What do you think?
Rate this book
Disputations with Pyrrhus by Saint Maximus the Confessor
In Disputations with Pyrrhus, Saint Maximus the Confessor (A.D. 580-662) articulates the faith of the apostles, detailing the perfect natures and wills of the Incarnate Logos, Jesus Christ. Shedding light on the fullness of Christian life, Saint Maximus reveals God as One Who repeats all of the natural stages of humanity itself, but not only humanity as a whole but the stages of life of each individual human being in particular, illumining the mystery of our salvation as perfect union within Christ through His Church. An important document combating heresies against full union of man in God, the Disputations with Pyrrhus offers invaluable insight into the salvation of both man and cosmos through the Incarnate Word of God revealed to us in the Mystery of the Church.
128 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1990
About the author
Maximus the Confessor
37 books94 followersMaximus the Confessor (Greek: Μάξιμος ὁ Ὁμολογητής) also known as Maximus the Theologian and Maximus of Constantinople (c. 580 – 13 August 662) was a Christian monk, theologian, and scholar.
In his early life, Maximus was a civil servant, and an aide to the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. However, he gave up this life in the political sphere to enter into the monastic life. Maximus had studied diverse schools of philosophy, and certainly what was common for his time, the Platonic dialogues, the works of Aristotle, and numerous later Platonic commentators on Aristotle and Plato, like Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus. When one of his friends began espousing the Christological position known as Monothelitism, Maximus was drawn into the controversy, in which he supported an interpretation of the Chalcedonian formula on the basis of which it was asserted that Jesus had both a human and a divine will. Maximus is venerated in both Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity. His Christological positions eventually resulted in the mutilation of his tongue and right hand, after which he was exiled and died on August 13, 662 in Tsageri, Georgia. However, his theology was upheld by the Third Council of Constantinople and he was venerated as a saint soon after his death. He is almost unique among saints in that he has two feast days: the 13th of August and the 21st of January. His title of Confessor means that he suffered for the Christian faith, but was not directly martyred. The Life of the Virgin is commonly, albeit mistakenly, attributed to him, and is considered to be one of the earliest complete biographies of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
In his early life, Maximus was a civil servant, and an aide to the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. However, he gave up this life in the political sphere to enter into the monastic life. Maximus had studied diverse schools of philosophy, and certainly what was common for his time, the Platonic dialogues, the works of Aristotle, and numerous later Platonic commentators on Aristotle and Plato, like Plotinus, Porphyry, Iamblichus, and Proclus. When one of his friends began espousing the Christological position known as Monothelitism, Maximus was drawn into the controversy, in which he supported an interpretation of the Chalcedonian formula on the basis of which it was asserted that Jesus had both a human and a divine will. Maximus is venerated in both Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity. His Christological positions eventually resulted in the mutilation of his tongue and right hand, after which he was exiled and died on August 13, 662 in Tsageri, Georgia. However, his theology was upheld by the Third Council of Constantinople and he was venerated as a saint soon after his death. He is almost unique among saints in that he has two feast days: the 13th of August and the 21st of January. His title of Confessor means that he suffered for the Christian faith, but was not directly martyred. The Life of the Virgin is commonly, albeit mistakenly, attributed to him, and is considered to be one of the earliest complete biographies of Mary, the mother of Jesus.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 20, 2026
I appreciate Maximus' contributions in defeating monotheletism, but if I were Pyrrhus, I would not have been convinced. Jesus having a gnomic will seems to be the most defensible position from Scripture, especially when Gethsemane is considered. To deny a gnomic will is a move towards Nestorianism that I cannot make.
Translation was good. I did not notice it much at all while reading which is usually a good sign.
Translation was good. I did not notice it much at all while reading which is usually a good sign.
April 15, 2025
From the translator’s introduction: “Being thus preeminent in all things, Christ becomes the final context, the ultimate and perfect ‘recontextualization’ and repetition, of the logoi, understood here as both the words of the Old Testament Scriptures and the principles of nature: of creation as a whole and of man in particular. That is, not only are the typological themes of Scripture repeated in His Incarnate Economy from His conception to His Second Advent, but He also repeats all of the natural stages of humanity itself; Christ recapitulates and summarizes not only sacred history, but the history of humanity as a whole, and the stages of life of each individual human being in particular.”
This is the best explanation of Maximus’s neo-Irenean Christological vision that I have read yet, and it is worth further research after the work Blowers and Farrell have done on Irenaeus’s influence on Maximus. This is an excellent work on patristic Christology that captures well Maximus’s most significant contributions to patristic Christology: his Chalcedonian defense of the two wills, two natures, and two energies in Jesus Christ who is perfect God and perfect man. Structured in the form of a dialogue with the Monothelite Pyrrhus, Maximus continually shows the absurdity of the monothelite or mono-energist position, and he mounts a compelling argument for the two wills of Christ from both the Scriptures and the patristic tradition. The best part of the book is Maximus’s robust defense of the two wills from Scripture. It provides a great window into Maximus’s theological exegesis as he even defends the two wills of Christ from the Psalms! I will admit that there are various sections of this book that are hard to understand, so this book will be worth a reread down the road.
This is the best explanation of Maximus’s neo-Irenean Christological vision that I have read yet, and it is worth further research after the work Blowers and Farrell have done on Irenaeus’s influence on Maximus. This is an excellent work on patristic Christology that captures well Maximus’s most significant contributions to patristic Christology: his Chalcedonian defense of the two wills, two natures, and two energies in Jesus Christ who is perfect God and perfect man. Structured in the form of a dialogue with the Monothelite Pyrrhus, Maximus continually shows the absurdity of the monothelite or mono-energist position, and he mounts a compelling argument for the two wills of Christ from both the Scriptures and the patristic tradition. The best part of the book is Maximus’s robust defense of the two wills from Scripture. It provides a great window into Maximus’s theological exegesis as he even defends the two wills of Christ from the Psalms! I will admit that there are various sections of this book that are hard to understand, so this book will be worth a reread down the road.
March 2, 2025
4/5
Some of the grammatical constructions in the translation were unintelligible. There's also a bunch of typos.
Now to be fair, maybe the version I'm reading is old and these have been fixed in later versions. Or maybe some of the grammar was something the translator was deliberately going for, maybe trying to match the Greek more closely. I have heard that Maximus' Greek was convoluted.
Pyrrhus seems all over the place. Comes off as politically motivated and not committed to his thesis. Maximus is a forceful debator.
Their debate is very well structured. They discuss monothelitism, definitions, main arguments used, quotes from the fathers, biblical texts. Then they cover monoenergism. I can't say I followed all the arguments.
Some interesting things:
Ascetism pursued in order to prevent deception and delusion.
People being in image and likeness and needing two definitions, the nature and the person.
The way they use gnomie or gnomic will sounds like "opinion"/"im forming an opinion as to what I should do" to me but I never heard anyone translate it that way.
Some of the grammatical constructions in the translation were unintelligible. There's also a bunch of typos.
Now to be fair, maybe the version I'm reading is old and these have been fixed in later versions. Or maybe some of the grammar was something the translator was deliberately going for, maybe trying to match the Greek more closely. I have heard that Maximus' Greek was convoluted.
Pyrrhus seems all over the place. Comes off as politically motivated and not committed to his thesis. Maximus is a forceful debator.
Their debate is very well structured. They discuss monothelitism, definitions, main arguments used, quotes from the fathers, biblical texts. Then they cover monoenergism. I can't say I followed all the arguments.
Some interesting things:
Ascetism pursued in order to prevent deception and delusion.
People being in image and likeness and needing two definitions, the nature and the person.
The way they use gnomie or gnomic will sounds like "opinion"/"im forming an opinion as to what I should do" to me but I never heard anyone translate it that way.
March 4, 2025
This book was not only an essential and brilliant treatise that set forth, explained and reestablished the apostolic doctrine of Christ's two wills in the 6th ecumenical council, but it also set fire to many modern heresies, provided a stimulating debate between two Christ loving leaders in the church, and also showed a great example of humility and repentance at the very end once the debate had reached its conclusion. A metaphysical masterpiece! 5 stars!
May 11, 2024
4.4447828818 out of 5
October 7, 2025
Maximus the Confessor gave us this miniature masterpiece, which I could ponder for years. It explains the two wills of Jesus. It also explains the difference between natural and gnomic wills and why Jesus could not have possibly had a gnomic will. Much of this book is challenging to read, but it rewards the diligent reader with untold treasure.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews