www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Anger

Glory to Jesus Christ!

In trying to make sense of the angry demeanor of Christ in throwing the money changers out of the temple, we need to keep in mind that Christ has come to fulfill the Old Testament.

In 1 Maccabees the celebration of the purification of the Temple is celebrated during the Feast of Booths (also the Feast of Tabernacles, I believe). The desecration done to Solomon�s Temple has been cleansed by Nehemiah, the rebuilder of the temple and the altar. Nehemiah and his companions found the fire hidden by devout priests of the time, which later became only muddy water. He called the liquid nephthar, meaning purification, but most people named it naphtha. As he offered sacrifices, a blazing fire appeared once the liquid was poured over the stones.

So as the Old Testament Temple was cleansed of the desecration done by the pagans by the sacrificial act of Nehemiah, the Temple in Jerusalem was cleansed by Christ. He first threw out the money changers. (The money changers changed the Roman coins with an image of the emperor (pagan) to local coins which were acceptable to purchase doves or other animals for sacrifice). However, the act of throwing out the money changers was very significant. This meant that it was the Jewish caretakers of the Temple who were desecrating the Temple (more so than the pagan Romans), and that only a pure sacrifice could reestablish the Temple as a place of worship to God.

The sacrifice, of course, was not one of Temple offerings, but that of the sacrificial death offered by Christ. The cleansing was complete by the crucifixion.

Christ fulfilled the Old Testament by the cleansing of the Temple. He surprised the Temple authorities by laying the fault directly on them and not on the Romans. He accepted the crucifixion that ensued from their anger, and turned it into the sacrifice for all people for all time.

Deacon El

PrJ stated (when this was on the Revised Liturgy thread)


I think one needs to add to this the distinction that the Holy Spirit would only be chased away when the anger is a mortal sin which of course means that the intellect has to consent to an evil act. One can conceive of situations where the act was proper, though done "angrily." I am confident I have done things in a such a manner.

On the other hand, because "life" happens, not acting because we don't have all the inner peace which would like to have could itself be sinful. I can think of a particular circustance where I was confronted with a request from a friendly acquaintance to support him in his candidacy for a public office even though he held positions contrary to the Church's teaching. I did not at first tell him "no." My anger (zeal if you wish) was not present, because I did not want to offend and upset him. I did not have any inner peace at the time, because I knew this would affect our relationship. But I acted badly because of my feelings which just "wanted to get along and not make a stir." Hence I think when we speak of emotions we need to realize that they are neither good nor bad. They certainly do affect us, but the question is how have we acted.

Some men have dispositions such that they need to keep their anger in check without neglecting to do the right thing. Others, however, are never moved by anything and they need to act, despite the fact that they may not feel like it.

Im, As I am sure you are aware, the distinction between mortal and venial sins is not authentic to the eastern spiritual tradition. Once the context of the eastern tradition (that is expressed in the principles enunciated by St Gregory Palamas related to hesychia, etc.), the statement that anger drives out the Holy Spirit makes complete sense.

For me, the clearest teaching of the Eastern/Orthodox tradition on anger is contained within the teachings of St John of the Ladder (of course, I am biased toward St John). St John makes it clear that the danger of anger is that it disturbs the thoughts -- this is why St John states that the first step is "to keep thoughts silent" so that the "soul" does not become "upset" so that one can be "totally calm". Because the goal of the spiritual ladder is to reach the heights of love through the prayer of the heart, anger should be avoided because it disturbs the interior serenity that is required for true prayer.

In another place, St John discusses the damage that can be done by just one moment of anger -- "A strong sudden wind may fan a blaze that will cause more damage to the field of the heart than a lingering flame could ever manage to achieve." Once again, St John pinpoints the true danger of anger -- it disturbs the heart and thus makes one unable to enter into the serenity of the true prayer. This is why St John describes anger as "an untimely flaring of the heart" and bitterness as a "stirring of the soul's capacity for displeasure." St John also quotes Ecclus 1:22, "The moment of his anger is his downfall."

It is amazing how much St John refers to the "heart" is in his discussion of anger, as in this statement: "A sign of utter meekness is to have a heart peacefully and lovingly disposed toward someone." Notice the emphasis on the state of the heart and its peaceful state. In another place, St John says: "The eye of the heart should not be troubled by anger."

Thus, only when the heart is peaceful (passionless) can one know the presence of the Holy Spirit. As St John says directly: "If it is true that the Holy Spirit is peace of soul, as He is said to be and as, indeed, He is, and as anger is disturbance of the heart, as it is really is, and as it is said to be, then there is no greater obstacle to the presence of the Holy Spirit in us than anger."

I think this last statement is the most important: "there is no greater obstacle to the presence of the Holy Spirit in us than anger."

--
If it is asked, what does St John mean by the term anger -- he states that anger is known by its fruits. This is the one I particularly like: "anger is disturbance of the heart."

In light of previous discussions, I found the following statement to be interesting: "Should a beating be necessary, make sure this does not happen often and get someone else to do it instead of you."

The solution, in typically St John style, is described in this way: "Anger the oppressor must be restrained by the chains of meekness, beaten by patience, hauled away by blessed love."

"On the eighth step the crown is freedom from anger. He who wears it by nature may never come to wear another. But he who has sweated for it and won it has conquered all eight together."

Offhand I don't know of anything explicitly saying that not all anger is sinful. I suspect that since most anger is sinful for us, the fathers rightly emphasized being liberated from the passions. The fathers wrote to help us spurn the passions, but spurning the passions is not being emotionless. It is being freed from distortions of the passions and it is redirecting our emotional life toward spiritual ends. God bless.

Joe

Alexandr,

This is a little off topic but the passages you post here was exactly what I needed to hear today. God bless you.

Joe

Thanks Deacon El!

My thoughts/questions are what, if any, parallels can be said for the Church. If the OT is a prefiguring of the NT, then what lessons should/could the the people of GOD learn from the Jewish people (the OT people of GOD)? I am asking here. I admit, I do not read enough of the OT or the Fathers to have any insight. I have spent some time reading the beginning of the OT. But, I have to say I have not read much of the OT after Moses.

For me, the wondering in the desert was a great lesson/reminder not to complain when things get though. And the trails will be difficult, but when you know it is for your purification, you know it is for your good. Then, I rejoice in the suffering/desert. I think, am I going to complain, now that I have been released and am being released from Egypt/bondage/slavery?

Have you thought along these lines? What do the Fathers say about this? Can you give the me some help in understanding what we, the Church, should learn from examples of the Jewish people especially in relation to the Temple?

Maybe I am way off here? You can tell me that too!

Blessed is GOD!
jody

Some quotes from the desert fathers:

Abba Agathon: "A man who is angry, even if he were to raise the dead, is not acceptable to God."

Abba Ammonas: "I have spent fourteen years in Scetis asking God night and day to grant me victory over anger."

Abba John the Dwarf: "Going up the road towards Scetis with some ropes, I saw the camel driver talking and he made me angry. So leaving my goods, I took to flight."

Abba Isidore the Priest: "One day when I went to the market place to sell some small goods when I saw anger approaching, I left the things and fled."

Abba Nilus: "If you want to pray properly, do not let yourself become angry (or, get upset), or you will run in vain."

Abba Nilus: "Everything you do in anger/revenge against a brother who has harmed you -- it will come back to your mind/nous at the time of prayer."

Abba Poeman: "God has given this way of life to Israel: to abtain from everything which is contrary to nature, that is to say, anger, fits of passion, jealousy, hatred and slandering--all of these things which are characteristic of the old man."

Abba Poeman: "A monk does not complain of his lot, a monk does not return evil for evil, a monk is not angry."

Abbess Syncletica: "It is good not to get angry, but if this should happen, the Apostle does not allow you a whole day for this passion, for he says, 'Let not the sun go down.' ... Why hate the man who has grieved you? It is not he who has done the wrong but the devil. Hate sickness but not the sick person."

Abba Hyperechius: "He who does not control his tongue when he is angry, will not control his passions either."

I thought we were in agreement. Surely zeal(righteous anger) does not drive away the Holy Spirit.Didn't we agree that there is sinful anger and we will call it simply anger and there is righteous anger and we will call it zeal.


In peace,

Good question -- having gone back and re-immersed myself in the writings of the desert fathers concerning this issue, I would summarize what I have found in saying that anything that disturbs our internal peace and fills us with agitation is harmful to the soul and should be avoided (regardless of what term we use to describe it).

This is very close to what St Nicholai of Zhicha said when he asserted that the true Christian can discern sin from righteousness by checking whether the perceived action or thought leaves one in peace or creates internal agitation. Anything that internally agitates is of the Evil One who is the Agitator Supreme.

Perhaps it is just a question of terminology, but I still don't see this as condemning zeal, righteous anger, or whatever you want to call it. Remember too that they were writing to monks. Many of these writings were never meant to be directly applicable to lay persons. Many of the church fathers say that it is nearly impossible for a lay person to attain the level of perfection as a monk and so it is sufficient for those who are lay persons, to remain chaste in their marriages, be kind to the poor, and obedient to the laws of the Church. I don't have my texts right here so I can't show you the quotes at the moment. But, I still don't think that passions=emotions for the desert fathers. The passions are distortions of the emotions. To be angry in the sinful sense is to be moved by anger irrationally. It is an excess of passion. If we were to be truly passionless in the absolute sense, then we would also have to be without joy and compassion. I don't think that is what the fathers meant. God bless.

Joe

Then, was Christ sinning when He said "I am troubled in spirit" in the garden of gesthemani? And isn't weeping and mourning a disturbance of spirit, yet Jesus wept at the death of his friend, Lazarus? Couldn't there be a form of being "at peace" that is actually sinful? Does God want us to be at peace when we see injustice and cruelty? (abortion, torture, starvation, etc.) Just questions I have. God bless.

Joe

I am in complete agreement that what Christ did was good. I am just squaring his actions with that reality. Although I doubt that I could overturn tables in a righteous way, it can be done.
I believe that we all agree. I admit that it is fallen human nature that is prone to distorting the passions bestowed apon us by God that is coloring this conversation. I believe all that the Dessert Fathers Wrote. That we all may avoid anger and embrace zeal!

In peace,

Joe,

While that may be true of later monasticism, it is not true of the desert fathers who were visited by lay people from around the world and who very often directed their comments to lay people. It should also be noted that most of the desert fathers were not monastics in the more modern sense of the term -- they were laypeople living lives of prayer -- not true monastics in the sense of taking vows, etc. That is a later development.

The point is internal agitation. As many scholars have pointed out, to use the word "emotions" when speaking of these early fathers is probably (at best) anachronistic as they did operate within the psychological framework that we moderns have. They are concerned about the state of the heart and define anything as harmful that disturbs the soul.

My favorite desert father story (told to laypeople) illustrates this clearly. Three brothers decided to pursue holiness. One became a doctor, the other a social worker and the other a man of prayer. When the doctor and social worker visited the man of prayer to ask about his life and to discuss which is the best way to live, he put a bucket of water in front of them and poured dirt into it. Then he stirred it. Now, he said to them, tell me the nature of the water. It is dirty, they said, unusable. Ah, true, said the man of prayer. After dinner, they returned to the bucket. What is the nature of the water now? he asked. It is clear (the dirt had settled to the bottom). Yes, indeed, he said, it is now clear because it is at rest. So my brothers, he concluded, let your hearts be at rest and you will see clearly as well.

Passions are disturbances -- they cloud the spiritual vision. On the other hand, joy is not experienced as a disturbance. Joy affects the heart in a radically different way. It leaves the heart untouched by disturbances.

This is what the fathers were writing about. So whatever Christ did, to return to the theme of this thread, he was not disturbed in his soul. He was at peace. He was spiritually calm and thus could see clearly. That this must have been evident in his demeanor is clear from the reaction of the lame -- they could see that he was still filled with compassion and love even as he cleansed the temple.

Textual note about the "troubled in spirit," most scholars now believe that these words are not in the original gospel.

But be that as it may, Christ was internally at peace. Those who have truly mourned over sin testify that it does not disturb but enlightens because it delivers one from a selfish preoccupation with self.

The problem, of course, with language is that it is imprecise. We are using imprecise terms to discuss what is truly states of the heart that defy definition, etc. I suppose each one of us has to search our own hearts and find what peace is -- once we have found that peace, the fathers say, we must guard it and refuse to allow anything to disturb it.

PrJ

I understand the distinction between mortal and venial sins are not emphasized, but I cannot agree that it is not "authentic to the eastern spiritual tradition." Scripture is part of the Eastern spiritual tradition:

1 John 5:


I want to see what the Fathers say, and thank you for pointing the way, but I don't see the West in contradiction to the East, just complimentary.

A mother who has raised her voice too loudly in correcting her child has not chased away the Holy Spirit from her soul. A child who in anger has grabbed a toy from a sibling has not chased away the Holy Spirit. These may be sins, but they are not deadly.

St. John is using "anger" in a sense in which it is always sinful which it is not to the extent it is an emotion.

Here is an example of the saying of Western saint which I have posted in my office which I think certainly agrees with St. John in spirit:

"The ordinary acts we practice every day at home are of more importance to the soul than their simplicity might suggest."

St. Thomas More.

He was certainly in the world but not of it. Some opposed his canonization because he was directly responsible for seeking and obtaining the death penalty for three individuals. To the modern world, he seems to be an "angry" man--not like A St. Francis or an Eastern monk. Nonetheless, when faced with evil, he sacrificed all for the sake of the Kingdom of God. His speech before Parliament when he was convicted of high treason, wasn't really very "nice" in the modern way of thinking and acting.