Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Ancestral Sin

PRO ORIENTE BAND XLIV WIENER PATRISTISCHE TAGUNGEN X Wiener Patristische Tagungen Forscher aus dem Osten und Westen Europas an den Quellen des gemeinsamen Glaubens I. Y. de Andia, P. L. Hofrichter (Hgg.) Christus bei den Vätern, Pro Oriente 27 (2004) II. Y. de Andia, P. L. Hofrichter (Hgg.) Der Heilige Geist im Leben der Kirche, Pro Oriente 29 (2005) III. Y. de Andia, P. L. Hofrichter (Hgg.) Gott Vater und Schöpfer, Pro Oriente 31 (2007) IV. Th. Hainthaler, F. Mali, G. Emmenegger (Hgg.) Einheit und Katholizität der Kirche, Pro Oriente 32 (2009) V. Th. Hainthaler, F. Mali, G. Emmenegger (Hgg.) Heiligkeit und Apostolizität der Kirche, Pro Oriente 35 (2010) VI. Th. Hainthaler, F. Mali, G. Emmenegger und M. Lenkaitytė Ostermann (Hgg.) Für uns und für unser Heil, Pro Oriente 37 (2014) VII. Th. Hainthaler, F. Mali, G. Emmenegger und M. Lenkaitytė Ostermann (Hgg.) Sophia, die Weisheit Gottes, Pro Oriente 40 (2017) VIII. Th. Hainthaler, F. Mali, G. Emmenegger und M. Lenkaitytė Ostermann (Hgg.) Pronoia, die Vorsehung Gottes, Pro Oriente 42 (2019) IX. Th. Hainthaler, F. Mali, G. Emmenegger und A. Morozov (Hgg.) Imago Dei, Pro Oriente 43 (2021) PRO ORIENTE BAND XLIV WIENER PATRISTISCHE TAGUNGEN X “Inherited sin?” Erbsünde? Forscher aus dem Osten und Westen Europas an den Quellen des gemeinsamen Glaubens Studientagung Wien, 15. – 19. September 2021 “Inherited sin?” Herausgegeben von Theresia Hainthaler, Franz Mali, Gregor Emmenegger und Alexey Morozov TYROLIA-VERLAG · INNSBRUCK-WIEN Gedruckt mit Unterstützung der Fritz Thyssen Stiftung. Mitglied der Verlagsgruppe „engagement“ Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. 2024 © Verlagsanstalt Tyrolia, Innsbruck Umschlaggestaltung: Wolfgang Bledl Druck und Bindung: Alcione, Lavis (I) ISBN 978-7022-4167-4 E-Mail: buchverlag@tyrolia.at Internet: www.tyrolia-verlag.at Inhaltsverzeichnis Archbishop Elpidophoros Greeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Bischof Dr. José Rico Pavés Grusswort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Ysabel de Andia Salutation au Cardinal Christoph Schönborn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Andrew Louth 20th anniversary of the Orthodox-Catholic Colloquy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Theresia Hainthaler Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Introduction Theresia Hainthaler Introduction to the topic “Inherited sin?” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Early Fathers Zdravko Jovanović The Notion of Infancy of Adam and Eve in Theophilus and Irenaeus and Its Relevance for Contemporary Theological Anthropology . . . . 43 6 Inhaltsverzeichnis Ysabel de Andia Eve causa mortis et Marie causa salutis. Désobéissance d’Adam et d’Eve et obéissance du Christ et de Marie 60 Tomasz Stępień The Sin of Embodiment in the Platonic Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 Jana Plátová Sündenlehre bei Clemens von Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Alexey Morozov La notion du libre arbitre dans l’héritage littéraire de Méthode d’Olympe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Mariya Horyacha Adam’s Inheritance: Macarian Teaching on Indwelling Sin . . . . . . . . 118 Pablo Argárate “Sin was planted in our father Adam and in our mother Eve on the day they sinned. It entered and lived in all their children” (LG 19, 3) Evil and Sin in the Syriac Liber Graduum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 Johannes Arnold Zur Frage nach dem Ursprung des Bösen im Menschen bei Origenes vor dem Hintergrund mittelplatonischer Philosophie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Latin Tradition Alexey Fokin Tertullian’s doctrine of the “original vice” (vitium originis) and its contradictory nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Gregor Emmenegger Der verdorbene Samen. Traduzianismus und dessen naturphilosophische Grundlagen bei Tertullian und Augustinus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Inhaltsverzeichnis 7 Giuseppe Caruso Il peccato di Adamo in Girolamo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220 Franz Mali „Die zerrissene Tunica der Unsterblichkeit wurde von Christus wieder zusammengenäht“. Zur Erlösung von Adams Sünde durch Christus im Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 Paul Mattei Quid habes, o homo, quod non accepisti ? Remarques sur l’état de l’homme après la chute selon Ambroise . . . . 252 Lenka Karfíková Hereditary Sin? Augustine and Origen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Vittorino Grossi Per una rilettura del peccato originale in Agostino d’Ippona Modalità attuali della ricerca . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286 Vít Hušek Inherited Sin in Ambrosiaster and Pelagius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303 Dominique Gonnet Césaire d’Arles, le Concile d’Orange II et le péché originel . . . . . . . . . 318 Hilary Mooney Leaving paradise: Eriugena’s theology of ‘inherited sin’ . . . . . . . . . . . 334 Greek Tradition Viacheslav V. Lytvynenko The Imagery of Movement in the Descriptions of Sin and Christian Life in the Vita Antonii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355 Marta Przyszychowska The first sin as a sin of nature according to Gregory of Nyssa . . . . . . . 368 8 Inhaltsverzeichnis Giulio Maspero and Ilaria Vigorelli Relational Ontology and the Syntactic Dimension of Sin in Gregory of Nyssa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381 Svetoslav Riboloff Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Ancestral Sin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404 Michel Stavrou « Ηéritiers de la malédiction survenue en Adam » L’enseignement de Cyrille d’Alexandrie sur le péché des origines . . . 416 Georgiana Huian The Sin of Adam and Eve and the Restoration of the Image of God through Baptism according to Diadochus of Photike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 429 Ioannis Kourempeles „Die Jungfrau, die die Erlösung vom Fluch gebar“: Die Alte Eva und das neue Paradies in der Dichtung von Romanos dem Meloden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 Georgi Kapriev Das Problem der Erbsünde in der Anthropologie des Maximus Confessor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457 Karolina Kochańczyk-Bonińska Human Sexuality—One of the Ontic Consequences of Adam’s Fall— Maximus the Confessor’s Interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477 Ivan Christov St Cyril the Philosopher on the Meaning of Theology for Restoring the Image of God in Man and Overcoming Original Sin . . . . . . . . . . . 485 Georgios Martzelos The Concept of inherited sin in the Orthodox Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . 496 Inhaltsverzeichnis 9 Presse Pressemitteilung (Wien, Pro Oriente-Informationsdienst, 13.09.21) Patristische Tagungen feiern in Wien ihr 20-Jahr-Jubiläum . . . . . . . . 515 Pressemitteilung (Wien, Pro Oriente-Informationsdienst, 16.09.21) Wien: Ökumene braucht Einsatz auf allen Ebenen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517 Pressemitteilung (Wien, Pro Oriente-Informationsdienst, 17.09.21) Schönborn: Freundschaften wichtige Voraussetzung für Ökumene . . 519 Пресс-релиз (Вена, Служба коммуникации ОВЦС, 18.09.2021) Митрополит Волоколамский Иларион в дистанционном режиме принял участие в конференции патрологов в Вене . . . . . . . . . . 522 Press Release (Vienna, DECR, 18.09.2021) Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk takes part remotely in a conference of patristic scholars in Vienna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524 Fotos Bilder der Tagung . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528 Register Biblische Schriften . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frühchristliche und anonyme Schriften . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Antike und mittelalterliche Autoren und Personennamen . . . . . . . . . Moderne Autoren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abkürzungen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532 536 536 538 543 Svetoslav Riboloff, Sofia (Bulgaria) Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Ancestral Sin Abstract: Theodore of Mopsuestia (352–428) is a highly original Antiochene author who tackled a wide range of exegetical issues in an innovative manner. His approach also informs his understanding of human sin and mortality, both before and after man’s fall from grace. According to Theodore of Mopsuestia, death is not only punishment for men but also an important educational tool. It is precisely because men are mortal that they have been able to appreciate the value of immortality and to become aware of the wretchedness of their situation. At the same time, Adam’s sin brought man’s changeable nature to a state of confusion, which, in turn, provoked an outpour of passions. This event brought sin to man, yet it also taught man to search for a proper solution to this problem. In Theodore’s logic, the sensibility of human nature is inevitably accompanied by changeability. Hence, man needs to be able to make a free choice because man is a reasonable being. Traditional academic Church History has long considered Theodore of Mopsuestia (352–428) a key figure in Antiochian theology. During the second half of the 20th century, however, scholars have persuasively argued that he is also a highly original and inquisitive author who tackled a wide range of exegetical issues in an innovative manner. His innovative approach also informs his understanding of human sin and mortality, both before and after man’s fall from grace. Robert Devreesse, true to the method he employed for his entire work on Theodore’s writings, adopts a consistent approach to editing Theodore’s texts. Assuming that these texts have been subject to ill-intentioned interpolations, Devreesse ignores a number of fragments. His approach to Theodore’s position on original sin follows the same logic. Devreesse also attributes to Theodore the assumption that sin may be hereditary, for after the fall, sin becomes inherent to human nature1 . Refuting Devreesse’s approach, Arthur Vööbus notes, 1 See R. Devreesse, Essai sur Théodore de Mopsueste, StT 141 (Città del Vaticano 1948) 98–103. The Greek scholar, Chrysostomos Stamulis, shares the same view. According to Stamulis, Theodore of Mopsuestia’s and Nestorios’ writings present the sin that is engendered in Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Ancestral Sin 405 According to Theodore, sin has nothing to do with the realm of nature. The characteristic penchant cherished in the West that sin has to do with nature is simply abhorrent to him […]. This possibility [i.e., that sin may be inherent to human nature], however, does not come into account, since Christ has taken on himself what is in the human nature, namely death2 . Similarly, Frederick McLeod states: But Theodore is opposed to any notion of an “original sin” that has kept human nature sinful insofar as this would militate against his conviction that sin is a free act of the human will. Moreover, if Adam’s “original sin” is a sin of nature, this would at least imply that Christ’s humanity would also have been affected by sin and unable to serve as a sinless mediator3 . If we accept Theodore’s writings that have come to us as authentic4 , we cannot but agree with Vööbus, McLeod, and Norris’ unbiased reading according to which Theodore does not view sin as inherent to human nature. In his Commentaries on the Book of Psalms, Theodore explicitly states that sin has nothing to do with nature5 . Elucidating the words in Psalm 51:5, “Behold, I the soul as immanent to human nature after the fall. Hence it becomes necessary that God’s Word should accept human nature in its entirety so that the Word, during Its earthly life, can then gradually free human nature from sin. As I noted in my introduction, Stamulis concludes that even though Theodore and Apollinaris were theological opponents, they agree on the anthropological prerequisites for sin. (Apollinaris considers sin to be immanent to the human mind; hence the Word must replace sin in the human mind.) Yet Theodore and Appollinaris draw different conclusions about the effects of these prerequisites. See Χ. Σταμούλης, Ἀνθρώπινη φύση τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡ ἁμαρτία στοὺς Ἀντιοχειανοὺς θεολόγους τοῦ 5ου αἱ. Συμβολὴ στὴ μελέτη τοῦ Θεοδώρου Μοψουεστίας, τοῦ Νεστορίου καὶ τοῦ Βασιλείου Σελευκείας, Πρακτικὰ τοῦ ΙΑ’ Θεολογικοῦ Συνεδρίου πρὸς τιμὴν τοῦ Παμβασιλέως Χριστοῦ (Θεσσαλονίκη 1991) 572–582. 2 A. Vööbus, Regarding the Theological Anthropology of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Church History 33.2 (1964) 118. 3 F. G. McLeod, The Roles of Christ’s Humanity in Salvation: Insights from Theodore of Mopsuestia (Washington, D.C. 2005) 62. The same stance is elaborated on in R. Norris, Manhood and Christ: A Study in the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Oxford 1963) 173–178. 4 Besides, the Catechetical Homilies, which Theodore’s disciples preserved in their entirety, contain the same basic propositions as fragments of his work preserved in Byzantine catenae or in documents from the Church councils. See Frances Sullivan’s detailed analysis of the origin of these fragments and their comparability with the Catechetical Homilies. F. Sullivan, The Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia, AnGr 82 (Rome 1956) 35–158. 5 Man was created innocent by nature, the Anthiochian writer says. If man had been created sinful, then the Creator himself would be accountable for man’s sin. See Theod. Mopsuest., Contra defensores peccati originalis III, 3: H. B. Swete, Theodori Mopsuesteni in epistolas B. Pauli Commentarii, vol. 2 (Cambridge 1880), p. 335. 406 Svetoslav Riboloff was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me” (ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἐν ἀνομίαις συνελήφθην, καὶ ἐν ἁμαρτίαις ἐκίσσησέ με ἡ μήτηρ μου), Theodore avoids the topic of sin’s hereditary damage to nature and proposes, He [David] does not find any sin in the newborns’ natures, he does not even hint to their natures; rather, he refers to their parents’ wills. In other words, by referring to the mother in the expression, ‘I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me,’ he critiques the mother’s sins, not the child’s; he accuses the parents’ will and not the children’s natures as some madmen would have it6 . Theodore may be rebuking the consistent trend in western theology of which he may have been informed. The Bishop of Mopsuestia further suggests that the so-called hereditary aspect of sin is just the bad moral example set by the established practice of committing sins. In the same text he says: As their fathers had been committing sins for a long time, the next generations adopted their sins (indeed, they were often conceived in sin), and evil was never absent from their midst7 . Consequently, the power of sin grew stronger with every successive generation8 . Perhaps Theodore suggests that man must have been created both innocent and vulnerable to temptation. As a contingent creature prone to changeability, Adam was deceived by Satan, who misled Adam by presenting himself as Adam’s helper. Satan assisted Adam in overcoming his fear of his Creator, as the prohibition against eating from the tree in the middle of Eden 6 Theod. Mopsuest., Expositio in psalm. L, 7: R. Devreesse, Le Commentaire sur les Psaumes (I–LXXX) de Théodore de Mopsueste, StT 93 (Città del Vaticano 1939), p. 337: Οὐ τὴν τῶν τεχθέντων φύσιν αἰτιᾶται, ἄπαγε, οὐδὲ γὰρ περὶ ἐκείνων φύσιν ὅλως εἴρηται, ἀλλὰ τὴν τῶν τεκόντων γνώμην ἐξαγγέλλει,—τὸ γὰρ ἐν ἀνομίαις συλληφθῆναι καὶ ἐν ἀνομίαις κισσηθῆναι ὑπὸ τῆς μητρός, δῆλον ὅτι τῶν γεννώντων ἀλλ’ οὐ τῶν γεννωμένων μηνύει τὸ ἔγκλημα,— κἀκείνων γνώμην διαβάλλει, ἀλλ’ οὐ φύσιν τῶν τικτομένων, ὡς οἱ ἀνόητοι βούλονται. 7 Ibid.: ἐπειδὴ ἐκ πολλοῦ πταίοντες καὶ παρὰ τῶν πατέρων οἱ καθεξῆς τὰς ἁμαρτίας διαδεχόμενοι ἀπὸ τῶν τοιούτων καὶ τῆς γεννήσεως τὰς ἀφορμὰς πολλάκις ἐδέχοντο, οὐδέποτε ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ κακοῦ διαλείποντος ἐν αὐτοῖς. In fact, Theodore dedicated an entire essay to refuting the thesis of original sin’s hereditory nature. Patriarch Photios entitled this essay: Θεοδώρου Ἀντιοχέως πρὸς τοὺς λέγοντας φύσει καὶ οὐ γνώμῃ πταίειν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους. See Phot. Const., Bibliotheca cod. CLXXVII: PG 103, 513A–520A. Cf. Barhadbesabba ‘Arbaya, Historia ecclesiastica XX: F. Nau, PO 9.5 (Paris 1913), p. 512. 8 See Theod. Mopsuest., Fragm. in ep. ad Rom. 7, 5: K. Staab, Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche: aus Katenenhandschriften gesammelt und herausgegeben (Münster 1933), p. 124–125. Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Ancestral Sin 407 encompassed both the promise of immortality, which obviously had to be fulfilled in the future, and the threat of punishment (Genesis 2:7; 3:3)9 . Adam fell victim not only to his naivety, but also to his disregard for God’s orders10 . Thus, it turns out that in the act of the fall, Satan, rather than provoking bodily passions, provoked a volitional act of the human soul. Theodore states this explicitly in the Catechetical Homilies. He writes: It is obvious that the power of sin derives from the will of the soul. In Adam’s case, it was also his soul, and not his body, who first heard sin’s advice; for it was not his body whom Satan convinced to give in, to abandon God, and to believe that the deceiver was his helper. In his [Adam’s] striving for superior things and following Satan’s advice, Adam transgressed against God’s order and chose for himself things that were at odds with it11 . What Theodore finds particularly intriguing about the fall is Adam’s irresistible ambition, which led him to disobey God’s will and to rebel against God’s law. Sin is an act of disobeying God’s law and can only be committed as an act of free will12 . As Adam was fully conscious of his actions, God justly punished his transgression. The punishment was death13 . Paradoxically, however, for Theodore, human mortality both precedes sin historically and follows 9 See pages 106–119 in the sources cited above, as well as Codex Barberinus graecus 569, f. 59v : Θεοδώρου. Δύο ταῦτα ποιεῖ, ἐξάγει τε ἡμᾶς τοῦ χείρονος καὶ προσάγει τοῖς κρείττοσιν, ἐπαγγελία καὶ φόβος, ὁ μὲν ἀφέλκων τοῦ κακοῦ, ἡ δὲ ἄγουσα τῷ καλῷ. Τούτου γὰρ ἕνεκεν καὶ ὁ Θεὸς τῇ τε ἀπειλῇ τῆς τιμωρίας ἠσφαλίσατο τῆς ἐντολῆς τὴν παράβασιν, καὶ τῇ ἐπαγγελίᾳ τοῦ ξύλου τῆς ζωῆς ἐπὶ τὴν φυλακὴν αὐτῆς προετρέψατο. Μοχθηρότητα τοίνυν ὁ διάβολος τόν τε φόβον ἀνεῖλεν τῷ εἰπεῖν Οὐκ ἀποθανεῖσθε, καὶ προτροπὴν εἰσήγαγεν τῷ εἰπεῖν Διανοιχθήσονται ὑμῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ φαγόντων, καὶ ἔσεσθε ὡς θεοί, γινώσκοντες καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν. Ἐνταῦθα δὲ τὴν οἰκείαν ἐξήμεσε κακίαν· οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν ἔσεσθε ὡς Θεός, ἀλλ’ ὡς θεοί, ἐντεῦθεν ἤδη προεθίζων αὐτοὺς τῷ μὴ μέγα τι νομίζειν τὸν Θεόν, μηδὲ μόνον οἴεσθαι τοιοῦτον εἶναι, πολλοὺς δὲ κατ’ αὐτὸν εἰληφέναι, ὡς καὶ ἑτέρους δυνατὸν εἶναι γενέσθαι τοιούτους. Since the manuscript has not been published, I am quoting here from R. Devreesse, Essai sur Théodore de Mopsueste, 21. Devreesse quotes from the original. Cf. Theod. Mopsuest., Contra defensores peccati originalis III, 3: H. B. Swete, Theodori Mopsuesteni, vol. 2, p. 335. 10 See Theod. Mopsuest., Hom. cat. XII, 8.19.25: A. Mingana, Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Lord’s Prayer and on the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, WoodSt 6 (Cambridge 1933), p. 148, 156, 162 (Syr.), p. 21, 28, 32 (Engl.). 11 Theod. Mopsuest., Hom. cat. V, 11: A. Mingana, Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Nicene Creed, WoodSt 5 (Cambridge 1932), p. 190 (Syr.), p. 56 (Engl.). 12 See R. Norris, Manhood and Christ, 179 et seq. 13 See Theod. Mopsuest., Fragm. in ep. ad Rom. 7, 9–11: K. Staab, Pauluskommentare, p. 128: ἐπειδὴ δέ, φησίν, ὁ θεὸς τὸν περὶ τοῦ φυτοῦ δέδωκε νόμον, καὶ διάκρισις ἐγένετο δύο πραγμάτων, ἡ μὲν ἁμαρτία παρείσδυσιν ἔσχεν, ἐγὼ δὲ τἀναντία ποιήσας τοῖς τῷ θεῷ δεδογμένοις, θανάτῳ κατεκρίθην, γέγονέ τε ἡμῖν λοιπὸν θανάτου παρεκτικὸς ὁ παρὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τεθεὶς νόμος ἐπὶ τῷ ζῆσαι πεισθέντας αὐτῷ. See also Theod. Mopsuest., Fragm. in ep. ad Rom. 7, 12: K. Staab, Pauluskommentare, p. 128: Τῆς πρὸς τὸν Ἀδὰμ μέμνηται ἐντολῆς, ἐπειδὴ ἀρχὴ 408 Svetoslav Riboloff naturally from sin, from an “objective” moral point of view. In fact, God had foreseen man’s volitional act of renouncing his blessed state. It is in this sense that according to Theodore, death, in man’s current state, amounts to separation between body and soul14 . Theodore proposes that the incorruptibility of man following his resurrection will apply mostly to the body and to the relationship between body and soul, which is contingent upon rendering the soul unchangeable by cleansing it from sin: It could be possible—he says—to protect the body against death and decay if we first made the soul unchangeable and free from the passions of sin, so that by acquiring unchangeability, we could also acquire freedom from sin15 . By sinning, man loses his power and his function as a link (σύνδεσμος) connecting contingent beings to one another, on the one hand, and all of them to God, on the other. Hence, by sinning, man has transgressed against God’s νόμου τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἐκεῖνος ἐγένετο. καὶ συμπλέκων ἀμφότερα λέγει· ὥστε ὁ μὲν νόμος ἅγιος, καὶ ἡ ἐντολὴ ἁγία καὶ δικαία καὶ ἀγαθή, ἵνα εἴπῃ ὅτι ἀμφότερα τοίνυν ἄγαν ὠφέλιμα. καλῶς δὲ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐντολῆς πλείοσιν ἐχρήσατο τοῖς ἐπαίνοις, ἅτε δὴ καὶ τῆς δόσεως οὐκ ἐπ’ ἀναγκαίοις κατὰ τὸ πρόχειρον δοξάσης δεδόσθαι καὶ θανάτου παρεκτικῆς ἅπασι γενομένης. ἐκάλεσε δὲ αὐτὴν ἁγίαν μὲν ὡς τὰς ἀφορμὰς παρέχουσαν τῆς τε τοῦ καλοῦ καὶ τοῦ κακοῦ διακρίσεως καὶ τὸ κρεῖττον ἀπὸ τοῦ χείρονος ἀφορίζουσαν, δικαίαν δὲ ὡς ἀναγκαίως μετὰ τὸ δεῖξαι τὸ καλὸν ἐπάγουσαν τῷ παραβάτῃ τὴν τιμωρίαν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀγαθὴν ὡς καλῶν παρεκτικήν, τό τε παρέχειν τὴν διάγνωσιν καὶ τὸ μείζονα πειθομένοις ὑπισχνεῖσθαι καλά. 14 In his Commentary to the Psalm singer’s messianic words, “Into thine hand I commit my spirit” (Psalms 31:5), Theodore of Mospuestia explains why the separation between body and soul amounts to death. See Theod. Mopsuest., Expositio in psalm. XXX, 6: R. Devreesse, Le Commentaire sur les Psaumes de Théodore de Mopsueste, p. 137–138: Tuae tuitioni animam meam committo atque custodiae: tu eam saluam fac atque defende. Notandum uero quoniam hac uoce usus est Dominus in patibulo constitutus, non quod profetice de ipso dicta sit, sicut opinantur quidam, sed quod ei inter mortis ac passionis pericula posito haec uerba conuenerint. Usus <est> ergo hac uoce id temporis, cum anima eius separabatur a corpore, quam iuste commendabat Patri, ut eum corpori conpetenti resurrectionis tempore redderet. 15 Theod. Mopsuest., Hom. cat. V, 12: A. Mingana, Commentary on the Nicene Creed, p. 191 (Syr.), p. 57 (Engl.). In his Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint John, Theodore explicitly declares that Christ’s death is not like the death of ordinary people: his death is shorter “because [Christ] knew that His stay in the grave would be short and that death would be destroyed after His soul returned to His body” (Theod. Mopsuest., Commentarius in Evangelium Joannis Apostoli Х, 16: J.-M. Vosté, CSCO 116, SSyr 63 (Paris 1940), p. 146: quia sciebat breve fore intervallum (in sepulcro) et mortem esse solvendam, reverente anima ad corpus. See Textus syriacus in: J.-M. Vosté, CSCO 115, SSyr 62 (Paris 1940), p. 205–206. However, Theodore does not base this statement on his understanding of Christ as man’s perfect prototype as he viewed this statement as a christological “inconvenience”. In other words, this statement shows some inconsistency about his thinking. Cf. below, 157 et seq. The opposite is true: rather than base his understanding of man on Christology, in this case Theodore’s understanding of man informs his Christology. Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Ancestral Sin 409 plan whereby man must represent all beings before God so that they may honor God through man. He points out in his commentary on Ephesians: But after death was introduced [in this order], because we commit sins, death caused separation between them [between the sensory and the spiritual]. The soul separated from the body, and the body—separated [from the soul]—was subject to complete decay. The link among the parts of creation started falling apart16 . Adam sinned, even though he was given the opportunity to remain immortal and protected by God’s grace (bestowed upon him when he was created) if he had obeyed God’s orders. The effects of Adam’s transgression are not just personal but expand upon the entire created world. All who partake in his “body” suffer the consequences: not only his offspring but also the entire visible created world that shares its constitutive elements with the human body. Not only did Adam transform the link between the created being and God into a subject who rebels against his Creator, rather than serve his function as a link; but he also brought about the soul’s separation from the body as the harmonic unity of creation started falling apart17 . In Theodore’s thought, man’s function as a universal link among the individual contingent creatures, on the one hand, and among all of them and God, on the other, is closely related to the notion of “God’s image”. Hence, we need to analyze the relationship between God’s image and the fall in Theodore’s works. Man can only fulfill his function of a unifying link and representative before God as long as man is in harmony with God, i.e., as long as man obeys God’s orders. Following the fall, this unifying link stopped functioning, and, in Theodore’s view, “God’s image” within man transformed into “an image of Satan”. Theodore writes in his Catechetical Homilies: if he [Adam] had been wise, he would have stayed with Him Who was the source of all blessings which Adam truly possessed. But Adam accepted and fulfilled the 16 Theod. Mopsuest., In ep. ad Eph. 1, 1: H. B. Swete, Theodori Mopsuesteni, vol. 1, p. 129–130: Sed subintroducta est mors peccantibus nobis; fiebat autem hinc separatio quaedam utrorumque. Anima enim a corpore separabatur; et corpus separatum solutionem plenariam sustinebat. Dissoluebatur ergo secundum hoc creaturae copulatio. 17 In his Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Colossians, Theodore of Mopsuestia even describes a rebellion of the angels who, aghast at Adam’s transgression, refuse to serve mankind, but God promises them that he will restore the broken harmony of the world. The source to which Theodore refers in describing this story is unclear. See Theod. Mopsuest., In ep. ad Col. I, 16: H. B. Swete, Theodori Mopsuesteni, vol. 1, p. 268 et seq. 410 Svetoslav Riboloff image of Satan—the rebel who had risen against God and who had wanted to appropriate for himself the glory befitting God18 . Thus, man ceased to be an image of fidelity to God—an image in harmony with creation—and instead accepted the image of God’s opponent. Actually, Theodore interpreted the concept of “God’s image” in an exclusively moral sense: for him, man’s turning his will away from God equals man’s adopting “Satan’s image”. Apparently, according to Theodore, when man fell, having turned his will away from God’s will, man lost God’s image within himself: “We lost the dignity of this image because we were not careful”19 , points out Theodore. At the same time, Theodore proposes that the state of mortality threatening the first created humans reflects the weakness, vulnerability, and mutability of the human soul, or will, which eventually admitted sin into man’s being after man has turned away from God by means of his disobedience: “There is nothing more terrible for men than death” (θανάτου γὰρ ἀνθρώποις οὐδὲν φοβερώτερον), the Antiochian thinker says in his Commentary of the Gospel of Luke20 . The fear of death turned man into Satan’s slave21 . Theodore’s statement follows, to an extent, the Apostle Paul’s reflections upon man’s wretched 18 Theod. Mopsuest., Hom. cat. XII, 8: A. Mingana, Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer, p. 148 (Syr.), p. 21 (Engl.). 19 Theod. Mopsuest., Hom. cat. XII, 21: A. Mingana, Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer, p. 160 (Syr.), p. 30 (Engl.). Frederick McLeod does not share this view: “Despite Adam’s seeming acceptance of Satan’s ‘image’ here, Adam has not lost ‘God’s image’. For Christ, in his humanity, is the true prototype who truly reveals God and unifies the Creation and God. Adam may have damaged his reflected image, but he cannot destroy it, because the role that was assigned to him has been fulfilled by Christ. ‘God’s image’ is inherent to human nature.” (F. McLeod, The Roles of Christ’s Humanity, 132–133). McLeod’s claims are based upon a logical reflection derived from Theodore’s writings, yet McLeod fails to provide specific references to Theodore’s texts in support of his proposition. Conversely, the two passages I cited above—the only extant fragments which discuss this issue—demonstrate that, according to Theodore, man lost God’s image in himself in a moral sense. 20 Theod. Mopsuest., In Evangelium Luc. 22, 39: PG 66, 724C. 21 See Theod. Mopsuest., Fragm. in ep. ad Rom. 7, 8: K. Staab, Pauluskommentare, p. 127: Ὑποδείγματι κέχρηται τοῖς περὶ τὸν Ἀδάμ, ἐπεὶ κἀκεῖνος προκειμένων ἐπὶ τοῦ παραδείσου τῶν φυτῶν ἀδεῶς ἁπάντων μεταλαμβάνειν ἐδύνατο, εἰ μὴ νόμος αὐτῷ τις περὶ ἀποχῆς ἔτυχε δοθείς, καὶ οὐκ ἦν ἁμάρτημα τὸ μετὰ τῶν λοιπῶν βουληθέντα κἀκείνου φαγεῖν. ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐντολὴν ἐδέξατο ἀποσχέσθαι τοῦ φυτοῦ τῆς βρώσεως, ἐπιθυμία μέν τις ἐνῆν αὐτῷ τῆς μεταλήψεως, ὡς εἰκός, τοῦ καρποῦ, ἐκωλύετο δὲ ὅμως ὑπὸ τῆς ἐντολῆς ἁμάρτημα εἶναι τὸ φαγεῖν τῶν ἀπαγορευθέντων ἡγούμενος. ἐντεῦθεν ἡ ἁμαρτία πάροδον ἔσχεν, τῆς μὲν ἐντολῆς ἐπεχούσης τὴν βρῶσιν, τοῦ δὲ Ἀδὰμ οὐ πρὸς τὴν ἀξιοπιστίαν τῆς ἐντολῆς βουληθέντος ἰδεῖν, ἀλλὰ πιστωθέντος μὲν τοῦ ἐπιβούλου τοῖς λόγοις, ὅλου δὲ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας τοῦ φαγεῖν γεγονότος. καὶ οὐ μόνον ἀφορμὴ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἐντεῦθεν ἐγένετο, ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἔτι κἀκεῖνο ἐμάθομεν, ὡς οὐκ ἀπάτῃ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις προσῆκεν ἕπεσθαι ἡμᾶς, δοκιμάζοντας δὲ ἃ χρὴ ποιεῖν, τῶν ἑτέρων ἀπέχεσθαι, οἷς οὐκ ἐμμένοντες Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Ancestral Sin 411 state. In his sermon, Paul adopts this state as a starting point for Christ’s word (Romans 1:18–3:2; Ephesians 1:3–14, 3:4–12; and Colossians 1:24–29, 3:5–10; Ephesians 4:17–19; 1 Thessalonians 4:3–6; and Titus 3:3). Theodore of Mopsuestia examines Paul’s reflections from a purely moral perspective. This leads Theodore’s discussion in the direction of his specific hamartiology, which defines his perception of Christ’s redeeming act and, in turn, his symmetric Christological model. As in his examination of the soul’s moral capabilities, here too Theodore is interested in the contingent human’s abilities to obey God and freely to choose righteousness of his own, changeable free will. It is from this perspective that sin has nothing to do with nature but, instead, results completely from the work of will. This perspective also makes meaningful the proposition that God’s creation of man as mortal was insightful and “pedagogical”, since God had foreseen man’s transgression. Failing to retain God’s grace, man, being changeable by nature, is weak and vulnerable to the temptations of sin. In this state and in this world, man cannot avoid sin. Theodore writes in the Catechetical Homilies: As long as we live in this world, in our mortal and changeable nature, we will be unable not to transgress [God’s will]22 . Theodore follows the same logic in the following passage from his Commentary on the Epistle of Apostle Paul to the Ephesians (2:10): Since we are mortal, in our present lives, certain susceptibility to sin accompanies mortality in some manner […] for we cannot act [differently?], due to the weakness inherent in us through our mortality, and we are not capable of advancing on our own, straight toward perfect virtue23 . δῆλοι πάντως ἐσμὲν ἁμαρτάνοντες. ὥστε οὐ κατ’ ἐκεῖνο μόνον ἡ ἁμαρτία τὴν πάροδον ἔσχεν διὰ τῆς ἐντολῆς, καθὸ τοῦ φυτοῦ μετειλήφαμεν, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ ὅτι μὴ πάσαις ἕπεσθαι ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις ἁπλῶς ἐντεῦθεν μανθάνοντες ἡμαρτάνομεν, τὰ τῆς ἐπιθυμίας παρὰ τὸ δέον πληροῦν ἐπειγόμενοι· τοῦτο γὰρ λέγει τὸ κατειργάσατο ἐν ἐμοὶ πᾶσαν ἐπιθυμίαν ἀντὶ τοῦ παντὸς ἁμαρτήματος ἀπό τινος ἐπιθυμίας τικτομένου. ἐντεῦθεν ἡ ἀρχὴ γέγονεν ἡμῖν, ἅ τε δὴ τῆς διακρίσεως τὰς ἀφορμὰς δεξαμένοις ἐντεῦθεν. 22 Theod. Mopsuest., Hom. cat. XI, 12: R. Tonneau, R. Devreesse, Les Homélies catéchétiques de Théodore de Mopsueste: reproduction phototypique du ms. Mingana Syr. 561 (Selly Oak Colleges’ Library, Birmingham), StT 145 (Città del Vaticano 1949), p. 304 (Syr.), p. 305 (French). I am quoting from the French edition of the Catechetical Lectures because Mingana’s English translation for some reason omits this sentence, although the Syriac text contains it. See A. Mingana, Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer, p. 9. 23 Theod. Mopsuest., In ep. ad Eph. II, 10: H. B. Swete, Theodori Mopsuesteni, vol. 1, p. 147: Mortales cum simus secundum praesentem uitam, sequitur quodammodo mortalitatem 412 Svetoslav Riboloff In this manner, sinfulness deepens and gains strength from generation to generation24 . This state, however, also applies to those who have been given the law25 and threatens even those who have received the sacrament of baptism, after the Savior’s coming, for they are still mortal26 . Thus, the susceptibility to sin is inherent in all of Adam’s offspring. Their free will—changeable and prone to straying—can move both toward virtue and toward sin: This is precisely why he [the prophet] says, ‘I am a man’ (cf. Isaiah 6:5), i.e., he is referring to our common nature, implying that the susceptibility to evil belongs to it27 . In another commentary on Apostle Paul’s words, “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Ephesians 1:7), Theodore summarizes his thesis about man’s susceptibility to sin. He writes: “It is impossible to see a mortal man, at any time, free from [committing] sin”28 . Thus, Theodore considers Adam’s offspring as inherently susceptible to sin, even though they do not carry in themselves their ancestor’s guilt by nature. Theodore adopts a position typical of his school (we certainly find it in John Chrysostom’s works29 ) that views all humanity as one whole, one “body”. The Bishop of Mopsuestia clearly conveys that in our present lives (man’s first state), this unified body is headed by Adam, the rebellious and sinful father of all men. Not having been part of his nature, his transgression infiltrated facilitas peccandi [...] cum nos minime possеmus propter infirmitatem illam quae nobis aderat per mortalitatem, et cum non sufficeremus ad perfectam uirtutem proficere directionem. 24 See Theod. Mopsuest., Fragm. in ep. ad Rom. 7, 5: K. Staab, Pauluskommentare, p. 124– 125; Theod. Mopsuest., Hom. cat. I, 4 and VII, 6: A. Mingana, Commentary on the Nicene Creed, p. 119, 190 (Syr.), p. 20, 76 (Engl.). 25 See Theod. Mopsuest., In ep. ad Gal. II, 15,16: H. B. Swete, Theodori Mopsuesteni, vol. 1, p. 31. 26 See Theod. Mopsuest., Hom. cat. I, 6: A. Mingana, Commentary on the Nicene Creed, p. 122 (Syr.), p. 21 (Engl.). 27 Also Theod. Mopsuest., Hom. cat. XVI, 8: A. Mingana, Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer, p. 241 (Syr.), p. 101 (Engl.). 28 Theod. Mopsuest., In ep. ad Eph. I, 7,8: H. B. Swete, Theodori Mopsuesteni, vol. 1, p. 126: […] nec fieri potest mortalem aliquando posse videri sine culpa. See also: ibid., p. 103; Theod. Mopsuest., Hom. cat. XI, 17: A. Mingana, Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer, p. 140–141 (Syr.), p. 14–15 (Engl.). 29 See the sources cited in I. Coman, L’unité du genre humain d’après saint Jean Chrysostome, in: P. Chrestou (ed.), Συμπόσιον. Studies on St. John Chrysostom (Thessaloniki 1973) 41–58. Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Ancestral Sin 413 all mankind, even the entire universe, because his transgression destroyed the “link” (σύνδεσμος), the harmonic unity within man (i.e., the unity between body and soul) as well as within the universe (the unity among its various constituting elements which Adam was called upon to keep connected): “Because of men’s evil deed, the entire creation appeared destroyed” (propter hominum etenim malitiam omnis […] creatura disrumpi uidebatur)30 . All men together constitute a common being, a common existence, for all men partake in the same shared nature. Since Adam too partakes in this nature, all men constitute a composite “body”, and Adam, the first man, is its head. The relationship between Adam and the rest of mankind is more complex than that of the representative to his species. Adam’s mortality, changeability, and corruptibility affect the entire “body”, allowing death to destroy all of its members. Theodore writes in his Commentary on John: After the first man was created by God, he became vulnerable to death because of his sin, together with all that were born from him. This is because they had received their existence from the first humans [i.e., Adam and Eve] who share with them their [common] nature. In this way humans may give birth too; consequently, they received a natural kinship with their parents. And since they share their parents’ nature, humans also became susceptible to death, which was imposed on their nature31 . In his Commentary on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans, Theodore of Mopsuestia explains his view on why death spread among the rest of mankind even if they were not responsible for Adam’s sin. His answer is in complete accord with his overall understanding of sin as a personal, volitional act of disobeying God’s will: Death rules over all who sin, in any manner and at any time; the rest of mankind is not free from death because their sin is different from Adam’s. Rather, all were sentenced to death because they sinned in all sort of ways and at all times. For 30 Theod. Mopsuest., In ep. ad Col. I, 16: H. B. Swete, Theodori Mopsuesteni, vol. 1, p. 267. Theod. Mopsuest., Commentarius in Evangelium Joannis Apostoli XVII, 11: J.-M. Vosté, CSCO 116, SSyr 63 (Paris 1940), p. 224: Postquam creatus est primus homo a Deo, reus factus est mortis propter peccatum cum omnibus qui ex eo nati sunt; quippe qui ex parte quadam naturali primorum hominum receperunt existentiam suam. Quia ita etiam gignere possunt homines, propterea merito participationem naturalem cum eis receperunt. Et quia communem habent naturam, ita etiam mortem naturae impositam, contraxerunt. See Textus syriacus in: J.M. Vosté, CSCO 115, SSyr 62 (Paris 1940), p. 313. Cf. K. McNamara, Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Nestorian Heresy, Irish Theological Quarterly 19 (1952) 262–263. 31 414 Svetoslav Riboloff death has not been defined as a punishment for this or that kind of sin, but it is a punishment for all sins [in history]32 . Following the example of Paul, the Apostle’s reflections upon the Old Testament law, Theodore too proposes that God’s having given men the law—the Old Testament revelation—was not enough to help Adam’s offspring overcome their susceptibility to sin33 . An important distinction between the body and the soul is found in another of Theodore’s text, his Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint John. While (as noted above) the soul’s susceptibility to abusing its freedom derives from the soul’s mutability, in this text the body’s susceptibility to sin is explained in terms the body’s natural mortality: Likewise, talking about our souls and our bodies in his Epistle to the Romans and teaching us how our souls can reach toward virtue, the Apostle also said that the body, by the power of its movement, is susceptible to sin because of its mortality34 . Conclusion At this point, we can conclude that, according to Theodore of Mopsuestia, death is not only punishment for men but also an important educational tool. It is precisely because men are mortal that they have been able to appreciate 32 Theod. Mopsuest., Fragm. in ep. ad Rom. 5, 13–14: K. Staab, Pauluskommentare, p. 119: ὁ θάνατος ἐκράτησεν ἁπάντων τῶν ὁπωσδήποτε ἡμαρτηκότων· οὐ γάρ, ἐπειδὴ οὐχ ὅμοιον ἦν τὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας εἶδος, τό τε τοῦ Ἀδὰμ καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀνθρώπων, θανάτου γεγόνασιν ἐκτὸς οἱ λοιποί, ἀλλ’ ὑπὲρ ὧν ἡμάρτανον ὁπωσδήποτε, τοῦ θανάτου τὴν ἀπόφασιν ἐδέξαντο πάντες· οὐ γὰρ τῆς τοιᾶσδε ἁμαρτίας τιμωρία ὁ θάνατος ὥρισται ἀλλὰ πάσης ἁμαρτίας. See also: ibid.: ἡμαρτηκότος γὰρ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ καὶ μὴν καὶ θνητοῦ διὰ τοῦτο γεγονότος, ἥ τε ἁμαρτία πάροδον ἔλαβεν εἰς τοὺς ἑξῆς καὶ ὁ θάνατος πάντων ἐκράτει τῶν ἀνθρώπων ὡς εἰκός. πάντων γὰρ ἡμαρτηκότων, εἰ καὶ μὴ παραπλησίαν τῷ Ἀδὰμ ἁμαρτίαν ἀλλ’ οὖν γε ὁπωσδήποτε, τῶν μὲν οὕτω τῶν δὲ οὕτω, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὸν θάνατον ἦν κρατεῖν ἐφ’ ἁπάντων ὁμοίως. 33 Ibid.: ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ὁ νόμος ἐπεισελθὼν ἀνελεῖν αὐτὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐδυνήθη· τοὐναντίον μὲν οὖν καὶ ἡ τοῦ ἁμαρτάνειν ἀφορμὴ ἐντεῦθεν ἡμῖν ἐπεγίγνετο τῷ μηδὲ οἷόν τε εἶναι ἁμάρτημα κρίνεσθαι νόμων ἐκτός. ὄντων δὲ τῶν καθ’ ἡμᾶς ἐν τούτοις ὡς μηδεμίαν τῆς ἐπὶ τὸ κρεῖττον μεταβολῆς ὑποφαίνεσθαι ἐλπίδα, λύσιν ἁπάντων ὁ Χριστὸς εἰργάσατο τῶν κακῶν. διὸ συντόμως ἐπήγαγε τὸ ὅς ἐστι τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος, ἵνα εἴπῃ ὅτι ἐγένετο δὲ τὰ κατὰ τὸν Ἀδὰμ τύπος τῶν κατὰ Χριστόν, ἐπειδὴ ὥσπερ δι’ ἐκείνου τῶν χειρόνων ἡ πάροδος ἐγένετο, οὕτω διὰ τούτου τῆς τῶν κρειττόνων ἀπολαύσεως τὴν ἀφορμὴν ἐδεξάμεθα. 34 Theod. Mopsuest., Commentarius in Evangelium Joannis Apostoli VIII, 16: J.-M. Vosté, CSCO 116, SSyr 63 (Paris 1940), p. 119: Similiter et Apostolus, loquens de anima nostra et de corpore nostro in epistula ad Romanos, atque docens nos quomodo anima possit tendere ad virtutem, quomodo autem et corpus propter mortalitatem sibi naturalem faciliter motu naturae suae inclinetur ad peccatum. See Textus syriacus in: J.-M. Vosté, CSCO 115, SSyr 62 (Paris 1940), p. 167. Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Ancestral Sin 415 the value of immortality and to become aware of the wretchedness of their situation. At the same time, Adam’s sin brought man’s changeable nature to a state of confusion, which, in turn, provoked an outpour of passions. This event brought sin to man, yet it also taught man to search for a proper solution to this problem35 . The Antiochian thinker is convinced that God not only wanted to teach men how to live right but also to give them the opportunity to choose between dedicating their lives to God and dedicating them to evil36 . The very possibility for sin (peccato aditum) has been given to men as an educational tool: sin represented a necessary choice, and not only the actual choice of sin but also the opportunity to choose God. Making good moral choices is man’s highest pursuit. In Theodore’s logic, the sensibility of human nature is inevitably accompanied by changeability. Hence, man needs to be able to make a free choice because man is a reasonable being. As part of his educational mission, God has also given men orders, laws that help man regulate his present life (κατὰ τὸν παρόντα βίον): life in man’s first state, the first epoch of the oikonomia of salvation37 . 35 See Theod. Mopsuest., Hom. cat. XI: A. Mingana, Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer, p. 124–142 (Syr.), p. 1–16 (Engl.). Cf. Theod. Mopsuest., Hom. cat. XI, 1: A. Mingana, Commentary on the Lord’s Prayer, p. 124 (Syr.), p. 1 (Engl.): “In this way he demonstrated to us that in addition to applying ourselves to correct worship of God and correct knowledge, we must also apply ourselves to bringing our lives in harmony with God’s orders”. 36 According to Frederick McLeod, Theodore’s thesis that for Adam, as well as for all men, mortality was educational emphasizes humanity’s important, even central, place in Theodore’s understanding of salvation (F. McLeod, The Roles of Christ’s Humanity, 65–66; сf. R. Greer, Theodore of Mopsuestia: Exegete and Theologian [Westminster 1961] 16–17). 37 Theod. Mopsuest., Fragm. in ep. ad Rom. 7, 8: K. Staab, Pauluskommentare, p. 127: οὕτω καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἀνωτέροις τὸ τὴν ἐπιθυμίαν οὐκ ᾔδειν εἰ μὴ ὁ νόμος ἔλεγεν· οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις, ἀντὶ τοῦ οὐκ ἂν ᾔδειν ὡς οὐ δεῖ τι ποιεῖν τῶν ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ κειμένων, εἰ μὴ νόμος ἦν ὁ τοῦτο διορίζων ἡμῖν· καὶ γὰρ τὸ ἐν ἐμοὶ ὅτε λέγει, τὸ κοινὸν λέγει τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τοῖς τοῦ Ἀδὰμ εἰς ἀπόδειξιν κέχρηται τῶν κοινῶν. ὅθεν ἐπὶ τοῦ οἰκείου κἀκεῖνο λέγει προσώπου, διὰ πάντων δεῖξαι βουλόμενος, ὅτι ἀναγκαίως μὲν κατὰ τὸν παρόντα βίον νόμοις πολιτευόμεθα, ὑφ’ ὧν ἡ ἔμφυτος ἀνακινεῖται διάκρισις, παιδευομένων ὧν τε ἀπέχεσθαι καὶ ἃ ποιεῖν προσήκει, ὥστε καὶ τὸ λογικὸν ἐν ἡμῖν ἐνεργὸν εἶναι. χρεία δὲ τῆς μελλούσης ἡμῖν καταστάσεως ἐν ᾗ γεγονότες τὰ φαινόμενα ἡμῖν καλά, ταῦτα καὶ ποιῆσαι δυνησόμεθα ῥᾳδίως. ὅθεν τῆς οἰκείας ἐχόμενος ἀκολουθίας καὶ τοῦ δεικνύναι, ὡς οὐδ’ ἄν τις ἦν ἐν ἡμῖν διάκρισις τοῦ τε καλοῦ καὶ τοῦ χείρονος, οὐδὲ ἁμαρτίας ἐπίγνωσις, εἰ μὴ νόμῳ ταῦτα διώριστο παρ’ ἡμῖν, ἀλόγων δὲ δίκην τὸ προστυχὸν ποιεῖν ἅπαν ἐμέλλομεν, ἐπάγει· χωρὶς γὰρ νόμου ἁμαρτία νεκρά. οὐδ’ ἂν ἐνεργηθείη, φησίν, ἁμάρτημα μὴ νόμῳ διωρισμένον. διὰ τί; ὅτι οὐχ ἡ πρᾶξις ἁμάρτημα ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ τὸ εἰδότα ὧν ἀπέχεσθαι προσήκει, ποιεῖν τι παρὰ τὰ ἐγνωσμένα καλῶς ἔχειν. Cf. Theod. Mopsuest., In ep. ad Gal. II, 15–16: H. B. Swete, Theodori Mopsuesteni, vol. 1, p. 31.