Ταις εζ εργων καυχησεσι Φαρισαιον δικαιουντα εαυτον κατεκριωας, Κυριε και
Τελωνην μετριοπαθησαντα και στεναγμοις ιλασμον αιτουμενον εδικαιωσας ου γαρ
προσιεσαι τους μεγαλοφρονας λογισμους και τας συντετριμμενας καρδιας ουκ
εξουθενεις διο και ημεις σοι προσπιπτομεν εν ταπεινωσει, τω παθοντι δι’ ημας
Παρασχου την αφεσιν και το μεγα ελεος.
The Pharisee, who vindicated
himself by boasting about his works, O Lord, You condemned; but You vindicated
the Publican who was modest, and who with sighs prayed for expiation. For You
do not accept boastful thoughts, but Hearts that are contrite You do not
despite. Therefore we, too, in humility fall down before You, who suffered for
us. Grant us absolution and great mercy.
Doxastikon of
the Canon (plagal of mode four) Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee (Joseph
Lucas, Prayer of the Publican: Justification in the Desert Fathers [Rollinsford,
N.H.: Orthodox Research Institute, 2011], i [note how the publican is justified
by God accepting his contrite heart—the author did not believe regeneration
precedes saving faith)
A sharp distinction between
juridical and ethical meanings for all the δικ- cognates is unnecessary. In fact, it may be contended that such
a clear demarcation in early Christianity thought is impossible to make . . . [the]
Desert Fathers understood both the juridical and ethical aspects of δικαιοσυνη, without the accentuation or
exaggeration of one over the other. (ibid., xvi)
One of the earliest patristic interpretations
on the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee also connects it with a formula
of δικαιοσυνη. In a fragment of a homily on the
parable of the Prodigal Son, Clement the Alexandrian provides an explanation of
δικαιοσυνη. Regarding the Prodigal Son’s
admission to his father, “I have sinned against heaven and earth,” Clement
comments: “[B]oth his humility (ταπεινοφροσυνη)
and his self-accusation (εαυτου κατηγορια) and glory (δοξης αιτια). For the
righteous man (δικαιος) accuses himself in his first
worlds. So also the Publican departed justified (δεδικαιωμενος) rather than the Pharisee (ANF
2.583). This short passage is remarkable in that it echoes the sentiments of
the Desert Fathers exactly. (ibid., xxi)
Both the Old and New Testaments
state that man will be judged according to his works (Psalms 61:12; 2
Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:12-3); but his words will likewise reveal
the inner content of a person’s life. Quoting Matthew 12:37, Abba Poemen
states, “If man remembered that it is written: ‘By your words you will be justified
(δικαιωθηση) and by your words you will be
condemned (καταδικασθηση),’ he would
choose to remain silent (σιωπαν)”
(The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection [trans.
Benedicta Ward; Kalamazoo, Mich.: Cistercian Publications, 1975], 173; PG 65.332.
In instances in the Sayings such as this, where silence is recommended,
one may see a connection with the emerging monastic tradition of hesychasm [ησουχια]). Both verbs in this verse from Matthew
are in the future-passive tense, reminding us again that judgment remains
in the eschaton. But whether judgment occurs at the moment of one’s
death, or at the final tribunal, it remains that each person will be held
accountable for their words. In light of this, Poemen recommends that it might
be wiser (and safer) to restore to the positive silence commended in the
monastic life than to disqualify oneself through frivolous words.
Abba Xanthias, on the other hand,
contrasts the positive words of the thief with the negative deeds of judas. He tells
his disciples, “The thief was on the cross and he was justified (εδικαιωθη) by a single word; and Judas who
was counted in the number of the apostles lost all his labor in one single
night and descended from Heaven to Hades. Therefore, let no one boast of his
good works, for all those who trust in themselves fall” (Wall, 159 [revised]; PG
65.313.The verb εδικαιωθη
is aorist passive, indicating an action that has occurred and been completed in
the past, enacted by an external agent. In both the Septuagint and the New Testament,
passive voice is often used to signify that God is the agent, and that the
human party is the recipient of the action). The impact of word and deed on
eternity are not mutually exclusive either. Poemen and Xanthius concur, and we
return again to the perennial theme of the Publican and the Pharisee: the
former was vindicated by his actions, while the latter was condemned. (Ibid.,
13)
Self-condemnation expels
hypocrisy. “Abba Sarmatas said, ‘I prefer a sinful man who knows he has sinned
and repents, to a man who has not sinned and makes himself to
be righteous (δικαιοσυνην ποιουντα)’” (Ward, 225; PG 65.413)
We may inter from Sarmatas’ statement that no man is given the right to
proclaim his own righteousness. To do so is to fall into the trap of the
Pharisee—“Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your
hearts, for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight
of God” (Luke 16:15). Trusting in God to vindicate oneself, rather than
relying on one’s own virtue, is a fruit of humility. Through self-condemnation,
the monk allows God to act. Navigation within the monastic life is contrary to
human logic: to ascend, one must first descend. (ibid., 41-42)
JUSTIFICATION OF MAN.
Frequently in the apophthegmata of the Desert Fathers, the spiritual
life is presented in terms of the acquisition of δικαιοσυνη. As noted above, δικαιοσυνη is equated simultaneously with
the kingdom of heaven (the goal) and the struggle to become holy (the
process). It is here we find an interplay with humility—a prerequisite
virtue in the Christian life. . . . the Desert Fathers understand
humility to be an important corrective to and safeguard against false
righteousness. In a saying that Abba Daniel receives from Abba Arsenius, we
become spectators of a vision granted to the latter:
[Arsenius] saw a temple and two
men on horseback, opposite one another, carrying a piece of wood crosswise.
They wanted to go in through the door, but could not because they held their
piece of wood crosswise. Neither of them would draw back before the other, so
as to carry the wood straight; so they remained outside the door. A voice said
to the old man, “These men carry the yoke of righteousness with arrogance (υπερηφανιας), and so not humble themselves so
as to correct themselves and walk in the humble way of Christ. So they remain
outside the kingdom of God. (Ward, 15-16 prevised]; PG 65.100-1. It is
interesting that υπερηφανια is ascribed to Satan and is listed as one of the sins
he uses to destroy souls in Epistle of Barnabus 20.1. This document is
generally dated to 2nd c. Egypt, and was likely known by many of the
Desert Fathers. Barnabus 20.2 goes on to describe sinners as “not
knowing the reward of righteousness . . . nor judging righteously [κρισει δικαια]”)
In relating this story to Abba
Daniel, Abba Arsenius is passing on a valuable lesson: righteousness and pride
are antithetical. Arsenius contrasts external righteousness—the failing
attributed to the Pharisees—with a true righteousness that is necessarily
united to humility. In the gospel narratives, the sin of the Pharisees consists
in their scrupulous concern for prescriptions of the law (mitzvoth) and
their interpretation of the law as opposed to the cultivation
of inner righteousness. Behind the apophthegma of
Arsenius we hear an echo of the dominical saying, “Be careful of practicing your
righteousness before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of
your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 6:1 [revised]).
The connection between humility
and righteousness is stated in a different way in the following enigmatic
saying: “Abba Poemen said to Abba Isaac, ‘Empty yourself (κουφισον) of a
portion of your righteousness and you will have rest in a few days (και εξεις αναπαυσιν τας ολιγας ημερας σου)’” (PG 65.357, αναπαυσις
in patristic usage may be associated specifically with asceticism, describing
the higher state of prayer and virtue that a person reaches, especially in the
monastic life. See Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, 115). If, for the
Desert Fathers, the acquisition of δικαιοσυνη
comprises both the process and goal of the Christian life, then what
utility exists in emptying oneself of righteousness? Perhaps Poemen is
condemning external righteousness, just as Arsenius does in the previous
saying. But this solution is unlikely. Abba Poemen asks Abba Isaac to let go of
only a “portion” (μερος)
of his righteousness; Poemen does not display a complete aversion to such righteousness,
which would be expected if he were speaking about external scrupulosity. On two
occasions, Abba Poemen warns against the danger of “measuring” (μετρεω) one’s progress in the spiritual
life: “To throw yourself before God, and to not measure your progress, and to
cast aside your own will, are tools of the soul” (Ward, 172 [revised], PG 65.332);
and again, “Do not measure yourself, but rather live with one who himself is
behaving well” (Ward, 177; PG 65.340). Poemen identifies a danger in
observing and recognizing virtue in oneself. In Peomen’s advice to Abba Isaac,
he realizes that the latter is aware of his own righteousness (lest it would
not make sense for Poemen to address it). So Poemen offers a caveat about Isaac
measuring his own righteousness, and the inherent risk of becoming fixated upon
the process instead of the goal. (ibid., 63-66)
To rightly understand the Desert
Father’s perception of δικαιοσυνη,
we must follow their cut, beginning with the gospels rather than with Paul.
With the Publican and the Pharisee providing the key to unlocking their
approach, we turn again to the saying of Epiphanius . . . .”God remits the
debts of sinners who are penitent, for example, the sinful woman and the
publican, but of the righteous man he even asks interest. This is what he says
to the apostles, ‘Except your righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and
Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven’ (Matthew 5:20)”
(Ward, 58-59, PG 65.165-8). In the gospel parable, the Publican is
vindicated by God because he condemned his own actions, and the
Pharisee is condemned by God because he vindicated himself and judged his
fellowman. In another saying we find the same principle applied to an Old
Testament character: “Abba Poemen said this about the son of Shemai, ‘His
mistake was to justify himself; whoever does that destroys himself’” (Ward,
195). Implicit in both sayings is the requisite virtue of humility, the sine
qua non of justification. At the opposite pole is the self-righteousness of
the Pharisee. Avoiding the pharisaical form of righteousness, as the apophthegma
commends, is accomplished through the penitential rite.
Another saying that elaborates on
justification belongs to Abba Anoub, but is contained within the sayings of Poemen.
Anoub offers an explication of the verse, “All things are pure to the pure” (Titus
1.15): “If a man really affirms this saying, and he sees the shortcomings
of his brother, he makes his righteousness to swallow up the shortcomings (ποιει την δικαιοσυνη αυτου καταπιειν αυτα). The brother says to him, ‘Of
what kind is his righteousness?’ The old man answered, ‘That he constantly
blames himself (‘Ινα παντοτε καταμεμφηται εαυτον)’” (Ward, 181 [revised], PG 65.345).
There are two complimentary components to this saying. First, there is Abba Anoub’s
advice to the brother: purity is to see only the righteousness in others. In
effect, humbling oneself is an active motion of placing oneself below
others. Second, there is the praiseworthy trait of the other monk: his
righteousness radiates from his self-condemnatory attitude. Like the
Publican, the monk is vindicated—deemed to be righteous—precisely because he
does not consider himself so. The words of Abba Anoub reveal to us a glimpse of
justification in action. (Ibid., 70-72; note that the publican was justified because
[i.e., through the instrumentality of] his condemnation his own actions)