The Theotokos at the Cross

Since we are in the week of the veneration of the Cross and have just celebrated the Annunciation–on the Old Calendar–I have decided to post something on the Theotokos at the Cross. This will be in two posts and the endnotes will be in the second of these. What follows is an article in the book, “O Full of Grace, Glory to Thee”.

What did the Theotokos experience at the Cross of her Son and God? This is the question we want to ponder in this article. The Scriptures, together with historical information from apocryphal sources, and other early Christian writings have said nothing directly about this. There is no doubt that an exact answer has not been revealed to us, as St. Silouan the Athonite acknowledges:

The Mother of God committed to writing neither her thoughts nor her love for God and her Son, nor her soul’s suffering at the Crucifixion, because we could not have understood, for her love for God is stronger and more ardent than the love of the Seraphim and Cherubim, and all the host of angels and archangels marvel at her. (1)

Some of our Church Fathers, however, have contemplated this question and expressed opinions on this topic. These opinions cannot be termed dogma. That is because a reply to this question has neither been revealed in the historical record available to us, nor has it been formally investigated and articulated by the Church. Consequently, we also can only set forward an opinion on this theme.

In responding to this issue, we must first consider what knowledge was revealed to the Theotokos concerning her Son. What did the Theotokos know and think about her Son? When she stood at the Cross of our Lord, in addition to the fact that she knew He was her Son according to the flesh, whom did she believe Him to be? Let us begin our inquiry by considering the time she spent in the Temple in Jerusalem as a child and examining what St. Gregory Palamas says about this part of her life.

St. Gregory writes of the Theotokos:

With profound understanding she listened to the writings of Moses and the revelations of the other prophets when, every Saturday, all the people gathered outside, as the Law ordained. She learnt about Adam and Eve and everything that happened to them: how they were brought out of non-being, settled in paradise and given a commandment there; about the evil one’s ruinous counsel and the resulting theft; about their explusion from paradise on that account, the loss of immortality and the change to this way of life full of pain. In addition, she saw that as time passed, life continued under the inherited curse and grew ever worse, God’s creature made in His image was estranged from the Creator and became more and more closely associated with the one who had evilly schemed to crush him….No one was capable of putting an end to this impulse which brings destruction on all men alike, or to the uncheckable rush of our race towards hell. When the holy Virgin Maid heard and understood this, she was filled with pity for humanity and, with the aim of finding a remedy to counteract this great affliction, she resolved at once to turn with her whole mind to God. She took it upon herself to represent us, to constrain Him who is above compulsion, and quickly draw Him towards us, that He might remove the curse from among us, halt the advance of the fire burning men’s souls, weaken our enemies, answer our prayers, shine upon us with the light that never sets and, having healed our sickness, unite His creature with Himself.

Having thought over these things so revelant to her, the Virgin full of grace interceded for all humanity in an amazing way defying description. (2)

It is quite logical and natural that the one of whom God would choose to be born would ascertain this. The notion that the Theotokos, even during her life in the Temple, would understand the catastrophe of the fall of man along with the need of a Savior, and therefore become our advocate before God, fits, just so precisely, perfectly, and beautifully into God’s intricately woven plan for our salvation. Mary, who was to give birth to God, went above and beyond the mainstream of Judaic thought, which was expecting the Messiah to be an earthly king. She was able to perceive the true role of the Messiah to be the One who would heal the effects of the fall. And so the young girl, Mary, “interceded for all humanity in an amazing way defying description.”

In continuing our inquiry, we shall now turn to accounts from the Scriptures, beginning with the Annunciation. The young maiden Mary, who had lived in the Temple from infancy, expressed a desire to keep her virginity; therefore she was put into the care of the elderly Joseph and espoused to him. And the Archangel Gabriel being sent from God came to Mary and said,

Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women…behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:28-35)

One of the great Archangels of God appears to Mary, informing her that she shall bear a child without the touch of a man, Who shall inherit the throne of David, Whose kingdom shall have no end and Who shall be called the Son of God. Mary knew the Scriptures very well; such things were never seen in the history of Israel. A woman to conceive without the seed of a man – this was to be the prerogative of her who would bear the Messiah (cf. Is. 7:14). And a man being called the Son of God – this appellation was not known to apply to any born of man; it was only the One Who joined the three young men in the Babylonian furnace Who was thus called (cf. Dan. 3:25). Who then, was this that was to be born of her?

As we know, soon after the Annunciation, Mary visited her cousin Elisabeth. And when Mary greeted her:

Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. (Luke 1:41-44)

In his Gospel St. Luke tells us that Mary abode with Elisabeth about three months and returned home. This would have been until the time of the birth of St. John the Baptist. St. Luke records in his gospel:

And his [John the Baptist’s] father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied, saying, Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; as he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; the oath which he sware to our father Abraham. (Luke 1:67-73)

And concerning his son, Zacharias continues to say,

And thou, child, shalt be called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare his ways; to give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins, through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us. (Luke 1:76-78)

And so Mary, who was to become the Theotokos, was conscious of all this. Let us reiterate: from the time of her life in the Temple, she discerned from the Scriptures the need of a Savior who would deliver the race of Adam from the consequence of the fall in paradise. She desired this and prayed for it with her whole heart; it was the focal point of her life in the Temple. She is told by the Archangel Gabriel that she would bear a son without the touch of a man who shall be called the Son of God and of His kingdom there shall be no end. Elisabeth says to her, “And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Then the priest Zachrias prophesies calling the Son to be born of her, “an horn of salvation”, and signifies Him as the One whom the prophets foretold. As he continues, he speaks of salvation through remission of sins. Mary knew all this, who did she believe her Son would be?

Now let us proceed to the Nativity of our Lord and God and Savoir Jesus Christ in the flesh. The righteous Joseph sees that his betrothed is with child – the young Mary, whom he received into his care from the Temple because she wanted to preserve her virginity. As he was troubled and considered putting her away, an angel appears to him in a dream revealing the Child’s conception of the Holy Spirit. Joseph is told to name the child Jesus, “for he shall save his people from their sins” (Mat. 1:21). Who was it that preserved the information of this occurrence? Nowhere do the Gospels speak of Joseph being alive at the time of Christ’s public ministry. So it is not possible that any of the evangelists could have heard this directly from Joseph. It is obvious that he must have told Mary, his betrothed. So again she hears that the Son to Whom she would give birth was to save His people from their sins. How would He accomplish this?

Then at the birth of Christ itself, the shepherds receive a revelation of multitudes of angels praising God. In coming to see the Christ-child, they inform the Holy family of it. And Magi from the orient are led to Palestine by a star. After asking Herod, “Where is he that is born King of the Jews?” (Matt. 2:2), “the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was” (Matt. 2:9). All this, far surpassed any occurrence in the history of Israel and the Scriptures – Mary was aware of all this. And so, as it is recorded in the Scriptures, forty days after the Nativity, the Church celebrates His Meeting in the Temple.

“And when the days of their purification according to the Law of Moses were accomplished, the parents brought the child Jesus to Jerusalem to the Temple” (Luke 2:22). It is then that the righteous Symeon signifies Jesus as God’s Savior, “a light to lighten the gentiles and the glory of Israel” (Luke 2: 32). He goes on to tell Mary: “Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also” (Luke 2:34-35).

So again, the new born Babe of Mary is designated as Savior, this time by the righteous Symeon. He also calls the Holy Child, “a light to lighten the Gentiles and the glory of Israel.” Did Mary know exactly who this Child was that she recently gave birth to? Greater things were spoken of Him than any of the prophets. Yet with all this good beyond any expectation, the evil and suffering to come is also foretold. For her Son is described by Symeon as, “a sign to be spoken against”, and she is told, “a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also.” “But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart” (Luke 2:19).

In addition to all that has been said thus far, we know that the Theotokos, along with the Apostles and the rest of the followers of Christ, witnessed the miracles of His Divine power and heard His preaching. He healed men’s sicknesses and cast out devils. He had power over the natural world, stilling the sea and winds, changing water into wine and multiplying the loaves and fish. He raised the dead, and even Lazarus after he had been dead four days. He did these things not by praying to God, as the prophets before Him, but by the word of His Own power. Yet Christ also foretold His Passion, the Cross, His death, and Resurrection on the third day.

So now we come to the Cross….to be continued

The Annunciation: Did Mary doubt?
I apologize to my readers for being late with this post. I was hoping to have it ready in the middle of last week before celebrating the Sunday of the Cross. But since we are still approaching the Annunciation on the Old Calendar, and time-wise it is actually a universal event, I hope this will be of interest.

And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, “Rejoice, O full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be. And the angel said unto her, “Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a Son, and shalt call His name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David, and He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end.” Then said Mary unto the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” (Luke 1:26-34)

Why wasn’t Mary rebuked as Zechariah? In the Temple when the angel announced to him that his wife would bear a son he replied, “How shall I know this? For I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years?” Their answers to the angel are basically the same. So then, why wasn’t Mary rebuked? Did Mary doubt?   Our Lady Theotokos did not doubt, she exercised discretion. As a person’s purity increases so does his discernment. Our most pure Lady Theotokos was discreet. In order to understand this we must consider the historical background and look into the account of Mary’s life before the visit of the Archangel Gabriel.

From the age of three she lived at the Temple of the Lord in of the Lord in Jerusalem. When she reached the marriageable age for young women of her time she was obliged to leave the Temple and marry. But we learn from early Christian literature that Mary had vowed to remain a virgin. So let us take a few excerpts from the historical information we have available (I will use the titles for these works as given by recent scholars). First “The Protoevangelium of James” tells us:

When she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, test perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: Thou standest by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto thee, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume 8, p. 363)

This lacks detail and leaves us with a question that needs to be answered: Why did the high priest need to pray specially for her? Why was she different from all the other young women at the Temple? In “The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew” we read more:

Then Abiathar the priest offered gifts without end to the high priests, in order that he might obtain her as wife to his son. But Mary forbade them, saying: It cannot be that I should know a man, or that a man should know me. For all the priests and all her relations kept saying to her: God is worshipped in children and adored in posterity, as has always happened among the sons of Israel. But Mary answered and said unto them: God is worshipped in chastity, as is proved first of all. For before Abel there was none righteous among men, and he by his offerings pleased God, and was without mercy slain by him who displeased Him. Two crowns, therefore, he received-of oblation and of virginity, because in his flesh there was no pollution. Elias also, when he was in the flesh, was taken up in the flesh, because he kept his flesh unspotted. Now I, from my infancy in the temple of God, have learned that virginity can be sufficiently dear to God. And so, because I can offer what is dear to God, I have resolved in my heart that I should not know a man at all.
Now it came to pass, when she was fourteen years old, and on this account there was occasion for the Pharisees’ saying that it was now a custom that no woman of that age should abide in the temple of God. (Ibid, pp. 371-2)

Finally, in “The Gospel of the Nativity of Mary” we have a few more details:

The virgin of the Lord advanced in age and in virtues; and though, in the words of the Psalmist, her father and mother had forsaken her, the Lord took her up.7 For daily was she visited by angels, daily did she enjoy a divine vision, which preserved her from all evil, and made her to abound in all good. And so she reached her fourteenth year; and not only were the wicked unable to charge her with anything worthy of reproach, but all the good, who knew her life and conversation, judged her to be worthy of admiration. Then the high priest publicly announced that the virgins who were publicly settled in the temple, and had reached this time of life, should return home and get married, according to the custom of the nation and the ripeness of their years. The others readily obeyed this command; but Mary alone, the virgin of the Lord, answered that she could not do this, saying both that her parents had devoted her to the service of the Lord, and that, moreover, she herself had made to the Lord a vow of virginity, which she would never inviolate by any intercourse with man. And the high priest, being placed in great perplexity of mind, seeing that neither did he think that the vow should be broken contrary to the Scripture, which says, Vow and pay, nor did he dare to introduce a custom unknown to the nation, gave order that at the festival, which was at hand, all the chief persons from Jerusalem and the neighbourhood should be present, in order that from their advice he might know what was to be done in so doubtful a case. And when this took place, they resolved unanimously that the Lord should be consulted upon this matter. And when they all bowed themselves in prayer, the high priest went to consult God in the usual way. Nor had they long to wait: in the hearing of all a voice issued from the oracle and from the mercy-seat, that, according to the prophecy of Isaiah, a man should be sought out to whom the virgin ought to be entrusted and espoused. For it is clear that Isaiah says: A rod shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall ascend from his root; and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of wisdom and piety; and he shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of the Lord. According to this prophecy, therefore, he predicted that all of the house and family of David that were unmarried and fit for marriage should bring their rods to the altar; and that he whose rod after it was brought should produce a flower, and upon the end of whose rod the Spirit of the Lord should settle in the form of a dove, was the man to whom the virgin ought to be entrusted and espoused. (Ibid. pp. 385-6)

We see that young Mary had a vow of virginity which was blessed by the priests. So then, who is this that comes to her and tells her she will bear a child. Is it really an Archangel or is it satan tempting again as he did with Eve. Young Mary, who was to become the Mother of God, was discreet and she questioned. And when she learned that the conception would come to pass through the power of the Holy Spirit without the touch of man she replied: “Behold the handmaiden of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy word” (Luke1:38).

Through the prayers of the all-holy Theotokos may we acquire these virtues of discretion and obedience.

Strict/too Strict (continued)

In continuing to write about the topic “Strict/too Strict” I will get back to the error or deficiency in our struggles which I mentioned previously.  As was stated in the former post in addition to straying through the extremes of neglect or strictness we can still err while observing what is required, while fulfilling the normal expected precepts of the letter.  How can we err?  Before giving an answer, I shall first refer at some excerpts from two of our saints, and begin with St. Theophan the Recluse. He writes:

Prayer is the primary work of the moral and religious life.  The root of this life is a free and conscious relationship with God, which then directs everything.  It is the practice of prayer that expresses this free and conscious attitude towards God,…Our prayer reflects our attitude to God, and our attitude to God is reflected in prayer.  And since this attitude is not identical in different people, so the kind of prayer is not identical either.  He who is careless of salvation has a different attitude to God from him who has abandoned sin and is zealous for virtue, but has not yet entered within himself, and works for the Lord only outwardly.  Finally, he who has entered within and carries the Lord in himself, standing before Him has yet another attitude.  The first man is negligent in prayer just as he is negligent in life; and he prays in church and at home merely according to the established custom, without attention or feeling.  The second man reads many prayers and goes often to church, trying at the same time to keep his attention from wandering and to experience feelings in accordance with the prayers which are read, although he is very seldom successful.  The third man, wholly concentrated within, stands with his mind before God, and prays to Him in his heart without distraction, without long verbal prayers. (The Art of Prayer, Igumen Chariton, Faber and Faber London 1973, pp. 61-2)

Now let us take another example and have a look at the teaching of St. Paisius Velichkovsky on the Jesus Prayer. We see the following:

I wish to speak also of people who uproot passions.  There are those who rejoice when offended, “but because they hope to have a reward.  Such a person uproots passions, but not wisely.  Another rejoices when offended and feels that the offense was deserved, since he provoked it himself.  Such a person uproots passions wisely.  Finally, there is such a person who not only rejoices when offended and considers himself blameworthy, but also grieves over his offender’s embarrassment.  May God lead us into such a condition of soul!  For a clearer understanding of each of these ways of life let us also say the following: the first one, submitting himself to the law, performs only his chanting, while the second motivates himself toward mental activity and always has with himself the name of Jesus Christ for the destruction of the enemy and the passions.  One rejoices if he only completes his chanting, while the other thanks God if he performs prayer in silence, without being disturbed by evil thoughts.  One desires quantity, while the other—quality.  One, as he rushes to fulfill the proper amount of chanting, soon develops a joyful conceit, on which he depends to nurture and grow an internal Pharisee within himself, if he does not hearken to himself.  The other, in attaching great value to the quality of the prayer, has an understanding of his weakness and God’s help.  While praying, or rather while calling upon the Lord Jesus against the wiles of the enemy, the passions, and evil thoughts, he sees their destruction by Christ’s awesome name and comprehends God’s strength and help.  On the other hand being constrained and confused by evil thoughts, he understands his weakness, for he cannot withstand them by virtue of his strength alone.  And it is this which comprises his whole rule and his whole life.  And although the enemy can suggest joyous conceit and pharisaic thoughts to him as well, he encounters in this spiritual warrior a readiness to call upon Christ against all evil thoughts, and in this way he does not attain success in his wiles.  (Starets Paisii Velichkovskii, Fr. Sergii Chetverikov, Norland Publishing Company, 1980, pp.166-7)

So we can err by missing the point of our prayers and church services, which is to enter within.   As we have seen above in St. Theophan, he who, “has abandoned sin and is zealous for virtue, but has not yet entered within himself, and works for the Lord only outwardly”; however, “he who has entered within and carries the Lord in himself”. Elsewhere St Theophan teaches us: “The principle thing is to stand with the mind in the heart before God, and to go on standing before Him unceasingly day and night, until the end of life.” (The Art of Prayer, p. 63)  Likewise St. Seraphim of Sarov tells us: “The sign of a wise soul is when a man has his mind descend within himself and has activity in his heart.” (In the Footsteps of a Saint, St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, p. 27)  Finally, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov has expressed the opinion that in paradise Adam had union of mind and heart, yet this was disrupted by the fall. (see The Arena, Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, Madras, 1970, p.85)  The Liturgical commemoration for the Sunday before Great Lent is “The Expulsion from Paradise”.  Our aim should be to return to the paradise which we lost.  Paradise is within, if we descend with the mind into the heart; we shall be at the meeting place between God and man.  Amen.  So be it.

As we are approaching the beginning of Great Lent I would like to share a few thoughts on the dangers of being strict or too strict.  And I want to stress that I am only sharing a few thoughts on this subject for it seems to me that a book or volumes of books could be written on this topic.  If we err in the opposite way, that is, if rather than being strict we become lazy or negligent we can easily perceive it; but the dangers of being strict or too strict often escape notice.  This is probably because there is usually pride behind it; and pride hardens the heart and blinds the mind.   In the Proverbs it rightly says: “Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”  (16:18)

So then, in Great Lent there are the two extremes to avoid, that is, of being lazy and neglectful on the one hand and also of being too strict on the other hand.   In addition we can elude both extremes yet still err while observing what is required, by fulfilling the normal expected precepts of the letter.  How can we err in the latter?  I will leave that off for now and first say a little about being too strict.

Being too strict is an error that is usually the result of the lack of discrimination and always mixed with pride.   In short St. Seraphim tells us: “If we willfully exhaust our body to the point that the soul also is exhausted, then such an oppression would be indiscreet even though it may be done to gain virtue.” (In the Footsteps of a Saint, St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press 2006, p.26)

Let us now go on to something more detailed, from the conferences of St. John Cassian we see in the Volume I of the Philokalia a Chapter “On the Holy Fathers of Sketis and on Discrimination”.  Here Abba Moses tells of a story when he was a youth.  Some elders came to see Abba Anthony (the Great) and asked him which virtue is the greatest of all.  All present gave his opinion: Some thought it was fasting and keeping vigil, others voluntary poverty and detachment, others acts of compassion and so on.  Last of all Anthony pointed out that many who have practiced such virtues had nevertheless fallen away miserably from virtue and slipped into vice.

He then said:

What was it, then, that made them stray from the straight path?  In my opinion it was simply that they did not possess the grace of discrimination; for it is this virtue that teaches a man to walk the royal road, swerving neither to the right through immoderate self-control, nor to the left through indifference and laxity.   Discrimination is a kind of eye and lantern of the soul, as it is said in the Gospel passage: ‘The light of the body is the eye; is therefore thy eye is pure, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eye is evil, your whole body will be full of darkness’ (Matt. 6:22-3). (p. 99)…

Then Abba Moses continued:

This was Anthony’s statement, and it was approved by the other fathers.  But in order to confirm what St. Anthony said by means of fresh examples of our own times, we should recall Abba Hiron and how a few days ago, as we ourselves saw, he was thrown down from the height of the ascetic state to the depths of death by the deception of the devil.  We know how he spent some fifty years in the nearby desert, following a life of great severity and the strictest self-control, seeking our and living in parts of the desert wilder than those inhabited by any of the other monks there.  This same man cast all the fathers and brothers of the nearby desert into inconsolable grief because, after so many labors and struggles, he was deceived by the devil and suffered such a disastrous fall.  This would of not happened to him had he been armed with the virtue of discrimination, which would have taught him to trust, not his own judgment, but rather the advice of his fathers and brethren.  Following his own judgment he fasted and isolated himself to such a degree that he did not even come to the church for the Holy Pascha, lest by meeting the fathers and brethren and feeding with them he would be obliged to eat lentils or whatever else was brought to the table, thereby appearing to fall short of the target which he had set for himself.

He had already for long been deceived in this way by his own willfulness when, coming upon an angel of Satan, he bowed before him as if he were an angel of light.  The angel commanded him to hurl himself, into a very deep well so that he might then know by experience , because of his great virtue and ascetic efforts, that he would never again be subject to any danger.  His darkened mind failed to discern who was suggesting this to him, and he hurled himself into the well during the night.  Soon afterwards the brethren, discovering what had happened, were only just able to pull him up half dead.  He lived for two more days and died on the third. (pp. 100-1)

May God preserve us from such and all the snares of the enemy!…to be continued

The feast of the Meeting of our Lord and God and Savior Jesus Christ is this month, February 2nd. As we are now in the middle of the Old and New Calendar commemorations I have decided to post a sermon on this feast. The following is taken from the book, “O Full of Grace Glory to Thee”.

Beloved of God, this feast of the meeting of the Lord is unique in the sense that there are a variety of points set forth. To begin with, in Christ, we see the fulfillment of the Law, “And the Lord spake unto Moses saying, sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine” (Ex. 13:1-2). The ninth ode of the canon speaks of this: “In the shadow and the letter of the Law, let us, the faithful discern a figure: every male child that opens the womb shall be sanctified to God”. (1) So this Law pointed to Christ Who is the “firstborn Son and Word of the Father without beginning, the firstborn Child of a Mother who had not known man”. (2) This feast, then, returns us to the theme of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ—God the Word, the firstborn and only-begotten Son of the Father becomes the firstborn and only-begotten Child of a virgin mother. The hymns speak of His assumption of our human nature and its result: our salvation.

Next we have His most pure Mother, our Lady Theotokos, coming with the Christ-Child to the Temple in order to fulfill the rite of purification prescribed by the Law of Moses. Finally, we have the encounter of the righteous Simeon with our Lord; he takes into his arms Jesus—the eternal God become a babe—and declares that He is the Savior of the world. Today let us consider the second of these themes we have mentioned, and speak specifically about Mary, the Mother of God, coming to the Temple to fulfill the Jewish rite of purification for a woman after childbirth.

A question could be raised: Did the Theotokos need purification? Was she unclean according to the Law of Moses? What does the consciousness of the Church tell us? She was neither unclean nor in need of purification. Just as her Son our Lord Jesus Christ went to baptism with no need for it but rather to “fulfill all righteousness” (Mat. 3:15), so too, His most pure Mother, although she was not in need of purification, submitted to the law. Perhaps a question could be raised based on the Gospel narrative concerning this event? Doesn’t it say: “when the days of her purification according to the Law of Moses were fulfilled” (Luke 2:22). Since the Gospel says “her purification”, one could conclude that this must indicate she needed it. However, the King James Version is being quoted here, and it is this or the New King James version which are used in most of our parishes. This latter also says, “her purification”. Unfortunately it is a mistranslation, the original Greek is plural, it says, tou katharismou auton, the pronoun is plural, it would be properly translated as their purification, and not her purification. Yet the law itself, which she came to fulfill does use the singular, and refers specifically to the woman who gave birth, it states: “And when the days of her purifying are fulfilled” (Lev. 12:6). But by changing the pronoun to the plural, St. Luke is referring to the purification of the Jews prescribed by the Law of Moses to which the Mother of God submitted although she had no need. (3)

So then, exactly what does this law say about the purification of women? In the book of Leviticus we read:

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, “Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; and in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days” (Lev. 12: 1-4).

We see, then, that it was in giving birth through conception by seed, and by the loss of blood, that the new mother was considered unclean, and so in need of purification. In the Law, the loss of seed or blood, and childbirth are spoken of as making one unclean, and of the second it is specifically written, “the life of the flesh is in the blood” (Lev. 17:11). These types of “uncleanness” were not thought of as a voluntary act of sin, but rather as a diminution in vitality of life, and an involuntary separation from God.
However, with the Mother of God, there was “a conception without seed” (4), we know it was without the touch of man but rather, “that which was conceived in her was of the Holy Ghost” (Mat. 1:20). Yet what about the birth giving, was it natural? Was the birth of the pre-eternal uncreated God, according to the flesh, natural? It had both a natural and supernatural aspect. It was natural only in the aspect that the Son of God did pass through her womb with our human nature that He assumed from her. Again, it was above nature, for we confess the Theotokos to be virgin before, during, and after birth giving. Physically she is ever-virgin. Although Christ passed through her womb He kept it sealed. Even though we may occasionally have a hymn as in the Vespers service last night which said: “Now the God of purity as a holy child has opened a pure womb”(5), we still need to keep our thoughts within the tradition of our Orthodox faith. We should not conclude that the seal of her virginity was broken. This, of course, is not the teaching of the Church, it is false. The expression of opening the womb is an allusion back to the Old Testament law, and in this context it is actually another way of saying first-born. (6)

Now let us continue with the miraculous birth giving. The Theotokos had no birth pangs, for the birth of God was not subject to the curse that sprang from the disobedience of Eve. This was foretold by the Prophet Isaiah: “Before she travailed, she brought forth; before her pain came, she was delivered of a man child” (Isa. 66:7). But did she have a flow of blood and so become unclean? No! In our services there are countless references where it is stated that she experienced no harm at all in her birth giving. In particular let us look at one, the hymn to the Theotokos that ends the Lord I call verses at the Saturday evening Small Vespers in the fifth tone. It says: “He [Christ] passed through the gates of virginity, and no diminution was left behind in it” (7). The pronoun it refers back to virginity. Furthermore bleeding would mean that the seal of her virginity was broken, and we know she continued a virgin. And even that moment of the birth-giving itself is a mystery known only to God and her, for Joseph the Betrothed left her alone in the cave and went to seek a mid-wife. Having found a pair and returned, he beheld a luminous cloud over the cave, which disappeared followed by a light in the cave and on entering he saw the Theotokos with the Christ-Child. One of the midwives whom the Theotokos permitted to examine her declared: “there has been no spilling of blood in his birth, no pain in bringing him forth. A virgin has conceived, a virgin has brought forth, and a virgin she remains”. (8)

But let us go on to further establish the points we have made and listen to the words of St. Dimitri of Rostov—a small excerpt from a sermon on today’s feast:

Fulfilling this law of the Lord, the Mother of God came into the temple with the Lawgiver. She came to purify herself, although she had no need of purification since she was undefiled, without offense, uncorrupted, most pure. For she who conceived without a man or desire, and gave birth without pain or violation of her virginal purity, was not tainted by the impurity common to women who give birth according to the law of nature. For how could impurity touch her who gave birth to the Source of purity? Christ was born of her like fruit from a tree. And as the tree producing its fruit is neither harmed nor defiled, in the same manner at the birth of Christ—the Blessed Fruit—the Virgin remained unharmed and undefiled. Christ proceeded from her as a ray of the sun that passes through the glass or crystal. In passing through glass or crystal, a sunray does not break up or damage it, but illumines it even more. And Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, did not harm the virginity of His Mother. And the door of natural birth was sealed in purity and preserved in virginity not being defiled with a flow of blood as is common to women. But having passed through her supernaturally, He increased her purity, having sanctified and enlightened her with the light of Divine grace by His proceeding from her. Any purification was absolutely unnecessary for her who gave birth without defilement to God the Word. But in order not to break the law, but to fulfill it, she came to purify herself having all-perfect purity and without any blemish. At the same time, filled with humility, she was not proud of her uncorrupted purity, but she came as if unclean to stand together with the unclean women in front of the doors of the temple of the Lord, and besought purification, not disdaining those who were unclean and sinful.(9)

Thus did our holy hierarch Dimitri speak of our Lady Theotokos. So keeping the purity of our all-holy Lady Theotokos in mind let us increase our love for her and also strive for this virtue of purity. Through her prayers combined with our struggles, may Christ our God purify us from the defilement of sin and passions, and so make us worthy in the life to come with faces unashamed to look upon Him, together with His unoriginate Father, and His most-holy, good and life-creating Spirit, throughout the endless ages, world without end. Amen.

(1) The Festal Menaion, trans. Mother Mary and Kallistos Ware, London: Faber and Faber, 1969, p. 425
(2) Ibid.
(3) The collections of lives of saints (which include commentaries on the feast days) from Greek, Romanian, Russian, and Serbian sources all agree with this.
(4) This is from the ninth irmos of the Canon of St. Andrew of Crete that is used during the first week of Great Lent.
(5) The Festal Menaion, trans. Mother Mary and Kallistos Ware, London: Faber and Faber, 1969, p. 412.
(6) According to Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries a prime meaning for the word translated as opens of the Hebrew (in Exodus) and the Greek (in the Gospel according to St. Luke), is first-born (see http://www.e-sword.net).
(7) This translation is from the Greek text.
(8) The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, The Writings of the Fathers down to A. D. 325, ed. The Rev. Alexander Roberts, D. D., and James Donaldson, LL. D., Vol. VIII, Grand Rapids Michigan, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1956, pp. 374-5.
(9) Lives of the Saints, In the Russian Language following the guidelines of The Four Part Menaion by Saint Dimitri of Rostov, Book Six, trans. Alexander Maximov, Moscow, Russia, Moscow Synodal Press, 1905, pp. 23-4.

The sinless Hesychast: Mary the Mother of God

After posting an article on the day of the Synaxis of the Theotokos my original intent was to next speak about her ever-virginity. I have decided to skip that as it has been dealt with in the two posts in January 2014. In this post I am presenting an Orthodox belief concerning the Theotokos which may not be easy for all to accept. I am speaking of the sinlessness of the Theotokos and my hope is to sufficiently explain how she accomplished this. Since I am referring to the saints of the Church and glorifying His most Pure Mother I can only hope by the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to produce something acceptable. So now, let us go on to speak about the sinless Hesychast, Mary the Mother of God.

In the writings of St. Silouan the Athonite we read: “In church I was listening to a reading from the prophet Isaiah, and at the words, ‘Wash you, make you clean,’ I reflected, ‘Maybe the Mother of God sinned at one time or another, if only in thought.’ And, marvelous to relate, in unison with my prayer a voice sounded in my heart, saying clearly, ‘The Mother of God never sinned even in thought.’ Thus did the Holy Spirit bear witness in my heart to her purity.” (1)

But how is it possible for any human being not to sin, even in thought? (2) To answer this, let us review some of the information we have about the life of the Mother of God. At the tender age of three, the Theotokos was dedicated to God, having been brought into the temple by her parents. And what was her life like there? In the Apocryphal Gospel of St. Matthew we read:

Mary was held in admiration by all the people of Israel; and when she was three years old, she walked with a step so mature, she spoke so perfectly, and spent her time so assiduously in the praises of God that all were astonished at her and wondered…She was so constant in prayer, and her appearance was so beautiful and glorious, that scarcely anyone could look into her face…And this was the order that she had set for herself: From the morning to the third hour she remained in prayer; from the third to the ninth she was occupied with weaving; and from the ninth she again applied herself to prayer. She did not retire from praying until there appeared to her an angel of the Lord from whose hand she used to receive food; and thus she became more and more perfect in the work of God. Then, when the older virgins rested from the praises of God, she did not rest at all; so that in the praises and vigils of God none were found before her, no one more learned in the wisdom of the law of God, more lowly in humility, more elegant in singing, more perfect in all virtue. She was indeed steadfast, immovable, unchangeable, and daily advancing to perfection…She was always engaged in prayer and in searching the law…. (3)

According to St. Gregory Palamas it was at this time that she acquired a state of ceaseless interior prayer. (4) In a homily on the Entry of the Theotokos into the Temple, St. Gregory, while describing her sojourn there, makes Mary the model for the life of the one who treads upon the path of interior prayer. Praising the Most Pure One, he tells us that she

chose to live in solitude out of the sight of all, inside the sanctuary. There, having loosed every bond with material things, shaken off every tie and even risen above sympathy towards her own body, she united her mind with its inclination to turn within itself, with attention and unceasing holy prayer. Having become her own mistress by this means, and being established above the jumble of thoughts in all their different guises, and above absolutely every form of being, she constructed a new, indescribable way to heaven, which could be called silence of mind. Intent upon this silence, she flew high above all created things, saw God’s glory more clearly than Moses (cf. Exod. 33:18-23), and beheld divine grace. Such experiences are completely beyond the scope of men’s senses, but they are a gracious and holy sight for spotless souls and minds. (5)

So then, according to St. Gregory Palamas, our Most Pure Lady while dwelling in the Temple, through “unceasing holy prayer” ascended to a great spiritual height formerly unknown. In speaking of the experience of struggling in such prayer and the fruit it conveys he writes:

It is through contemplation that a person is made divine, not by speculative analogies on the basis of skillful reasoning and observations – perish the thought (this is something base and human) – but under the guidance of stillness. Continuing in our life’s upper room (cf. Acts 1:13-14), as it were in prayers and supplications night and day, in some way we touch that blessed nature that cannot be touched.

Thus the light beyond our perception and understanding is diffused ineffably within those whose hearts have been purified by holy stillness, and they see God within themselves as in a mirror (cf. 2Cor. 3:18). (6)

So Mary acquired a unique intimacy with God that prepared her to become His dwelling place. It is no wonder that, having attained to such a state, when she was obliged to leave the Temple and marry, she vowed a life of virginity. For how could one who was thus united with God unite herself with a man! Such a prayerful state of soul is thus described by St. Silouan the Athonite:

The young man seeks a bride for himself, and the maiden looks for a bridegroom. This is the earthly order of life, blessed by God. But the soul chosen of the Lord for Himself, the soul He suffers to taste of the sweetness of the love of God, does not set earthly life on a par with the love of God – she is absorbed in God alone, and attaches herself to no earthly thing. And if earthly thoughts come she takes no delight in them, for she cannot love the things of this earth – all her longing is for the things of heaven. (7)

And such is the power of the interior prayer which the Mother of God attained to, that it was this divine action that kept her free from sin throughout her entire life.

Although this may seem hard to believe, yet through “unceasing holy prayer” — to use the terminology of St. Gregory — Mary, the Mother of God, accomplished this. But why is this prayer designated “holy” and why does St. Gregory say “it is through contemplation that a person is made divine”? In order to answer this and conclude our discussion let us define both prayer and its stages. This will properly illustrate the power of grace-filled prayer, the same power that kept the Theotokos free from sin.
Archimandrite Sophrony gives us an outline of the stages in prayer when, in reference to the Jesus Prayer, he writes:

It is possible to establish a certain sequence in the development of this prayer. First, it is a verbal matter: we say the prayer with our lips while trying to concentrate our attention on the Name and the words. Next, we no longer move our lips but pronounce the Name of Jesus Christ, and what follows after, in our minds, mentally. In the third stage mind and heart combine to act together: the attention of the mind is centered in the heart and the prayer said there. Fourthly, the prayer becomes self-propelling. This happens when the prayer is confirmed in the heart and, with no especial effort on our part, continues there, where the mind is concentrated. Finally, the prayer, so full of blessing, starts to act like a gentle flame within us, as an inspiration from on High, rejoicing the heart with a sensation of divine love and delighting the mind in spiritual contemplation. This last state is sometimes accompanied by a vision of Light.(8)

Bishop Kallistos Ware gives us a number of definitions of prayer which have some relation to the stages explained above. He first refers to a definition in an English dictionary that describes prayer as “a solemn request to God.”(9) This can correspond to the first two stages spoken of by Archimandrite Sophrony. Prayer being described as an act of petition of man to God can be either verbalized or pronounced in one’s mind. In a second definition he quotes St. Theophan the Recluse, who says concerning prayer that “the principle thing is to stand before God with the mind in the heart, and to go on standing before Him unceasingly day and night until the end of life.”(10) Bishop Kallistos points out that to pray “is no longer to ask for things,” but it is “to stand before God, to enter into an immediate and personal relationship with Him.”(11) This can correspond with the third stage mentioned above, yet this is still predominantly an action initiated by man. As Bishop Kallistos continues, “stress is laid primarily on what is done by man rather than God.”(12) The third definition given by Bishop Kallistos relates to the fourth and fifth states spoken of by Archimandrite Sophrony. He quotes St. Gregory of Sinai who says, “‘Prayer is God, who works all things in all men'(13) — it is not something which I initiate but in which I share; it is not primarily something which I do but which God is doing in me — it is to cease doing things on our own and to enter into the action of God.”(14) It is this stage of prayer that is a participation in the action or energy or life of God that many of our Holy Fathers reached and brought to a degree of perfection through their asceticism. The end of this state is a “manifestation of baptism”, (15) it is a birth from God; therefore it is a new beginning, a new mode of life in which the grace of the Holy Spirit is perceptible and operative. This is the birth and stage of grace that John the Theologian writes of when he says: “No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.”(I John 3:9) So this is why unceasing prayer can be called “holy” and contemplation can be said to make a person “divine”.

What then can we say about the spiritual stature of the Theotokos? What spiritual height did Mary, the Theotokos, acquire while living in the Temple? She was brought there at the young age of three, providentially guarded from the temptations of this world, lived in strict asceticism and was nourished with the Scriptures and with prayer to God. And at the time of the Annunciation, when the “Holy Spirit came upon her and the power of the most High overshadowed her”(Luke 1:35), to what state of purity and grace was she raised? It is beyond our comprehension. We can only marvel at the state of the grace of the Holy Spirit which she acquired and with which she was endowed. It was the power of this grace of the Holy Spirit that prepared her to be the all-pure and all-holy dwelling place of God and that kept her free from sin all her days.

As I said at the outset the belief of the sinlessness of the Theotokos may be difficult for some to accept, but I hope this has now become clear. So we, as Orthodox Christians, should be careful of entertaining speculations of those outside the Church. We must live within the Holy Tradition of our Church. This living within tradition has been superbly described by Vladimir Lossky when he said that “to be within the Tradition, is to keep the living truth in the Light of the Holy Spirit.”(16) The Mother of God is our “Victorious Leader”(17), who shared in our fallen human nature but did not succumb to sin through human weakness. She struggled against sin and overcame it; she was “never subject to the taint of sin.”(18) She is the prototype of the life of a monastic, being the mother and foundress of the path of interior prayer and stillness. In cultivating these ascetic practices, she reached such a state of purity that God chose her to be His mother according to the flesh. She thus became the Mediatress between heaven and earth, and again our Victorious Leader.” O Theotokos, “as Thou dost possess invincible might, set us free from every calamity, that we may cry to Thee: Rejoice, O Bride unwedded.”(19)

(1) Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov), Saint Silouan the Athonite, trans. Rosemary Edmonds, Tolleshunt Knights by Essex, England, Patriarchal Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist, p. 392.
(2) Something interesting on this topic: A monk of the Monastery of St. John the Baptist in Essex, England has said that it is possible to perceive the energy of a thought before it is formed in the mind.
(3) The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, The Writings of the Fathers down to 325 A. D., ed. The Very Rev. Alexander Roberts, D.D., and James Donaldson, LL. D., Vol. VIII, WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids Michigan, 1956, p.371.
(4) Saint Gregory’s view of the prayer life of the Theotokos while she lived at the temple is not unique among the Fathers of the Church. He has indeed gone into greater detail on this subject than others yet before him Saints Jerome, George of Nicomedia, and Theophylact of Ochrid have written of her contemplative life and frequent visitation of angels at that time (cf. Saint Demetrius of Rostov, The Great Collection of the Lives of the Saints, Vol. III: November, pp. 479-491). This standpoint has the apocryphal accounts as its basis.
(5) Saint Gregory Palamas, Mary the Mother of God, Sermons by Saint Gregory Palamas, ed. Christopher Veniamin, South Canaan, Pennsylvania 18459, Mount Thabor Publishing 2005, p. 47 (see also, Paisius Velichkovsky, LittleRussian Philokalia, Vol. IV: St. Paisius Velichkovsky, St. Herman Press * St. Paisius Abbey Press, Forestville, California 95436, 1994, pp. 33-34)).
(6) Ibid. pp. 43-44, and p. 33.
(7) Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov), Saint Silouan the Athonite, trans. Rosemary Edmonds, Tolleshunt Knights by Essex, England, Patriarchal Stavropegic Monastery of St. John the Baptist, p. 502.
(8) Archmandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) His Life Is Mine, trans. Rosemary Edmonds, Crestwood, New York, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1977, p. 113
(9) Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, The Power of the Name, New Edition, Convent of the Incarnation, Fairacres Oxford, SLG Press, 1986, p. 1
(10) Ibid. p. 1
(11) Ibid. p. 1
(12) Ibid. p. 1
(13) Ibid. p. 2
(14) Ibid. p. 2
(15) Ibid. p. 2
(16) Leonid Ouspensky & Vladimir Lossky, The Meaning of Icons, trans. G. E. H. Palmer& E. Kadloubovsky, Revised Edition, Crestwood, New York, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1982, p. 19
(17) Kontakion of the Annunciation, trans., Book of Canons, Very Rev. Theodore Heckman, South Canaan, Pennsylvania, St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 1984 p. 89
(18) The Festal Menaion, Trans. Mother Mary and Kallistos Ware, 24 Russel Square, London, England, Faber and Faber Limited, 1969, p. 190
(19) Kontakion of the Annunciation, trans., Book of Canons, pp.89-90

Beginning with this day of the Synaxis of the Theotokos I would like to dedicate a good portion of the coming year to her, that is, Mary, the Birth-giver of God. I will primarily be apologetic and shall probably repeat some things I have mentioned in some earlier posts. I shall also make references to a book on the Theotokos called, O Full of Grace, Glory to Thee, which is available from St. Tikhon’s Monastery. It is unfortunate that there is a need to be apologetic but in our day we have had in our Church speculative teachers, we have had teachers who believe they have bright ideas and follow their own thoughts, and we have had teachers who have been influenced by education outside of the Orthodox Church. So let us begin with the “Foreword” to the above mentioned book:

We, as Orthodox Christians in the Americas, find ourselves in an atmosphere in which we are challenged. We are a Church which is in dispersion. We are a minority among those who call themselves Christians, and engulfed by a multitude of philosophies and religious systems as odds with our Faith. Our Faith is challenged. It is unfortunate, yet not undeniable, that challenges to the Orthodox Faith are occurring not only from without but also from within the Church. Therefore in this small book, we have both a pastoral view in mind, and an apologetic aim of expressing certain truths we confess. It is reference to God’s human instrument of the incarnation of Christ that we shall speak. We want to speak about the most significant woman in the history of the human race: Mary, the daughter of Saints Joachim and Anna, who gave birth to the eternal, uncreated God.

There are truths we as Orthodox Christians acknowledge about Mary, the Birth-giver of God, which may appear problematic to the fallen rational mind. There are truths which some see as mythological and difficult to accept, such as her ever-virginity—that is, physically continuing as a virgin before, during and after giving birth, her sinlessness, or her being the highest of all creation. These may indeed be difficult to accept when they are evaluated by the mind acting according to the human reason habitually used for the function of life in this fallen world. As the Apostle Paul says, the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned” (ICor. 2:14). Yet the mind has the capability to be trained to act in another way, in a contemplative way, which leads to “direct apprehension of truth through grace” (1), and it is ‘by faith that we have access to this grace” (Rom. 5:2). When the mind functions in this capacity it is in its natural place prior to the fall, which is the heart. (2)

Since in our world today we are so well educated, and from youth trained to be rational and logical, we must say a few words of response to our reason. When we reflect upon Mary, the Mother of God, we must always consider her in the context of Christology and the history of salvation. This approach is summarized in the Anaphora prayer of St. Basil the Great. In his masterpiece of liturgical prayer, he addresses God the Father:

When Thou didst create man by taking dust from the earth, and didst honor him with Thine own image, O God, Thou didst set him in a paradise of delight, promising Him eternal life and the enjoyment of everlasting blessing in the observance of Thy commandments. But when man disobeyed Thee the true God Who had created him, and was deceived by the guile of the serpent, becoming subject to death through his own transgressions, Thou, O God, in Thy righteous judgment, didst send him forth from paradise into this world, returning him to the earth from which he was taken, yet providing for him the salvation of regeneration in Thy Christ Himself…He was God before the ages, yet He appeared on earth and lived among men, becoming incarnate of a holy Virgin; He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being likened to the body of our lowliness, that He might liken us to the image of His glory. (3)

This is the “mystery which hath been hid from the ages and from generations…which is Christ in you” (Col. 1:26-7). We have indeed been chosen “in Him before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). Our salvation through the Incarnation of Christ has been foreordained by God even before the creation. So then, what was the will and desire of God the Father for God’s human instrument of the incarnation of Christ, the most significant woman in the history of the human race? Is it not logical that He wanted her to be the highest of all creation, ever-virgin—a virgin in conceiving, in giving birth, and after birth-giving and sinless? Is it possible for the Almighty God Who brought all things out of non-existence into being to do this for the woman who would give birth to His Son? It is not only possible, but it is logical. It is the logical phenomenon that God would effect.

So then, it is with such an approach that we will consider the truths that we as Orthodox Christians confess concerning the Most Holy Theotokos. In doing so, we hope to come to this conclusion: How can we fail to believe that Mary, the Mother of God, is the highest of all creation, that she forever remained a virgin, and that she was not touched by the taint of sin? How is it possible that we could fail to believe these truths?

May our Lord Jesus Christ, “the true light Who enlightens and sanctifies every man that comes into the world”: (4), open the eyes of our minds to the comprehension of the truth He makes accessible to us in this world; so that acknowledging Him as true God and true Man, we may, in an Orthodox, magnify her who gave birth to Him.

(1) Writings from the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart, p.37
(2) St. Ignatius Brianchaninov expresses this opinion as follows: “The separation of mind from the heart, and their opposition to one another, have resulted from our fall into sin.” The Arena, p. 85
(3) Translation taken from Service Books of the Orthodox Church, Volume II, St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, pp. 71-3
(4) This is a prayer which the priest reads at the end of the First Hour. It is a paraphrase of John 1:9

Introduction

This will be the last post in the series of excerpts of homilies of St. John. Here we have sections of the first two homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew. Chrysostom first tells us how the earliest Christians had such grace that a written word was not needed. Next he presents the Gospels as something interesting and exciting, surpassing all the things of this world we believe to be so.

Chrysostom on Reading the Scriptures

It would indeed be proper for us not at all to require the aid of the written Word, but to exhibit a life so pure, that the grace of the Spirit should be as though books to our souls; and that as these are inscribed with ink, even so should our hearts be with the Spirit. But, since we have utterly put away from us this grace, come, let us at any rate embrace the second best course. For that the former was better, God has made manifest, both by His words, and by His doings. Since to Noah, Abraham, and to his offspring, to Job, and to Moses also, He discoursed not by writings, rather He Himself, finding their mind pure. But after the whole people of the Hebrews had fallen into the very pit of wickedness, then and thereafter was a written word, and tablets, and the admonition which is given by these.

And this one may perceive was the case, not of the saints in the Old Testament only, but also of those in the New. For God did not give anything in writing to the Apostles, but instead of written words He promised that He would give them the grace of the Spirit. For “He,” our Lord said, “shall bring all things to your remembrance.” And that you may learn that this was far better, hear what He said through the Prophet: “I will make a new covenant with them, putting My laws into their mind, and in their heart I will write them,” and, “they shall be all taught of God.” And Paul too, pointing out the same superiority, said, that they had received a law “not in tablets of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” But since in process of time they made shipwreck, some with regard to doctrines, others as to life and manners, there was again need that they should be put in remembrance by the written word.

Reflect then how great an evil it is for us, who ought to live so purely as not even to need written words, but to yield up our hearts, as books, to the Spirit; now that we have lost that honor, and are come to have need of these, to fail again in duly employing even this second remedy. For if it be blameworthy to stand in need of written words, and not to have brought down on ourselves the grace of the Spirit; consider how heavy the charge of not choosing to profit even after this assistance. On the contrary if we treat what is written with neglect, as though it was cast forth without purpose, and at random, we shall bring down upon ourselves an increased punishment. So that no such effect may occur, let us give strict heed unto the things that are written.

Now we are on the point of entering into a city (if God permit) of gold, and more precious than any gold. Let us then mark her foundations, her gates consisting of sapphires and pearls; for indeed we have in Matthew an excellent guide. For through his gate we shall now enter in, and much diligence is required on our part. For should the Lord see any one not attentive, He casts him out of the city. Yes, for the city is most kingly and glorious; not as the cities with us, divided into a market-place, and the royal courts; for there all is the court of the King. Let us open therefore the gates of our mind, let us open our ears, and with great trembling, when on the point of setting foot on the threshold, let us worship the King that is therein.

For have one leading us with the eyes of the Spirit—Matthew the Publican, who offers to show us all; where the King sits and His host who stand by Him. He will show us where are the angels, where the archangels; and what place is set apart for the new citizens in this city, and what kind of way it is that leads there, and what is the manner of portion they have received, who first were citizens therein, and those next after them, and such as followed these. Let us not therefore with noise or tumult enter in, but with a mystical silence. For if in a city, a great silence is made, when the letter of the king is to be read, much more in this city must all be collected, and stand with soul and ear erect. For it is not the letters of any earthly master, but of the Lord of angels, which are on the point of being read.

So today we set foot within a holy vestibule. Let us consider, the Jews, when they were to approach “a mountain that burned, and fire, and blackness, and darkness, and tempest,”—or rather when they were not so much as to approach, but both to see and to hear these things from afar—were commanded for three days before to abstain from their wives, and to wash their garments, and were in trembling and fear, both themselves and Moses with them. Therefore, much more should we who are not to stand far from a smoking mountain, but to enter into Heaven itself, show forth a greater self-denial; not washing our garments, but wiping clean the robe of our soul, and ridding ourselves of all mixture with worldly things. For it is not blackness that we shall see, nor smoke, nor tempest, but the King Himself sitting on the throne of that unspeakable glory, and angels, and archangels standing by Him, and the tribes of the saints, with those never-ending myriads.
For such is the city of God, having “the Church of the first-born, the spirits of the just, the general assembly of the angels, the blood of sprinkling,” whereby we are all knit into one. Heaven has received the things of earth, and earth the things of Heaven, and that peace has come which was of old longed for both by angels and by saints. Herein the trophy of the cross stands glorious, and conspicuous, the spoils won by Christ, the first-fruits of our inheritance, the booty of our King; all this we shall see in the Gospels. If you follow along with befitting quietness, we shall be able to lead you about everywhere, and to show where death is set forth crucified, and where sin is suspended, and where are the many and wondrous offerings from this war, from this battle. You shall likewise see the tyrant here bound, and the multitude of his minions led captive. You will see his hiding places, and the dens of his robbers, broken up now, and laid open.
But do not be weary, beloved, for if anyone was describing a visible war, and trophies, and victories, you would feel no satiety at all; no, you would not prefer either to eat or drink to such an account. But if that kind of narrative is welcome, how much more this. For consider what a thing it is to hear, how on the one side God from Heaven, arising “out of the royal thrones, descended” (Wis. 18.15) unto the earth, and even unto hell itself, and stood in the battle array; and how the devil on the other hand set himself in array against Him; or rather not against God unveiled, but God hidden in man’s nature. And what is marvelous, is that you will see death destroyed by death, and curse extinguished by curse, and the dominion of the devil put down by those very things whereby he did prevail. Let us therefore rouse ourselves thoroughly, and let us not sleep, for lo, I see the gates opening to us; but let us enter in with all seemly order, and with trembling, step straightway within the vestibule itself. But what is this vestibule? “The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, Son of David, Son of Abraham.”

Depression

Why then – with regard to other griefs – are you cast down, O man? Since, if for sins which is the only place where grief is beneficial excess works much mischief, much more so does it for all other things. Why do you grieve? Have you lost money? Well, think of those who are not even filled with bread, and you shall indeed speedily obtain consolation. And in each of the things that are grievous to you, do not mourn the things that have happened; instead, for the disasters that have not happened, give thanks. Have you had money and lost it? Do not weep for the loss, but give thanks for the time when you enjoyed it. Say like Job, “Have we received good at the hand of the Lord, and shall we not receive evil?” (Job 2:10) And together with that, use this argument also: even if you did lose your money and yet your body is still sound, give thanks that in spite of your poverty at least your body is not maimed.

But has your body also endured some outrage? Even this is not the bottom of human calamities, but in the middle of the cask you are—so-to-speak—carried along. For many, along with poverty and maiming, both wrestle with a demon and wander in deserts. Again, others endure other things more grievous than these. But may it never be our lot to suffer all that it is possible for one to bear. Considering these things then, let us bear in mind them that suffer worse, and not be vexed at any of these things. However, only when thou sin, then sigh, then weep. In that case I do not forbid you, rather I enjoin you; although even then do so with moderation, remembering that there is returning and reconciliation.

But do you still grieve, why? Do you see others in luxury and yourself in poverty; and another in goodly robes, and in preeminence? Do not look, however, at these things alone, but also on the miseries that arise out of them. And in your poverty too, consider not simply the beggary, but also the pleasure arising therefrom. For wealth has indeed a cheerful mask, but its inward parts are full of gloom; and yet poverty has the reverse. And if you would unfold each man’s conscience, in the soul of the poor you will see great security and freedom; but in that of the rich, confusions, disorders, tempests. And if you grieve, seeing one who is rich, know that he too is vexed even more than you when he beholds one richer than himself. And as you fear him, even so does he another, thus he has no advantage over thee in this. Are you vexed to see him in a governing office, because you are simply a citizen and one of the governed? Recollect then the day of his ceasing to hold office; and even before that day what his office entails: the tumults, the perils, the fatigues, the flatteries, the sleepless nights, and many other miseries.

These things we say to those who have no mind for high morality: since if you understood this, there are other and greater things whereby we may comfort you. But for the present we must use the coarser topics to convince you. Therefore when you see one that is rich, think of one that is richer than he, and you will then see him in the same condition as yourself. And after him, look also on him that is poorer than thyself, and consider how many have gone to bed hungry, and have lost their patrimony, and live in a dungeon, and pray for death every day. For neither doth poverty breed sadness, nor wealth pleasure, but our own thoughts are accustomed to produce both the one and the other in us. And consider, beginning from beneath: the scavenger grieves and is vexed that he cannot be rid of his business which is so wretched and esteemed so disgraceful. But if you rid him of this, and cause him – with security – to have plenty of the necessaries of life, he will grieve again that he hath not more than he wants. And if thou grant him more, he will wish to double them again, and will therefore vex himself no less than before. And if you will give him double or triple, he will be out of heart again because he hath no part in the state. If you provide him with this also, he will count himself wretched because he is not one of the highest officers of state. And when he has obtained this honor, he will mourn that he is not a ruler; and when he shall be ruler, that it is not of a whole nation. And when of a whole nation, that it is not of many nations; and when of many nations, then that he is not king. And if such were made a king, then he will grieve that he is not so alone; and if alone, that he is not also of barbarous nations; and if of barbarous nations, that he is not even of the whole world. And if of the whole world, why not likewise of another world? And so his course of thought going on without end does not allow him ever to be pleased. Do you see how even if from being mean and poor you would make a man a king, you do not remove his dejection, without first correcting his turn of thought, enamored as it is of having more?

Come, let me also show you the contrary, that even if from a higher station you should bring down to a lower one a man who has prudence, you wilt not cast him into dejection and grief. And if you will, let us descend the same ladder, and bring down the governor from his throne and in supposition deprive him of that dignity. I say that he will not on this account vex himself, if he should choose to bear in mind the things of which I have spoken. He will not consider the things of which he hath been deprived, but rather that which he still has, and the glory arising from his office. But if thou take away this also, he will consider those who are in private stations and have never ascended to such a position, and for consolation his riches will suffice him. And if you also cast him out again from this, he will look to them that have a moderate estate. And if you would take away even moderate wealth, and allow him to partake only of necessary food, he may think upon those who do not even have this, but wrestle with incessant hunger and live in prison. And even if thou should bring him into that prison-house, when he reflects on them that lie under incurable diseases and irremediable pains, even there he will see himself to be in much better circumstances.

And just as the scavenger mentioned before will not reap any cheerfulness even on being made a king, so neither will the prudent man ever vex himself even if he becomes a prisoner. It is not then wealth that is the foundation of pleasure, nor poverty of sadness. Rather it is our own judgment, and the fact, that the eyes of our mind are not pure; nor are they fixed on any one place and abide there, but without limit they flutter abroad. And just as healthy bodies, if they are nourished with bread alone, are in good and vigorous condition, while those that are sickly, even if they enjoy a plentiful and varied diet, become so much the weaker; so also it is accustomed to happen in regard to the soul. The mean spirited, not even in a diadem and unspeakable honors can be happy; but the self-denying, even in bonds and fetters and poverty, will enjoy a pure pleasure.

Bearing these things in mind then, let us ever look to them that are beneath us. There is to be found, I grant, another consolation, one of a high strain in morality, and mounting above the grossness of the multitude. What is this? That wealth is nothing, poverty is nothing, disgrace is nothing, honor is nothing; but for a brief time and only in words do they differ from each other. And along with this there is another soothing topic even greater than it: the consideration of the things to come, both evil and good; the things which are really evil and really good, and being comforted by them. But since many, as I said, stand aloof from these doctrines; therefore were we compelled to dwell on others, so that in course we might lead them on to receive that which has been said before.

Taking all these things into account, let us by every means frame ourselves aright, and we shall never grieve at these unexpected things. For just as if we should see men rich in a picture, we would not say they were to be envied, likewise on seeing poor men so depicted we should [not?] call them wretched and pitiable. Yet those paintings are surely will outlast those whom we consider wealthy; since one abides rich in the painting longer than in the nature of the things themselves. For the one often lasts, appearing such, even to a hundred years; but the other sometimes – not having had so much as a fraction of this – has been suddenly stripped of all.

Meditating then on all these things, let us from all quarters build up cheerfulness as a defense against our irrational sorrow, so that in this way we may both pass the present life with pleasure, and obtain the good things to come, through the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ, with Whom to the Father, with the Holy Spirit, be glory, power, and honor, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.