Christian Soteriology and Christian Platonism

8/13/2019 Christian Soteriology and Christian Platonism

1/45

Vigiliae Christianae 61 (2007) 313 -356 www.brill.nl/vc

VigiliaeChristianae

Christian Soteriology and Christian Platonism:Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and the Biblical and

Philosophical Basis of the Doctrine of Apokatastasis1

Ilaria L.E. RamelliCatholic University of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Milan, [email protected]

AbstractPauls statement that God will be all in all and other N and O passages are taken byOrigen and by Gregory of Nyssa as the scriptural basis of their eschatological doctrine

of apokatastasis and eventual universal salvation. At the same time, their doctrine rests(1) on philosophical arguments mainly deriving from Platonism (Gregorys De animaet resurrectioneis deeply influenced by Platonism both in form and in content, and so isOrigen, although both are Christians first and Platonists second), and (2) on the alle-gorical exegesis of Scripture, another heritage of Hellenistic culture: Origen was verywell acquainted with the Stoic and Platonic allegorical interpretations of Greek myths.

Keywordsallegory, relationship between philosophy and Christianity, doctrine of evil, purificationof the soul, resurrection, eschatology

Te structure of the argument that I shall endeavour to develop is the fol-lowing: (1) Pauls statement that God will be all in all and other N andO passages are taken by Origen and Gregory of Nyssa as the scripturalbasis of their eschatological doctrine of apokatastasis and eventual univer-

sal salvation. (2) Tis biblical foundation often passes through the alle-

1) Tis paper was originally delivered at the SBL Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, 19-22N b 2005 U i C H ll i i N i i I f l h


2/45

314 I.L.E. Ramelli / Vigiliae Christianae 61 (2007) 313 -356

gorical exegesis of Scripture, a significant heritage of Hellenistic culture:Origen was very well acquainted with the Stoic and Platonic allegorical

interpretations of Greek myths, already applied to the Bible by Philo andClement of Alexandria. (3) At the same time, their doctrine rests on philo-sophical arguments mainly deriving from Platonism, an even weightierheritage of Hellenistic culture: e.g. Gregorys De anima et resurrectioneisdeeply influenced by Platonism both in form and in content, and so isOrigen, especially in his De principiis, although both are Christians firstand Platonists second.

1. Te Scriptural Foundation of Apokatastasis in Origen and Gregory

Origens exposition of the doctrine of apokatastasis, especially in De prin-cipiis, but also elsewhere, is always supported by scriptural quotations, andhis arguments are grounded in the Bible and structured around it, in anintimate logical relationship. Many of his arguments and quotations

confirming them will be taken up by Gregory of Nyssa.2

Among all scriptural evidence, 1Cor 15:21-28 seems to be absolutelyessential in Origens viewas it will later be in Gregorysand, wheneverhe discusses apokatastasis, it is often quoted, both entirely and partially, inparticular in the final statement, that God will be all in all .3 Tis is

2)

See my essay on the apokatastasis in Origen and Gregory in my Gregorio di Nissa.Sullanima e la resurrezione, Milan 2007; history of the apokatastasis in my Apocatastasi,forthcoming in Milan. Te bibliography on this subject, especially for Origen, would beimpressively wide: I refer to my book for complete documentation; here I only mention e.g.W. van Laak,Allvershnung, Sinzig 1990 for Origen, and M. Ludlow, Universal Salvation,Oxford 2000, for Gregory; also C. Lenz, Apokatastasis, in Reallexikon fr Antike undChristentum, I, Stuttgart 1950, 510-516; R. ParryC. Partridge, eds., Universal Salvation?,Carlisle 2003 with my review in Stylos14 (2005) 206-208, and some recent entries by L.-F.Mateo-Seco in Diccionario de san Gregorio de Nisa, eds. Id.G. Maspero, Burgos 2006 (ofwhich an enriched English edition is also expected to appear): Escatologa, 357-378;Purificacin ultraterrena, 765-769; Soteriologa, 803-812; P. zamalikos, Origen: Phi-losophy of History and Eschatology, Leiden 2007.3) On early Christian interpretation of 1Cor, including this very important passage, now

J L K 1 C i hi I d b E l Ch i i C G d R id


3/45

I.L.E. Ramelli / Vigiliae Christianae 61 (2007) 313 -356 315

extremely important for Origens contention, because it is connected withthe final elimination of evil, an assumption that turns out to be completely

consistent with his metaphysical doctrine of the non-substantiality of evilfrom the ontological point of view.4In 3,6,2-3 Origen reflects on 1Cor 15,28 and draws some consequences from it: When God becomes all inall, we cannot admit evil, lest God may be found in evil. Tat God is saidto be all in all means that he is all also in each individual . . . in the sensethat everything the rational intelligence, freed from any dirtiness of sin andpurified from any taint of evil, will be able to perceive, to grasp and tothink, all this will be God. . ., and so God will be all for this intelligence . . .,because evil will not exist any more: for such intelligence, God, not touchedby evil, is all . . . After removing every sense of evil, only he who is the solegood God will become all for the creature returned to a state of soundnessand purity . . . and not only in few or in many, but in all God will be all, whenat last there will be no more death, nor deaths sting, nor evil, mostdefinitely: then God will truly be all in all . Here, as he often does else-where, Origen even offers a quotation inside another: deaths sting, which issin, is a reminiscence of 1Cor 15:55-56.5

In the same passage of 1Cor 15:15-28, Christs victory over his enemiesis repeatedly mentioned, especially in vv. 24-27: this is another point takenby Origen as important evidence of the doctrine of universal apokatastasis.In v. 25, , there is a quotation of Ps 109:1 LXX [110:1 Hebr.](quoted in turn in Heb 10:13),6 Sede ad dexteram meam. . ., where the

dignity of the throne is connected to victory over enemies, which isachieved by the Lord for my Lord (dixit Dominus Domino meo . . .); in v.27 the concept is repeated and strengthened:

ltimo, inArch e elos. Lantropologia di Origene e di Gregorio di Nissa, eds. U. BianchiH.Crouzel, Milano 1981, 58-117; H. Crouzel, Quand le Fils transmet le Royaume Dieuson Pre, Studia Missionalia33 (1984) 359-384; R. Roukema, La rsurrection des mortsdans linterprtation orignienne de 1 Corinthiens 15, in La rsurrection chez les Pres, Stras-bourg-urnhout 2003, 161-177,praes.166-169 on 1Cor 15:24-28.4)For this central doctrine in Origen and Gregory see, with ample documentation, thephilosophical essay in my Gregorio di Nissa; a synthesis is to be found in A.A. Mosshammer,M l i Di i i d G i 583 591


4/45


. Origen quotes Ps 109:1 both in Princ. 1,6,1 and in his Com-mentary on the Gospel of John, 6,295-296: in the latter passage he sees in the

biblical sentence evidence for his doctrine of final restoration of all. Heinterprets the words of the Psalm as addressed by the Father to the Lordof each of us and the submission of all his enemies as achieved when thelast enemy, Death , will be defeated and all evil annihilated, according tothe fundamental metaphysical theory of non-substantiality of evil. Univer-sal submission to Christ, including the destruction of death, is also thetheme of 1Cor 15:26 () and itscontext, an important passage often quoted by Origen in defence of histheory of apokatastasis and universal salvation, and joined to Ps 109:1 inour passage of the Commentary on John, which is a patchwork of biblicalquotations, especially from Paul: Te Father is good and the Son is theimage of his goodness [Wis 7:26; Mk 10:18]. God, however, althoughhe benefits the world by reconciling it to himself in Christ [2Cor 5:19],while it had become his enemy as a consequence of sin, distributes hisbenefits according to a plan, not putting his enemies as a stool under hisfeet all at once. In fact, the Father says to him who is the Lord of each ofus: ake your seat to my right, until I put your enemies as a stool for yourfeet [Ps 109:1; Hebr 10:13], which will occur when the last enemy, Death,will be annihilated by him [1Cor 15:26]. So, if we grasp what it means tobe subjected to Christ, especially in the light of this passage: And when allwill be submitted to him, he himself, the Son, will submit to him who hassubjected everything to him [1Cor 15:28], then we shall understand

Gods lamb, who takes up the sin of the world, in a way worthy of thegoodness of the God of the universe .

Te basis of such exegesis consists in the identification of the submis-sion of all to Christ, maintained by Paul in 1Cor 15:5-28, with the salva-tion of all, as Origen states in Princ. 1,6,1: Quae ergo est subiectio, quaChristo omnia debent esse subiecta? Ego arbitror quia haec ipsa qua nos quoqueoptamus ei esse subiecti, qua subiecti ei sunt et apostoli et omnes sancti qui

secuti sunt Christum. Subiectionis enim nomen, qua Christo subicimur,salutem quae a Christo est indicat subiectorum, a theme that will be devel-oped by Gregory in his In illud: unc et ipse Filius, in perfect continuitywith Origen, by means of the same quotations and exactly the same inter-


5/45


seen by him as wholly compatible with the doctrine of free will,7and thathe thought it was definitely grounded in Scripture, both in the Old and

the New estament, which he considered as strictly joined and formingone and the same body.8

Te same Pauline passages as a basis, and the same interpretation ofuniversal submission as salvation, are to be found in Princ.3,5,6: theonly-begotten son of God, Logos and Wisdom of the Father, must reignuntil he has put his enemies under his feet and destroyed the last enemy,Death, embracing in himself, at the end of the world, all those whom hesubjects to the Father and who come to salvation thanks to him . . .Tis is themeaning of what the Apostle says about him: When all is submitted tohim, then the Son himself will submit to him who has subjected every-thing to him, so that God may be all in all . Among the several quota-tions, 1Cor 15:28 is the most emphasized, and in fact it is one of the mostimportant passages, and most often quoted by Origen,9in defence of histheory of universal salvation,10which is implied in universal submission:Origen goes on (ibid. 7): as the Sons submission to the Father meansperfect reintegration of all creation [sc.universal apokatastasis], so the sub-mission of his enemies to the Son means salvation of his subjects andreintegration of the lost . Origen carries on his interpretation of Paulspassage in 8, explaining that this submission will take place in certainways and times and according to precise rules: the entire world will submitto the Father, not as a result of violence, nor by necessity that compels sub-

jection, but thanks to words, reason, teaching, emulation of the best, good

norms, and also threats, when deserved and apt . . . Providence operates in

7) See my La coerenza della soteriologia origeniana: dalla polemica contro il determin-ismo gnostico alluniversale restaurazione escatologica, in Pagani e cristiani alla ricerca dellasalvezza. Atti del XXXIV Incontro di Studiosi dellAntichit Cristiana, Roma, Augustinianum,5-7.V.2005, Roma 2006, 661-688.8)Documentation in my Origen and the Stoic Allegorical radition, delivered at the

Annual Meeting of the SBL, San Antonio, X, November 20-23 2004, Invigilata Lucernis28 (2006).9) Te occurrences of 1Cor 15:28 in Origen are listed in Biblia Patristica, III, Paris 1980,

404 (for 15:27-28) and 405 (for 15:28). Te writing in which this passage most frequentlyi D i i ii 1 6 1 d 2 3 7 f 1C 15 27 28 d 1 7 5 2 3 5 3 5 6 3 5 7


6/45


favour of each one, safeguarding the rational creatures free will .11Origenis very attentive to the problem of free will, and, as Gregory too will do,

explains that the universal submission to which Paul refers will not beslavery, but salvation thanks to everyones free adhesion to the Good, whichwill occur sooner or later. Te interpretation of the final submission toChrist as salvation was repeated by Origen elsewhere too, in the very sameterms.12Tis subjection that means salvation is universal, as confirmed bymany other passages in Origen, always based on Pauls statements, espe-cially Princ.2,3,3 recalling 1Cor 15:15-28: our condition will be incor-poreal one day, and if we admit this, since all will be subjected to Christ,necessarily this condition will extend to all, to whom the subjection toChrist is referred. And all those who are subjected to Christ in the end willbe also submitted to the Father, to whom Christ will hand his reign . Ifthe salvation of rational beings has to be universal, it must also include allfallen angels: to account for and to strengthen this claim, Origen hasrecourse to Phil 2:10-11, a passage that will be used by Gregory for thesame argument, and that affirms the final adhesion of all creatures toChrist, including those who are in the underworld, and, since this submis-sion means salvation, it follows that all creatures, angels, humans, anddemons, will be saved. Origen, in fact, argues in Princ.4,6,2: I refer to allthose who, bending their knee in Jesus name, have given a sign of theirsubmission, the heavenly, earthly, and infernal creatures. Tese three des-ignations indicate the sum of all created beings, i.e. all those who had oneand the same origin, but, differently driven each one by his impulses, have

11) Cf. Princ.3,5,8: How Gods Providence operates for each one, safeguarding all rationalcreatures free will . . . why and in which occasion all this happens, only God knows, andhis only-begotten Son, thanks to whom all has been created and reintegrated [Jn 1:3], andthe Spirit, through whom all is sanctified, who proceeds from the Father, to whom is glory,etc. . See also, e.g., Princ.3,3,5 on Providence and free will, teaching and persuasion anddifferentiation of times and ways of salvation for each one, including the demons, in apo-katastasis; ibid.2,1,2; Hom. in Lev.9,8, where Origen affirms that Providence takes care ofeach being, including the smallest; it is minutissima et subtilissima. Cf. De Prov. 2,9,8;3,1,15.17, where Providence is said to be .12) E.g. Comm. in Matth. S.8: How the Saviours enemies are put by the Father as a stoolfor his feet, we ought to understand in a worthy way, according to Gods goodness. For weh ld b li h G d Ch i i l f hi f i h


7/45


been distributed in different orders according to their merits, since in all ofthem the Good was not present in ontological form, as it is in God . For,

according to Origen, each ones condition is determined by his own respon-sibility. Originally, all were created absolutely identical; then, theywere differentiated into angels, humans, and demons because of their freechoices, according to the movements of their minds and wills .13

In Princ. 1,6 Origen, insisting on a concept of reditus that seems toprefigure the Neoplatonic idea of to unity, after andtoward multiplicity,14but also quoting Is 65:17 and Paul, depictsthe long future ages in which the dispersion and division of the one andsole Principle15will be reintegrated into one and the same likeness . . . Terewill be a new heaven and a new earth . . . for those who tend to that endof blessedness, about which it is said that also the enemies will be sub-

jected, and God will be all in all , with the further reminiscence of 1Cor15:25-28. In Princ.2,3,7, too, this assertion of Paul seals the final perfec-tion of apokatastasis. Te quotation of 1Cor 15:28, together with otherreferences to the Psalms and the Gospels, concludes yet another passage inPrinc.2,3,5, where Origen states that apokatastasis will come at the end ofall , when everything will be brought back to absolute unity andGod will be all in all.16And the same quotation marks the passage from

13) Detailed discussion in my La coerenza della soteriologia origeniana and my La colpaantecedente come ermeneutica del male in sede storico-religiosa e nei testi biblici, opening

paper delivered at the Congress of the Associazione Biblica Italiana, Settimana Biblica,Ciampino, Il Carmelo, 5-7.IX.2005, forthcoming in Ricerche Storico-Bibliche.14) Documentation in my Uno-molti, in Enciclopedia filosofica, new edition, dir. V. Mel-chiorre, XII, Milan 2006, 11911-11912.15) Tis idea of oneness obviously is a Platonic, and especially Neoplatonic, ideal, which Ori-gen transmitted to Gregory of Nyssa, too: see G. Maturi, Reductio ad unum: lescatologia diGregorio di Nissa sullo sfondo della metafisica plotiniana,Adamantius10 (2004) 167-193.16) But if there is anything superior to (so that can be found in the crea-tures, it is true, but also in other things that are superior to visible creatures, which will bethe case in the , when all comes to a perfect end), one should probablyunderstand that the situation in which there will be the of all things will

be something more than the. I am induced to think so by the authority of Scripture,which says: in the and further [Mich 4:5: ]. Te facth i f h l d d h i h A d l


8/45


image to likeness and then from likeness to unity in the progression (at the beginning and in this life) => (thanks to moral improve-

ment in this or the future life) =>

(total unity in final apokatastasis whenGod will be all in all)17in Princ.3,6,1, where the quotation from Paul isjoined to several from John, on likeness and unity with God.18Te idea oflikeness and unity in apokatastasis, after all , is joined to the quota-tion of 1Cor 15:25 and 28 also in Princ.1,6 in fine.19And the whole pas-sage of 1Cor 15:24-28 is referred to in Princ.3,6,9 in support of the viewof universal instruction, on the part of the angels and then of Christ, andconsequent salvation.201Cor 15:28 also seals the universal perfection ofeventual apokatastasis in Princ.2,3,7: We shall be able to live without abody when everything will be subject to Christ and, through Christ, toGod the Father, and God will be all in all .

On apokatastasis as superior to and also see Princ.2,3,1. Here clearlymeans ages, not eternity: for a complete survey of and in Origen, Gregory

of Nyssa, and classical and Patristic literature, and the philosophical development of thetwo concepts in Greek and Christian authors, see I. RamelliD. Konstan, erms for Eter-nity, Piscataway, NJ 2007. For the ethical conception of the in Origen, conceivedas the intervals through which the rational creatures choose for good or evil and receivereward or instruction, until all of them will freely choose for the Good and the willcome to an end in the of the apokatastasis, see P. zamalikos, Origen: Cosmologyand Ontology of ime, Leiden-Boston 2006, 272-373, with my review forthcoming inRivista di Filosofia Neoscolastica99 (2007).17)

For these stages see my philosophical essay in Gregorio di Nissa.18) Tis concept has been expressed in the clearest and most plain way by the apostle John,in these terms: Children, we do not yet know what we shall be, but when this is revealedus, and he is certainly referring to the Saviour, we shall be similar to him [1John 3:2],where he assuredly indicates the end of all things . . . and expresses the hope of being similarto God, which will be granted thanks to excellence of merits . Origen finally quotes Jesuswords in John 17:24 and 21: Father, I want them to be with me where I am , and: asyou and I are one and the same thing . Here, as Origen notes, it seems that likeness too, soto say, perfects itself, and that there is a passagefrom likeness to unity, undoubtedly becausein the end God is all in all[1Cor 15:28] . . . all creation will be set free from the slavery ofcorruption when it has received the glory of the Son of God, and God is all in all .19) . . . long future in which the dispersion and division of the one and only Prin-ciple will be reintegrated into one and the same end and likeness . . .for those who tend to that

d f bl d h i i id h i l ill b b i d d G d ill


9/45


Another connection in which the references to Pauls passage of 1Cor 15:22-28 buttress logical arguments is that of the order of universal reintegration,

depending on each ones merits, as is clear from Princ.1,7,5, quoting 1Cor15:24.28,21 and in Princ.3,6,6, quoting 1Cor 15:26.28 and displaying,once again, the theme of final unity: Every being will be reintegratedin order to be one and the same thing [John 17:21], and God will be all in all [1Cor 15:28]; now, this will notoccur in one instant, but slowly and gradually, through infinite ,because correction and purification will take place little by little and sin-gly . . . Tus, through innumerable orders constituted by those who makeprogress, and, after being enemies, become reconciled with God, we reachthe last enemy, Death, so that this too may be destroyed and there may beno enemy left [1Cor 15:26] . Te idea that some creatures will make rapidprogress whereas others will proceed very slowly, which produces a largevariety of situations, is expressed by Origen also in Princ.3,1,17 and 3,5,8,where he stresses that submission, that is, salvation, must be wanted freelyby each rational creature, not imposed on all automatically: so, the timesand ways will vary according to each ones merits and spiritual situation.

Te question of the order of final reintegration is also faced in Comm.in Io.32,26-39, on the basis of 1Cor 15:22 and other scriptural quota-tions. Origen starts from John 13:3, according to which the Father hasdelivered everything into Jesus hands , interpreted by Origen in thestrongest sense, in parallel with other biblical passages, such as Ps 109:1,from which Origen deduces that the Father has handed even the enemies

to Christ. Te second scriptural passage quoted by Origen in support ofhis faith, in chaps. 26-27, is 1Cor 15:22: As all die in Adam, so all will bevivified in Christ : Origen reads this passage with anti-Gnostic aims: heconfirms the recompense of merits for each one, quoting the immediatelyfollowing section: each one in his own order .22A little later, he repeats

21) At the end of the world . . . some souls, due to their inertness, will move on more slowly,others, instead, will fly swiftly owing to their zeal. Since all have free will and can freelyacquire virtues and vices, some will be found in much worse conditions than now, whileothers will attain a better condition, because different movements and inclinations in bothdirections will bring different conditions . . . When, subsequently, Christ has handed his

i h F h [1C 15 24] h h li i b i h h d l d b


10/45


that the restoration will be realized in different times, depending on eachones merits, and in this sense he interprets John 13:36, where Jesus tells

Peter that he cannot follow him in that moment, but that he will do itlater. Anyway, in the end every creature will be restored and every enemydestroyed, even Death (chaps. 37-39).

Another important scriptural quotation connected to philosophicalargument by Origen, and then by Gregory, is 1Cor 15:42-44, concerningthe character of the risen body,23called by Paul . Origenrecalls it in Princ.3,6,6: Te Apostle clearly says that the risen dead willnot be given other bodies, but they will receive the same bodies they hadwhen alive, and even better. For he declares: an animal body is sown, aspiritual body will rise; it is sown in corruptibility, it will rise in incorrupt-ibility; it is sown in weakness, it will rise in power; it is sown in ignominy,it will rise in glory .24

Tese are only some few examplesnotably, those later taken up byGregory of Nyssa more closelyfrom the many we could give, indeed, butI think they are enough to provide an overview of the method followed byOrigen in his arguments in support of apokatastasis, and of the impor-tance of Scripture in them, above all Pauls witness.25

power, as far as the last enemy, Death (chaps. 30-31), basing his claims on 1Cor 15:24-26: He will hand the Kingdom to God the Father, after annihilating every power . . . for it isnecessary that he reigns until he has put all his enemies under his feet. Te last enemy to beannihilated will be Death , the passage ending with . In chaps.

32-34 Origen insists on the submission to the Logos even on the part of death.23) For the question of a material or spiritual body for the risen dead in Origen see myApocatas-tasiand my philosophical essay in my Gregorio di Nissa; Ead., Treats, Punishment, and Hope:Jeremiah Interpreted by Origen to Support the Doctrine of Apokatastasis, delivered at theAnnual Meeting of the SBL, Washington, 18-21 November 2006, forthcoming, with references.24) Also in the preface, 5, Origen quotes 1Cor 15:42.25) Paul was himself, to some extent, hellenized, although Christianitys heart, Jesus salvificcross and resurrection, is equally a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles ,as Paul himself states in 1Cor 1:23, according to the NRSV; Gr.: , , . Vulg.: nos autempraedicamus Christum crucifixum, Iudaeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitiam. Seeample documentation in my Philosophen und Prediger, pagane und christliche weiseMnner. Der Apostel Paulus, in E. Amato, B. Borg, R. Burri, S. Fornaro, I. Ramelli, J.S h Di P D Phil h d i Bild G i 2007 h 4 T N


11/45


Gregory in his De anima et resurrectione,26a philosophical writing of themost philosophical-minded of the Cappadocians27 and one of the main

rmischen Kaiser, Mnchen 1998; Id.U. VictorU. Stingelin,Antike Kultur und Neues es-tament, Basel 2003; .H. Olbricht, Preface, in Early Christianity and Classical Culture.Comparative Studies in Honor of A.J. Malherbe, eds. J.. FitzgeraldId.L.M. White, LeidenBoston 2003, 1-12, and the whole volume, with my review article: La ricerca attuale suirapporti tra il primo Cristianesimo e la cultura classica, Espacio, iempo y Forma, ser. II, 17(2006) 223-238. For knowledge of the N among pagan cultivated persons see e.g. G.Rinaldi, La Bibbia dei pagani, I-II, Bologna 1998; my I romanzi antichi e il Cristianesimo:

contesto e contatti, Madrid 2001; Ead., Te Ancient Novels and the N: Possibile Contacts,Ancient Narrative5 (2005), 41-68; Ead.,Indizi della conoscenza del Nuovo estamento neiromanzieri antichi e in altri autori pagani del I sec. d.C., in Il Contributo delle scienze storichealla interpretazione del Nuovo estamento, eds. E. Dal CovoloR. Fusco, Citt del Vaticano2005, 146-169; Ead., Un quindicennio di studi sulla prima diffusione dellAnnuncio cris-tiano e la sua prima ricezione in ambito pagano, in E. InnocentiI. Ramelli, Ges a Roma.Commento al testo lucano degli Atti degli Apostoli, Roma 20063, 277-518.26) PG 46,12-160. New edition, translation, commentary, with critical essays and bibliog-raphy on Gregorys De animain my Gregorio di Nissa. Sullanima e la resurrezione. All the

translations of De anima(as those of In illud: unc et Ipse Filius) here quoted are mine andbased on my edition, with textual critical notes (for some criteria on which it is based seemy Il contributo della versione copta alledizione del De anima et resurrectionedi Gregoriodi Nissa, Exemplaria Classican.s. 10 [2006] 191-243).27) An overview of the debate on the relationship between philosophy and Christianity inGregory is provided e.g. by A. Le Boulluec, Corporeit ou individualit? La conditionfinale des ressuscits selon Grgoire de Nysse,Augustinianum35 (1995) 307-326; E. Per-oli, Gregory of Nyssa and the Neoplatonic Doctrine of the Soul, Vigiliae Christianae51

(1997) 117-139: a complete survey and discussion is provided in the philosophical essay inmy Gregorio di Nissa. Sullanima e la resurrezione. E.g. J. Danilou, Platonisme et thologiemystique, Paris 19532and M. Pellegrino, Il Platonismo di san Gregorio Nisseno nel dial-ogo intorno allanima e alla resurrezione, Rivista di Filosofia Neoscolastica30 (1938) 437-474, consider Gregory a fundamentally and consistently Christian thinker who harmonizedPlatonism and Christianity; J. Rist, Christianisme et antiplatonisme: un bilan, in Hel-lnisme et Christianisme, eds. M. Narcy. Rebillard, Villeneuve dAscq 2004, 153-170states that he and the other Platonic fathers consciously assumed the philosophical princi-ples and used them to provide Christian faith with a philosophical foundation, to demon-strate their own coherence and criticize the adversaries; P. Chuvin, Christianisation etrsistance dans les cultes traditionnels, ibid.15-34 too supports a deep and fruitful con-ciliation between Christianity and classical philosophy. Other scholars, instead, emphasizecontradictions in Gregory as a Platonist, as H. Cherniss, Te Platonism of Gregory of Nyssa,N Y k 19712 h d G hil h h li i M i


12/45


works of his in which he discusses the question of apokatastasis,28togetherwith In illud: unc et ipse Filius and some additional sections of other

works, quotes several passages from the Bible, and principally from Paul,to support his view. Apart from the Lazarus episode in Lukes Gospel, withwhich we shall deal later, we can recall many instances in the discourses ofMacrina, Gregorys sister and the chief character in this dialogue, the otherbeing Gregory himself, who often contradicts her purely to reinforce thedialectic structure.

A key quotation, in 72B and again in 136A, is Phil 2:9-10,29on theeventual bending of all knees in heaven, on earth and under the earth beforeChrist, a quotation that appears in all periods of Gregorys production. In72B Gregory sees there an allusion to the ultimate salvation of all rationalcreatures, angels, humans, andas already Origen maintainedeven dae-mons, who, after long cycles of ages, when evil will have vanished andthere will remain nothing else than the Good , will return to God andsubmit to Christ.30For Gregory, as already for Origen, the underlying idea

(1987) 191-197; J. DanilouM. AltenburgerU. Schramm, Hrsg., Gregor von Nyssa und diePhilosophie, Leiden 1976, and many other studies that I mention in my Gregorio di Nissa.28) For complete documentation on apokatastasis in Gregory see J. Danilou, Lapocatastasechez Saint Grgoire de Nysse, Rech. Science Religieuse30, 3 (Juillet 1940); Id., Ltre et le tempschez Grgoire de Nysse, Leiden 1970, 221-226; C.N. sirpanlis, Te concept of universal salva-tion in Saint Gregory of Nyssa, in Studia Patristica, XVII, 3 (1982) 1131-1144; H.M. Meiss-ner, Rhetorik und Teologie: der Dialog Gregors von NyssaDe anima et resurrectione, Frankfurt

a.M. 1991, 82; 356-361; M. Ludlow,Universal Salvation, in particular chaps. 1-3; C. Mores-chini, Storia della filosofia patristica, Brescia 2004, 580; 608-609; 734; G. Ferro Garel, Gre-gorio di Nissa. Lesperienza mistica, il simbolismo, il progresso spirituale, orino 2004, 6; myGregorio di Nissa. Sullanima e la resurrezione; Ead., Note sulla continuit della dottrinadellapocatastasi in Gregorio di Nissa, Archaeus10 (2006) 105-145; R. Simini, La spe-ranza cristiana nel dialogo De anima et resurrectione, Nicolaus33 (2006) 61-73.29) For the exegesis of this passage in Gregory see Danilou, Ltre et le temps, 69-73.30) 72B: Since three are the conditions of rational natureone, which since the beginninghas been allotted the incorporeal life and which we call angelic; the other, tied to flesh,which we call human, and the third, freed from flesh thanks to death, I think that thedivine Apostle . . . intended to indicate that general harmony of all rational nature that oneday there will be in the Good, calling heavenly what is angelical and incorporeal andearthly what is joined to a body, and referring the underworld to what is separate fromh b d l if i l b i b id h i d h


13/45


is that all rational creatures submission to God coincides with their salva-tion, which is also the core concept of Gregorys In illud: unc et ipse Filius,

as we shall see.Another group of quotations from the New estament in reference toapokatastasis in De animais related to the problem of purification throughpains, both in this and in the next world. In 97B-100C Macrina demon-strates that the first and foremost cause of purification is not punishment,but Gods saving will, who attracts the soul to himself with the purpose ofreciprocal union: if the soul is pure, it is pulled up without impediments;otherwise, it first has to be purified from the waste of evil, in which casesuffering is involved, but as a mere side effect.31In 100-105A, Macrinaindicates the measure and aim of this cathartic process: the completeextinction of evil and vice (), and shemakes use of the Gospels parable of the inept servant in Mt 18:23-25 andLk 7:41 to argue that purification is necessary and must be proportional tothe measure of impurity and evil accumulated by each individual, in orderthat each soul can attain virtue, which coincides with the goal of purificationand is assimilation to God. Such is a well knownPlatonic ideal (Teaet. 176A) passed into Christian thought thanks toClement of Alexandria and Origen, and then resumed by Gregory32and

the underworld, meaning that, when one day, after long cycles of ages, evil has vanished, therewill remain nothing else but Good, and even those creatures will admit, in concord and unanim-

ity, Christs lordship ; 136A: Te Apostle, expressing the harmony of the whole universewith Good, means, rather transparently, what follows: Every knee will bend in front ofhim, of heavenly and earthly creatures and of those of the underworld, and every tonguewill confess that Jesus Christ is the Lord, for God the Fathers glory, through the hornssignifying the angelic and heavenly breed, and through the rest the intellectual creaturescoming after the angels, i.e. us, who will be all involved in one and the same big feast charac-terized by harmony .31) 100 C: SoI said, as it seems, it is not that Gods judgment brings, as its principalaim, punishment to those who sinned, but, for his part, as your argument has proved, Godexclusively produces good, distinguishing it from evil, and pulling up the persons to him-self, for their participation in blessedness, whereas the violent separation of that which wasunited and attached turns out to be painful to him who is pulled .32) See also Gregorys De vita Mosis, 2,251-252.318, and his first homily on the Song ofS h k hi lf i il G d b i il hi h i l


14/45


joined to the biblical in combination with in Gen 1:26, acrucial conception in Patristic thought and above all in our Cappadocian

Father.

33

Macrinas inquiry and argument is confirmed by the interpretation ofseveral scriptural passages, and chiefly of a fundamental statement by Paul,already used by Origen many times in support of apokatastasis: 1Cor15:28, about Gods eschatological presence as all in all , .Tis is precisely what leads Macrina to conclude that the ultimate of purification is the complete and definitive annihilation of evil, once andfor all, in the end, since it has no ontological positive existence, a Platonicdoctrine very important already in Origen. Lets quote the most importantpassages:

Evil must necessarily be eliminated, absolutely and in every respect, once and for all,from all that is, and, since in fact it is not . . ., neither will it have to exist, at all. For,as evil does not exist in its nature outside will, once each will has come to be inGod, evil will be reduced to complete disappearance, because no receptacle will be

left for it . . .. Gods right judgment is applied to all, and extends the time ofextinction of the debt according to its amount, without neglecting even the tiniestdebts [cf. Mt 18:23-25; Lk 7:41] . . . through necessary suffering, he extinguishesthe debt accumulated by participating in miserable and painful things . . . and so[the sinner], after getting rid of all that is alien to himself, and taking off theshame deriving from debts, can achieve a condition of freedom and confidence.34Now, freedom is assimilation to what has no master and has absolute power, andat the beginning it was given us by God, but then it was covered and hidden bythe shame of debts. Tus, as a consequence, each one who is free will adapt him-self to what is similar to him; but virtue has no masters: therefore, each one whois free will turn out to be in virtue. Now, Gods nature is the source of all virtue;so, in it there will be those who have attained freedom from evil, so that, as the Apostlesays, God will be all in all [1Cor 15:28]. Tis statement actually seems to me toprovide confirmation to the idea stated previously, because it affirms that God willbe both all and in all. Gods nature will become all to us and will take the place of

his master, 12,148: I think that everyones end and goal and realization of its true being isnothing else but to make oneself similar to God through purification, to get close to himand to remain in him (on this writing see, with interesting interpretation, M. Rizzi, Gre-gorio il aumaturgo (?), Encomio di Origene, Milano 2002, and J.W. rigg, Gods Marvel-ous Oikonomia,Journal of Early Christian Studies9 [2001] 27-52).33) F d i G hil hi l i


15/45


all, distributing itself in a way that will be suitable to the needs of that life. Andfrom divine revelation it is clear that God, for those who deserve it, is place,house, garment, food, drink, light, richness, reign, and whatever it is possible to

think and express among those things that contribute to a good life for us. Well,he who is all also is in all. And in this it seems to me that Scripture teaches the completedisappearance of evil[]. For, if in all beings there will be God, clearly in themthere will not be evil.(An. et res.101-104)

In the sixth and last part of the dialogue (129A-160C),35which crowns thewhole work and is focused on resurrection and universal restoration, Mac-rina resolves several questions dealing with the future life, with the supportof Scripture, both the Old and the New estament, especially the Gospelsand Paul: Ps 103:20-30 (129C-132A);36Ps 117:27, with the interpretationof the feast of Sukkoth (Gr. , tents; 132A-136A); Ez 37:1-14,with the famous vision of the dry bones wrapped again in flesh and vivifiedby God, in 136AB; Pauls 1Cor 15:52 and 1Tess 4:16 in 136C;37finally,the Gospels (136C-137A), whose is presented as the culminat-ing point of a klimax. In fact, Jesus, who is the Logos, attested to resurrec-tion not only in words (), but also in fact, directly realizing it().38Some sections offer an allegorical exegesis and we shall treatthem subsequently. Other key quotations from Paul used by Macrina insupport of her arguments are to be found in 1Cor 15:35-52, with thedescription of the raised body as a glorious and spiritual body, in a set ofcomparisons with the earthly body: she uses this passage to prove that eachone will be given back his own body, but with characteristics different

from those of the fleshly body, with a more magnificent complexion (153C). Macrina expands on Pauls description of the spiritual body andgrounds her own exposition in it,39exactly as Origen did in Princ.3,6,6,

35) I follow the division proposed by Meissner, Rhetorik und Teologie, 343-370.36) Cf. J. Danilou, Ltre et le temps, 211.37) 1Tess 4:16 could be interpreted as a restriction of the promise of resurrection only tothose who died in Christ, but see D. Konstans and my Te Syntax of in1Tess 4:16, forthcoming in theJournal of Biblical Literature: it is probable that we shouldread not those who died in Christwill rise , but those who died will rise in Christ .38) Te usage of the verb in Gregory is influenced by that of Origen, on which seeA B i K li k A i d d l l i d i d l l


16/45


relying on the same Pauline passage for the very same argument. Te glori-ous body of 1Cor 15:52, wrapped in incorruptibility, as Macrina says

explicitly quoting Paul in 155D and 157A, will cause no more sins andwill no longer prevent the soul from remaining in the Good. Its new char-acteristics, incorruptibility, glory, honour, power, drawn from Pauls text,are typical of Gods nature: originally they also belonged to the humanbeing as of God, and then they are hoped for again for the future(157AB); the same concept, based on Pauls account of the spiritual body,concludes the whole dialogue in 160D: Once those passions have beenpurified and have vanished, thanks to the necessary treatment impartedwith care, by means of the therapy of fire, the place of those deficiencieswill be taken by each of the respective realities that are conceived in apositive sense: incorruptibility, life, strength, grace, glory, and any otherprerogative of this kind that we conjecture it is possible to contemplateboth in God himself and in his , that is human nature . In fact,Gods image will shine forth again in every human being in the eventualrestoration of all.

In his In illud: unc et ipse Filius, written several years after De anima,40but in perfect continuity with it, Gregory endeavours to explain preciselya Scriptural passage, 1Cor 15:28, about the final submission of all crea-tures to Christ and that of Christ to the Father, so that God will be all inall ,41a passage constantly quoted by Origen, and also by Gregory in De

40)

It was probably composed between 385 and 393, and more likely in the latest years ofthis interval. J. Danilou, La chronologie des oeuvres de Grgoire de Nysse, Studia Patris-tica7 (1966) 187 dated it to the third period of Gregorys production (385 to 390); J.K.Downing, GNO III, 2, pp. 3-28 (the edition to which I refer here), and Id., Te reatise ofGregory of Nyssa In Illud: unc et ipse Filius, Diss. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA1947, summarized in Harvard Studies in Classical Philology58-59 (1948) 223, proposed383; G. Maspero, La rinit e luomo. LAd Ablabium di Gregorio di Nissa, Roma 2004, 49observes that the arguments adduced by Downing are not sufficient to date In illudto 383rather than 385 or later, and ibid.39 and 256, points out that in this treatise there is thetheme of , which is more present and highlighted in the works of the last period.Te authenticity of the brief treatise is beyond question. See also C. MacCambley, When(the Father) Will Subject All Tings to (the Son), Ten (the Son) Himself Will Be Sub-jected to Him (the Father), Who Subjects All Tings to Him, Greek Orthodox TeologicalR i 28 (1983) 1 15 d A P i B di i G i di Ni C l N


17/45


anima, as we have seen, as evidence for universal salvation. In this writing,Gregory offers an eschatological picture of universal restoration that is

wholly coincident with that of De animaand inspired by Origens concep-tions, often with very close correspondences, even ad verbum. But thewhole writing, which is exegetical in its nature, although at the same timedisplaying philosophical arguments too, is interwoven with Scripturalquotations, particularly from the New estament, and more especiallyfrom Paul. A significant parallel with Origen, who comments on the samePauline passage that constitutes the title of Gregorys treatise, is to be foundin the prologue (p. 3 Downing) and confronts the theological problem ofthe sense of the Sons submission: it is necessary to interpret Pauls passagewithout leaving room for theories that make the Son inferior to the Father.42For the of our submission to God is , as Gregory puts itin a thesis that is central to the whole of In Illudand derives from Origen.Te Alexandrian exegete, whom Gregory knew very well, in Princ.3,5,6-7and Comm. Io.6,50-60 interprets Pauls verse in the very same way, as wehave seen.

Next, Gregory reflects on the whole context of 1Cor 15:28, as he alsodoes in De an. et res.152B-156B and De hom. opif.224D: in 1Cor 15:35the Corinthians ask how the dead can rise and with what body: Gregory,

just like Paul, reminds them that God was able to create bodies ex nihilo,without a substratum of pre-existent matter: Gods will []became matter and the substance of creatures (p. 11,4-9 Downing):43a

fortiorihe will be able to reshape bodies that had already been created. And

on 11,10ff. Downing, Gregory recalls 1Cor 15:47-49, according to which,as Adams fall produced, as a consequence, death for all, in the same wayChrists redemption has provided life for all, with the transmission of goodfrom one to all.44Gregory stresses the universality of future vivification,

42) Teodoret, commenting on 1Cor, in PG 82,357, attests that both Arians and Eunomi-ans used Pauls passage to support their own subordinationalist doctrines; cf. MacCambley,When (the Father), 1-15 and J.. Lienhard, Te Exegesis of 1Cor 15:28 from Marcellusof Ancyra to Teodoret of Cyrus, Vigiliae Christianae37 (1983) 340-359.43) . Cf., more extensively, GregorysApol. in Hex.,PG 44 69AC


18/45


presented by him as the terminal point of our hopes, .45On p. 13,17ff. Downing he describes this state as charac-

terized by the final vanishing of evil, one of the pillars of Origens eschatol-ogy, supported by Gregory elsewhere too.46And, once again, he joins hisargument to the exegesis of Pauls passage: what the Apostle means whenhe speaks of the final submission of all to Christ and of Christ to the Fatheris this: One day, the nature of evil will pass to non-being [],after disappearing completely from being, and divine and pure Goodnesswill enfold in itself every rational nature [], and noneof those who have come to being thanks to God will fall outside Godskingdom [ ], when, once all evil that is mixed up with the beings hasbeen consumed, as a kind of waste of nature consumed through the fusionof purifying fire, every being [] that originated from God will returnprecisely as it was from the beginning [ ], when it had not yetreceived evil .

Te subsequent argument, on p. 15 Downing, is entirely grounded inPauls writings and assembles six quotations from them in five lines: thephrases first fruit of the dead and first born from the dead re-echo1Cor 15:20; Col 1:18 and Acts 2:24; the idea that Christ has annihilatedthe power of death in himself seems to be a reminiscence of 2im 1:10and Hebr 2:14; the whole phrase also recalls 1Cor 15:24. Te subject,already discussed by Origen, is the order in which each one will receivegoodness in himself and follow Christ, who has opened the way: this will

be in the order of each ones merits and faculties: in this way, the value ofhuman free will, too, is safe. In fact, Gregory says, even though the endwill be the same for all in the general apokatastasis, when each one hasdestroyed in himself the power of death, imitating Christ in alienationfrom evil, the order in which human perfection will be attainedon themodel of Christ, will depend on each onesmerits. Tus, Gregory dwells upon the description of this process: first

there will come those who are already perfect, then the others, more and

h d i d h i f h hl h ll l h f h h l


19/45


more imperfect, according to the conception of the descending gradationof the Good.47We have seen that already Origen maintained the same

concept of order in the access to blessedness according to each ones mer-its, and, both in De principiisand in his Commentary onJohn, he basedhis argument on many scriptural quotations, and above all Pauls phrase each one in his place (1Cor 15:22).

Also in the following section (p. 16,1-8 Downing) Gregory makes ampleuse of Paul, when he affirms that the advance of the Good, , will even reach the and will make it totally dis-appear (is a strong verb): nothing opposed to Good will remain,and divine life, extending through all beings (), will make deathabsolutely vanish from them.48Tis complete vanishing of evil from allcreatures is precisely the of our hopes, as Gregory notes with a remi-niscence of Col 1:5. Tis will be possible because before the destruction ofevil there will be that of sin, thanks to which death obtained its lordshipover humankind, according to Rom 5:12. Immediately afterward, Gregoryintroduces the concept of body, always drawing inspiration from Paul(p. 16,12-13 Downing): resuming the fundamental question of the treatisewhat the eventual of all to God really is, and answering that itis the complete alienation from evil, ,he explains that, once we all () have become far removed from evil,then the whole mass of human nature (),49

joined to its and become one and the same body, according toRom 11:16, will receive in itself only the hegemony of Good. Tus, when

the entire body of our nature ( ) hasmerged with Gods immortal nature, the Sons submission will take placethrough us (), in that such submission will be accomplished by theSons body, that is, the entire human nature.

Te New estament basis for Gregorys discourse is evident in the fol-lowing section, too (p. 16,23-17,12 Downing), which presents itself as anexegesis of Pauls words: it begins with the statement, Te meaning of the

teachings offered by Paul, the great, is, to my mind, as follows , and goes

47) , an idea also found in the Neoplatonists, well known to Greg-f N Pl i 1 8 7 19


20/45


on with a section (p. 17 Downing) in which the elements taken from Ori-gen are numerous and essential, both in the quotations from Paul and in

the way in which they are interpreted; the parallels are indeed uninter-rupted. Gregory quotes 1Cor 15:22-28, as already Origen had done, inorder to confirm the doctrine of apokatastasis through the Apostles author-ity: As all die in Adam, so all will also be vivified in Christeach one,however, in his order: the first fruit is Christ, then those who belong toChrist in his Parousia, and then the will come, when he will handthe kingdom to God the Father, once he has annihilated every principality,force and power; it will be necessary, in fact, that he continues reigninguntil he has put all his enemies under his feet; the last enemy to be annihi-lated will be death . . . And once he has submitted everything to himself,then he also will submit to him who has submitted everything to him, inorder that God may be all in all . Pauls passage, and especially its lastphrase, that God may be all in all , is often quoted by Origen as evidencefor apokatastasis. Gregory explains (p. 17,13-21 Downing) that God will beall in all when in all beings there will be no evil left, so Pauls phraseexpresses the non-substantiality of evil, . ForGod will be all in all when nothing evil will be visible in beings, since it isimpossible that God may be . Tus, either God will not be in all,in case anything evil might remain among creatures, or, if we have tobelieve that he will really be in all, then, together with this belief we get thedemonstration that nothing evil ( ) will remain. Te sameremarks, in the connection with the interpretation of the same Pauline

passage, can be found already in Origen, Princ. 3,6,2-3, quoted above,which Gregory follows ad verbum.Gregory comments on the last verse ofPauls passage on p. 18,1-18 Downing, expressing many ideas already setforth in De an. et res.104, where he interprets the same verse, 1Cor 15:28,on Gods presence as all in all : Gregory maintains that this indicates the simplicity and uniformity of the life that we hope for , for the varietyand multiplicity characterizing the present life will dissolve, because we

shall have God alone instead of all the various objects of our needs: Gre-gory here interprets Pauls statement in the light of the Neoplatonic motiveof return to unity.50God, in fact, will be for us food and drink, garment,


21/45


house, air, and again richness, joy, beauty, health, vigour, wisdom, glory,blessedness, and all good: those who are in God have everything, in that

they have God himself. Now, to have God means nothing else than tobecome one and the same thing with God, , which, inturn, is to become one body with God, to be with Goda clearecho of Eph 3:6, and this will occur when all will constitute the one andsame body of Christ () through participation, ,as Gregory says recalling 1Cor 10:17: . . . .

Now, Gregory argues (p. 19,19-20,7 Downing), it is this body that willsubmit to the Fatherand this will be Christs final submission to him,this body which is the Church, according to Col 1:24-25, ,. Tis section, actually, is rich both in argument and inreferences to Scripture: in fact it is a mosaic of quotations from Paul. As forthe argument brought forth, it is evident that the equation between thewhole human nature and Christs body, and then between the latter andthe Church, leads Gregory to affirm the absolute universality of theChurch, which will comprise, in this way, the entire human nature, whosefinal salvation is affirmed, although with differences of times and modali-ties in the course of purification and conversion. Gregory also evokes 1Cor12:27, where Paul reminds the Corinthians that they are Christs body andhis limbs, and then Eph 4:5-16, saying that Christs body is built up , since, as Gregory explains, Christ constitutes himself through thosewho progressively join themselves to faith,

. With further Pauline reminiscences (Eph 2:20; 4:13, already quotedby Origen in Princ.1,6 for apokatastasis), Gregory asserts that all will con-tribute to this construction, and will be built up and edified () and all () will reach unity of faith and knowl-edge, so to make up Christ as perfect man in his wholeness. Ten, Gregorydevelops Eph 4:16 and 1Cor 12:20-21, specifying that each one will con-stitute a different member of Christs body, according to his faculties; any-

way, he confirms that all will be part of Christs bodyall, , aphrase that is significantly repeated three times in this paragraph, giventhat Christ makes all () limbs of its own body.

In the following section (p. 20,8-24 Downing), Gregory combines both


22/45


it seems, was already partly acquainted with such doctrines.51 Gregoryenvisages the eschatological harmony of the whole creation, which will be

possible because Christ, after becoming one and the same thing with usthrough all (), makes all that is ours his own and conciliates itto himself, as Gregory says using the terminology of Stoic ,52already widely employed by Origen:53. Tisway, the whole of creation () will be in harmony with itself,, and, according to Phil 2:10-11, already quoted byGregory before, every knee of all beings will bend, in heaven, on earth, orin the underworld, and every tongue will proclaim that Christ is the Lord.

All will be saved because all, sooner or later, will believe; not only thewhole human nature, but the entire creation will become one and the samebody: . Gregory depends on Origen,Princ.4,6, who, as we have seen, also quotes Phil 2:10-11 and interpretsthe universal submission of all to Christ as universal salvation of all, angels,humans and demons, in heaven, on earth, and in the underworld. Ten,

51) See above, note 25.52) See S.G. Pembroke, Oikeiosis, in Problems in Stoicism, ed. A.A. Long, London 1971,114-149; G. Striker, Te Role of oikeiosisin Stoic Ethics, Oxford Studies in Ancient Phi-losophy1 (1983) 145-167; . Engberg-Pedersen, Discovering the Good: Oikeiosis andKathekonta in Stoic Ethics, in Te Norms of Nature, eds. M. SchofieldG. Striker, Cam-bridgeParis 1986, 145-183; Id., Te Stoic Teory of Oikeiosis, Aarhus 1990; M. IsnardiParente, Ierocle stoico. Oikeiosis e doveri sociali, inAufstieg und Niedergang der Rmischen

Welt, II,36,3, BerlinNew York 1989, 2201-2226; G. Schnrich, Oikeiosis. Zur Aktual-itt eines stoischen Grundbegriffs, Philosophisches Jahrbuch96 (1989) 34-51; M. WhitlockBlundell, Parental Nature and Stoic Oikeiosis,Ancient Philosophy10 (1990) 221-242; R.Radice, Oikeiosis. Ricerche sul fondamento del pensiero stoico e sulla sua genesi, Milano 2000.On the presence of Stoicism in Gregory see briefly I. Pochoshajew, Estoicismo, in Dic-cionario de san Gregorio de Nisa, 382-383. Its presence in Origen is broadly discussed byzamalikos, Origen, passim.53) Apart from related forms, such as , we find numerous occurrences of in Origen, with exactly the same meaning as in Gregory: to make ones own, familiar; toconciliate, also in reference to Christas then will be seen in Gregoryin relation tomortal realities: C. Cels.3,54; 4,26; 8,4: Christ conciliates humanity with God; in the pas-sive diathesis, the verb is used in Comm. in Io.6,11,7, in reference to God conciliated andmade own to humans: . . . .Cl O i h d l d d hi b i h f il i S


23/45


on p. 20,25-21,21 Downing, Gregory draws very important consequencesfrom what he has demonstrated so far: if every being () that comes to

be in Christ is saved, and if submission means salvation, as Ps 71:2 sug-gests, and if all will be in Christ, who will subsume all in his body, then wemust think that no being will remain outside of those saved: . ForGregory arguesgiven the total elimination ()of death and the submission to the Son, at a certain moment death will nolonger exist and all will turn out to be in life, , becauseall will be in Christ, and Christ is life, according to his own statement in

John 11:25: . For this reason, Christ iscalled between God and humans in 1im 2:5, because he who isin the Father and has come among humans accomplishes the mediation(), in that he unifies all () in himself and, throughhimself, to the Father. Here, Gregory relies again on John 17:21: in orderthat all may be one and the same thing [] . . . one and the samething [] in us , and explains that Christ, who is in the Father, having

joined us to himself in unity [], accomplishes our union with theFather (p. 21,22ff. Downing). Gregory, after quoting the immediate con-tinuation of the above mentioned passage of John (17:22: Te glory yougave me, I have given them ), introduces a further element in his argu-ment: the Holy Spirit, equivalent to the glory that Christ had before crea-tion according to John 17:5, substantiates the above mentioned unity, for,as humans and God were separate because of sin, only the Spirit in itsunity could join them again: the Spirits role was fundamental in humanreditusalready in Origen.54With no interruption, Gregory goes on in theexegesis of the passage (John 17:21.23), in which, moreover, he insertsreminiscences of John 10:30 and other similar lociof the same author: sothat they may be one and the same thing just as we are one [], for youand I are one [], in order that they may be made perfect as far as to con-stitute a unity [] . Gregory, quoting John 17:22, explains that all becomeone and the same thing, , in unity with Christ and God

who are one, thanks to Christ who is in them all. Drawing inspiration fromJohn, 17:23, Gregory demonstrates that, if the Father loves humankind,


24/45


and if the Father loves the Son and in the Son are present all of us humans(), it follows that the Father loves us in that we are the Sons body,

and the Sons submission to the Father indicates the knowledge of Beingand, at the same time, the salvation of the entire human nature [] . We should notice, once again, the affirmationof the universal character of final salvation, which will involve the whole ofhuman nature: all, though at different times, will attain the true knowl-edge of God, who is the true Being and is Good itself, opposed to evil,which is , according to Gregorys theory of non-substantiality of evil:these also are reflections evidently derived from Origen.55

Te major concepts expressed so far are further confirmed by Gregoryin several quotations from Paul on p. 23,19ff. Downing, especially Gal2:19-20, I have been crucified together with Christ and it is no longer Iwho live, but Christ who lives in me , and 2Cor 13:3, where Paul main-tains that it is Christ who speaks in him, 1Cor 15:9 and Gal 1:13, wherehe recounts his conversion from persecutor of the Christians to Christsapostle. Pauls transformation, as far as to become one with Christ, tookplace thanks to his to God, a submission which is for us theorigin of all goods . Now, Gregorys point (p. 24,18ff. Downing) is thatwhat is said about Paul will logically fit the whole of created human nature, , when, as Jesus asserts in Mk 13:10 and16:15 and in Mt 28:19, the Gospel has reached every part of the world. All() will reject the old manaccording to Col 3:9 and Eph 4:22and will receive in themselves the Lord, who activates the good things (

) in them. Now, of all goods, the most important is salva-tion, which can be attained thanks to alienation from evil, derived fromsubmission and union to God.

Te last stage of Gregorys argumentation (p. 26,10ff. Downing) isdevoted to the eschatological fate of Gods enemies: Gregory makes astrong case that not even their submission is to be seen as forced and invol-untary, but must be interpreted as as well. He draws a distinction,

on the basis of Pauls own terminology, between what will submit() and what will be annihilated (): thelatter will be the case of the enemy of all nature, i.e. death, and, togetherwith this, the principle of all sin, which produced death, and its power. It


25/45


Princ.3,6,5 between the complete annihilation of enemy will , i.e. sin,and of what derives from it, i.e. death, and the restoration of the created

substance of all those who have sinned, including the devil, who is not tobe saved as devil, because what was enemy and death and evil will perish,whereas he himself, as created by God and endowed with a substance byhim, will return to his original condition before his sin, reintegrated intothe Good. For he will not be annihilated in his substance, which was madeby God and can by no means be destroyed.56And all the more interestingis it that Origen sets forth this view precisely in his exegesis of 1Cor 15:26,57the same passage commented on by Gregory. In Princ.3,6,5, in fact, Ori-gen explains: even the last enemy, who is called death, will be destroyed,so that there may be nothing painful left when death will no more exist,nothing opposed, when there will be no enemy left. But we must under-stand the last enemys destruction not as annihilation of his substance,which has been made by God, but as annihilation of the enemys inclina-tion and will, originated not by God, but by the enemy himself. Hence,he will be destroyed not so as to cease existing, but to be no longer enemyand death .58

56) For the salvation of the devil according to Origen see at least H. Crouzel, A Letter fromOrigen o Friends in Alexandria, in Te Heritage of the Early Church. Mlanges G.V.Florowsky, ed. D. NeimanM. Schatkin, Roma 1973, 135-150; Y.M. Duval, Jrme etOrigne avant la querelle origniste. La cure et la gurison ultime du monde et du diabledans lIn Nahum, Augustinianum24 (1984) 471-494; D. Satran, Te salvation of the

Devil, Studia Patristica23 (1989) 171-177; A. Monaci, La demonologia di Origene, inOrigeniana quinta, Leuven 1992, 320-325; H. Crouzel, Diable et dmons dans les hom-lies dOrigne, Bulletin de Littrature Ecclsiastique95 (1994) 303-331; G. Bunge, Crpour tre, ibid.98 (1997) 21-29; my La coerenza della soteriologia origeniana.57) Te same Pauline passage is quoted by Origen also in Comm. in Matth.12,33; Hom. inJos.8,4; in Lev.9,11; in Jer.18,3.58) Tis is, in Origen, the most important affirmation of the final salvation of the devil, alsorecognized by H. Crouzel, Apocatastase chez Origne, in Origeniana Quarta, ed. L. Lies,Innsbruck 1985, 282-290 (cf. Id., Le fin dernier selon Origne, Aldershot 1990); Satran,Te Salvation of the Devil, 171-177; Bunge, Cr pour tre, 21-29, according to whomOrigens doctrine of apokatastasis depends on that of the roots, nature, and final destiny ofevil: on the basis of Wis 1:14, quoted by him, Origen can maintain that what was made inorder to exist cannot stop existing and thus the devils ontological annihilation must be

l d d H h i l h ibili f hi i G d G


26/45


Gregory, who is evidently following Origen, argues that death and sin,i.e. evil, will be completely extinguished, to such a point that they will no

longer exist (

), and the empire of evil will be entirelydestroyed (), whereas the beings that will besubjected will be those who are called enemies of God in another sense,that is, those who have deserted from his reign to sin. Te latter, accordingto Gregory, is precisely the category meant by Paul when he affirms that,while we were still enemies, we have been reconciled to God, and, havingbeen reconciled, we shall be saved in his life. For those who are calledGods enemies on account of disobedience will become his friends owingto submission. Te last idea developed by Gregory on p. 27,19ff. Downingdepends, once again, on a Pauline statement located in the same passagethat inspired the whole treatise, 1Cor 15:25: It is necessary that he goeson reigning until he has put all his enemies under his feet . Te submis-sion of all his enemies will be accomplished by Christ progressively, duringhis reign; in the end, once he has subjected all and has unified all beings( ), he will hand over everything to the Father, whichmeansas Gregory explainsto lead all ( ) toGod, in one and the same spirit with God. Tose who were Gods enemieswill become a stool for Gods feet, according to the phrase of Ps 109:1:they will receive Gods footprint on themselves, his , which is also hismark and signan idea certainly associated with the so-called theology ofimage, so very central in Gregory, and already in Origens thought too,59with the presence of Gods in every human being. Given that there

will be nobody who dies, death will vanish and we all (), Gre-gory affirms, shall enjoy a submission to God that is not slavery, but, onthe contrary, sovereignty, incorruptibility, blessedness:, ,. Te perspective and terminology are the same as that we findin the final section of De anima et resurrectione, with the depiction of uni-versal apokatastasis and the salvation of all, which Gregory believed to befully grounded in Scripture.

was profoundly consistent with the whole of Origens eschatological and metaphysicalh h d il ill b i d d d d il b f G d


27/45


2. Te Allegorical Interpretation of Scripture and the Continuitywith Greek Philosophical Allegory

Origen was, first and foremost, an exegete, the greatest exegete the Churchhas ever had according to Simonetti,60 and this is relevant: Young hasrecently called attention to the importance of exegesis in the formation ofearly Christian culture,61and on the other hand scholars have shown thephilosophical roots of Origens exegesis: he was very well acquainted withthe Stoic and Platonic allegorical interpretations of Greek myths, alreadyapplied to the Bible by Philo and Clement of Alexandria.62Porphyry, in a

fragment of the third book of his ,63attests that Origen,the outstanding Christian exponent of the allegorical method ,64knewvery well the allegorical works of Cornutus and Chaeremon, Stoic allego-rists of the Neronian age and heirs of the secular Stoic allegorical tradi-tion,65and of the Neo-Pythagorean and Middle-Platonist Numenius, whoread the Old estament (and perhaps some of the New) allegorically, andthat he transferred the ancient allegorical tradition to the interpretation of

Scripture. Edwards66

claims that this dependence on the Stoics in the fieldof allegoresis was attributed to Origen by Porphyry, who applied allegoryto Greek myths but did not admit allegorical interpretations of Scripture,67

60)M. Simonetti, Origene esegeta e la sua tradizione, Brescia 2004.61) F. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture, Cambridge 1997.62)

M-J. Edwards, Precursors of Origens Hermeneutic Teory, in Studia Patristica 29(1993) 231-237; Id., Origen against Plato, Aldershot 2002; broad documentation in myOrigen and the Stoic Allegorical radition.63)Ap.Eus. Hist. Eccl.6,19,8 = F39 Harn.; cf. Jerome, Ep.70. G. Rinaldi, La Bibbia deipagani, I, Bologna 1998, 142-143; II, nr. 14; P.F. Beatrice, Porphyrys Judgement on Ori-gen, in Origeniana V, ed. R.J. Daly, Leuven 1992, 351-367;64) So E. Auerbach: see J.D. Dawson, Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Iden-tity, BerkeleyLos Angeles 2002, chap. 5 for a critique of Auerbachs attack against Origensallegorical interpretation.65) On them full documentation in myAnneo Cornuto. Compendio di teologia greca, Milano2003; Ead.,Allegoria, I, Let classica, in coll. with G. Lucchetta, Milano 2004, chaps. 6-7.66) Edwards, Origen against Plato, 145. But see P.F. Beatrice, Porphyrys Judgement onOrigen, in Origeniana V, 351-367. Also M. Zambon, : la critica diP fi i d O i (E HE VI 19 1 9) i O i i VIII d L P L


28/45


for a polemical purpose, in order to cast an ambiguous light on Origensallegoresis. At any rate, Porphyry probably knew Origen in his youth68and

then criticized him for his exegetical method, and for his being a Christian;what is now relevant is that, among many other things, he testifies: Hewas familiar with Plato, always held in his hands the writings of Numen-ius, Cronius, Apollophanes, Longinus, Moderatus, Nicomachus, and themost distinguished of the Pythagoreans; he availed himself of the books ofthe Stoic Chaeremon and Cornutus, from which he learned the allegoricalmethod of the Greek mysteries, which he applied, then, to the Jewish Scrip-tures .69And, according to Jerome, Origen, drawing inspiration from Clem-ents work, wrote in which he matched the Christianconceptions with those of the philosophers, and confirmed all the truths ofour faith by means of Platos, Aristotles, Numenius, and Cornutus texts .70In both passages the allegorists Cornutus and Chaeremon or Numeniusare mentioned near Plato and other outstanding philosophersmostlyMiddle-Platonists and Neo-Pythagorean thinkersas the main sources ofOrigens philosophical formation.

Te importance of Origens contribution lies not only in his exegesisapplied to Scripture, in a number of works, but also in the theoreticalexposition of the levels of interpretation of Scripture in Princ. 4. He

68) It is discussed whether Porphyry was a Christian when young: see W. Kinzig, War derneuplatoniker Porphyrios ursprnglich Christ?, in Mousopolos Stephanos. Festschrift H.Grgemanns, Heidelberg 1998, 320-332. He knew the Scriptures well: see R.M. Berchman,In the Shadow of Origen: Porphyry and the Patristic Origins of the N Criticism, inOrigeniana VI, Leuven 1995, 657-673; Rinaldi, La Bibbia, I, 124-175.69) Cf. J. Ppin, propos de lhistoire de lexgse allgorique: labsurdit, signe delallgorie, in Studia Patristica1 (1957) 395-413; Id.,Mythe et allgorie, Paris 1958; 19813,462-466; W. Den Boer, Some Striking Similarities in Pagan and Christian AllegoricalInterpretation, in Studi filologici e storici in onore di V. De Falco, Napoli 1971, 465-473; Id.,Allegory and History, in Studia J.H. Waszink, ed. Id. et al., Amsterdam 1973, 15-27;Rinaldi, La Bibbia, I, 124ff., esp. 142-143; II, 53-56, nr. 14, with bibl.; F. Ruggiero, Lafollia dei Cristiani, Roma 2002, chap. 10; M.J. Edwards, Origen on Christ, ropology, andE i i M h All d h Cl i l di i d G R B S O f d


29/45


theorizes71 a threefold interpretation72 of the Bible, literal, moral, andspiritual (i.e. typological and allegorical),73 in which each level corre-

sponds to a component of the human being,

,

,

, andto a degree of Christian perfection: incipientes, progredientes, perfecti.Here I shall not linger on his theorization, but I shall offer a few exam-

ples of allegorical reading of Scripture applied by Origen in his argumentsin support of apokatastasis.

In Origens perspective of cathartic sufferings and final reintegration,adhesion to the Goodi.e. Godought not to derive from fear of pun-ishment, but from knowledge and free will and conscious conviction. So,in his homilies on Genesis (7:4) he draws a distinction between those whoadhere to God in awareness and out of love and those who do so for fearand because of threats, comparing the two categories to the children of thefree woman, Sarah, and those of the slave, Hagar. Tis, of course, recallsnot only the story of Abraham in the book of Genesis, but also the figuralreading of it offered by Paul, in Gal 4:22-31, where he says that Hagars andSarahs vicissitudes were .74It is an allegorical interpretation

71)Tis theorization (Princ.4,2,4-6; 3,5) is analyzed e.g. by C. Blnnigen, Die griechischeUrsprung der jdisch-hellenistischen Allegorese, Frankfurt a.M. et al.1992, 205-265, esp. 207-220, and Edwards, Origen against Plato, 123-152, who intends to demonstrate that Origensexegesis cannot be defined Platonic or Middle-Platonic, although he admits Philos influenceon Origen; see esp. 135ff. on the three exegetical levels, and 139-140: Origens exegeticaltripartition also corresponds to that of Greek philosophy in , , .72)

See K.J. orjesen, Body, Soul, and Spirit in Origens Teory of Exegesis, AnglicanTeological Review67 (1985) 17-30; Dawson, Christian Figural Reading, 75, 78 andpassim;Simonetti, Origene esegeta, 20ff. Cf. also Hom. Lev.5,1; Hom. Num.9,7; Hom. Gen.2,6;Hom. Lev. 1,4; K. orjesen, Hermeneutical Procedure and Teological Method in OrigensExegesis, Berlin 1986, 40ff., and my Origen and the Stoic Allegorical radition, withbroad documentation on the three senses of Scripture.73) On the relativity of this distinction see my Origen and the Stoic Allegorical radition.74) Dawson, Christian Figural Reading, 24-27; Simonetti, Origene esegeta, 15. For Paulsinfluence on Origen see F. Cocchini, Il Paolo di Origene, Roma 1992, and M. Simonetti,Presenza di Paolo nella cristologia patristica, Vetera Christianorum40 (2003) 191-205,194; Id., Ortodossia ed eresia fra I e II secolo, Soveria Mannelli 1994, 63ff. Paul himself seemsto have theorized the allegorical reading in 2Cor 3:12-18, where the veil on Moses face atSinai is considered as follows: for those who are fixated on the text as an end in itself, the

i il d b h h h L d bl d h h h


30/45


31/45


just as in our body abundant consumption and quantity and quality ofharmful food produce fevers, and fevers of different kind and duration in

proportion to the consumption and the stimulation brought by theinfirmity . . ., so, when the soul has gathered in itself a large amount of evildeeds and abundance of sins, in due time all this collection of evils boils toproduce torments and blazes forth to cause punishment. And when themind or conscience . . . will see, disclosed before its eyes, as it were, thestory of its crimes, then it will be agitated and stung by its own pricks, andwill become prosecutor and witness against itself . . . As to the souls sub-stance, some torments are provoked precisely by the sinners evil feelings .Origen does not at all seem to be disturbed by the characterization of thefire as , but seems to relate its duration and intensity to the meas-ure of passions and sins. In fact, does not mean eternal fire,properly, which would be more precisely indicated by , but thefire of the world to come.79We shall soon see that the same spiritual inter-pretation of the torments in the future world, held by Origen also in otherpassages,80will be taken up by Gregory of Nyssa, too.

In Princ. 2,10,5 Origen, offering his spiritual exegesis of the fire ofHades as that of the passions, which is its own punishment, interprets thetorment of fire as the ardour of the passions that trouble the soul: Con-sider the damaging passions that customarily affect the soul when it is, e.g.,burnt by the flames of love or devoured by the fire of envy and spite ortossed by the madness of anger or consumed by endless sadness, to theextent that some people, unable to bear the excess of these troubles, deemed

death more tolerable than suffering such tortures. Well, as for those wholet themselves be imprisoned by such evil vices, and did not succeed incorrecting them at all during the present life, and left this world in suchconditions, consider whether for them may it be enough, as punishment,to be tormented by such evil passions persisting in them, i.e. anger, rage,folly, sadness, whose mortal poison was not mitigated during their lifeby the therapy of any correction . Similarly, in the same 5, Origen sup-

poses that, as the passions are punishment to themselves, so is, too, the

79) S R lli K f E i d h h O i i A i


32/45


disharmony of the sinners soul:81fire, then, is simply a therapy for thisstate of fragmentation, for the ideal returnin Platonic termsto har-

mony and unity: in case the souls laceration and dissolution is tested bymeans of fire, the soul will undoubtedly be consolidated in renewal and ina firmer connection and structure : that the soul ought to be in a condi-tion of perfect harmony, because harmony implies unity, and unity perfec-tion, is an idea found in Plato and in Greek philosophy, and then in Jewishand Christian thought influenced by Platonism and Middle-Platonism,82above all Philo and Clement of Alexandria, who, in the relevant passage,significantly quotes Plato and connects the souls harmony to that of thebody.83

Gregory of Nyssa interprets the Bible according to the allegorical methodtheorized and used by Origen.84Let us select from the dialogue De animaet resurrectione some significant examples in which scriptural passagesquoted in support of the doctrine of apokatastasis are interpreted allegori-cally. In 80A-88C, Macrina offers a spiritual exegesis of the parable ofLazarus (Lk 16:19-31),85 in order to demonstrate the of herargumentthat, after death, the soul maintains the human beings indi-viduality, while the body is dispersed in various elementswith the Bible,

81) As the limbs of the body, detached from their reciprocal connection, make us feel the

torment of strongest pain, so when the soul is out of the order, connection and harmonywith which God had created it so that it might behave rightly and have good feelings, andcan no longer be in agreement with itself in the connection of its rational movements, thenwe can think that it will suffer the torment of its very laceration and the torture of its dis-order and dissolubility .82) Plat. Resp.3,410CD; 4,443D; 9,591D; Doxographi Graeci, 387 e 651; SVF III 121;Phil. Leg. all.1,23,72; Clem. Strom.4,4,18; Alc. Didasc.29,3,182 Hermann.83) Strom.4,4,18: Plato, precisely he whom they [sc.the Gnostics] proclaim in the loudestvoice as a witness in their favour for the refusal of generation, in the third Book of hisRepublicsays that it is necessary to take care of the body for the sake of the souls harmony .In Strom.4,26,163-164, Clement, speaking of the harmony and reciprocal correspondenceof virtues and philosophical disciplines, also exalts the souls harmony, Platonically seen asjustice, and that which obtains between soul and body.84) S H R D b Al i D d G 64 72 M Si i


33/45


if interpreted correctly, as suggested by its author himself (80B-81A).86So,in 81A-84D she proposes the spiritual meaning of the parable, concerning

the original condition of the human being untouched by evil, the gift offree will and the choice of evil, the division of human life into two partsthanks to divine Providence and the free choice of life that humans canmake, according to two kinds of good and evil, sensible or spiritual, andthe necessity to reserve true good for the future life, lest one needpurification through fire after death: the suffering of the rich is seen aspurification, not as eternal damnation. Spiritual interpretations are offeredfor the between Lazarus and the rich after death, for thein which the blessed are said to be, for the ofhell, for the of water from Paradise, and for the parts of the body men-tioned in the parable, whereas neither the rich nor Lazarus has a body afterdeath.87 In 85B-88C, finally, Macrina explains Lk 16:27-31 as a warning

86) Scripture presents such exposition in a form referring to the body, but spreads in it,

here and there, many hints by which he who is able to understand accurately is driven to asubtler interpretation. For he who separates good and evil by a huge chasm, and made thesufferer in need of a drop of water brought on a finger, who gave the patriarchs lap to himwho in this life had experienced so many harms, who also narrated their death . . . makes thereader . . . detach himself from the literal meaning . . . For, what eyes can the rich raise inHades, if he left in the grave those of his body? And how can the incorporeal perceive aflame? What tongue can he wish to get refreshed by a drop of water, given that he does notown the corporeal one? . . . For, since the bodies are in the graves, while the soul is neither

in a body nor constituted by parts, it would be impossible to adapt the structure of thenarration, in its immediate meaning, to truth, unless we refer, with a metaphor or transpo-sition, each detail to the intelligible interpretation .87) See Alexandre, Linterprtation, 425-441. Tis chasm is not an abyss in the earth,but is that produced by the choice of life, dividing itself into opposite options. For he whochose what is sweet in this life and does not correct this fool decision with conversion andrepentance, makes inaccessible to himself the place of good in the future life, because hehimself, to his own detriment, has dug this insurmountable necessity, as a sort of widest andimpracticable chasm. Tus, it seems to me that Scripture calls Abrahams bosom the goodcondition of the soul in which he lets the athlete of endurance rest . . . all those who sail withvirtue through present life, once freed from this, moor their souls in this good lap, or inlet,as in a tranquil port . . . For the others, instead, to be deprived of the goods that theydeemed such assumes the appearance of a flame burning the soul, which would need a littled f h f G d h h bl d j i b d b d b i i


34/45


that the soul needs to be purified from the fleshly glue , either on earthor after death, in order to be free in her race toward the Good , a race that

every soul will accomplish, sooner or later.

88

Gregory is likely to havedrawn inspiration from Origen, Princ.2,10,4-5, quoted above, with itsspiritual exegesis of the fire of hell.

Later on, we have another instance of allegorical exegesis of Scripture insupport of apokatastasis: after quoting Ps 103(104):29-30 in 132A89andreferring it to resurrection, in 132C-136A Macrina explains the spiritualmeaning of Ps. 117(118):27, detailing how the Feast of the abernacles90

this name, but a condition of invisible and incorporeal existence, where the soul lives, as weclearly learn from Scripture .88) Since Lazarus soul is intent on the present things and does not turn to none of thosethat it has left behind, while the rich, even after death, remains attached to fleshly life . . .we believe that the Lord wants to teach that those who are living in flesh must absolutelyseparate from it thanks to life according to virtue, lest, after that, we happen to need anotherdeath again, which, purifying us, will eliminate the rests of the fleshly glue, but, once the

ties that bind the soul have been broken, its run toward Good may take place immediately,easily and swiftly .89) You will subtract their spirit, and they will pass away and get transformed into theirdust; you will send your spirit, and they will be created, and you will renew the face of theearth ; Revised Standard Version: when thou takest away their breath, they die and returnto their dust. When thou sendest forth thy Spirit, they are created; and thou renewest theface of the ground .90) On the interpretation of Ps 117(118):27 as a symbol of apokatastasis see J. Danilou,

La Fte des abernacles dans lexgse patristique, Studia Patristica1 (1957) 262-279,according to whom this exegesis probably derives from Origen, which is likely indeed. Tesame feast, with the very same interpretation of Ps 117(118):27 is given by Gregory in hisSermon on the Nativity(ed. F. Mann, GNO 10/2, Leiden 1996, pp. 235.3-238.17; 264.4-266.15; 268.14-269.13): law, giving a preliminary sketch of the truth by means of shad-owy figures, ordained the blowing of trumpets at the feast of abernacles. And the occasionfor todays feast is the mystery of the truefeast of abernacles. For in this feast the humantent [i.e body] is pitched for him who put on human nature for our sake (John 1:14).And in this feast our tents that were wasted by death have been reconstructed by the onewho fashioned our dwelling to begin with . . . our Lord, has given us light, so that we mayinstitute the feast and deck out the festal procession up to the horns of the altar . . . By thepower of the Spirit and all in tune they trumpet forth the teach

Christian Soteriology and Christian Platonism

Documents

Transcript of Christian Soteriology and Christian Platonism