Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

God's fellow workers

2008; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 62; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/00393380802439852

1502-7791

Knut Alfsvåg,

Abstract The question whether the concept of cooperation is a relevant description of the relation between the human and the divine is here investigated through an interpretation of some key texts by Maximus Confessor and Martin Luther. Maximus consistently maintains the theocentricity of restored humanity, emphasizing that it is manifested by humans relinquishing what is incompatible with the divine. In a similar way Luther explores the notion of the Christian as united with Christ through faith, thus letting him retain a positive evaluation of the concept of cooperation as long as it is kept clear of any thought of merit. In this way, both Maximus and Luther insist on the theocentricity of regeneration while at the same time retaining a positive evaluation of the difference between the divine and the human founded on Chalcedonian Christology. Notes 1. This expression was first used by Irenaeus and Athanasius; see Vladimir Lossky, The mystical theology of the Eastern church (Cambridge: Clarke & Co., 1957; repr. New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1976), 134. 2. This may therefore be a relevant critique of Barth and Jüngel, who have criticized Irenaeus and Athanasius’ understanding of the incarnation as quoted above. See Reinhard Flogaus, “Einig in Sachen Theosis und Synergie?” KD 42 (1996): 225–243, p. 226. 3. According to Felix Heinzer, “Anmerkungen zum Willensbegriff Maximus’ Confessors,” FZPhTh 28 (1981): 372–392, Maximus brings “den Begriff des Willens zum ersten Mal auf der Ebene wissenschaftlichen Denkens zur Geltung.” (p. 372) 4. Cf. the statement from the 9th plenary of the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission 1998, "Authority in and of the Church: C. Salvation: Grace, Justification and Synergy," n.p. Online: http://www.helsinki.fi/~risaarin/lutortjointtext.html. On earlier relevant dialogue documents, see Flogaus, “Einig?” 225. 5. A. G. Roeber, “Justification, Christ, and grace: the orthodox future of Lutheranism,” Lutheran Forum 34 (2000): 20–27, thus insists that the dialogues with the Orthodox “have forced the critical question of grace and its relation to nature to the forefront of all serious Lutheran theological reflection.” (p. 21) According to Ross Aden, “Justification and Sanctification: A Conversation Between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy,” SVTQ 38 (1994): 87–109, this topic could be important also for a renewal of Lutheran spirituality. 6. For an overview of his life, see, e.g., Andrew Louth, Maximus the Confessor (London: Routledge, 1996), 3–18. 7. The best overview of Maximus’ works in the context of his life and struggles is still Polycarp Sherwood, An annotated date-list of the works of Maximus the Confessor (Roma: Pontificio Ateneo S. Anselmo, 1952). The original texts of his works are found in Patrologia graeca (ed. J.-P. Migne; 162 vols.; Paris, 1857–1886), vols. 90 and 91. Available English translations will be indicated when appropriate; I have in my quotations freely made use of these without necessarily following them in all cases. 8. PG 91:1068–1101. There is an English translation of this work in Maximus, On the cosmic mystery of Jesus Christ: selected writings from St. Maximus the Confessor (trans. Paul M. Blowers and Robert Louis Wilken; Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2003), 45–74. 9. On Maximus’ relation to Origenism, which he was acquainted with through the works of Evagrius, see Louth, Maximus the Confessor, 23–26. 10. Some of the passages quoted by Maximus are Deut 12:9 (you have not yet come to rest), Psa 42:2 (my soul thirsts for God), Phil 3:11 (I have not yet obtained this) and Heb 4:10 (anyone who enters God's rest also rests from his own work), 1072D-1073A. 11. BWHEBB, BWHEBL, BWTRANSH [Hebrew]; BWGRKL, BWGRKN, and BWGRKI [Greek] Postscript® Type 1 and TrueTypeT fonts Copyright © 1994–2006 BibleWorks, LLC. All rights reserved. These Biblical Greek and Hebrew fonts are used with permission and are from BibleWorks, software for Biblical exegesis and research. 12. See Gerald Bostock, “The influence of Origen on Pelagius and western monasticism,” in Origeniana Septima (ed. Wolfgang A. Bienert and Uwe Kühneweg; Louvain, 1999), 381–396. 13. As mentioned in the translator's remarks in Maximus, On the cosmic mystery of Jesus Christ, 47, a cyclical world view is criticized by Augustine in De civitate Dei 12.20 for similar reasons. Cf. the discussion of the relation between Maximus and Augustine in Ian A. McFarland, “‘Naturally and by grace’: Maximus the Confessor on the operation of the will,” SJT 58 (2005): 410–433, who maintains (p. 411) that “both opposed a model of free will as a reserve of autonomy cut off from God and the world.” 14. The translation of αυτεξoυσιoς as "(possessing) free will", though common (e.g., Maximus, On the cosmic mystery of Jesus Christ, 52), should in my opinion be avoided, as the question of whether this expression may carry connotations beyond Maximus’ intentions is an important part of the problem I am discussing. 15. 16. The expression is difficult to translate. Γνωµη means "will, decision, intention"; χwre,w means "to contain", εκχωρησις thus suggesting the notion of "not containing any more, giving up, surrender, submission". “Willing surrender” or “voluntary outpassing” have been suggested; see Maximus, On the cosmic mystery of Jesus Christ, 52, and Lars Thunberg, “Spirit, grace and human receptivity in St. Maximus the Confessor,” in Cappadocian writers, other Greek writers (StPatr XXXVII; Louvain, 2001), 608–617 (p. 616–617). 17. 18. The inconsistency hinted at by having God as subject while retaining the idea of reciprocity, is probably intentional, thus hinting at the ineffability of what Maximus here tries to express. 19. On this passage, see also Lars Thunberg, Microcosm and mediator: the theological anthropology of Maximus the Confessor (2nd ed.; Chicago: Open Court, 1995), 229. 20. Cf. Basil Studer, “Zur Soteriologie des Maximus Confessor,” in Maximus Confessor: Acts du Symposium sur Maxime le Confesseur Fribourg 1980 (ed. Felix Heinzer and Christoph Schönborn; Fribourg, 1982), 239–246: “Was die individuelle Heilsverwirklichung angeht, besteht sie im Tiefsten in der Überwindung des Gegensatzes von menschlicher Freiheit und göttlicher Gnade.” (p. 242) 21. This implies a kind of unknowing that is close to Maximus’ understanding of faith; see J. P. Williams, Denying divinity: apophasis in the patristic Christian and Soto Zen Buddhist traditions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 109. 22. PG 91,392–408. For an English translation, see Louth, Maximus the Confessor, 85–93. Ep 2 was written about 626. 23. Maximus distinguishes between θεληµα as the capacity of willing and γνωµη as the actual willing or inclination. On Maximus’ understanding of γνωµη, see further Thunberg, Microcosm and mediator, 214–218. 24. ”The fallen γνωµη … cuts the common human nature into pieces.” (ibid., 227) 25. A quotation from the Symbol of Chalcedon. 26. On apophaticism in Maximus, see Ysabel de Andia, “Transfiguration et théologie négative chez Maxime le Confesseur et Denys l'Aréopagite,” in Denys l'Aréopagite et sa postérité en Orient et en Occident (ed. Ysabel de Andia; Paris, 1997), 293–328 and Ian A. McFarland, “Developing an apophatic Christocentrism: lessons from Maximus the Confessor,” ThTo 60 (2003): 200–214. 27. 28. The realization of participation in God through a life of love is the main subject of Maximus’ Centuries on Love (PG 90:960–1080), see, e.g., 1,23–27. 29. The view of some earlier Maximus’ scholarship that his emphasis on the contribution of the human nature in the Monotheletist controversy made him into a sort of proto-Thomist, now seems to be considered as obsolete; see Andrew Louth, “Recent Research on St Maximus the Confessor: A Survey,” SVTQ 42 (1998): 67–84, 75. Even McFarland, “‘Naturally and by grace’,” who goes quite far in suggesting that in Maximus’ works before the Monotheletist controversy, the role of the human part is close to that of being overrun by the divine, is aware that Maximus’ adjustments are terminological rather than real. Emphasizing the continuity is also Studer, “Zur Soteriologie des Maximus Confessor”. 30. In relation to Maximus’ apophaticism, the problem of Monotheletism is that it becomes affirmatively non-dualistic, while Maximus is aiming at a non-dualism that is not resolved either by synthesis or victory, thus following Chalcedon in maintaining unity while insisting on the preservation of difference. See Williams, Denying divinity, 113–114. 31. Opusc 6, written about 641, is translated in Maximus, On the cosmic mystery of Jesus Christ, 173–176; for the Greek original, see PG 91:65–68. 32. As underlined by Francois-Marie Léthel, “La prière de Jésus à Gethsémani dans la controverse monothélite,” in Maximus Confessor (ed. Felix Heinzer and Christoph Schönborn), 207–214, without this emphasis on the hypostatic union, Maximus’ refutation of Monotheletism would revert to Nestorianism. (p. 213) 33. On the interpretation of this passage, see further McFarland, “‘Naturally and by grace’,” 424–425. 34. On this distinction, see further Heinzer, “Anmerkungen zum Willensbegriff Maximus’ Confessors,” 374 and 385. 35. Opusc 3, written about 645, is translated in Louth, Maximus the Confessor, 193–198; Greek original in PG 91:45–56. 36. On the rejection of the idea of a gnomic will in Christ in the later work of Maximus, see further McFarland, “‘Naturally and by grace’,” 417–420; on the closely related question of choice (proai,resij) in Christ, see Heinzer, “Anmerkungen zum Willensbegriff Maximus’ Confessors,” 386. 37. Louth, Maximus the Confessor, 180–191; PG 91:69–89, and cf. the Chalcedonian (inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably). 38. 39. McFarland, “‘Naturally and by grace’,” 426. 40. Lossky, The mystical theology of the Eastern church, 125, therefore concludes his discussion of Maximus’ anthropology in the following way: “Freedom of choice is already a sign of imperfection . . .. A perfect nature has no need of choice, for it knows naturally what is good … The hesitation in our ascent towards the good, we call ‘free will’.” 41. Cf. Luther's defence Assertio omnium articulorum (1520), WA 7,136,20 and 142,18. An English translation of the German edition of this work is given in Luther's Works (LW), 32,7–99; for the actual quotations, see p. 83 and p. 92. 42. The pope's reaction against Luther is thus somewhat similar to the criticism of the Origenists that Maximus considers in Amb 7. 43. Isa 64:6 (all of us are unclean), Eccl 7:20 (there is no man that does not sin) and John 15:5 (without me you can do nothing). 44. ”Liberum arbitrium sine gratia non valet nisi ad peccandum,” WA 7,142,28, quotation from De spiritu et littera 1,3,5. 45. WA 7,137,14–18; cf. Luther's German translation, WA 7,435,8–12, which here is clearer. 46. WA 7,49–73. Also in this case Luther made a German edition as well, WA 7,20–38. English translation of the Latin edition in LW 31,343–377. 47. The terminology (“de libertate et servitute spiritus”, 49,21) is essential: What Luther aims at, is pneumatological, i.e., theocentric anthropology, not a discussion of independent humanity. 48. WA 7,49–50. The main biblical references are 1 Cor 9:19 (free, but the servant of all), Rom 13:8 (owe nothing to each other except love) and the example of Christ (Phil 2,6–8). Johann Anselm Steiger, “The communicatio idiomatum as the axle and motor of Luther's theology,” LQ 14 (2000): 125–158 emphasizes that with this distinction, “the Christological dialectic becomes the bearer of the anthropological and ethical dialectic.” (p. 134) 49. ”… fit, ut anima, quae firma fide illis adheret, sic eis uniatur, immo penitus absorbeatur, ut non modo participet sed saturetur et inebritur omni virtute eorum” (53,16–18). As has been repeatedly underlined by Finnish Luther research, Luther is here quite close to what Maximus and Orthodox tradition would call deification; for a brief presentation see Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Salvation as justification and theosis: the contribution of the new Finnish Luther interpretation to our ecumenical future,” Dialog 45 (2006): 74–82. While basically appreciating the approach, both Kärkkäinen and Flogaus, “Einig in Sachen Theosis und Synergie?” are critical of the labelling of Luther's approach as substance metaphysics. 50. Maximus uses the same metaphor in Amb 5 (PG 91:1060a). 51. This passage is the main reference for Oswald Bayer, “Das Wunder der Gottesgemeinschaft: Eine Besinnung auf das Motiv der ‘unio’ bei Luther und im Lutherthum,” in Unio: Gott und Mensch in der nachreformatorischen Theologie (ed. Matti Repo and Rainer Vinke; Helsinki, 1996), 322–332. 52. Luther here quotes 1 Pet 2:9. 53. Quotations from Rom 8:28 and 1 Cor 3:21–22. 54. Quotations from Rom 7:22–23, 1 Cor 9:27 (I chastise my body to obedience), Gal 5:24 (crucifixion of the sinful nature). 55. ”… ne ociosus sit et corpus suum operatur et servet, sunt ei opera eiusmodi libertatis, solum intuitu divini beneplaciti, facienda.” 56. Luther here quotes Matt 7:18. 57. Quotations from Phil 2,5–8; Eph 4:28; Gal 5:6 and 6:2. 58. ”Ita christianus, quemadmodum caput suum Christus per fidem suam plenus et satur, contentus esse debet hac forma dei per fidem obtenta.” 59. ”Dabo itaque me quendam Christum proximo meo.” 60. For the Latin text of De servo arbitrio, see WA 18,600–787; for an English translation, see LW 33,15–295. 61. Erasmus defines free will as a power of the human will by which humans can apply themselves to salvation or not (“liberum arbitrium hoc loco sentimus vim humanae voluntatis, qua se possit homo applicare ad ea, quae perducunt ad aeternam salutem, aut ab iisdem avertere.” (De libero arbitrio I b 10) Erasmus, Ausgewählte Schriften (vol. 4; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgellschaft, 1967–80)). 62. Luther here quotes Isa 64:4/1 Cor 2:9 (God has prepared what no man has conceived), Acts 17:18 and 26:24. 63. According to Armin Buchholz, Schrift Gottes im Lehrstreit : Luthers Schriftverständnis und Schriftauslegung in seinen drei grossen Lehrstreitigkeiten der Jahre 1521–28 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1993), 108, the refutation of Erasmus is therefore also a refutation of Origen. 64. ”Sic placitum est Deo, ut non sine verbo, sed per verbum tribuat spiritum, ut nos habeat suos cooperatores, dum foris sonamus, quod intus ipse solus spirat.” 65. ”Sed non operatur sine nobis, ut quos in hoc ipsum recreavit et conservat, ut operaretur in nobis et nos ei cooperamur. Sic per nos praedicat, miseretur pauperibus, consolatur afflictos.” (754,13–16) 66. Though overlooking the Christological foundation, the investigation of this text in Michael Plathow, “Das Cooperatio-Verständnis M Luthers im Gnaden- und Schöpfungsbereich: zur Frage nach dem Verhältnis von Mensch und Schöpfung,” Luther 56 (1985): 28–46, ends in similar conclusion (p. 40): “Gottes Präszienz und die geschöpfliche Freiheit bilden für Luther eine ‘geheimnisvolle’ Einheit.” 67. It is an important part of the critique against Andreas Osiander's doctrine of justification that this distinction here is lost, necessitating the emphasis of his opponents on the “immer neu zugesprochene Vergebüng der Sünde” as the means to keep “die Einsicht in die ekstatische Struktur des Glaubens.” See Friederike Nüssel, “”Ich lebe, doch nun nicht ich, sondern Christus lebt in mir” (Gal 2,20a): dogmatische Überlegungen zur Rede vom ‘Sein in Christus’,” ZTK 99 (2002): 480–502 (pp. 489–490). 68. According to David S. Yeago, “The Bread of Life : Patristic Christology and Evangelical Soteriology in Martin Luther's Sermons on John 6,” SVTQ 39 (1995): 257–279, neo-Chalcedonian two nature Christology in the spirit of Cyril, Maximus and John of Damascus is fundamental for Luther's theological approach. A similar position is maintained by Marc Lienhard, Martin Luthers christologisches Zeugnis : Entwicklung und Grundzüge seiner Christologie (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980), 23, and by Steiger, “The communicatio idiomatum as the axle and motor of Luther's theology.” 69. The Lutheran proponents of the doctrine of communicatio idiomatum were, however, perfectly aware that this doctrine presupposes a positive emphasis on the permanent difference between the two natures of Christ. See Nüssel, “”Ich lebe, doch nun nicht ich, sondern Christus lebt in mir” (Gal 2,20a): dogmatische Überlegungen zur Rede vom ‘Sein in Christus’,” 496. 70. See Luther's sermon on Matt 26:36–46 in Hauspostille (1545), WA 52,734–742. According to Luther, the text shows Christ's true humanity and gives an example of how we should relate to trouble and anxiety, but he shows no awareness of the discussion of Christ's divine and human will. In his presentation of the doctrines of the councils of the old church in Von den Konziliis und Kirchen (WA 50,509–653), he does not proceed beyond the Council of Chalcedon. 71. In spite of living in Carthage for several years, Maximus never commented on the Pelagian controversy. On his relation to Augustine, see Jaroslav Pelikan, “The place of Maximus Confessor in the history of Christian thought,” in Maximus Confessor, (ed. Felix Heinzer and Christoph Schönborn), 387–402, 401. 72. On this aspect of Luther's thought, see further Ole Modalsli, Das Gericht nach den Werken: ein Beitrag zu Luthers Lehre vom Gesetz (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963). 73. According to James Jorgenson, “Predestination according to divine foreknowledge in patristic tradition,” in Salvation in Christ: A Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue (ed. John Meyendorff and Robert Tobias; Minneapolis, 1992), 159–170, the Greek fathers generally understand predestination as based on foreknowledge, which Luther certainly does not. Jorgenson does not, though, explicitly discuss Maximus. 74. See Lossky, The mystical theology of the Eastern church, 197. 75. According to Flogaus, “Einig in Sachen Theosis und Synergie?” Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue here still seems to be in need of further clarification, though in this respect, the Lutheran-Orthodox Joint Commission statement from 1998 (cf. note above), seems to be more balanced. 76. Arguing for the integrating power of a nonmeritorious synergy based on the uncoerced participation of the human in the divine is also Paul R. Hinlicky, “Theological Anthropology: Toward Integrating Theosis and Justification by Faith,” JES 34 (1997): 38–73.