Demetrios Constantelos

The Human Being: A Mask or a Person?

A Perspective in Greek Orthodox Theology and Humanistic Medicine
Translated from the Greek by V. Rev. George D. Gregory, MA, M.Div. and
revised by the author with special thanks to Dr. Niki Kantzios
IN THE ANCIENT, medieval and contemporary Greek literature, the word
"prosopon" (face or person) is widely used to designate or describe various
objects and things. In the voluminous and international authoritative
lexicons of the Greek language, that of Lidell and Scott, that of the New
Testament and early Christian Literature of Walter Bauer, the Dictionary of
the Greek Language of Demetrakos, the theological dictionary of Kittell and
the patrological Patristic Greek Lexicon of Lampe, the entry "prosopon" is
replete with tens of interpretations and related themes occupying space
ranging from three quarters of the column to ten full pages.
Therefore, our theme is both vast and complicated. In the present study,
we shall examine in summary the meaning of prosopon (person) as it
relates to the human being in the following units: the significance that
concerns man; the primary meaning in the ancient Greek thought; the early
Helenic Christian literature; the patristic theology that was adopted and
remains up until today as the correct Christian-Orthodox perspective.
Finally, we shall examine what the relationship of a physician with an ailing
person ought to be.
The word "prosopon" is synonymous with the words individual and man,
male or female. But what is man? Is he a person or a mask? Is he a
biological being, at times rational and at other times, not logical and at still
other times not, philantropic and most of the time misanthropic? Is his basic
instinct how to a chieve power and continuously amass wealth with which
to prevail upon nature and, above all, dominate his weaker fellow man? Or,
is, man a spermatic logos, a spark of the Divine, a piece of the univrsal
Logos, a fragmented icon of God that broke and turned away from the
Creator? Is man ontologically a being, a "hypostasis," created for the
realization of the urge to resemble his Creator and enter into eternal
communion with Him or is he a mask playing the role of hypocrite in the
cosmic theatre of history? The answer to these questions depends upon
the viewpoint and perspective from which one observes the phenomenon
man --the theological, biological, economic, psychological and the
historical.
The dilemma of the Christian historian and theologian is how to reconcile
the theological the theological teaching that man is an "image of God" that
is evolving into a state of divinization with the cynical, insatiable
megalomaniacal, if not bloodthirsty man as he is revealed to us by the
numerous pages of human history written in blood, and, particularly, that of
our century lasting up until today. We are obligated then to avoid
idealizations and constantly retain before us the spectre of historical
realism. I refuse to agree with the Freudian concept that wars will never
cease and that human slaughter will never end because, by nature, man is
bloodthirsty. I further disagree with the cynicism of many historians that
interpret all things through the prism of causality. The epigrammatic poet
Palladas of the 4th century, most cynically attributes everything to fortune
and admonishes us not to take our lives serously, so that we may avoid
experiencing pain.
Here is what he writes:
" All of life is a stage and a game; either learn to play the game, putting
aside every serious thought, or endure the consequences!"(1)
Palladas wrote these verses when Christian theology was defining the
dogma that God became man so that man could become divine. And we,
who live in the contemporary age of space, of great conquests and
achievements, of electronic computers and high technology, what do we
have to say? What do we say? The question remains, "What is man?"
The opinions of theologians, biologists, physicians, historians,
archaeologists, sociologists, economists and others vary and clash, in
oposition to each other. All, however, agree with the leader of the chorus of
Sophocles' Antigone that "of all miracles of the world, there is nothing more
marvelous and great than the human being," the anthropos.(2)
But again, in what is man superior? In the area of creativity or that of
destruction? The logical or the illogical? That of the spirit or of matter?
For now let us say in summary what we will analyse more fully below:
namely that for the Hwlleno-Christian tradition, man is a psychosomatic
union, a concentrated union of body and soul, of spirit and matter. Both
constitute a "most natural bond of harmony and coexistyence... of a visible
and invisible... nature... The creator of man "moulded the body from the
earth" and "endowed it with the divine and life giving spirit," as St. John the
Damascene proclaims.(3) These two components make man a person in
imitation of the God-man, the person of Christ. But this understanding of
man as a person was formed after many years of questions and spiritual
quests. Let us therefore, review the main phases of its evolution.
A
The ancient Greeks regarded man as a "fallen god," as having fallen from
the heavens because he had dared to become equal in power with the
divine. That is the reason whyomer counseled, " Do not desire to imagine
yourself as similar and equal in power to gods because the eternal race of
the gods and the people who walk upon earth are not similar."(4)
Later the Orphic mystics deplored man who, although of divine origin, had
fallen away. "If he had not imagined himself as a god, he would be the
most wretched of people" thus a "blissful and blessed God shall you be
instead of a mere mortal," proclaim certain tomb inscriptions.(5) They
blessed the person who would succeed after death in again becoming a
god.
In no historic period of ancient Hellenism was man ever regarded only as a
body. On the contrary, the ancient Greeks regarded the human being,
more, as an eternal spirit or a soul than a corruptible body. As we know
through the writings of Thales of Militos, Heraclitos, Socrates, Plato and
several other authors, the ancient Greeks regarded the souls of men as
little gods or daimons (daimonia)--good spirits).
On the basis of Thales' pronouncement, Plato asks, "Is there someone who
does not accept and support the position that everything is replete with
gods?"(6) "gods," therefore, "daimons" and "souls" become synonymous
terms.
For the "difficult" or "obscure" Heraclitos, the logos or the divine spark is
the most internal content of the soul. The soul is nonexplorable and
spreads to the infinite. That which distinguishes man from the rest of
creation is the daimon --the soul. "Ethos to man is the daimon" says
Heraclitos.(7)
Concerning the spiritual nature of man, the Socratic tradition is more
definite. Is the most philosophical dialogue Theaitetos, Socrates poses the
question to his student Theodoros: "What is man and what qualities and
powers are appropriate to distinguish such a nature from the other
beings?"(8)
Here Socrates emphasizes that man is pre-existent as a created species.
That is why in the same dialogue on which he speaks of the ultimate
destiny of man, he also speaks of discipline and the creation of human
ethos. To this end, Socrates recommends the need for flight from the
evilness of the perceptible world, the pursuit of spiritual cultivation and the
elevation of man to God. Flight is to achieve the likeness of God as much
as humanly possible and is a means for someone to become just as holy
possessing purity of thought.(9) The significance of the human being as
person, however, has gone through a gradual evolution. In Homeric
language, "prosopon" means the face or the forehead. In the Iliad, Homer
writes that Eleni, wife of Menelaos of Sparta, in the face amazingly
resembles the immortal goddesses.(10)
In the same epic, we read that when Achilles learned of the death of
Patroklos, "he took ashes with his two hands, poured them on his head and
dirtied his comely face."(11)
From the Homeric era until the beginnings of the Hellenistic years, the word
"prosopon" as found in the classical writers, historians and orators such as
Aeschylos, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, Xenophon, Demosthenes,
Plato, and Aristotle does not possess an ontological significance in regard
to total man.
As a rule, "prosopon" means the appearance of the face, a part of man, or
even the mask that was used in theatrical presentations. Even though
prosopon never ceased to indicate the face of man, in the Hellenistic period
it is usewd in connection with the concept of the whole man and, indeed,
the well-appreciated, the virtuous and the spiritual. Within this context. we
find the word "prosopon" in Greek papyri, in the writings of Dionysios of
Hallicarnassus, Plautinos, Plutarch and many others, In fact, Polybios
writes that when the native Egyptians became dissatisfied with the policies
of Ptyolemy Philopator (224-205 BC) they revolted, "seeking a leader and a
person of authority, believing that they themselves were able to truly assist
themselves."(12)
The person as an individual, irrespective of sex, is oftentimes encountered
in the language of the Holy Scriptures, (old and New Testament) and the
Helleno-Hebraic literature and definitely in Philo and Josephus. The Book
of Deuteronomy is such an example. Here, "the Great God is not amazed
by faces,nor is He disappointed in not receiving a gift." (Deuteronomy,
10:17) As a human being, the person is a synthesis of body and soul, a
psycho-physical existence and a microcosm of the supernatural and
natural, of trhe material and the spiritual. And although there existed
philosophers who undervalued the body and regarded it as the prison of
the soul, Greek philosophy in general discerned harmonious relationships
between the two and mutual effects upon each other. That is the reason
why the "divine" or the "high" and the "human," or even the discussion
concerning the "high" and "those upon earth." according to the Hippocratic
expression, so intensely occupied the attention of our progenitors.
Despite, however, of all the honors the ancient Greeks bestowed upon
man, nonetheless, they were unable to define the meaning of "person"
ontologically, something that, as we shall see later, was achieved by their
Christian descendants. In any istance, the ancient Greeks first endowed
the person with legal status and emphasized that man, as a person, has
both rights and obligations. Diogenes Laertius attributes to Bion
Boristhenitis the information that his father was liberated having no person
but his writings on the person.(13)
B
And what has Christianity have to say about manas a person? It is well
known that Christianity considers man as being somewhat lower thasn the
spiritual beings called "angels." "What is man that you are mindful of him...
you have made him a little lower than the angels and you have crowned
him with glory and honor." (Psalm 8:5-6) The original Hebrew text,
however, implies that God created man somewhat lower, not than the
angels, but than God Himself. It is indeed possible that this verse refers to
the Messiah and that it has found its realization in the incarnation of the
Divine Logos, as several of the ancient Church fathers and ecclesiastical
writers would have it. It is an established faith that the likeness of the Divine
Logos with man elevated human nature and it as being "somewhat lower
than the angels." Through the incarnation of Christ, man becomes a son of
the highest and ontiologicaly an immortal person.
It is a basic teaching of Christian Orthodoxy that man is an "image of God"
with the potentiality of "likeness" and participation in the glory of God. But,
as we have already said, there is a relationship to the ancient religious and
philosophical teachings of the Greeks, to the extent that, as a participant of
divine breath, man is eternal. And this is relative to the Christian teaching.
"Because man is of divine origin, then primarily as a result of this
relationship, he alone of the living creatures believed in gods and
attempted to found altars and statues of gods" observes Plato.
The designation of Plato that man is of divine origin, mpoira theou, portion
of god was adopted and developed by Christian theology. Indeed we are a
portion of God, writes Gregory the Theologian. And the heroic Maximos the
Confessor confirms: "each of the spiritual and logical angels and humans...
is called a piece of God and is of God." With this patristic testimony as a
starting point, Michael Psellos of the 11th Century proceeds to the analysis
of "how we are a spark of God," and adds the following "as the body lives
and moves..." and "we possess icons and appearances of God, through
which, indeed, we are spark of God."(14) Therefore, man as a "person,"
shall live eternally.
In reference to the original meaning of "person," no essential difference
exists between the Greek philosophical quest and the Biblical witness. In
both cases, the person is a face of the individual, a biological being
possessing a soul. The difference between the two depends upon how we
comprehend the salvation of man. But, we are compelled to observe that
even in this matter, there is no unanimous agreement among the non-
Christian Greeks nor among Greek Church Fathers and ecclesiastical
writers of the first Christian period. The phraseology changed, but not the
essence of its meaning. For example, when the the ancient Greeks
recognized in the person of Jesus Christ the incarnated Logos, they sought
after an unknown God, and adopted the Biblical testimony naming the
human person "an icon of God" (Gen. 1:26). Prior to this, man was
"entheo" (a being in whom divinity dwells). Theosis, divinization, or life in
God, as the final destiny of the human person is encountered in the two
phases of the Greek mind, a mind that has always tried to bridge the
chasm between divinity and humanity.
The change that took place in the meaning of "person" is attributed to the
Greek Fathers of the 4th Century. With Athanasios the Great and
Capadocians as their protagonists, later Greek Fathers realized that neither
ancient Greek philosophy, nor the Biblical witness were static and sealed
teachings. Yet they utilized both to render an ontological meaning to the
terminology of person. Originally, "person" was used to describe the
"enternal ways of God, the existence of God as Oneself," a Person, and
His revelation to the world as a "hypostasis" (Entity-Person). (15) Person
and Essence as theological terms were widely used in the promulgation of
the Trinitarian and Christological dogmas of the Church. Both terms were
used synonymously: "...their hypostasis, their person and their particularity,
we accept following the decisions of the Holy Fathers," summarizes
Theidoret of Cyrus. Later, John of Damascus will add to this statement,
"hypostasis, individuality, and personhood each partakes of the same
essence. (16)
In order for us to achieve a better understanding of the new meaning of
person, we must add that, not only some of the Greek philosophers but
even Christian dualists, heretics and Orthodox of the First Century,
considered the body as the prison of the soul, or more simply, its residence
and retreat. The author of the beautiful letter to Diognetos sees the body as
only protecting the soul. It lives in the body. "The soul resides in, the body...
invisible as it is, nonetheless, it is guarded by the visible body: the body
contains the soul. (17) And when death occurs, the soul is "liberated" from
the body writes Hippolytus of Rome. In the Resurrection of the dead,
people will appear like angels of God, incorruptible, eternal and freed of the
body. "An incorruptible essence does not beget, nor is it begotten or
increased... Those essences, whether they be of the angels or the souls
will be liberated from the body,"(18) Elsewhere, however, as in the letter to
some unnamed queen, Hippolytus reverses his previous position and
wrtites that the body and soul will be resurrected together in imitation of the
Resurrected Christ. "The Saviour receiving a human body, raised it,
creating the commencement of the rights of the body."(19)
Those few examples suffice to indicate that in first century Christian
theology there was no unanimous agreement concerning the relations
between soul and body and the resurrection of the body. As is well known,
a variety of views and concepts relative to the origin of the soul and its
relationship to the body exists in ancient Greek literature. It becomes
necessary then to return to the ancient Greeks and the early Christians to
discover what they have to say about the eternity of the soul and the
relationship with the body. In this way, we shall be in a position to better
comprehend the originality of the Greek Christian Fathers upon our theme.
As a rule, for the ancient Greeks, the soul is not identified with the person,
but it is greater than the body. As the beginning of life, the soul pre-exists
and is eternal by its nature. The definition of the soul underwent many
changes, and it was never canonized to the degree that we have the right
to speak about a single ancient position. The appropriate way to speak is of
philosophical concepts and opinions of intellectuals. When the great
Aristotle declares that the soul is the initial beginning of movement and
feelings, he overlooks pre-Socratic and physiocratic concepts and the
Socratic religious and ideological teachings concerning the soul.
During the Homeric era and the archaic period, the soul was equated with
the "breath of life
which, when separated from the body, continues to live after death "carying
the appearance of a shadow." Later, the Ionian philosophers, Thales,
Anaximandros, Anaxagoras, Heraclitos, and Diogenes of Appolonia
perceived the soul as an element of air, as breath and spirit, that in death
leaves behind the body in a state of corruption. Pindaros first taught that
the soul was of divine origin, that it differs radically from ll the surrounding
natural phenomena precisely because it is a creation of God and remains
immortal.(20)
The Orphics, Pythagoreans, Empedocles, and Plato agree and accept the
divine origin of the soul and its immortality, but as an entity in itself,
separate from the body. While in the physiocratic philosophy of the Ionians,
the soul is by its nature immortal because it is an element of air or spirit, in
later Greek thought the soul is designated as immortal because it is of
divine creation. In spite of the dualism that we find in some of the Greek
philosophers and especiall the Pythagoreans, the fact remains that the
greatest intellectuals of Greek antiquity emphasized the harmony between
the two components of man thus avoiding extreme positions.
The difference between the ancient Greek and the Greco-Christian
understanding of the person is not to be found in the teaching of the unity
and harmony of the components of the human nature which became the
basic dogma of the Stoics during late antiquity, but in the philosophy of the
immortality of man as a person. The first indication of the difference
between the two phases of Greek tradition is to be found in the Book of
Acts of the New Testament.
The Apostle Paul preached to the Athenians that "God has appointed a day
in which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom He has
appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising Him frpm the
dead. (Acts 17:30-31) Upon hearing "the resurrection of the dead." some of
the Greek philosophers "mocked him," yet others said, "We shall hear you
again on this matter." (Acts,17:32) It is in the bodily resurrection of the
entire being that we discover the difference between the Christian and non-
Christian spirit.
C
In accordance with the Greek Patristic tradition, the body is a sign and an
epiphany of a person and that ontological "person" is the totality of the
human being. The theological disputes of the 4th and the 5th centuries
formulated the dogma that in the person of Jesus Christ, a hypostatic and
undivided union of both divinity and humanity existed. This theology
contributed to a new evaluation of the meaning of person and the
establishment of the boundaries of Christian anthropology.
Since the pre-existent eternal logos of God became "of the same essence
as us in humanity" and His resurrection from the dead was a resurrection of
the God-man, man will be resurrected as "person." In other words,
ontologically as a psychosomatic being, but not with a corrupted material
body as the residence of the soul, but as possessing both a visible and
invisible, delicate and ethereal nature.
In the comments of Hippolytos of Rome on the Gospel of John, (John 11:1-
4) he writes that when Jesus ordered Lazarus to "come out," the soul of
Lazarus stirred up and separated itself from the depths without the devil
objecting, nor death resisting. In joy, "it recognized its personal
residence."(21)
This teaching according to which the soul shall return, and recognize its
personal home, did not strike an echo in the later Fathers. In contrast, they
held that as the soul and the body were simultaneously created, neither the
one prior, nor the other later, thus during the resurrection, man shall appear
as a person possessing unity of soul and an incorruptible bdy. "God called
man to life and resurrection, not part of him, but all of him. Which,
therefore, is the body and which the soul?" writes the philosopher and
martyr Justin. (22)
Christology, as it was formed at the early Ecumenical Councils, perceived
in the person of Jesus the catholicity of Divinity and humanity. Thus Christ
by His resurrection secured the resurrection of man as well. As human
nature was taken up by divinity, in this manner man too shall be
resurrected psychosomatically as a person. "If the body is not resurrected,
then, man is not resurrected because man is not composed of soul and
body together," writes St. John Chrysostom. (23) Christology defined the
nature of anthropology as well as that of eschatology. "We proclaim the
union of divinity and humanity meaning one person indivisible discerning in
the same both God and man... and all those characteristics that exist and
are manifest" writes Theodoret of Cyrus.(24) Anthropology, then, devoid of
Christology devolves into zoology!
On the basis of Christology, man, is not a static piece (moira) of God
because "he is related with the Logos of God," as St. Maximos
emphasizes, "but man is a dynamic portion (moira) of God" continuously in
becoming and styruggling to evolve from image to likeness and to
transfigure the mask into the person, ontologically securing in this way his
eternal salvation.
W hen the Apostle Paul wrote, "We now see in a mirror dimly, but then face
to face" (1 Corinthians 13-12) he had in mind the spiritual and empirical
elevation of man and his final arrival to the area of the uncreated divine
light and the energies of God. There, Creator and creature shall encounter
each other face to face. (25)
In the development of Christian anthropology, we note the originality and
the contribution of the Greek church fathers. Their anthropology is
essentially a Christianized Greek anthropology that harmonizes and blends
the teachings of the Old Testament and the Greek philosophies concerning
the human being. The uncreated divine light and the energies of God, the
Creator, and the creature will encounter each other face to face,(26) Their
teaching consists of the mingling of the "beautiful," as it was formulated by
ancient Greek thought, for the good and virtuous man who is of godly
descent, and the biblical teaching, which teaches that the human being is
"the image and likeness of Dod" (Gen. 1:26).
The Patristic theology concerning the human person is optimistic. Man is
not considered a mask for passing theatrical plays on theuniversal stage,
but a divine person that exists in time and is destined for eternity. The
human body is not the temporary prison of the soul, but a temple of the
Holy Spirit, which, as being corruptible dies, but which will rise without
corruption.
Precisely, because man is an ontological being, an independent person,
irrespective of age, the quality of the face, of the body, of his social station,
his financial condition, his sex and his racial descent, Orthodox theology
regards him as a "microcosm," micrography of all humanity. One reason
that the Orthodox Church condemns abortions and allows the infant
participation in the mystical life of baptism, Chrismation and the Eucharist is
because it regards the embryo or the infant itself as a person --a
psychosomatic being. Both body and soul have the same beginning and
contain each other. "When the body and soul have the same beginning and
contain each other. "When the body and soul were created, neither of the
two was created first and the other second, "according to John
Damascene. (27) The Patristic anthropology combined the best philosophic
elements of the ancient Greeks and, in truth, the Socratic ethical tradition
and the Biblical teaching concerning man. It created a blend, a Christian
humanism that is of contemporary value. In an era in which people have
walked on the moon and others boast that in twenty years they will create a
man from a single cell organism, but also an era when 70% of the world's
human population is deprived of daily bread, the words of St. John
Chrysostom possess a current meaning and renders an answerto the
general question: How do you confront the sick and needy as person? Let
us hear the Holy Father as he writes the following moving words, "I do not
show any aversion to any person because each person is worthy of great
attention as a creature of God even though he may be a simple slave. I do
notconsider social class, but virtue, and I do not face the master or the
servant, but the human person, for whom the heavens opened, the sun
shines, the moon sets, the air fills everything, the wells bubble their water,
the sea stretches out, for whom the only begotten Son of God became
man. My master was slaughtered and shed his blood for man. And who am
I that I should scorn a man? How will I ever be forgiven for this?" (28)
After the many years of development of Greco-Christian anthropology, we
see that man is the boundary of the created and the uncreated, the visible
and the invisible psychosomatic being endowed with vast possibilities and
potentialities, that with God's cooperation and the proper use of his will,
man can overcome space and time and enter into the sphere of the eternal
presence and communion with his Creator God. All this is enough
concerning the Greco-Christian meaning of person.
D
The theme "The Confrontation of the Sick as a Person" gives rise to the
question of what does contemporary medicine have to say about the
meaning of the person and how does an Orthodox theologian envision the
relationships between medical science and man as person. Is it possible for
us to speak of trends in medical science?
The widespread public discussion in the United States regarding the
legitimacy or not of abortions, the lively concern for the improvement of the
conditions of life, for the care of the disabled, of the chronically ill, and the
development of the branch of gerontology have contributed to the
awakening of the moral sensitivity of the public and have motivated the
interest of physicians in psychosomatic therapy and medical ethics, or still
better, bioethics. Many schools of medicine have added courses to their
academic programs relative to the psychosomatic condition and the ethics
of a person. A great deal of publicity has been given to the Medical School
of the University of California which several years ago appointed Norman
Cousins, a critic, a philologist, a publisher, and a humanitarian of vast
experience to teach courses like "Society and Human Values," "Science,
Law and Human Values," and the "Influence of the mind upon
Psychosomatic Illnesses." In his book entitled, "Head First: The Biology of
Hope," (29) Cousins writes that the physician must first of all recognize his
patient as a person, as Hippocrates emphasized. In other words, as a
centralized whole consisting of soul, body, mind, and heart, as one
organism. Prior, then, to proceeding to a diagnosis, experiments and
therapy, the physician must know his patient well. He must understand his
fears, anxieties, emotions, uncertainties,sentiments, guilt feelings, religious
reservations, prejudices, and superstitions because all these contibute to
the aggravation of the illness or to the recovery of the patient. The influence
of thinking positively, of faith, hope, optimism and prayer have been proven
to be clinically productive.
Like the physiocratic physicians of ancient Greece, especially those of the
Ionian school, so today too there are those who alignboth their medical
knowledge and their philosophy to their objectives. It was Empedocles who
combined empirical and natural philosophy, religious faith and medical
knowledge. It is by no means a paradox that Cousins and other
representatives of psychosomatic medicine constantly refer to the
Hippocratic School that taught the psychosomatic wholeness of man.
Although the body has specialized systems, still other functions unite all of
its organs and activities in the common endeavor of life. For the physician
to be able to administer proper medical help, he/she must know, not only
the anatomy of the patient, but also the psychology --the whole person.
Hippocrates phrased it in the following words":
"There are physicians as well as philosophers who say that it is not
possible for the physician to practice medicine if he does not know what
is a human being. He who would treat patients properly must, they
say,learn this." (30)
And in his essay, Concerning the Nature of Man, the father of medical
science adds: "Anyone who does not see a relationship between man and
medicine does not need to read my essay..." (31) Hippocrates combined
the correct exercise of medical science with the knowledge of the physician
for his patien as a person.
However, all physicians do not agree with the definition of "person." In a
noteworthy study entitled, "The Meaning of Person," H. Tristram Engelhardt
examines this theme from two viewpoints. First, he differentiates between
the two terms, "human life" and "human person." He interprets these terms
as being distinct, and examines human nature as being of many
dimensions, reminding us that there are differing viewpoints concerning the
meaning of person. However, by the definition of humanistic medicine,
which regards man as a psychosomatic being, faith, optimism, and hope
are factors in the rehabilitation of the sick. (32)
The results of faith, the dominance of the spirit over the body and its
therapy, can only be understood by an ill person who possesses a personal
experience. Such an empirical experience is a type of mystical lifestyle.
Mysticism is certainly a universal phenomenon, but few are those in any
creed who taste of its fruits. Those who achieve it literally surrender
themselves to the divine reality ti the Absolute Being in which "we move,
live and exist." Plato emphasized that man achieves the highest knowledge
of the Absolute Being through a lightning-like mystical experience. This
lightning-like and indescribable and pure personal experience presupposes
faith, not only in the existence of an Absolute Being, "Do not ask me if I
was within the body when I snatched up to the third heaven and heard
unspeakable words. I only know that it was a real experience" writes
St.Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:2-5.
The absolute submission and surrender of the ill person to God, the source
of life, health, order, and harmony strengthens as well the health of his own
body, which the sick must await patiently. A few years go, I visited Dr. E.
Resnick a professor of the Medical School of Temple University. When I
informed him of my problem, the university teacher responded, "I do not
know everything. Only God is omniscient. Secondly, I do not heal. I am but
an agent of therapy; only God heals." The sincerity and the faith of the
distinguished professor of medicine surprised but also strengthened me.
The sick person must be possessed by the feeling of certainty that the
Paraclete who is "present everywhere and who fills all things," does not
simply transcend us but is in full posdsession of the body and permeates it,
re-establishing health to the sick cells. This is not the faith of Orthodoxy
alone. Numerous indications and proofs exist attesting to the close
relationships between religious faith and health. The "most philanthropic of
sciences" has from antiquity been placed under the guardianship of the
gods. One, however, should not always or exclusively seel bodily health as
a gift from god. Greek philosophers recommended the virtuous way of life
as an important and remarkable means for the health of body and soul. "Do
not continuously petition the gods for health of body, but constantly pursue
prudence of the soul," recommends Epictetos...(33)
Moreover, today, the sick patient must be taught that God listens, but God
does not always answer unless it is to the patient's advantage. It is the
obligation of medical science as it is of theology to teach thanatology and
thus to prepare the ill person for his encounter with the unknown, to move
on from time to eternity. The eschatological dimension of theology should
be taught as medical faith as well --thjat man as a person was not created
for permanence upon the earth. The tragic moments of the present life are
fleeting and one should avail himself of the necessary preparation for his
passing into timelessness.
The oncept that we possess about the tragedy of history and the personal
existence of earthly life is attributed to the historian Thucydides and
especially the Greek Tragedians. For example, in the tragedy Oedipus, the
plot shows man as the leading actor endowed with spiritual abilities and
freedom of will. In spite of his natural and acquired abilities, man is
constantly faced with power and freedom of will. In spite of his natural and
acquired abilities, man is constantly faced with powers and elements that
he can neither conquer nor place under his absolute control. Therefore,
when he chooses to violate the natural laws and to disregard powers in
order to view himself as almighty, self-sufficient, independent and directed
only by rationalism, as did Oedipus, he makes wrong decisions and
subjects himself to destruction. Along with him, destruction is imposed
upon those about him. Man must see history as the tragedy originating
from human sin and as an unexplainable mystery, in which rationalism
does not enter everywhere.
Illness, pain and death are found to be outside the absolute authority of
man. Who is responsible for illness? Nature, sin, or God? How does the
physician answer the question, "Why should the just and pious suffer?" We
do not have answers to all the questions of life. Yet, the sincere and faithful
physician who "knows him" will assist the ailing person to understand his
illness as an unavoidable phenomenon of life. In answer to the question,
"Who is responsible for the illness?" he must have in mind the words
spoken by Christ in the case of the man blind from birth, "Neither did he sin,
nor his parents, but so that in him the works of God might be revealed."
(John 9:3)
Furthermore, it is not outside of the mortal responsibility of the physician to
recommend repentance and the change in the lifestyle of the patient when
it was apparent that the caause of the illness is the past sinful conduct of
the patient, the thoughtlessness and the irresponsible manner in confucting
his daily life. Repentance as an esoteric crisis, as the death of one way of
life and the resurrection to another manner of living, as knowledge of self
("coming unto himself," as St. Luke writes about the Prodigal Son) effects,
not only the revelation of the beauty, the sweeteness and the freedom of
the spiritual life, but the therapy of healing bodily illnesses.
The sick person has need of the assurance that God is philanthropic and
does not punish in revenge. Both the confessor-priest and the consulting
physician must avoid joining illness wit the sins of the patient, the sins of
parents and even the cirumstances that may have estranged the patient
from the religious life unless the proofs are tangible. It was Christ himself
who refuted the supposition that the cause of illness is always bound to sin
(John 9:1): while in one instance he said, "Go and sin nomore," in another
he said, aaaaaa'neither has he sinned, nor his parents..." There exist
moments in which the ailing person must believe that his sickness is either
curabl e or not. God allowed it for some teaching purpose.
The responsible and serious medical science must view the ill patient as
being of a religious nature as the Oath of Hippocrates assesses him to be.
Here there is not only the invocation of the characteristics of Divinity as
they are expressed by Apollo, Asclepios. Hygeia, Panacia, but the religious
and moral content that reveals the sacred understanding of man tha the
science of medicine has in mind. In another Hippocratic book, the
competent physician is called "wise" and "isotheos --equal to the gods."
("physician and philosopher equal to the gods") That is why when the
physician enters a home, a clinic or a hospital, he approaches the patient
as an image of God, a psychosomatic being that is in need of the
physician's knowledge, his experience and his specialization. In the eyes of
the sick, he is really "equal to God." "The physician said it!" becomes a
dogma for the sick person. Again, very beautifully, the Hippocratic Oath
states,
"Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will
abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from
abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I
shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside of
my profession in my association with people, if it be what is not to be
publicized abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy
secrets."
Those who are dedicated to some religious or scientific profession or ideal
become immersed in their responsibility and seek neither personal glory
nor financial security nor longevity, even though, "all these shall be given
unto you." Whosoever sees his life as one of service and, as one who
serves before an altar, is engrossed in his work, with no ulterior motives, he
becomes an offering and a living sacrifice. In encountering, then, the sick,
both the priest and the physician should pray. It is impossible for the ill not
to sense the spiritual assistance of the praying physician. Prayer
strengthens him who prays, but also him for whom the prayer is offered.
Natural immunity is strengthened with the invocation of spiritual and mental
powers.
In the last analysis, what is religious faith and in what does it agree or
disagree with mwdical science? "Faith is the substance of things hoped for
and the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews, 11:1) In other words, faith
is the unhesitating and unshakable conviction in the existence of things that
cannot be seen through our eyes and touched by our hands. But what else
is medical faith, if not an assurance of things, either physiological or
pharmaceutical or of a surgical nature, that the physician hopes will take
effect? --The conviction about things invisible which will, however, return
the patient to physiological health as much as possible? Woe be unto the
physician if he/she is without fait in his/her ow n knowledge and the means
he provides for his medical intervention; but still more in the "Presence
invisible and omnipresent, and Filler of all things."
The significance of the human being as person as it is understood by the
exceptionally humane Greco-Christian tradition must determine the
personal relationships between God and man, man and his fellow man, the
physician and the patient. As the ancient Greeks would say through
Menander, "happy and blissful is that person" who, even in the greatest
moments of trial on earthly success and glory can with self-knowledge and
humility lift himself up from the temporal and touch the world of the Divine.
Faith has enormous powers and our deeply spiritual world is miraculous
because it is dominated by the presence of the Creator, God himself, who
permeates and raises up our being.
Even, now, for many, the question "What is Man?" remains without answer.
For some, man will persist in being a "mask" playing the role of protagonist
in the universal theatre of life until the curtain falls. For others, man is what
he eats and what he drinks; and that is why he will continue to repeat, "Let
us eat and drink for tomorrow we shall die."
For those, however, who empirically feel the cry of St. Augustine that man
cannot spiritually rest unless he is in the bosom of God, the human being is
a person created by God "somewhat less than the angels," a sharer of
divinity (moira Theou), and having as his ultimate destiny to become in
some measure the likeness of God.
NOTES
1. Palladas, Epigram, 10.72. Palatine Anthology, published by K.
Preisendantz (Leiden,1911).
2. Sophocles, Antigone,verse 334.
3. John of Damascus, The Correct Exposition of the Orthodox Faith.
4. Homer, The Iliad, 5,440-442.
5. Inge, William Ralph, Christian Mysticism (New York, 1899), 356.
6. Plato, Laws, 10, 899B.
7. Heraclitos, 119, published by G.S. Kirk and J.E.Rowen, The
Presocratic Philosophers (Cambridge, 1975), 213.
8. Plato, Theaitetos, 174-9.
9. Ibid. 176a
10. Homer, The Illiad, 3,158.
11. Ibid. 18, 23-24.
12. Polybios, The Histories, Book 5: 107,3.
13. Diogenes Laertius, 4:46 Lives.
14. Plato, Protagoras, 322a. Compare Plato's, Phaedros, 230,
Gregory the Theologian, Homily 14:7. Greek Patrology, Migne,
Volume 35, 865B, Maximos (The Monk) Concerning Certain
Questions, Greek Patrology, Migne, Volume 91, 1080 Michael
Psellos, Homilies, Number 62, Published by Paul Gautier (Leipzig,
1989), 243.
15. D.Demetrakos, Mega Lexicon tes Elenikes Glosses, Vol.7.
16. Theodore Of Cyrus, Eranistis, J.P. Migne, Greek Patrology, Vol
83, Col. 3684 John of Damascus, Fundamental Intrduction to Dogma,
published by PI Bonitatios Kotter, Die Schriftey Des Johannes Von
Damaskos (Berlin, 1969), 21.
17. Diogmetos, The Epistleto, 6:2,3,4,7.
18. Hippolytos of Rome, Concerning Resurrection and
Incorruptibility. Library of the Greek Fathers and Ecclesiastical
Writers, Vol. 8, 194.
19. Hippolytos of Rome, Pros Basilida tina epistole., Ibid., 192-193
20. Excerpts from Pindar, 129-131, published by c.M. Bowra,
Pindar carmina cum Fragmentis, 2 Vols. Leipzig, 1989,119.
21. Hippolytos of Rome, Concerning Resurrection and
Incorruptibility. 194
22. Justin, Concerning Resurrection, 4:29 Greek Patrology, J.P.
Migne, Vol.6, 1585C.
23. St. John Chrysostom, Homily Concerning the Resurrection of
the Dead, Greek Patrology, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 50,47.
24. Theodoret of Cyrus, ERanistis 3, Greek Patrology, Migne, Vol.
83, and as it is translated by G.M.W. Lampe in his lexicon, A Patristic
Greek Lexicon.
25. Maximos (The Confessor) Concerning Questions, 7. Greek
Patrology, Migne, Vol.91, 1080F.
26. Panagiotis Christou, The Mystery of Man, Thessaloniki, 1983,
p.23.
27. John of Damascus, The Correct Exposition of the Orthodox
Faith. B-(12)26.
28. John Chrysostom, Homily on the Earthquake and the Wealthy
Nobleman and the Poor Lazarus. Greek Patrology, Migne Vol. 47.2
(48,) 1029.
29. Norman Cousins, Head First: The Biology of Hope, (New York,
1989).
30. Hippocrates, Ancient Medicine, 20
31. [Pseudo] Hippocrates, Concerning Proper Treatment, 5.
32. H. Tristram Englehart, "Medicine and the Concept of Person." in
The expanding Universe of Modern Medicine (Washington, 1974).
33. Epictetus, Excerpts, publication of Henricus Schenkil, (Epictiti
Dissertationes) (Leipzig, 1984), 479. Iason Xenakis, Epictetus,
Philosopher-Therapist (The Hague, 1969. Primarily, the first section.)