Fasting

Having just gone from Thanksgiving right into the Nativity (Advent) season, it's time to say a thing or two about fasting.

Fasting is very big in the Orthodox Church. Every single Orthodox Christian is expected to fast. They believe that, in order to develop the discipline to conquer sin, Christians must learn to control their most basic and primitive impulse: hunger. Without being able to control that, they reason, how can we hope to win out over more pressing temptations? (Christ set the example for this in Matthew 4.1-11 and Luke 4.1-13)

Generally speaking, fasting is an essential element of the Christian Life. Christ fasted and taught men to fast. (oca.org)

Fasting is not about attempting to atone for one's sins; it's not about earning favor with God; it's not about working one's way into heaven; it's not pietism; it's not works-righteousness; it's not legalism. It is simply about training our wills to say "no" to ourselves so we can learn to say "yes" to God. Fasting is never an end in itself, but is--like everything else in Orthodoxy--intended for the ultimate purpose of bringing us into union with God. It never occurs by itself, but is combined with prayer and repentance and a more intense focus on refraining from sin.

The Didache, a first-century church manual, instructed Christians that their "fasts must not be identical with those of the hypocrites [i.e., the Jews. Cf. Matt. 6:16]. They fast on Mondays and Thursdays; but you should fast on Wednesdays and Fridays." Orthodox Christians, therefore, fast on Wednesdays to remember Christ's betrayal and on Fridays to remember His crucifixion. They also fast during the periods leading up to important Feasts of the Church, for example Great Lent, which is the forty days prior to Easter, and the Nativity Fast, which occurs during the forty days before Christmas. I have been told that, when all the days of fasting are added up, they equal approximately half the year!

Fasting in the Orthodox tradition is not necessarily a complete lack of food (although it can be, for example, in the hours before receiving Communion Orthodox Christians are expected to eat nothing), but involves abstaining from certain foods, like wine, oil, and animal products. This practice, if I'm not mistaken, is from the Nazorite tradition.

The precise selection of foods from which to abstain has nothing to do with the notion that these foods are "unclean" in the traditional Jewish sense...or in any sense, really. The New Testament is clear that Christians need no longer be concerned with what foods are "clean" and "unclean" (Mk 7.18-20, Rom 14.14, Acts 10.10-15). The idea here is to say "no" to foods that are otherwise perfectly legitimate and acceptable, not because we're commanded to by Law, but because we choose to. So, then why these particular foods? I really don't know. Yet. But, in Orthodoxy, one learns by doing: "a good understanding have all they that do His commandments" (Ps 111.10).

The purpose of fasting is to learn discipline, to gain control of those things that are indeed within our control but that we so often allow to control us. (oca.org)

Growing up, I heard as much about fasting as I did about Mary. That is, I heard next to nothing about it. Neither the Baptist nor the Lutheran churches I attended placed any emphasis whatsoever on fasting. All my christian life I had no idea it was of any importance at all. I certainly didn't know how to fast, or when, or for how long, or to what end.

Fasting is clearly not optional inasmuch as Our Lord said, regarding fasting When you fast (Matt. 6:16), rather than If you fast. Our Lord, speaking of His disciples, said that after His departure, they would fast: when the bridegroom shall be taken from them, and then they shall fast" (Father Alexander Lebedeff)

I wonder now why it is that during more than thirty years as a Protestant, during which time I heard somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand sermons, I don't once recall hearing the pastor encourage his flock to fast. Nearly every sermon I heard exhorted me to be like Christ, and to put Him at the very center of my life, and to deny myself, and live the way God wants me to live, and to be holy, and to treat my body as the temple of the Holy Spirit. And yet I never heard any mention of fasting as a means by which this is accomplished. My former churches never failed to remind me to pray and read my Bible, but for some reason they left out this important element of the Christian life.

"Fasting gradually disperses and drives away spiritual darkness and the veil of sin that lies on the soul, just as the sun dispels the mist. Fasting enables us spiritually to see that spiritual air in which Christ, the Sun who knows no setting, does not rise, but shines without ceasing. Fasting, aided by vigil, penetrates and softens hardness of heart. where once were the vapors of drunkenness it causes fountains of compunction to spring forth" (St Symeon the New Theologian: the Discourses).

"From the time of the Apostles, Prophets and Fathers till our own day, it is evident from the life of the Church that fasting is part of our "armor of light"; it is a mighty weapon against the enemy given into our hands by the Saviour Himself, Who is a type and example for us in all things and Who fasted in the flesh in order to teach us to fast" (On Fasting).

"The Orthodox Church, regarding the human person as a unity of soul and body, has always insisted that the body must be trained and disciplined as well as the soul. 'Fasting and self-control are the first virtue, the mother, root, source, and foundation of all good'" (Ware, The Orthodox Chruch, p.300).

For more information:
The Fasting Rule of the Orthodox Church
Fasting (St Spyridon Cathedral website)
The True Nature of Fasting (Kallistos Ware)
Eastern Orthodox Fasting (Wikipedia)

Examples of Fasting in the Bible
Moses fasted for forty days and forty nights while he was on the mountain with God. (Ex 34.28)
King David fasted when his son with Bathsheba became sick (2Sm 12.15-25).
King Jehosaphat proclaimed a fast throughout Judah for victory over the Moabites and Ammonites who were attacking them (2Ch 20.3).
The prophet Isaiah scolded the Israelites for the unrighteous motives of their fasting (Is 58.3-13).
The prophet Joel called for a fast to avert the judgement of God. (Joel 1.14)
The people of Nineveh in response to Jonah's prophecy, fasted to avert the judgement of God (Jon 3.7).
The Jews of Persia, following Mordechai's example, fasted due to the genocidal decree of Haman. Queen Esther declared a three-day fast for all the Jews prior to risking her life in visiting King Ahasuerus uninvited (Est 4).
Christ told the Pharisees that His disciples would fast when he left them (Lk 5.33-39, Mt 9.14-15, Mk 2.18-20).
Jesus described the attitude one should take when fasting (Mt 6.16–18).
Jesus fasted for forty days and forty nights while in the desert (Mt 4.2, Lk 4.2).
Christ says that victory in spiritual warfare requires faith, prayer, and fasting (Mt 17.15-21, Mk 9.29)
The prophetess Anna, who proclaimed the birth of Jesus in the Temple, fasted regularly (Lk 2.36-37).

Apostle and Evangelist Matthew

The Holy Apostle and Evangelist Matthew, was also named Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27); he was one of the Twelve Apostles (Mark 3:18; Luke 6:45; Acts 1:13), and was brother of the Apostle James Alphaeus (Mark 2:14). He was a publican, or tax-collector for Rome, in a time when the Jews were under the rule of the Roman Empire. He lived in the Galilean city of Capernaum.

When Matthew heard the voice of Jesus Christ: "Come, follow Me" (Mt. 9:9), left everything and followed the Savior. Christ and His disciples did not refuse Matthew's invitation and they visited his house, where they shared table with the publican's friends and acquaintances. Like the host, they were also publicans and known sinners. This event disturbed the pharisees and scribes a great deal.

Publicans who collected taxes from their countrymen did this with great profit for themselves. Usually greedy and cruel people, the Jews considered them pernicious betrayers of their country and religion. The word "publican" for the Jews had the connotation of "public sinner" and "idol-worshipper." To even speak with a tax-collector was considered a sin, and to associate with one was defilement. But the Jewish teachers were not able to comprehend that the Lord had "come to call not the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Mt. 9:13).

Matthew, acknowledging his sinfulness, repaid fourfold anyone he had cheated, and he distributed his remaining possessions to the poor, and he followed after Christ with the other apostles. St Matthew was attentive to the instructions of the Divine Teacher, he beheld His innumerable miracles, he went together with the Twelve Apostles preaching to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mt. 10:6). He was a witness to the suffering, death, and Resurrection of the Savior, and of His glorious Ascension into Heaven.

Having received the grace of the Holy Spirit, which descended upon the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, St Matthew preached in Palestine for several years. At the request of the Jewish converts at Jerusalem, the holy Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel describing the earthly life of the Savior, before leaving to preach the Gospel in faraway lands.

In the order of the books of the New Testament, the Gospel of Matthew comes first. Palestine is said to be the place where the Gospel was written. St Matthew wrote in Aramaic, and then it was translated into Greek. The Aramaic text has not survived, but many of the linguistic and cultural-historical peculiarities of the Greek translation give indications of it.

The Apostle Matthew preached among people who were awaiting the Messiah. His Gospel manifests itself as a vivid proof that Jesus Christ is the Messiah foretold by the prophets, and that there would not be another (Mt. 11:3).

The preaching and deeds of the Savior are presented by the evangelist in three divisions, constituting three aspects of the service of the Messiah: as Prophet and Law-Giver (Ch. 5-7), Lord over the world both visible and invisible (Ch. 8-25), and finally as High Priest offered as Sacrifice for the sins of all mankind (Ch. 26-27).

The theological content of the Gospel, besides the Christological themes, includes also the teaching about the Kingdom of God and about the Church, which the Lord sets forth in parables about the inner preparation for entering into the Kingdom (Ch. 5-7), about the worthiness of servers of the Church in the world (Ch. 10-11), about the signs of the Kingdom and its growth in the souls of mankind (Ch. 13), about the humility and simplicity of the inheritors of the Kingdom (Mt. 18:1-35; 19 13-30; 20:1-16; 25-27; 23:1-28), and about the eschatological revelations of the Kingdom in the Second Coming of Christ within the daily spiritual life of the Church (Ch. 24-25).

The Kingdom of Heaven and the Church are closely interconnected in the spiritual experience of Christianity: the Church is the historical embodiment of the Kingdom of Heaven in the world, and the Kingdom of Heaven is the Church of Christ in its eschatological perfection (Mt. 16:18-19; 28:18-20).

The holy Apostle brought the Gospel of Christ to Syria, Media, Persia, Parthia, and finishing his preaching in Ethiopia with a martyr's death.

From oca.org

Advent...

...begins today.

Sola Scriptura, Part 5

Continued form last week [Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4]

FALSE ASSUMPTION # 3: Anyone can interpret the Scriptures for himself or herself without the aid of the Church

Though many Protestants would take issue with the way this assumption is worded, this is essentially the assumption that prevailed when the Reformers first advocated the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. The line of reasoning was essentially that the meaning of Scripture is clear enough that anyone could understand it by simply reading it for oneself, and thus they rejected the idea that one needed the Church's help in the process. This position is clearly stated by the Tubingen Lutheran Scholars who exchanged letters with Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople about thirty years after Luthers death:

Perhaps, someone will say that on the one hand, the Scriptures are absolutely free from error; but on the other hand, they have been concealed by much obscurity, so that without the interpretations of the Spirit-bearing Fathers they could not be clearly understood.... But meanwhile this, too, is very true that what has been said in a scarcely perceptible manner in some places in the Scriptures, has been stated in another place in them explicitly and most clearly so that even the most simple person can understand them.8

Though these Lutheran scholars claimed to use the writings of the Holy Fathers, they argued that they were unnecessary, and that, where they believed the Scriptures and the Holy Fathers conflicted, the Fathers were to be disregarded. What they were actually arguing, however, was that when the teachings of the Holy fathers conflict with their private opinions on the Scriptures, their private opinions were to be considered more authoritative than the Fathers of the Church. Rather than listening to the Fathers, who had shown themselves righteous and saintly, priority should be given to the human reasonings of the individual. The same human reason that has led the majority of modern Lutheran scholars to reject almost every teaching of Scripture (including the deity of Christ, the Resurrection, etc.), and even to reject the inspiration of the Scriptures themselves — on which the early Lutherans claimed to base their entire faith. In reply, Patriarch Jeremias II clearly exposed the true character of the Lutheran teachings:

Let us accept, then, the traditions of the Church with a sincere heart and not a multitude of rationalizations. For God created man to be upright; instead they sought after diverse ways of rationalizing (Ecclesiastes 7:29). Let us not allow ourselves to learn a new kind of faith which is condemned by the tradition of the Holy Fathers. For the Divine apostle says, "if anyone is preaching to you a Gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (Galatians 1:9).9

Continued in Part 6 - The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura Does Not Meet its Own Criteria

8. Mastrantonis, 115.

9. Ibid., 198.

St John Chrysostom

St John Chrysostom, whose life and work are celebrated today, was a colossal figure in early Christianity. His surname Χρυσόστομος, which means "golden mouthed" in Greek, was given to him posthumously because of his legendary oration skills.

In his early years he became a monk and a hermit, during which time he committed the Bible to memory and fasted so severely that he permanently damaged his digestive system.

Eventually he returned to his hometown of Antioch, where he served as a deacon and a priest before being installed--despite his adamant protest--as Archbishop of Constantinople. He refused the lavish trappings that came with the office and continued to live in extreme austerity. His piety and holiness aroused the jealousy of religious and political leaders, as a result of whose scheming St John was exiled to the mountains of Armenia where he died of exposure in 407.

St John's sermons and letters have had an enormous influence on Christians throughout history. But he is probably best remembered for the Liturgy which bears his name and is celebrated daily in Orthodox churches worldwide.

For further information please see the following:

OCA biography
Website dedicated to the life and writings of St John Chrysostom
Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom
Homilies on First Corinthians
Homilies on Second Corinthians
Biography on Ecumenical Patriarch website
The Martyrdom of Saint John Chrysostom

The Holy Orthodox Popes of Rome

Orthodox churches on the new calendar, today celebrate the life and martyrdom of St Clement, who was one of the Seventy Apostles chosen by Christ in Luke 10, and who served as bishop of Rome (i.e. Pope) until his exile and execution around A.D. 100. So, today is a good day to say something about Orthodox popes.

Contrary to what I thought before I became acquainted with Orthodoxy, the Orthodox Church does not reject the papacy, only what the papacy has become. For the first thousand years after Pentecost, the Pope of Rome was in communion with the other Orthodox bishops of the world. In fact, he was one of the five Patriarchs, which were bishops of the five most important cities in the empire: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Because Rome was the biggest and most important city, the bishop of Rome was regarded as the honorary leader of the episcopate, much like St Peter was the honorary leader of the Apostles.

In 1054, the Church of Rome officially broke with the other Patriarchates and became known as the Roman Catholic Church, taking all of western Christianity with her.

The following (including the comments at the bottom) is provided by the Orthodox England website. It is a list of the Popes of Rome who are venerated as saints by the Orthodox Church. According to the website, "popes who already appear in all Eastern Orthodox calendars are marked with an asterisk."

St. Linus (+ c. 78), first pope, Martyr. A disciple of the Apostle Paul, he was consecrated by him. One of the Seventy Apostles, he is mentioned in 2 Timothy 4,21. He was pope for about twelve years and may have been martyred. Feast: 23 September (In the East 4 January and 5 November). *

St. Anacletus (Cletus) (+ c. 91), by origin a Greek from Athens and possibly a martyr. His name, correctly Anencletus, means 'blameless' (see Titus 1,7) and he may originally have been a slave. Feast: 26 April.

St. Clement of Rome (+ c. 101), martyr. One of the Seventy Apostles and a Church Father, he was consecrated by the Apostle Peter. He is mentioned in Philippians 4,3 and his letter to the Church of Corinth still exists. He was much venerated in the West in the early centuries and still today in the East. The church of San Clemente in Rome probably stands on the site of his house. According to tradition, he was banished to the Crimea and there martyred. Feast: 23 November (in the East 4 January, 22 April, 10 September and 25 November). *

St. Evaristus (+ c. 109), perhaps a martyr and almost certainly of Hellenic/Jewish origin. Feast: 26 October.

St. Alexander I (+ c. 116), the fifth pope and possible a martyr and by tradition a Roman. Feast: 3 March (in the East 16 March).*

St. Sixtus (Xystus) I (+ c. 125), possibly a martyr. A Roman of Greek origin. Feast: 3 April. *

St Telesphorus (+ c. 136), a martyr, Greek by origin. Feast: 5 January (in the East 22 February). *

St. Hyginus (+ c. 142), by origin a Greek philosopher from Athens. Also perhaps a martyr. Feast: 11 January.

St. Pius I (+ c. 155), from Aquilea, probably born a slave and perhaps the brother of Hermas who wrote 'The Shepherd'. He defended the Church against Gnosticism. Possibly a martyr. Feast: 11 July.

St. Anicetus (+ 166) the tenth pope and of Syrian origin, he fixed the date of Easter, opposed the Gnostics, perhaps martyred. Feast: 17 April.

St. Soter (+ 174), of Greek descent, he may have been martyred. Feast: 22 April.

St. Eleutherius (+ 189), Greek, possibly martyred. Feast: 26 May.

St. Victor (+ 198), an African and the first Latin pope. A forceful character, he fought for Orthodoxy and against Gnosticism. He may have been martyred. Feast: 28 July. *

St. Zephyrinus (+ 217), of Greek descent. Although not a strong character, he still fought for Orthodoxy against Adoptionism and Modalism and may have been martyred for it. Feast: 26 August.

St. Callistus I (+ 222), the fifteenth pope and originally a slave. Pope Callistus, with his Greek name, was known for his mercifulness and defended married clergy against fanatics. He condemned modalism. Probably martyred. Feast: 14 October.

St. Urban I (+ 230), Roman, possibly martyred. Feast: 25 May.

St. Pontian (+ 235), Roman, he was persecuted for the faith and deported to Sardinia, where he died as a confessor. Feast: 19 November.

St. Antherus (+ 236), Greek and perhaps martyred. Feast: 3 January (5 August in East). *

St. Fabian (+ 250), Roman martyr. Described as an incomparable man, 'his death matched the purity and goodness of his life', he did much to help the poor. Feast: 20 January (5 August in the East). *

St. Cornelius (+ 253), the twentieth pope and a Roman, he was greatly helped by St Cyprian of Carthage in the struggle against novatian fanaticism. He was renowned for his mercifulness and died as a result of persecution. Feast: 16 September.

St. Lucius (+ 254), a Roman he was exiled as soon as he was elected in a persecution. Supported by St Cyprian, he was certainly a confessor and perhaps was martyred. Feast: 4 March.

St. Stephen I (+ 257), a Roman and a strong character, perhaps a martyr, he is well known for his argument with St Cyprian of Carthage about the baptism of heretics. St Stephen defended the view of economy, that invalid baptism outside the Church was made valid by entry into the Church, and there was no need to repeat the actual rite. Feast: 2 August. *

St. Sixtus II (+ 258), an Athenian. He was 'a good and peace-loving man' who was much helped by Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria. He was martyred by beheading, together with his seven deacons, one of whom was St Lawrence. He was and is greatly venerated in the Orthodox Church, West and also East. Feast: 7 August (10 August in the East). *

St. Dionysius (Denis) (+ 268), one of the most important Roman popes of the third century. He was a learned Greek, who opposed several heresies, helped the persecuted and also reorganized the Church in Rome. Feast: 26 December.

St. Felix I (+ 274), the twenty-fifth pope. A Roman, he opposed the adoptianist heresy. Feast: 30 May.

St. Eutychian (+ 283), a native of Tuscany. Feast: 7 December.

St. Gaius (+ 296), possibly from Dalmatia. It seems that he was martyred together with his brother, a priest, and his children. Feast: 22 April (11 August in the East). *

St. Marcellinus (+ 304), possibly a martyr, and certainly a penitent for previous errors and apostasy. Feast: 2 June (7 June in the East). *

St. Marcellus I (+ 309), a confessor who died as a result of persecution. Feast: 16 January (7 June in the East). *

St. Eusebius (+ 310), the thirtieth pope and a Greek by origin. He was deported to Sicily by the Emperor and died there as a confessor. Feast: 17 August.

St. Miltiades (+ 314), probably from Rome, although he had a Greek name. The Emperor Constantine gave him a palace on the Lateran as his residence. He condemned Donatism. Feast: 10 December.

St. Sylvester I (+ 335), Roman. Feast: 31 December (2 January in the East). *

St. Mark (+ 336), Roman. Feast: 7 October.

St. Julius I (+ 352), Roman. A defender of St. Athanasius, this most Orthodox Pope condemned arianism. Feast: 12 April.

St. Liberius (+ 366). The thirty-fifth pope, he was not of strong character and even compromised the Faith at one point in his life, confessing arianism. However, like St Marcellinus, he then repented, atoned and is recognised as a saint of God. Feast: 27 August. *

St. Damasus (+ 384). Of Spanish origin, he was born in Rome in c. 305, the son of a priest. He fought for Orthodoxy and opposed several heresies. He did much to establish the Latin text of the Bible, developed the liturgy and the veneration of the Roman martyrs. Although as a new pope, he made several arrogant errors, he repented for these and was recognized as a saint at the end. Feast: 11 December.

St. Siricius (+ 399), Roman. An imperious man like St Damasus, he nevertheless forbade the harsh treatment of heretics and supported ascetics. He received the support of St Ambrose of Milan and opposed those who slandered the Mother of God. Feast: 26 November.

St. Anastasius I (+ 401). A man of poverty and apostolic mind, he did much to stop the spread of origenism. Feast: 19 December.

St Innocent I (+ 417). The son of St Anastasius I, he had an imperious character and thirty-six letters of his survive. He supported St John Chrysostom and condemned pelagianism. Feast: 28 July.

St Zosimus (+ 418), the fortieth Pope, by origin a Greek. Although initially he made many errors of tact and judgement, he was anti-pelagian. Feast: 26 December.

St Boniface I (+ 422), a Roman and son of a priest. He was kind, humble and fought for Orthodoxy. Feast: 4 September.

St Celestine I (+ 432). A strong character, he was active against pelagianism, he sent St. Germanus of Auxerre to Britain and St. Palladius to Ireland. He also strongly opposed nestorianism and supported St Cyril of Alexandria. Feast: 6 April (8 April in the East). *

St Sixtus III (+ 440), Roman. He vigorously opposed the heresies of both Pelagius and Nestorius. Feast: 28 March.

St. Leo I, 'the Great' (+ 461). He was born in Rome at the end of the fourth century. He was very energetic, opposed many heresies and protected Rome from the barbarian Huns and Vandals. His teaching on Christ was acclaimed by all the Orthodox at the Council of Chalcedon in 451. Feast: 11 April (In the East 18 February) *.

St. Hilary (+ 468), the forty-fifth pope and by origin Sardinian, he actively opposed many heresies. Feast: 28 February.

St. Simplicius (+ 483), he supported the Orthodox in the East against monophysitism. Feast: 10 March.

St. Felix II (+ 492), the son of a priest, he was also the grandfather of St. Gregory the Great. He sternly opposed monophysitism. Feast: 1 March.

St. Gelasius I (+ 496), African, but born in Rome. He helped the poor and was sternly opposed monophysitism. Of imperious character, he put the authority of the Pope on the same level as that of the Emperor. We have from him over a hundred letters or fragments and six theological works. He was the greatest Pope of the fifth century after St Leo. Feast: 21 November.

St. Anastasius II (+ 498), Roman and the son of a priest, he had a conciliatory character. Feast: 8 September/19 November.

St. Symmachus (+ 514), the fiftieth pope and by origin Sardinian, he was very active and a builder of churches. Feast: 19 July.

St. Hormisdas (+ 523), from Italy and father of St. Silverius (see below), he helped end the monophysite schism. Feast: 6 August.

St. John I (+ 526), Tuscan. A confessor, he suffered much from the Arian Goth Theodoric, King of Italy. He was immediately revered as a saint on his repose. Feast: 18 May.

St. Felix III (+ 530), the fifty-third pope and saint in succession, he was greatly loved for his simplicity and almsgiving. He was succeeded by Boniface II, who was the first pope of Germanic origin, and John II, neither of whom is considered a saint. John II was the first pope to change names on assuming that office. Feast: 22 September.

St. Agapitus I (+ 536), the son of a priest, he opposed monophysitism and reposed in Constantinople. Feast: 22 April and 20 September (In the East 17 April). *

St. Silverius (+ 537), he was exiled to Asia Minor as a result of political intrigues. He later died in exile from starvation and various hardships and injustices. He was venerated as a martyr for Orthodoxy. He was succeeded by five popes who are not saints. Feast: 20 June.

St. Gregory I, 'the Great' [left] (in the East 'the Dialogist') (+ 604). One of only two popes to be called 'the Great' (with St. Leo), this able and energetic saint was possibly the greatest of all Roman popes. Known as 'the Apostle of the English', he also did much to convert the Lombards and the Goths. A true monk and ascetic, he wrote much about the monastic life, and was greatly concerned for liturgical life and the poor. Some 850 of his letters survive as well as other extremely important patristic and pastoral works, especially his Dialogues. Notably, he condemned as 'antichrist' any bishop who claimed universal jurisdiction and supremacy. Feast: 12 March. *

Boniface IV (+ 615). A follower of St Gregory the Great, he was also a true monk. Preceded by two popes who are not saints. Feast: 25 May.

Deusdedit I (+ 618), Roman. 'Simple, devout, wise and shrewd', he loved ordinary priests and did much for those then suffering from the plague. He was succeeded by five popes who are not saints. Feast: 8 November.

St. Martin I (+ 655), from Umbria. Condemning the monothelite heresy, he was arrested in Constantinople and starved to death. He was the last Pope of Rome to be martyred. He is widely venerated in the East. Feast: 12 November (In the East 14 April). *

St. Eugene I (+ 657), Roman. Famed for his mildness and kindness to the poor, this saintly man resisted threats to his life from the Emperor in Constantinople. Feast: 2 June.

St. Vitalian (+ 672), opposed monothelitism and appointed the first Greek Archbishop of Canterbury, St Theodore. Feast: 27 January (In the East 23 July). *

St. Agatho (+ 681), Sicilian of Greek origin. Preceded by two popes who are not saints, he was a kindly and generous man, who also helped call the Sixth Oecumenical Council and helped end monotheletism. Feast: 10 January (20 February in the East). *

St. Leo II (+ 683), Sicilian, possibly of Greek descent. He confirmed the condemnation of a predecessor, the heretical Pope Honorius I (+ 638), who had fallen into the monothelite heresy. He loved the poor and was also much concerned with church music. Feast: 3 July.

St. Benedict II (+ 685), Roman. He loved the poor and was humble-minded and gentle. Feast: 7 May.

St. Sergius I (+ 701), born in Palermo, he was a Syrian. Able and energetic, he did much for missionary work in England and northern Europe. He loved the liturgy and church singing and introduced the feast of the Exaltation of the Cross into the West. He was preceded by two popes who are not saints and succeeded by four other non-saints, two Greeks and two Syrians. Feast: 8 September.

St. Gregory II (+ 731), the most outstanding Roman pope of the eighth century An able leader, he condemned iconoclasm as a heresy and did much to encourage missionary work, like that of

St Boniface among the German tribes. He restored churches and fostered the monastic life. Feast: 11 February.

St. Gregory III (+ 741), Syrian. He was acclaimed Pope by the crowds at his predecessor's funeral. He vigorously opposed iconoclasm, built churches and had them adorned with frescos, and also encouraged the monastic life and fostered missionary work in northern Europe. Feast: 28 November.

St Zacharias (+ 752), a Greek and the last Orthodox saint in this see, he opposed iconoclasm, adorned churches with frescos, and did much for missionary work and peace all over western Europe. Feast: 15 March.

Readers will notice that information on many of the early popes is lacking. Many of these are also traditionally held to be martyrs, but there is some uncertainty about this. It should be added that many of the popes were opposed by antipopes, often heretics. This became more and more the case in the Middle Ages when the Orthodox period of the papacy is over and the institution becomes more political and worldly than religious and spiritual.

The reader will no doubt be struck by the fact so many of the early popes are revered as saints, indeed, the first fifty-three in continuous succession. If we take the period up till St Zacharias inclusive, of 90 popes, 68 are revered as saints. Perhaps even more striking is the fact that since St Zacharias, the last Orthodox Roman pope to be a saint, there have been no fewer than 173 popes. Of these only seven are today considered to be saints by the Vatican: one of these was Nicholas I, the notorious filioquist who condemned St Photius of Constantinople, another was Leo IX, the pope ultimately responsible for excommunicating Patriarch Michael of Constantinople in 1054.

Thus with our thoughts on the holy Orthodox popes of Rome, let us pray with one mind and one soul for the salvation of the once Orthodox lands of the West and their salvation in this new millennium.

Holy Orthodox Popes of Rome, pray to God for us!

Looking East

This is a brand-new thing.
The author of the blog Orrologion has begun a series of Yahoo groups for the purpose of allowing inquirers of particular religious (or non-religious) backgrounds to ask questions about Orthodoxy of people who can provide competent answers. Here are links to a few of them:

For Evangelicals, Roman Catholics (Eastern Rite), Lutherans, Presbyterians.

More links can be found here.

O God, come to my assistance!
O Lord, hasten to help me!
Shame and disgrace upon those who seek my life!
Let them turn back and be confounded who wish me evil!
Let them now turn in shame who jeer at me:
"Well done! Well done!"
But let all who search for
You be glad and rejoice in You,
And let those who love your salvation,
O God, always say: "The Lord be exalted!"
As for me, I am wretched and poor:
God shall be my help.
You are indeed my help and my salvation,
O Lord: tarry not!
(From the Compline Service; A Prayer for Remembrance, Psalm 69, LXX)

Note: Because the Septuagint and Protestant Bibles number the Psalms differently, the above psalm is number 70 in post-Reformation versions of the Old Testament

Q&A

Q: Excuse me, did I just hear the priest say "most holy Theotokos save us"? Please explain how that is not blatantly contrary to Scripture, since "no one comes to the Father, except through" Jesus, (Jn 14.6), who came to "save that which was lost" (Matt 18.11), and since "there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4.12). Calling upon Mary to "save us" is in direct opposition to the teachings of the Bible!

A: Yeah, that freaked me out the first time I heard it, too. It was at the very first Vespers service that I attended at a local Greek parish, and I thought, "This could be the deal-breaker." It bothered me so much that I confronted the priest afterwards.

He admitted that it is a difficult thing for a Protestant to hear, and that it troubled him the first time he heard it, too (he was a convert from Pentecostalism). He explained to my satisfaction why this phrase is not improper or contrary to biblical teaching, but it is still a little uncomfortable for me to heard it, even now, especially having come from a faith tradition in which Mary is little more than an afterthought. I suppose it just takes some getting used to.

So, is the statement "Theotokos, save us" really attributing to Mary something that should only be attributed to God? Is this usurping the work of Christ? It seems to, but rest assured that Orthodox Christians do not believe for one second that Mary died on the cross for our sins, or that she rose from the dead, or that she is seated at the right hand of the Father, etc. Any Orthodox Christian will tell you that it was Christ and Him alone "who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens." The prayers and hymns and writings of the Orthodox Church testify again and again to this foundational, non-negotiable truth.

Well, then if the Bible says, and the Orthodox believe, that there is no other name whereby we must be saved, isn't the statement in question plainly contrary to both? It would appear so, but if this sort of language were truly contrary to biblical teaching then we would, of course, expect no similar use of the word "save" in Scripture, except in reference to the direct work of God. Right?

However, we read in the Bible that St Paul hopes to save the Jews through his example (Rom 11.14), and that he believes that by being "all things to all men" he may save some (1Co 9.22). He also tells husbands and wives that they are able to save each other (1Co 7.16), and says that he himself was saved through the prayer of the Philippians (Php 1.19).

Paul later tells his protégé Timothy that he can save himself and others by his adherence to doctrine (1Ti 4.16), and that a woman can be saved by bearing and raising a faithful Christian (2.15).

St Peter is said to be able to save entire households merely by his words (Acts 11.14), and St Jude instructs us to save people with fear (Jude 1.23). St James tells us that prayer can save the sick (Jam 5.15), and that when we convert a sinner, we save a soul and "cover a multitude of sins" (v.20).

Clearly it's not contrary to biblical teaching to believe that we have a role in the salvation of others. We don't save them by dying on the cross, of course, but by preaching the Gospel, by prayer, by being a good example. It's worth mentioning at this point that the Orthodox do not believe, as their Protestant brethren do, that salvation is the result of a one-time, momentary conversion of faith. Rather, it requires daily, hourly, minute-by-minute conversion. That is, constant repentance and self-denial. That's why serious Orthodox Christians go to church every day, and surround themselves with religious imagery, and give alms, and fast regularly, and pray constantly, and make the sign of the cross about eleven-thousand times a day: not because they believe these good works will earn them a place in heaven, but because they want to stay constantly focused on Christ, and away from self, and tuned-in to what is true and honest and just and pure and lovely. It is also why Orthodox Christians rely on the prayers and good council of other Orthodox Christians: to keep them on the straight and narrow. It is in this manner that Orthodox Christians save each other, just like Sts Paul, Peter and Timothy did.

Is it really unreasonable, then, to think that Mary can likewise save us?

Should we not look to her for her prayer and for her example of obedience, so that we will not deliberately keep on sinning, but will continue grounded and settled in the faith; so we will continue to do the will of God, and work out our salvation with fear and trembling; so that we will not be cut off, or disqualified, or denied; so we won't come out worse in the end than we were at the beginning and be assigned a place with the unbelievers?

Like so many other things in the Orthodox Church, the phrase "Most holy Theotokos, save us," is indeed arresting and horrifying to a lifelong Protestant like me. But, like so many other initially arresting, horrifying aspects of Orthodoxy, this phrase does prove, on close examination, to be perfectly consistent with biblical teaching. And as I become more and more familiar with the context surrounding certain Orthodox statements and actions and disciplines, the more clearly I can see how much sense they make within the broader scope of Orthodox worship and devotion.

Read these for more information:
Orrologion (blog): On Prayer to the Saints; or, "Everything which is God's became man's"
Pillar and Ground of Truth (blog): "Most holy Theotokos, save us!" Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 13

Let us never forget the Ottoman genecide against the Armenians, Greeks, Kurds and Assyrians.

The following is from Koinonia:

Attention Everyone, PLEASE CIRCULATE TO ALL YOUR FAMILY, FRIENDS, ETC. AND URGE THEM TO VOTE YES NOW!!!

MSNBC is doing a survey whether the Armenian Genocide should be recognized or not. As of a few minutes ago the numbers showed Yes 20%, No 80% !

The Turks have mobilized a global campaign to shift results towards "No" but we can['t] let them. The Armenian Genocide is a historical fact, along with other many other crimes against humanity of [sic] behalf of the Turks, and it should be recognized.

Please vote 'YES' at the below link and send it to everyone you know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253084

Despina Axiotakis
General SecretaryCyprus Federation of America
Phone: 201-444-8237
Fax: 201-444-0445
e-mail: cyprusfederation@aol.com
Cell: 201-981-5764

[And contact your Representative. M.]

Sola Scriptura, Part 4

Continued form last week [Part 1, Part 2, Part 3]

FALSE ASSUMPTION # 2: The Scriptures were the basis of the early Church, whereas Tradition is simply a "human corruption" that came much later.

Especially among Evangelicals and so-called Charismatics you will find that the word "tradition" is a derogatory term, and to label something as a "tradition" is roughly equivalent to saying that it is "fleshly," "spiritually dead," "destructive," and/or "legalistic."

As Protestants read the New Testament, it seems clear to them that the Bible roundly condemns tradition as being opposed to Scripture. The image of early Christians that they generally have is essentially that the early Christians were pretty much like 20th Century Evangelicals or Charismatics! That the First Century Christians would have had liturgical worship, or would have adhered to any tradition is inconceivable — only later, "when the Church became corrupted," is it imagined that such things entered the Church. It comes as quite a blow to such Protestants (as it did to me) when they actually study the early Church and the writings of the early Fathers and begin to see a distinctly different picture than that which they were always led to envision. One finds that, for example, the early Christians did not tote their Bibles with them to Church each Sunday for a Bible study — in fact it was so difficult to acquire a copy of even portions of Scripture, due to the time and resources involved in making a copy, that very few individuals owned their own copies. Instead, the copies of the Scriptures were kept by designated persons in the Church, or kept at the place where the Church gathered for worship. Furthermore, most Churches did not have complete copies of all the books of the Old Testament, much less the New Testament (which was not finished until almost the end of the First Century, and not in its final canonical form until the Fourth Century). This is not to say that the early Christians did not study the Scriptures — they did in earnest, but as a group, not as individuals. And for most of the First Century, Christians were limited in study to the Old Testament.

So how did they know the Gospel, the life and teachings of Christ, how to worship, what to believe about the nature of Christ, etc? They had only the Oral Tradition handed down from the Apostles. Sure, many in the early Church heard these things directly from the Apostles themselves, but many more did not, especially with the passing of the First Century and the Apostles with it. Later generations had access to the writings of the Apostles through the New Testament, but the early Church depended on Oral Tradition almost entirely for its knowledge of the Christian faith.

This dependence upon tradition is evident in the New Testament writings themselves. For example, Saint Paul exhorts the Thessalonians:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word [i.e. oral tradition] or our epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15).

The word here translated "traditions" is the Greek word paradosis — which, though translated differently in some Protestant versions, is the same word that the Greek Orthodox use when speaking of Tradition, and few competent Bible scholars would dispute this meaning. The word itself literally means "what is transmitted." It is the same word used when referring negatively to the false teachings of the Pharisees (Mark 7:3, 5, 8), and also when referring to authoritative Christian teaching (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15). So what makes the tradition of the Pharisees false and that of the Church true? The source! Christ made clear what was the source of the traditions of the Pharisees when He called them "the traditions of men" (Mark 7:8). Saint Paul on the other hand, in reference to Christian Tradition states, "I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and hold fast to the traditions [paradoseis] just as I delivered [paredoka, a verbal form of paradosis] them to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2), but where did he get these traditions in the first place? "I received from the Lord that which I delivered [paredoka] to you" (1 Corinthians 11:23). This is what the Orthodox Church refers to when it speaks of the Apostolic Tradition — "the Faith once delivered [paradotheise] unto the saints" (Jude 3). Its source is Christ, it was delivered personally by Him to the Apostles through all that He said and did, which if it all were all written down, "the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:25). The Apostles delivered this knowldge to the entire Church, and the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became "the pillar and ground of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

The testimony of the New Testament is clear on this point: the early Christians had both oral and written traditions which they received from Christ through the Apostles. For written tradition they at first had only fragments — one local church had an Epistle, another perhaps a Gospel. Gradually these writings were gathered together into collections and ultimately they became the New Testament. And how did these early Christians know which books were authentic and which were not — for (as already noted) there were numerous spurious epistles and gospels claimed by heretics to have been written by Apostles? It was the oral Apostolic Tradition that aided the Church in making this determination.

Protestants react violently to the idea of Holy Tradition simply because the only form of it that they have generally encountered is the concept of Tradition found in Roman Catholicism. Contrary to the Roman view of Tradition, which is personified by the Papacy, and develops new dogmas previously unknown to the Church (such as Papal Infallibility, to cite just one of the more odious examples) —the Orthodox do not believe that Tradition grows or changes. Certainly when the Church is faced with a heresy, it is forced to define more precisely the difference between truth and error, but the Truth does not change. It may be said that Tradition expands in the sense that as the Church moves through history it does not forget its experiences along the way, it remembers the saints that arise in it, and it preserves the writings of those who have accurately stated its faith; but the Faith itself was "once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).

But how can we know that the Church has preserved the Apostolic Tradition in its purity? The short answer is that God has preserved it in the Church because He has promised to do so. Christ said that He would build His Church and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18). Christ Himself is the head of the Church (Ephesians 4:16), and the Church is His Body (Ephesians 1:22-23). If the Church lost the pure Apostolic Tradition, then the Truth would have to cease being the Truth — for the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth (I Timothy 3:15). The common Protestant conception of Church history, that the Church fell into apostasy from the time of Constantine until the Reformation certainly makes these and many other Scriptures meaningless. If the Church ceased to be, for even one day, then the gates of Hell prevailed against it on that day. If this were the case, when Christ described the growth of the Church in His parable of the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32), He should have spoken of a plant that started to grow but was squashed, and in its place a new seed sprouted later on — but instead He used the imagery of a mustard seed that begins small but steadily grows into the largest of garden plants.

As to those who would posit that there was some group of true-believing Protestants living in caves somewhere for a thousand years, where is the evidence? The Waldensians 7 that are claimed as forebearers by every sect from the Pentecostals to the Jehovahs Witnesses, did not exist prior to the 12th Century. It is, to say the least, a bit of a stretch to believe that these true-believers suffered courageously under the fierce persecutions of the Romans, and yet would have headed for the hills as soon as Christianity became a legal religion. And yet even this seems possible when compared with the notion that such a group could have survived for a thousand years without leaving a trace of historical evidence to substantiate that it had ever existed.

At this point one might object that there were in fact examples of people in Church history who taught things contrary to what others taught, so who is to say what the Apostolic Tradition is? And further more, what if a corrupt practice arose, how could it later be distinguished from Apostolic Tradition? Protestants ask these questions because, in the Roman Catholic Church there did arise new and corrupt "traditions," but this is because the Latin West first corrupted its understanding of the nature of Tradition. The Orthodox understanding which earlier prevailed in the West and was preserved in the Orthodox Church, is basically that Tradition is in essence unchanging and is known by its universality or catholicity. True Apostolic Tradition is found in the historic consensus of Church teaching. Find that which the Church has believed always, throughout history, and everywhere in the Church, and then you will have found the Truth. If any belief can be shown to have not been received by the Church in its history, then this is heresy. Mind you, however, we are speaking of the Church, not schismatic groups. There were schismatics and heretics who broke away from the Church during the New Testament period, and there has been a continual supply of them since, for as the Apostle says, "there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest" (ICorinthians 11:19)

Continued in Part 5 - FALSE ASSUMPTION # 3

7. The Waldensians were a sect that was founded in the 12th century founded by Peter Waldo which in some ways anticipated the Protestant Reformation. Due to persecution by the Roman Catholic Church this sect survived primarily in the mountainous regions of northwestern Italy. With the advent of the Protestant Reformation, the Waldensians came under the influence of the Reformed movement and essentially joined forces with it. Many early Protestant historians claimed that the Waldensians represented a remnant of "true" Christians that had existed prior to Constantine. Though today no credible historian would make such an unsubstantiated claim, many fundamentalists and cults like the Jehovahs Witnesses continue to claim descent from the early church through the Waldensians — despite the fact that the Waldensians still exist to this day, and they certainly do not claim the Jehovahs Witnesses.

O all ye works of the Lord, bless ye the Lord :
Praise and exalt him above all for ever!

O ye heavens, bless ye the Lord :
O ye angels of the Lord, bless ye the Lord:

O all ye waters that be above the heaven, bless ye the Lord:
O all ye powers of the Lord, bless ye the Lord:

O ye sun and moon, bless ye the Lord:
O ye stars of heaven, bless ye the Lord:

O every shower and dew, bless ye the Lord:
O all ye winds, bless ye the Lord:

O ye fire and heat, bless ye the Lord:
O ye winter and summer, bless ye the Lord:

O ye dews and storms of snow, bless ye the Lord:
O ye nights and days, bless ye the Lord:

O ye light and darkness, bless ye the Lord:
O ye ice and cold, bless ye the Lord:

O ye frost and snow, bless ye the Lord:
O ye lightnings and clouds, bless ye the Lord:

O let the earth bless the Lord:
Praise and exalt him above all for ever!

O ye mountains and little hills, bless ye the Lord:
O all ye things that grow in the earth, bless ye the Lord:

O ye mountains, bless ye the Lord:
O ye seas and rivers, bless ye the Lord:

O ye whales, and all that move in the waters, bless ye the Lord:
O all ye fowls of the air, bless ye the Lord:

O all ye beasts and cattle, bless ye the Lord:
O ye children of men, bless ye the Lord:

O Israel, bless ye the Lord:
Praise and exalt him above all for ever!

O ye priests of the Lord, bless ye the Lord:
O ye servants of the Lord, bless ye the Lord:

O ye spirits and souls of the righteous, bless ye the Lord:
O ye holy and humble men of heart, bless ye the Lord:

O Ananias, Azarias, and Misael, bless ye the Lord:
Praise and exalt him above all for ever!

("Prayer of the Three Young Men," from Daniel 3.35-66, LXX)

Note: This is a passage of Scripture that is not included in Protestant Bibles, and is regarded as "Apocrypha" by most Protestants. Click here for more information.

The Nation of Israel in Prophecy

The Nation of Israel in Prophecy, by Fr. Peter Gillquist (emphases added)

"When the Lord was coming to His voluntary Passion, He said to the disciples on the way: Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man shall be delivered as it was written of Him. Wherefore, let us, O brethren, accompany Him with spotless consciences and be crucified with Him, and with Him kill the pleasures of life, that we may live with Him, hear Him say: I am not ascending to the earthly Jerusalem to suffer, but to My Father and your Father, to My God, and your God, that I may draw you with Me to the Jerusalem above in the Kingdom of Heaven."
-Matins of Holy Monday

Many Orthodox Christians, especially those with roots in the Middle East, are bewildered by the degree of enthusiasm with which many American evangelicals support the modern state of Israel. In addition to reasons rooted in contemporary geopolitics, evangelical support for Israel is also based on a particular modern theological view of the Second Coining of Jesus Christ. It is this aspect of the evangelical perspective that I want to explore in this short booklet.

ISRAEL AND THE END TIMES
As revealed in the New Testament, Christians have always believed that Christ could come again at any time, "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" (1 Corinthians 15:52). Saint Paul cried out, "O Lord, come!" (1 Corinthians 16:22). Saint John in Revelation quotes our Lord Jesus Christ as saying, "Surely I am coming quickly" (Revelation 22:20). The Nicene Creed teaches concerning the Second Coming of Christ, "And He will come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead, and His Kingdom shall have no end."

But in the mid-nineteenth century, through the teaching of a little-known former Anglican clergyman named J. N. Darby, a modern alteration of the historic Orthodox understanding of the return of Christ began to form.

First, Darby taught as dogma that when the Scriptures reveal the Lord will reign for a thousand years (Revelation 20:4), this figure is to be taken literally, rather than as a symbol of eternity. Many modern Christians see the choice between the literal and symbolic views as a toss-up. But the Church-wide Council of Ephesus in AD 431 condemned the literal view as heresy. The council forbade it to be taught in the churches!

Next, the Darbyites came to believe in two comings of Christ. The first would be a "secret" coming, only for Christians, preceding a period of tribulation; the other would be a visible coming of Christ before the thousand-year reign begins. This view, often called the "rapture theory," is virtually unknown in Church history before Darby.

Ultimately, Darby's followers came to believe that before the secret coming of the Lord occurs, before the "rapture," the remnant people of Israel must return to the Holy Land. A huge number of today's evangelical and charismatic Protestant Christians have bought into this innovative speculation.

So, unlike the vast ranks of true Christians throughout history, modern evangelicals have come to embrace the view that today's Israel has a "manifest destiny" to the land of Palestine. They believe when the Old Testament teaches that Abraham's descendants will inherit the land, it refers to the modern political state of Israel. In contrast, Saint Paul, himself a Jew, teaches, "If you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:29). To be a descendant of Abraham today means you must belong to Christ our God.

Many evangelicals teach that May 24, 1948, the day Israel became a state, was a fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. Passages such as Ezekiel 36:24 are cited: "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you into your own land." Evangelicals believe this refers to the end-time regathering of Israel. The Church, however, has traditionally understood Ezekiel's prophecy as referring to Israel's return home after the Babylonian captivity in 539 BC.

I spent the first half of my adult life in the evangelical movement. It was there I committed my life to Jesus Christ, and for that I am eternally grateful. It was there that I found I could trust the Holy Scriptures as the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit. It was in my study of church history with fellow evangelicals that I and a host of others became Orthodox. So today, when Orthodox believers ask for help in explaining to evangelical Protestants how we Orthodox Christians see modern Israel in light of the Scriptures, I see some crucial points that must be made. Let me mention three.

1. The Old Covenant is over.
The covenant God made with Abraham blessed him and his descendants with the land of Canaan and set them apart as the people of God. This covenant was called "everlasting" because it would be fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who reigns forever. The Book of Hebrews calls the old covenant "a shadow of the good things to come" (Hebrews 10:1), for it was a preparation for the new covenant inaugurated by the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.

In order for the new covenant--which offers salvation to all, Jew and Gentile alike--to take effect, the promises of the old covenant had to be fulfilled. This was done in Christ. Thus, we read that God "has made the first [covenant] obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away" (Hebrews 8:13). Interestingly, the Book of Hebrews was written about AD 70. That same year the temple in Jerusalem, a last visible sign of the old covenant, was destroyed. Now, the people of God have in view the heavenly Jerusalem, the City of God, as reflected in the Holy Week hymn at the beginning of this booklet.

Let me offer an illustration to give us a better understanding of this transition of covenants. Some years back, Art Modell, owner of the Cleveland Browns, decided to move his football team to Baltimore. Cleveland struck a deal allowing the city to retain ownership of the name "Browns." They planned on another Browns team playing in their stadium. So Modell called his team the Baltimore Ravens. And today, the new Cleveland Browns are also in place.

Let's say that several centuries pass. The Browns are still playing in Cleveland. But some of Art Modell's descendants have come back to town, and they decide to lay claim to the whole operation. "We were here for years," they announce to the fans. "It's our team, we're the originals, and we're taking over." There'd be one giant ruckus in Cleveland! Heck, even the Pittsburgh fans would come to their aid! Orthodox Christians know that if Israel wants to form a secular state and regroup as a people, they certainly can do so. But they cannot claim to be there by divine intent. Why? Because in rejecting Jesus Christ as God and Messiah, the nation "gave up the franchise" as the people of God. There is no divine mandate justifying Israel's claims over Palestine. Or, as His Eminence, Metropolitan PHILIP says, "God is not in the real estate business."

The Apostle John wrote concerning Christ and the Jews, "He came to His own [Israel], and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him [Jew and Gentile alike], to them He gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:11, 12).

On the night He was betrayed, Jesus "took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, 'Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins'" (Matthew 26:27,28). The old covenant is complete. It is fulfilled. The new has come, and it is everlasting.

2. The Church is the people of God
The prophet Isaiah, who wrote in about 700 BC, records God the Father speaking of His Son: "Behold! My Servant whom I uphold, / My Elect One in whom My soul delights! / I have put My Spirit upon Him; / He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:1). Long before the Son of God came to us in human flesh, the Jews were told by God through their own prophets that salvation would no longer be only for Israel. The Gentiles, too, would receive His justice.
And then the Father gives His Son a remarkable promise. "I, the Lord, have called You in righteousness, / And will hold Your hand; / I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people, / As a light to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6). Jesus Christ Himself would be a "covenant" and a "light" to Gentile believers. It is apparent the beloved Simeon had Isaiah's prophecy in mind when he held the infant Christ in his arms and acclaimed Him as "a light to bring revelation to the Gentiles, / And the glory of Your people Israel" (Luke 2:32).

Saint Peter, writing to the early Christians, acknowledges that his kinsmen who disbelieve in Christ have become disobedient to God. But in the Church, to Jew and Gentile alike, he brings great encouragement:

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy" (1 Peter 2:9, 10).

It doesn't get any clearer than this. St. Peter, in this passage, calls the Church a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, and the people of God. These are terms from the Old Testament used to describe ancient Israel. Does this mean God sees the Church as a new Israel? Saint Paul answers that question as he concludes his letter to the Galatians:

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. And as many as walk according to this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God" (Galatians 6:15,16).

Why would the Apostle Paul call a Gentile church in Asia Minor "the Israel of God"? The answer comes earlier in his letter to the Galatians, when he discusses what it takes to be a true child of Abraham.

"Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, 'In you all the nations shall be blessed.' So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham'' (Galatians 3:7-9).

Remarkable! Through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, we in the Church have become children of Abraham, grafted into Israel, and we have received the blessings that God promised to Abraham. Israel is no longer those who live in a certain geographical place; it is not an ethnicity, it is not a political state. The true Israel continues on through history serving the King of kings, the resurrected and reigning Christ, as the Church. Instead of the earthly Jerusalem, the people of God seek the Jerusalem above.

3. Jesus told us this would happen!
I know people don't like long biblical quotes in brief essays like this. But I am asking that you read this passage carefully, because in it Jesus Christ goes on public record that the heritage of the old covenant Israel would be handed over to those who by faith embrace Him as the Son of God.

"'There was a certain landowner [God the Father] who planted a vineyard [Israel] and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers [the Jews] and went into a far country.
"Now when vintage-time drew near, he sent his servants [the prophets] to the vinedressers, that they might receive its fruit. And the vinedressers took his servants, beat one, killed one, and stoned another. Again he sent other servants, more than the first, and they did likewise to them.
"Then last of all he sent his son [Jesus Christ] to them, saying, "They will respect my son."
But when the vinedressers saw the son, they said among themselves, "This is the heir. Come, let us kill him and seize his inheritance." So they took him and cast him out of the vineyard and killed him. Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those vinedressers?'
"They said to Him, 'He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons.'
"Jesus said to them, 'Have you never read in the Scriptures: "The stone which the builders rejected / Has become the chief cornerstone. / This was the Lord's doing, / And it is marvelous in our eyes'? Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be aken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it' " (Matthew 21:33-43).

So often in the New Testament, when the Lord spoke a parable, the chief priests and Pharisees just didn't get it. But that's not the case here. Saint Matthew goes on to tell us, "Now when the chief priests and Pharisees heard His parables, they perceived that He was speaking of them" (Matthew 21:45). Not only is this passage clear to the Christian Church, it was clear to the leaders of Israel. The Kingdom of God would be taken from Israel and given to a new nation, the Church of the living God. So the Scriptures make the case. The old covenant has been fulfilled; the new has come. It is the Church that is the people of God, the heirs of the promises made to Abraham, and the true Israel. And Jesus said it so clearly that even those who did not want to hear it understood.

For the Bible-believing evangelical, the Scriptures have spoken. Any claim that the modern state of Israel is somehow a fulfillment of God's prophetic timetable simply is not valid. The Kingdom of God is in the hands of others.

OUR MERCIFUL GOD
But there's one last thing. It is not an accident of history that after two thousand years, the Jews still exist as a people. And while most Jewish people have rejected Christ as God and Messiah, the Lord has not rejected them.

His Grace, Bishop KALLISTOS (Ware), in commenting on Saint Paul's letter to the Romans, says, "The Apostle refuses to regard this act of rejection on the Jewish side as something final. With far-reaching, unquenchable hope he looks beyond the present situation to the time when, so he is convinced, the whole of Israel will finally turn to Christ."

As Orthodox Christians, we must say with the Apostle Paul, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they may be saved" (Romans 10:1).

Being a Christian is being a martyr. One glorious day, all this conflict will be settled. God will wipe away every tear. There will be no more crying, no more pain. For now, it is with great tribulation that we enter the Kingdom of God. In the midst of our trouble, the Lord is still on His throne. And so we cry, "Blessed is our God always, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. Amen."

For a thorough explanation of how the Orthodox Church views this and other related issues, read A Second Look at the Second Coming by T. L. Frazier, available from Conciliar Press.
Conciliar Press
P.O. Box 76
Ben Lomond, CA 95005-0076
(800) 967-7377 or (831) 336-5118

Things You'll Never See in an Orthodox Church, Part 12

Sola Scriptura, Part 3

Continued from last week [Part 1, Part 2]

b). What was the purpose of the New Testament Writings?
In Protestant biblical studies it is taught (and I think correctly taught in this instance) that when you study the Bible, among many other considerations, you must consider the genre (or literary type) of literature that you are reading in a particular passage, because different genres have different uses. Another consideration is of course the subject and purpose of the book or passage you are dealing with. In the New Testament we have four broad categories of literary genres: gospel, historical narrative (Acts), epistle, and the apocalyptic/prophetic book, Revelation. Gospels were written to testify of Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Biblical historical narratives recount the history of God's people and also the lives of significant figures in that history, and show God's providence in the midst of it all. Epistles were written primarily to answer specific problems that arose in various Churches; thus, things that were assumed and understood by all, and not considered problems were not generally touched upon in any detail. Doctrinal issues that were addressed were generally disputed or misunderstood doctrines, 4 matters of worship were only dealt with when there were related problems (e.g. I Corinthians 11-14). Apocalyptic writings (such as Revelation) were written to show God's ultimate triumph in history.

Let us first note that none of these literary types present in the New Testament have worship as a primary subject, or were meant to give details about how to worship in Church. In the Old Testament there are detailed (though by no means exhaustive) treatments of the worship of the people of Israel (e.g. Leviticus, Psalms) — in the New Testament there are only meager hints of the worship of the Early Christians. Why is this? Certainly not because they had no order in their services — liturgical historians have established the fact that the early Christians continued to worship in a manner firmly based upon the patterns of Jewish worship which it inherited from the Apostles. 5 However, even the few references in the New Testament that touch upon the worship of the early Church show that, far from being a wild group of free-spirited "Charismatics," the Christians in the New Testament worshiped liturgically as did their fathers before them: they observed hours of prayer (Acts 3:1); they worshiped in the Temple (Acts 2:46, 3:1, 21:26); and they worshiped in Synagogues (Acts 18:4).

We need also to note that none of the types of literature present in the New Testament have as their purpose comprehensive doctrinal instruction — it does not contain a catechism or a systematic theology. If all that we need as Christians is the Bible by itself, why is there not some sort of a comprehensive doctrinal statement? Imagine how easily all the many controversies could have been settled if the Bible clearly answered every doctrinal question. But as convenient as it might otherwise have been, such things are not found among the books of the Bible.

Let no one misunderstand the point that is being made. None of this is meant to belittle the importance of the Holy Scriptures — God forbid! In the Orthodox Church the Scriptures are believed to be fully inspired, inerrant, and authoritative; but the fact is that the Bible does not contain within it teaching on every subject of importance to the Church. As already stated, the New Testament gives little detail about how to worship — but this is certainly no small matter. Furthermore, the same Church that handed down to us the Holy Scriptures, and preserved them, was the very same Church from which we have received our patterns of worship. If we mistrust this Church's faithfulness in preserving Apostolic worship, then we must also mistrust her fidelity in preserving the Scriptures. 6

c). Is the Bible, in practice, really "all sufficient" for Protestants?
Protestants frequently claim they "just believe the Bible," but a number of questions arise when one examines their actual use of the Bible. For instance, why do Protestants write so many books on doctrine and the Christian life in general, if indeed all that is necessary is the Bible? If the Bible by itself were sufficient for one to understand it, then why dont Protestants simply hand out Bibles? And if it is "all sufficient," why does it not produce consistent results, i.e. why do Protestants not all believe the same? What is the purpose of the many Protestant study Bibles, if all that is needed is the Bible itself? Why do they hand out tracts and other material? Why do they even teach or preach at all —why not just read the Bible to people? The answer is though they usually will not admit it, Protestants instinctively know that the Bible cannot be understood alone. And in fact every Protestant sect has its own body of traditions, though again they generally will not call them what they are. It is not an accident that Jehovahs Witnesses all believe the same things, and Southern Baptists generally believe the same things, but Jehovahs Witnesses and Southern Baptists emphatically do not believe the same things. Jehovahs Witnesses and Southern Baptists do not each individually come up with their own ideas from an independent study of the Bible; rather, those in each group are all taught to believe in a certain way — from a common tradition. So then the question is not really whether we will just believe the Bible or whether we will also use tradition — the real question is which tradition will we use to interpret the Bible? Which tradition can be trusted, the Apostolic Tradition of the Orthodox Church, or the muddled, and modern, traditions of Protestantism that have no roots beyond the advent of the Protestant Reformation.

Continued next week in Part 4 - FALSE ASSUMPTION # 2

4. For example, there is no place where the question of the inerrancy of the Scriptures is dealt with in detail, precisely because this was not an issue of dispute. In our present day, with the rise of religious skepticism, this is very much an issue, and if the epistles were being written today, this would certainly be dealt with at some point. It would thus be foolish to conclude that since this issue is not dealt with specifically, that the early Christians did not think it was important or did not believe in it.

5. Alexander Schmemann, Introduction to Liturgical Theology (Crestwood NY: St Vladimirs Seminary Press, 1986), 51 ff.

6. And in fact, this is what Protestant scholarship has done. Though Protestantism was founded on its claim of believing the Bible to be the only authority for faith and practice, modern Protestant scholarship is now dominated by modernists who no longer believe in the inspiration or inerrancy of the Scriptures. They now stand above the Bible and only choose to use those parts that suit them and discard the rest as "primitive mythology and legend." The only authority left for such as these is themselves.

Christ our God, who is worshipped and glorified at all times and in every hour in heaven and on earth; who is most patient, loving and kind; who loves the just and shows mercy to sinners; who calls all to salvation through the promise of the blessings to come; Lord, at this time receive our prayer and direct our lives according to Your will. Bless our souls and bodies. Correct our thoughts and purify our minds. Protect us from all evil and distress. Surround us with Your holy angels, that guided and guarded by them, we may attain the unity of the faith and the knowledge of Your unapproachable glory, for you are blessed forever and ever. Amen.

(Prayer for Enlightenment)

The Four "Orders" in Church Government

From the Orthodox Study Bible, pg. 1635 [Items in brackets are my addition. M.]

The New Testament teaches that all four "orders" which form the government of the Church -laity, deacons, presbyters, and bishops- are necessary to the proper functioning of the body of Christ. All four are clearly visible in Paul's first letter to Timothy.

1. The laity are also called "saints" [ἁγίοις/ἁγίων] (Rom 1.7; 2Co 1.1; 1Ti 5.10), the "faithful" [πιστοῖς] (Eph 1.1), and "brethren" [ἀδελφοῖς] (Col 1.2). The laity (Gr. laos) are all the people of God, the "priesthood" [ἱεράτευμα] (1Pet 2.4-10). Technically, the term "laity" includes clergy, though in our day the word usually refers to those in the Church who are not ordained. It is from among the laity that the other three orders emerge.

2. The deacons, [pictured] literally "servants," [διακόνους] are ordained to serve the Church and must meet high qualifications (1Ti 3.8-13). The apostles were the first to take on the service tasks of deacons, and when the workload became too great they called for "seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business" (Acts 6.3). Besides serving the material needs of the people, deacons occupy a crucial role in the liturgical life of the Church.

3. The presbyters, or elders, are visible throughout the New Testament. Their ministry from the start was to "rule," "labor in the word" and teach true "doctrine" (1Ti 5.17) in the local congregation. Paul "appointed elders [πρεσβυτέρους] in every church" (Acts 14.23) and later instructed his apostolic apprentice, Titus, to do the same in Crete (Titus 1:5). From the word "presbyter" came the shorter form "prest," which was used in the early Church and finally became “priest.” In no way is the ordained Christian priesthood seen as a throwback to or a reenacting of the Old Testament priesthood. Rather, joined to Christ who is our High Priest "according to the order of Melchizedek" (Heb. 5:6, 10), the Orthodox priest is likewise a minister of a New Covenant which supersedes the old.

3. The bishop is the "overseer" of the congregation and clergy in a given area. Often the terms "bishop" and "elder" [ἐπισκόπους] are interchangeable in the New Testament (Acts 20:17, 28), with the bishop being the leader of the elders. The qualifications for a bishop listed in 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:7-9 underscore this role. Nonetheless, "bishop" is a specific office both in the New Testament and in the early Church. The Twelve [i.e. the twelve Apostles: Peter, James, John, Andrew, Philip, James, Matthew, Bartholomew, Thaddeus, Matthias, Thomas and Simon] were the first to hold this office (in Acts 1:20 "office" is literally translated "bishopric" [ἐπισκοπὴν]) and they in turn consecrated other bishops to follow them. For example, Timothy and Titus are clearly of a separate order from that of elder (see 1 Tim. 5:17-22; Titus 1:5). Early records show James was bishop of Jerusalem by A.D. 49 and functioned accordingly at the first council there (Acts 15:13-22). Peter is on record as the first bishop of Antioch prior to A.D. 53, and later first bishop of Rome, where he was martyred about A.D. 65.

Perhaps the strongest early reference outside the New Testament to the presence of the four orders in Church government occurs in the writings of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch from A.D. 67-107, the very heart of the New Testament era. To the church at Philadelphia (see Rev 3.7-13) he writes of "Christians [laity] at one with the bishop and the presbyters and the deacons..." (italics added).

In the Orthodox Church, authority is resident in all four orders, with the, bishop providing the center of unity. His authority is not over the Church but within the Church. He is an icon of Jesus Christ, "the Shepherd and Overseer [ἐπίσκοπον] of your souls" (1Pt 2.25). Church leadership does not consist of one or more of the orders functioning without the others. Rather the Church, with Christ as Head, is conducted like a symphony orchestra, a family, the body of Christ, where all the members in their given offices work together as the dwelling place of the Holy Trinity.