless

the Holy Spirit helped the human creature’s mind. Without the Spirit’s enlightenment,

the man was merely flesh and blood and could have no ability and

perspective to inherit the eternal divine kingdom,

“The flesh, therefore, when destitute of the Spirit of God, is dead, not having

life, and cannot possess the kingdom of God”47.

To sum up for Irenaeus, the real Gnostic in Christ had realized that the

human knowledge of God did not begin with the divine essence, but with the

divine will. God is not known except in his free and personal association with

creation48. This became more difficult with the exile of Adam from paradise.

The ability to have possession of God’s knowledge became a possibility again

because of the incarnation of Christ. Then the doctrine of recapitulation established

Christ’s person and work as the ontological ground for the Christian

knowledge of God49. The obedience in God’s will was the most important

factor for obtaining the real knowledge of God; otherwise the man (gnostic)

possessed a false knowledge. He was victim of a fraud and he could not manage

the likeness to God50.

3. The truth of God as present of the power of Spirit in the Church. For

Irenaeus the Church was the holy place in which the gift of recapitulation was

44 Ibidem IV 12, 3, ed. A. Rousseau, SCh 100/2, Paris 1965, 514-516, ANF 1, 476.

45 Cf. ibidem II 28, 3.

46 Ibidem, SCh 294, 274, ANF 1, 399.

47 Ibidem V 9, 3, SCh 153, 112, ANF 1, 535.

48 Cf. ibidem; Bushur, Joining the end to the beginning divine providence, p. 43.

49 Cf. Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses III 16-19; Bushur, Joining the end to the beginning

divine providence, p. 26.

50 Cf. G. Wingren, Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus,

Philadelphia 1959, 26-29.

THE HERETIC GNOSTIC AND THE REAL “GNOSTIC” IN CHRIST 47

proving the personal history for every faithful man51. Within the Church there

was the continuity of the real teaching concerning God. The Church received

testimony from the prophets, the apostles, and all the disciples and through

them and the entire dispensation of God. All these had only the goal of man’s

salvation, namely, the true faith; which, having been received from the Church

because of Spirit’s grace52. Only the truth which was proclaimed by the Church

was constant53.

The Church had the truth of God through the grace of the Spirit. The canonicity

and interpretation of Scripture was ultimately referred to the authority

of the Church. Irenaeus compared the books of the Bible to trees in the garden

of the Church:

“It behoves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest

we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up

in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures. For the Church has

been planted as a garden (paradisus) in this world; therefore says the Spirit of

God, «Thou mayest freely eat from every tree of the garden», that is, Eat ye

from every Scripture of the Lord; but ye shall not eat with an uplifted mind,

nor touch any heretical discord”54.

Also, the basic pillar of the divine truth was the revelation of the triune

teaching. The faith in trinitarian deity was the regula veritatis which gave to

the Church the characterization of holiness55.

The bishop of Lyon insisted that the life of the Church was:

“organically connected to the fleshly existence of this world. The incorruptible

life accomplished in the spiritual waters of baptism was not the life of

another world, but it was a gift of Holy Spirit for the present world until eternity.

Rather, it was the intended perfection of earthly life”56.

51 Cf. Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses III 24, 1.

52 Cf. ibidem. III 24, 1-2.

53 Cf. ibidem.

54 Ibidem V 20, 2, SCh 153, 258, ANF 1, 548.

55 Cf. ibidem V 20, 1, SCh 153, 254-256, ANF 1, 548: “But the path of those belonging to

the Church circumscribes the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition from the apostles, and

gives unto us to see that the faith of all is one and the same, since all receive one and the same God

the Father, and believe in the same dispensation regarding the incarnation of the Son of God, and

are cognizant of the same gift of the Spirit, and are conversant with the same commandments, and

preserve the same form of ecclesiastical constitution, and expect the same advent of the Lord, and

await the same salvation of the complete man, that is, of the soul and body. And undoubtedly the

preaching of the Church is true and steadfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown

throughout the whole world”.

56 Cf. Bushur, Joining the end to the beginning divine providence, p. 76.

48 EIRINI ARTEMI

The Church was the mystical body of Christ, in which the believers united

through the mystery of eucharist57 have received the gift of immortality58. Joel

R. Kurz underlined,

“the eucharist thus establishes the faith of the church and imparts to humankind

the very divine life of the creator through the life of creation”59.

Without the Holy Spirit, it was impossible for the believer to know the

Son and the Father and to accept the salvation through the incarnation of the

Son60. Christ recapitulated and recapitulates not only the past but the future by

continuing as head of the Church until the end of the world: “He takes the primacy

to himself and by making himself the head of the Church, he will draw

all things to himself at the appointed time”61. However, Christ as the head of

the Church kept the truth in the Church and because of the holy creative attribute

of the Spirit, it could go on working in the apostolic ministry of the

Church. For the bishop of Lyon, the same power that brought forth life out of

non-existence, created the Church through the apostles:

“It certainly was in the power of the apostles to declare that Christ descended

upon Jesus, or that the so-called superior Savior came down upon the dispensational

one, or he who is from the invisible places upon him from the Demiurge

[…] But what really was the case, that did they record, that the Spirit of

God as a dove descended upon him; the Spirit, of whom it was declared by

Isaiah, «And the Spirit of God shall rest upon him», as I have already said.

And again, «The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me».

That is the Spirit of whom the Lord declares, «For it is not you that speak,

but the Spirit of your Father which speaks in you». And again, giving to the

disciples the power of regeneration into God”62.

For Irenaeus, the Spirit donated the unique truth of God in Church. The

latter and the Spirit were inseparable.

“For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of

God is, there is the Church and every kind of grace”63.

There wasn’t any secret doctrine concealed in the Church’s common

Creed. There wasn’t any superior Christianity for intellectuals. The faith publicly

confessed by the Church was the common faith of all. This faith alone is

57 Cf. Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus Haereses IV 7, 10.

58 Cf. ibidem V 2, 3.

59 J.R. Kurz, The Gifts of Creation and the Consummation of Humanity: Irenaeus of Lyons’

Recapitulatory Theology of the Eucharist, “Worship” 83 (2009) n. 2, 115.

60 Cf. Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses I 9, 2.

61 Cf. ibidem III 16, 6.

62 Ibidem III 17, 1, SCh 211, 328, ANF 1, 444. Cf. Bushur, Joining the end to the beginning

divine providence, p. 77.

63 Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses III 24, 1, SCh 211, 474, ANF 1, 458.

THE HERETIC GNOSTIC AND THE REAL “GNOSTIC” IN CHRIST 49

apostolic, it was handed down from the Apostles that was, from Jesus and from

God. In adhering to this faith, it was publicly transmitted by the Apostles to

their successors64 because of Spirit’s grace.

Finally, Irenaeus revisited the idea that the Spirit was presented to the

Church now, however, as the gift that brought and brings to life those who

receive it65. Here the bishop of Lyon implied not only the scripture, but also

the baptism and the eucharist to all the participating members as sacramental.

By this way any man can become the temple in which the Spirit dwells66. The

Spirit gave the opportunity to many of the believers to drive out demons effectually

and truly, so that those who had been cleansed from evil spirits frequently

believed and united with the Church, and took as a present the gift of

Spirit’s knowledge (divine knowledge).

By the gift of the Spirit which was the enlightenment of the believers of the

holy truth, people who became part of the Church comprehended the connection

between Old and New Testament. Through the Church, there was a christological

interpretation of the Old Testament. The latter defended the unity of

the Bible as the revelation of God’s redemptive plan in the creation event, both

before and after the Fall67. In this way it linked Christology with the work of

the “two hands of God”68. Finally, Irenaeus of Lyon explained how the Spirit

revealed the Word through the prophetic visions in Daniel 3 and Ezekiel 1 and

how the Spirit donated the truth of God to his believers, real Gnostics in Christ69.

As conclusion it could be emphasised that the holy The Spirit accomplished

the Father’s will in men who had grown old in sin, and gave them new life in

Christ. The Spirit, the advocate came down on the disciples at Pentecost, after

the Lord’s ascension, with power to open the gates of life to all nations and to

make known to them the new covenant. So it was that men of every language

joined in singing one song of praise to God, and scattered tribes, restored to

unity by the Spirit, were offered to the Father as the first fruits of all the nations70.

Through the baptism that liberates us from change and decay we have

become one in body; through the Spirit we have become one in soul71.

64 Cf. Pope Benedict XVI, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/

en/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070328.html [access: 14.10.2017].

65 Cf. Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses III 24, 1; A. Briggman, Irenaeus of Lyons and

the Theology of the Holy Spirit, Oxford 2012, 86.

66 Cf. Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses V 1-3.

67 Cf. ibidem IV 14, 2.

68 Cf. ibidem IV 20, 1.

69 Cf. ibidem IV 20, 10-11; V. Bebis, The Pneumatology of St Irenaeus of Lyons, (Thesis submitted

for the degree Doctor of Philosophy), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus 2010, 48.

70 Cf. Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses III 17, 1-2.

71 Cf. ibidem III 17, 3.

50 EIRINI ARTEMI

***

The real gnostic in Christ in Irenaeus had belief in the great orthodox doctrines

of unity: One God, who is the Father and Creator of all things, immaterial

and material, and who orchestrates one harmonious history of revelation

and redemption; one Savior, who is both divine spirit and human flesh, both

Christ and Jesus; one human nature, which is both spiritual and fleshly; one

salvation of both the spiritual and material realms, which is by faith72.

The knowledge of God and His eternal glory can be realized through the

Incarnate Word of God who is the source of real knowledge. The latter is received

through the Church, as the body of Christ, especially by participation

in the eucharist. The real gnosis in Christ is revealed in our inner man, if it has

been purified and sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Finally, the knowledge of God

and His eternal glory can be realized partially in this world, through our unity

with the Father in His Only-Begotten Son, by the work of the Holy Spirit, and

completed in the world to come.

On the other hand, the heretic gnostic thought that there were two gods, the

good and the evil. The latter created every material thing. Gnostics interpreted

the Scriptures according to their own secret tradition and without accepting the

Church tradition of the apostles, prophets and bishops, successors of the apostles.

The process of Salvation began when the Gnosis, the Gospel, descended

like a beam of light, or a letter, or a bird, through the intermediate spheres

and worlds. Only in Church can the believers have the real gnosis of God and

through the mysteries of baptism and eucharist the Holy Spirit reveals the real

divine truth to the believers. This truth is the one and the same with the truth

or the holy tradition, oral and written in Scripture.

Finally, it is obvious that Ireneaus supported that:

“God has placed in the Church, first, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly,

teachers”73. “Where, therefore, the gifts of the Lord have been placed, there it

behoves us to learn the truth, (namely), from those who possess that succession

of the Church which is from the apostles, and among whom exists that

which is sound and blameless in conduct, as well as that which is unadulterated

and incorrupt in speech. For these also preserve this faith of ours in one

God who created all things; and they increase that love (which we have) for

the Son of God, who accomplished such marvellous dispensations for our

sake: and they expound the Scriptures to us without danger, neither blaspheming

God, nor dishonouring the patriarchs, nor despising the prophets”74.

72 Cf. J. Bingham, One God, One Christ, One Salvation. Irenaeus the “peacemaker” was the

early church’s best warrior against Gnostic heresy, in: “Christian History: The Hunger for Secret

Knowledge” 96 (2007), http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-96/one-god-onechrist-

one-salvation.html [access: 6.10.2017].

73 Cf. 1Cor. 12:28.

74 Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Adversus haereses IV 26, 5, SCh 100/2, 728, ANF 1, 498.

THE HERETIC GNOSTIC AND THE REAL “GNOSTIC” IN CHRIST 51

(Summary)

The fight against gnostics allowed the holy bishop to develop the Christian

doctrine with a perfect way. At first, he showed that the knowledge (gnîsij) that

heretics sought in vain in mythical narratives was not real. The only real gnosis

was love and grace for believers in Christ and they were given to them by the Holy

Spirit. Only in Church man can be saved. And the real “gnostics” were not those

who rejected and despised their body in order to worship an “incomprehensible

God” and “Creator,” but the “spiritual” people who received from the Holy Spirit

the resurrection of the flesh and its indestructibility.

GNOSTYK HETERODOKSYJNY

I PRAWDZIWY GNOSTYK W CHRYSTUSIE

WEDŁUG NAUCZANIA IRENEUSZA Z LYONU

(Streszczenie)

Walka z gnostycyzmem pozwoliła św. Ireneuszowi z Lyonu rozwinąć w doskonały

sposób doktrynę chrześcijańską. Przede wszystkim wykazał on, że wiedza

(gnîsij), którą gnostycy dostrzegali na próżno w mitologicznych opowieściach,

nie była prawdziwa. Jedyną rzeczywistą gnozą była miłość i łaska udzielona wyznawcom

Chrystusa przez Ducha Świętego. Człowiek może być zbawiony tylko

w Kościele. Prawdziwymi gnostykami byli nie ci, którzy zwalczali swoje ciało lub

gardzili nim jako dziełem niepoznawalnego Boga Stwórcy, ale ludzie duchowi,

którzy otrzymali od Ducha Świętego zmartwychwstanie ciała i niezniszczalność.

Key words: gnosticism, gnostics, Irenaeus of Lyon, Holy Spirit, spiritual

people, aeons.

Słowa kluczowe: gnostycyzm, gnostyk, Ireneusz z Lyonu, Duch Święty, człowiek

duchowy, eony.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sources

Irenaeus Lugdunensis, Advesus haereses 1-5, ed. A. Rousseau – L. Doutreleau – B. Hemmerdinger

– Ch. Mercier, I, SCh 263-264, Paris 1979; II, SCh 293-294, Paris 1982;

III, SCh 210-211, Paris 1974; IV, SCh 100/1-2, Paris 1965; V, SCh 152-153, Paris

1969; transl. A. Roberts – W. Rambaut, ed. A. Roberts – J. Donaldson – A. Cleveland

Coxe, ANF 1, Buffalo – New York 1885, 315-567, revised and edited for New Advent

by K. Knight, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm [access: 14.10.2017].

52 EIRINI ARTEMI

Literature

Arakaki R., Irenaeus of Lyons: Contending for the Faith Once Delivered, “Again” 27

(2005) n. 3, https://sethearl.wordpress.com/2006/09/03/irenaeus-of-lyons-contending-

for-the-faith-once-delivered/ [access: 28.08.2016].

Bebis V., The Pneumatology of St Irenaeus of Lyons (Thesis submitted for the degree Doctor

of Philosophy), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus 2010.

Benedict XVI, Pope, Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/

en/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070328.html [access: 14.10.2017].

Bingham J., One God, One Christ, One Salvation. Irenaeus the “peacemaker” was the

early church’s best warrior against Gnostic heresy, “Christian History: The Hunger

for Secret Knowledge” 96 (2007), http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-

96/one-god-one-christ-one-salvation.html [access: 6.10.2017].

Briggman A, Irenaeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit, Oxford 2012.

Bushur J.G., Joining the end to the beginning divine providence and the interpretation of

scripture in the teaching of Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, Durham 2010.

Daniélou J., Les traditions secrètes des Apôtres, “Eranos Jahrbuch” 31 (1962) 17-33.

Hoeller S., Gnosticism, new light on the ancient tradition of inner knowing, Illinois 2002.

Kurz J.R., The Gifts of Creation and the Consummation of Humanity: Irenaeus of Lyons’

Recapitulatory Theology of the Eucharist, “Worship” 83 (2009) n. 2, 112-132.

Olson R.E., The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform,

Illinois 1999.

Osborn E. Irenaeus of Lyons, Cambridge 2001.

Papadopoulos S., Patrologia, vol. 1, Athens 1991.

Pearson B.A., Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature, Minneapolis 2007.

Pearson B.A., Gnosticism, Judaism and Egyptian Christianity, Minneapolis 1990.

Scouteris K., History of Dogma, vol. 1, Athens 1998.

Ware K., Patterns of Episcopacy in the Early Church and Today, An Orthodox View, in:

Bishops, But What Kind? Reflections on Episcopacy, ed. P. Moore, London 1982, 1-24.

Wingren G., Man and the Incarnation: A Study in the Biblical Theology of Irenaeus,

Philadelphia 1959.