I suppose it would take much more than a blog to explain myself and my family’s transition from Evangelical Christianity to Orthodox Christianity, but I feel it is necessary to briefly explain. And the reason I feel this is necessary, is because it’s more than apparent that by and large the Orthodox Church is very foreign to Westerners—the United States in particular. But there is a second reason as well, and that was when we witnessed first-hand the decimation of a Church that we cherished and loved.
For close to a decade, my family and I were part of a healthy well-balanced church. This church was the real deal, it was like a tight knit family that laughed together, cried together and was a faithful representation of what the Church should look like. But like many things in life, the human element reared its ugly head and division broke out. These issues began primarily as secondary differences but were nonetheless issues. Many of these issues one could say started out as small fires that were quickly extinguished (music choices, help with events, logistics about time for this or that—things that many churches deal with). But as time passed those little fires paled in comparison to what was coming. Enter the human element plus theological interpretations: the age of the earth, justification by faith alone, the incorporation of works in the Christian life, spiritual gifts and dinosaurs (lol). These differences emerged into massive forest fires, tearing the church into factions. As someone who was staffed part-time at the church, I could only provide so much help and assistance for my dear friend and wonderful Pastor who was daily bombarded with these issues—I might add he did a wonderful job too. But what does one make of this? Why so many differences? Are we not all brothers and sisters in the Lord? Why are there so many divisions (I mean denominations) in the church today? Most of what I am about to touch on from here on out I have articulated before, but a lot of people don’t know that we were inches, or should I say centimeters away from joining the Catholic Church. Yep, we went to a Catholic Church for about six months in search of unity and tradition. I already know what you’re going to say, Nick, there is no perfect church—and I get that. But we desperately wanted to distance ourselves from what happened previously with the theological madness, plus we were seeking a very traditional approach to church. So I began digging through some of the Church’s rich history, and I noticed a pattern in the Catholic Church--consistency. They seemed to stick to their guns so-to-speak on important doctrinal and theological issues. The Church also had history on its side, (although it wasn’t always good) not to mention the great Councils that codified or clearly articulated the faith once for all delivered to the Saints. But as I studied the Catholic Church in more depth, there were some things that I didn’t agree with that were sort of late comers to the Church, and because of their popularity, they were infused into the Church as doctrine. For example, things such as, the immaculate conception of Mary, the Papacy and purgatory—to name a few (I should mention those weren’t total deal breakers for us). Then one day, I came across one of the pictures I used in my own blog; it was a picture of Jesus! That picture proved to be a seismic shift as to where we would go to church (more on that in a moment). But if not Catholicism, then what? Remember, something we desired more than anything after our former church was unification, tradition and clarity. As it turned out, the Church universal was by and large unified for over a thousand years. But some serious theological issues emerged between the East and the West leading up to the Great Schism causing a fissure in the Church splitting her in two—the East (Orthodox) and the West (Catholicism). There were two primary reasons for this schism. The first being theological and known as the Filioque meaning “and the Son” in the Nicaean Creed. In a nutshell, the (West) Catholic Church overturned the creedal statement (which you don’t do) changing the meaning of where the Holy Spirit proceeded from. The original creed and Scripture rightly articulated (John 14:6) stating that the Spirit was sent “from the Father”. However, the Church in the West (Catholic) changed the creed to the Spirit proceeding from, “the Father and the Son”. This may seem petty to some, but essentially the Catholic Church was usurping authority on its own and thus undermining the Church in the East. That leads to the second point and the Pope’s power. With the Church in the West gaining power and size over the smaller Church in the East, the Papacy stopped the ecumenical councils (groups of people to make decisions) and put final decision making into the hands of the Pope. Of course, councils are seen throughout Scripture particularly Acts 15 and the Jerusalem Council where a group of Godly men guided by the Spirit made monumental decisions; and the practice of councils is present in the Orthodox Church today. And this is something we greatly appreciated about the Orthodox Church as doctrine and big decisions do not rest on a single individual. Shifting gears to the present for just a moment, we dearly appreciate the fact that both Catholicism and the Orthodox Churches have exegetically solid foundations of biblical interpretation. That is to say, biblical interpretation isn’t a free for all where any given passages meaning is up for grabs as is seen in so many churches today. I know that is a very sweeping statement—but it’s true. Okay, back to iconography and how a picture turned us to Orthodoxy. The picture or “icon” of Jesus captivated me, as I would stare at it for lengthy amounts of time. I then proceeded to find it online so I could determine who it was painted by and when. Well, as it turned out, this “icon” of Jesus was produced in the fifth century by the Church that is known as Eastern Orthodoxy. What was the Eastern Orthodox Church, I had heard of it but knew virtually nothing about it. Now, if you know me well enough, then you know when I desire to get to the bottom of something I will not relent until all my questions are answered satisfactorily. Shortly after my discovery of icons, while in Greece, I entered a Church that was utterly filled from top to bottom with icons of Jesus and everyone else—thinking this is so beautiful. After several minutes of gazing at their beauty, I remember getting quite upset as I witnessed a half-dozen or so people kissing these icons—I thought these people are worshipping pictures. However, one thing I did learn after the great schism in our former church was, show some grace to other people with differing perspectives and find out why they do what they do--then decide. But things got worse before they got better, especially when I found out they regarded these pictures as being equal to the Holy Bible--so I began to inquire and read. Why would a picture be viewed as equal to sacred Scripture? Well, these icons are not just art, they are stories from the Word of God. These were first created in the ancient world during a time when society was almost totally illiterate, so what better way to communicate a biblical story to illiterate people than to paint the scene onto wood. And this methodology goes way back. In fact, it is a pretty well-established fact that Saint Luke painted some of the first icons, as over twenty-seven have been attributed to him. The second reason icons are so highly venerated in the Orthodox Church is because the Saints that have gone before us can be seen “visually” helping us remember who they were and what they meant. Think of it like this, if you have ever lost a loved one, then perhaps you carry around a picture of that individual or hang their image on the wall, and by looking at them you are reminded of who they were and the life they lived. The same thing is true in Orthodoxy, we don’t worship pictures, but those pictures are Saints that surround us and remind us of our rich history of those who have gone before us—the great cloud of witnesses. Of course, there have been many people throughout history that attacked these icons as “graven images”, and this conflict lead to the seventh ecumenical council known as the Iconoclast. Thankfully, this debate was laid to rest in the eighth century 726 A.D. Now I’m not going to go into the Orthodox Church’s position on every single doctrine, but I can tell you it aligns almost entirely with what we have always believed, and they haven’t changed or waffled on their doctrine for 2000 years. Quite frankly it has been a sense of relief for my family and me to know that the Church has stood the test of time and that every single theological matter doesn’t need to have an answer. Today, we live in an age of reason where if you cannot answer or articulate something it is therefore rendered as false or filling in the gaps. But in the Orthodox Church there are “mysteries” doctrines that are too lofty for human comprehension—and we’re okay with that. Now don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying that if we cannot answer a doctrine we just throw our hands up in the air and hit the mystery button. Scripture does contain a variety of difficult teachings that need much contemplation and meditation, but some things are meant to be left alone. In the final analysis, my family and I feel like we have landed at home in the Orthodox Church. So does that mean that other churches are false and incorrect—in some instances, yes. Think of Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Baptists, almost every American denomination has dispensed with their founders original beliefs. But God has His people in many different denominations throughout the world whether they are: Catholic, Baptist, Pentecostal, Anglican, etc. But in many cases these denominations in the West are both evolving and declining at the same time—something Orthodoxy refuses to do. In the sense of evolving, most of these denominations have taken on too much of society while dispensing with the great traditions. In the case of declining, the Church in the West is shrinking—something is desperately wrong! It is our deep conviction and yearning to be apart of a healthy well-balanced Church that has stood the test of time not wavering in its beliefs in favor of societal norms.
2 Comments
It’s the year 112 A.D.; the Roman legate Pliny the Younger is in Bithynia and he’s very frustrated with this group of people called “Christian’s”, so he writes the Emperor Trajan asking what he should do with them. Pliny’s preferred method of choice was a brutal interrogation process by which they were given several opportunities to denounce this Jesus fellow whom they worshiped as a unto a god and instead worship the Emperor. The process was simple, if they chose to worship Jesus, they died, if they offered worship and praise to Trajan, they lived. To put it bluntly, Pliny was irate and wanted to rid the earth of these vermin by whatever means necessary.
This is a fascinating early account of what Christian’s were willing to endure under extreme persecution; but what else is impressive about this account is that it comes to us from a hostile source. This isn’t some fanciful story created by Christians, no this is a real letter written to the Emperor Trajan and our earliest non-biblical account of Christian persecution and Jesus worship. Here you have Jesus of Nazareth being treated as a recipient of worship over and above the imperial Caesar cult. These people were truly convinced that Jesus was God and worthy of worship and praise, even if it meant death. But this was in the early second-century when the Church was predominantly Gentile, and decades after the first believers who were predominantly Jews and strictly forbidden to worship anyone or anything other than YHWH—much-less a man from Nazareth. If that was true, then when did Jesus become a God? This is a topic of strong debate among both conservative and liberal scholars. Some have posited that because the early Christian movement was made up of strict monotheistic Jews, that to divinize a human being or anything else for that matter would be seen as utterly ridiculous and blasphemous. Scholars such as James D.G. Dunn and Maurice Casey have stated that any committed Jew would have viewed the equality of Jesus and God as profoundly offensive. Casey’s view differs slightly than Dunn’s in that he believes the worship of Jesus underwent apotheosis, (becoming a God) and worship of Jesus actually evolved as the Church became less-Jewish and more Gentile in nature, making it more palatable to worship a human divine figure. Dunn believes that belief of Jesus as God did happen, but not officially until the Gospel of John (dating 80’s A.D.) where there was certainly a deification of Jesus. In a very strict sense I do agree with Dunn, but only to the extent that for the ancients, Jesus and His nature with God would not have been understood in the same sense of how we understand that today. For example, the first Christian’s would not have thought of Jesus and God as being “One in nature” or in Greek οὐσία (sharing the same essence), and that’s because that wasn’t a part of their mental vocabulary or thought (that came about later). Rather, they would have likely viewed Jesus in the sense that because God vindicated Him by raising Him from the dead, therefore, everyone is commanded by God to worship Him. A third perspective coming from a scholar whom I greatly admire and respect, Richard Bauckham believes that the early Christians, who were strict monotheists, believing that YHWH was the creator of all things, became convinced that Jesus was God too (not di-theism two God’s) because Jesus also participated in the creation of all things (1 Cor. 8, Heb. 1:2, John 1 and Col. 1). As much as I like Bauckham’s work in this area, I really like Larry Hurtado’s position on this as he places the primary focus of early Jesus worship on “devotion” via: prayer, communion, Baptism and hymns. This brings us full-circle back to Pliny and his reasoning to destroy this movement. These people worshipped Jesus as unto a God; they prayed to Jesus, they sang to Jesus and they celebrated Holy Communion in the name of Jesus—and the earliest Christian’s did too. In perhaps our earliest extant source of Christian literature, Saint Paul writes to a small group of Christians from the city of Thessalonica, Greece. In this letter, Saint Paul congratulates them for their great faith and the fact that they have turned from idols and the worship of false deities to the Living Lord Jesus Christ 1 Thess. 1:2-10. The obvious import here is that these polytheistic worshiping Gentiles have renounced the worship of false deities turning to monotheism and the One true God. Also, while speaking to the Church in Corinth, at the end of his letter, Saint Paul uses an untranslated Aramaic word, Marana-tha, O LORD Come, to a Greek speaking audience! This is interesting to scholars because Saint Paul does not bother to translate it—probably because they understood it. A better way to demonstrate this to a modern audience is by using the German word kaput! When my car is old and doesn’t start anymore, I might say, it went kaput! And people understand the import of that because shortly after WWII, some war veterans brought back with them German words or phrases that stuck in American society not needing translation—even up to the present time. So obviously this phrase, Marana-tha, being Aramaic, went back to a very early source or the first believers in the form of a prayer to Jesus as deity as a standardized devotional formula. If this Aramaic phrase did go back to the earliest Jewish Jesus movement, (which scholars believe it does) then we definitely have evidence that Jesus was elevated to a Divine status and not part of pagan Gentile influence. In another of Saint Paul’s early letters, this time to the Church in Philippi, Greece, again we see a highly exalted status of Jesus on display. In Philippians 2:6-11, scholars have given much attention to the hymn like quality of this passage. When the word hymn is used, it must be understood that Saint Paul was quoting this as something that was used in corporate worship and liturgy. The bulk of attention paid to this passage has to do with its correlation with the Old Testament prophet Isaiah. As Larry Hurtado points out, “Jesus is portrayed as having received from God a uniquely exalted status, which is indicated in both the intensive form of the verb “highly exalted” and in the following statement that God gave Jesus “the Name that is above every name” (v.9). Moreover, the next lines adapt phrasing from Isaiah 45:23 to depict Jesus as being reverenced by every creature “in heaven and on earth and under the earth.” The climax of this whole passage is that Jesus Christ is Lord! Lord in the sense of deity not in an honorific sense. Here is where knowing even a little Greek can be handy, because the Greek word for Lord as in deity is, Kyrios. There are many examples in the gospels where Jesus will have encounters with individuals who refer to Him as Lord, but most of these come in an honorific form—much like us saying sir or madam. Where we do see the use of kyrios in the gospels in a Divine sense, is after Jesus’s resurrection. Even though we have provided some solid evidence that the early Church worshipped Jesus as LORD, these statements came about in the 50’s A.D.—possibly the late 40’s and seem to correspond with Dunn and Casey’s view. In this case we will go to the historical narrative of Acts of the Apostles—shortly after the Disciples proclamation that Jesus did in fact physically rise from the grave. Again, Saint Paul will be our primary test case as his conversion to Christianity came about just as few years (3-4) after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Again, it is not my intention to be redundant, but Gentile worship of a human figure would have been perfectly acceptable i.e. Jesus. However, for most Jews, it would have been perfectly legitimate to reverence Jesus as a highly respected sage or teacher—but not as God. And the reason I keep bringing this up is because the worship of Jesus as Divine would have been a paradigm shift in Jewish monotheism. So I titled this, When did Jesus Become a God? But that is not technically the question we should try to answer. Rather, we should ask, when did the religious Jews begin to suspect that Christian worship to Jesus was blasphemous, because this would certainly indicate a breach in worship to YHWH (at least in their minds). Of course, in John we see this polemic language of, “the Jews” likely indicating that a separation between Synagogue and Church was definitely had pretty much happened (see counsel of Jamnia). But the real opposition seems to have begun to take shape just months after Pentecost, where we read in Acts of the Apostles that some of the Jewish leadership began to tell the Disciples to stop speaking and teaching the name of Jesus. (Acts 4:17-18; 5:40). This tells us that the Jerusalem Disciples were directing devotion to Jesus. Just a little bit later in Acts of the Apostles we see the ritual use of Jesus’s name being invoked in Baptism. In yet another example, shortly after Saul’s dramatic conversion, we read, “And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind those who call on your name.”—Acts 9:14. This harkens back to the Old Testament use of calling on the name of YHWH to answer prayer or help His people. Similarly, after Saul appears before Agrippa, Saul says, “And I punished them often in all the Synagogues and tried to make them blaspheme, and in raging fury against them I persecuted them even to foreign cities.”--Acts 26:11. We could continue citing more passages, but as Scripture rightly communicates, there was a volcanic eruption of Jesus worship as deity months after the resurrection. Much more could be said, but I would direct you to Larry Hurtado’s work on this as he is an expert in this field of study. God bless! “And Jesus came to them and said, all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I Am with you always, to the end of the age.”--Matt. 28:18-20. What is Baptism? What does it do? Do I have to do it? Does it have to be done by immersion? Why would an infant be baptized? Did I receive the Holy Spirit when I was baptized? These are but a few questions that are asked about this Sacrament that will be briefly addressed.
As you open up your Bible to the New Testament and begin reading, you are immediately confronted with Baptism—well, almost, if you skip to Mark. In Mark’s gospel, (perhaps the earliest) Baptism begins “immediately” (pun intended) as John Mark introduces John the Baptist and his prophetic ministry as forerunner to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. We read, “And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.”--Mark 1:4. Shortly thereafter, our Lord Himself likewise appeared before John to be baptized; not because He needed to repent and be cleansed from unrighteousness, rather as Jesus said, “Allow for it now, because this is the way for us to fulfill all righteousness.”--Matthew 3:15B. John’s Baptism of Jesus was necessary for the fulfillment of God’s righteous plan of salvation, and an inauguration of the Kingdom of God. But this raises the question, is there a difference between John the Baptist’s baptism and the Baptism of the believer? Yes, there is! This is a fairly simple question to answer and doesn’t require a whole lot of exegesis, because John himself tells us that Jesus’s Baptism is different. In Luke 3:16 John says, “I baptize you with water, but One is coming who is more powerful than I. I am not worthy to untie the strap of His sandals. He will Baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” While Baptism of water is essential and we’ll visit that shortly; the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire that Jesus delivers is both the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost; and the fire that declares Christ’s righteous judgment by which the faithless will suffer. So the Baptism of the new covenant (Jesus’s Baptism) differs from the old covenant (John’s baptism) in two ways. First, we are empowered by the Holy Spirit. Second, Baptism is a means by which we enter the Kingdom of God or His eternal presence. Jesus said, “I assure you: unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot see the Kingdom of God. --John 3:5. (NASB, ESV, RSV). I do get somewhat frustrated at dynamic Bible translations which approach this verse with a very contemporary Evangelical slant; twisting the language to better fit their theology by saying, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.[a]” (NIV, HCSB). Yes, Jesus does tell Nicodemus that one must be born again, (anew or from above verses 3,7) but that is not at all what Jesus said in (v.5). From the inception of the Church, it has always been taught that “water” represents the cleansing (washing away of sins and new birth), and the “Spirit” to be the Holy Spirit—both which are requisites for believers. So the “new birth” consists of being joined to Christ in the water of Baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit--this is called “chrismation” in the Orthodox Church. So when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, I can assure you that Nicodemus was not thinking like the typical twenty-first century American Christian whose only concern at times seems to be about attaining salvation and the forgiveness of sins—because being born again is so much richer and deeper than that. This is where as believers that love Jesus Christ we must together stop splashing around on the surface and dive deep into the riches of Jesus Christ and what the “new birth” life with Him means. As the Orthodox Church teaches, in salvation we are given “union” with God through Christ, and a right and full relationship with the Holy Trinity. That is the restoration of our full humanity. Think about that for just a moment. When you profess faith in Christ, are Baptized by the immersion of water (death, burial, resurrection, new birth and washing away of sins) and the receiving of the Spirit, you become as God intended you to be prior to the fall-- having communion with Him. Baptism is not an option, it is a command. Through Baptism you are cleansed, justified and sanctified (Titus 3:5). So does Baptism save me? Yes, it does. Throughout the epistles and the gospels cited above, new birth is necessary for salvation. As the Orthodox Church teaches, we die to sin; then we are buried with Christ and risen with Him. At that point we are united to Christ and His body the Church. Of course without repentance and faith in Christ, Baptism becomes nothing more than a mere water sport and the immersion of water has zero bearing on our lives. In the ancient Church, Baptism was in many cases a death sentence as they were saying no to Caesar and yes to Christ. How is Baptism to be performed and why are infants Baptized? The basic formula for Baptism is simple. It is and has always been performed by means of full immersion (death, burial and resurrection). The person to be born again, is immersed three time in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:19). If for some reason the person cannot be immersed, then the pouring of water over the head is performed. The first-century writing Didache also adds that if you don’t have running water use whatever is available. What about infant Baptism? Many Evangelicals are repulsed by this act, but frankly I’m not quite sure why. The common misconception and argument levied against Catholics, Orthodox Christian’s and a few other denominations is that infant Baptism does nothing for the child because they don’t even know what’s happening. Try telling that to Jesus or Peter or Paul. Remember when the disciples tried stopping the children from coming to Jesus? What did Jesus say? “But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God--Mark 10:14. So the Kingdom of God belongs to children. Does Scripture say they have to have complete requisite knowledge to partake in Baptism or Holy Communion, no! I want my children to know they are indeed part of the covenant community and body Christ, and so did Peter and Paul. In Acts 10 after the conversion of Cornelius (a Gentile convert) we are told that his entire family which must have included children were Baptized. Later in Acts 16 after the Philippian jailer believed, again we are told that he and his entire household were baptized. So when some try to mitigate Sola Scriptura, they do so in vain, because nowhere is the Baptism of infants and children seen as unbiblical—this is simply a matter of church ecclesiology. Do I receive the Holy Spirit when I get Baptized? This has caused confusion for some—myself included. There are couple of somewhat tricky passage in the Acts of the Apostles that seem to indicate some were Baptized but didn’t receive the Holy Spirit. The first Passage is found in Acts 8 when Philip visited a certain town in Samaria where some of the local people believed the message and were baptized. Upon hearing the good news, the Jerusalem Church dispatched Peter and John to check things out. This must have been good news as Peter and John then proceeded to pray for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because He had not yet fallen upon them (sometimes referred to as the Samaritan Pentecost) until the laying on of hands. The Orthodox Church believes that after Baptism takes place, the Priest, Presbyter or Bishop administers the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Spirt—again this is part of christmation. In a different context found in Acts 19 Paul discovers some converts who were Baptized but their baptism was different in that it was John’s baptism. And because it was John’s baptism, the Holy Spirit had not come upon them. This of course prompted Paul to perform the Baptism of a Christian and the laying on of hands thus receiving the Holy Spirit. Finally, there is Pentecost in Acts 2. After Peter demonstrates from Scripture (Old Testament) that Jesus is indeed the Messiah; and that God truly raised Him from the grave, the people were cut to the heart saying, “Men and brethren what shall we do?”--Acts 2:37. Peter’s response is, “Repent and let everyone of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”--Acts 2:38. Of course if everyone was being Baptized by means of immersion for the remission of sins, then one could certainly assume that the laying on of hands was administered as well to receive the Holy Spirit—thus being born again and partakers of the Divine. So what are the results from Baptism? This seems like a very important question to answer. First and foremost, Baptism is the death of oneself. In the fourth century St Cyril of Jerusalem said, “when you were led by the hand to the Holy pool of Divine Baptism. . .each of you made a confession, you descended into the water three times and when you came up in the very same moment you died and were born again.” Secondly, Baptism is ongoing and continual, it is not static and it is certainly not a legal fiction given to us by a Divine Judge. So our life after a profession of faith in Christ and Baptism should be seen as dynamic and fruitful. Lastly, it is intimate communion with God. When we were raised out of that water, we were raised with a purpose. It has been rightly stated, Baptism is the beginning of eternal life. Saint Peter writes, “Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you—it is not the mere removal of dirt from our bodies but provides us with a good conscience toward God.” --1 Peter 3:21. As Timothy Ware has rightly stated, “Through Baptism we receive a full forgiveness of sins, whether original or actual; we ‘put on Christ’, becoming members of His Body the Church. “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:25). At some point in time, anyone who recognizes their mortality and the longing for life to endure beyond the grave asks the question, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” (Mark 10:17B). In this example from the gospel of Saint Mark, which has parallels in Saint Matthew 19:24 and Saint Luke 18:25, we read about a young man who in a seemingly state of anxiousness, asks Jesus how to get to heaven. Jesus responds, “You know the commandments: you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, and honor your father and mother.” (Mark 10:19). According to Mosaic Law, the young man’s record was impeccable as he had kept all the commandments from his youth. But apparently, he was lacking something. Jesus knew the young man possessed an abundance of wealth, so He asked him to sell his property, give up his wealth, distribute it to the poor, thus he would have treasure in heaven—then come follow Jesus. However, the request didn’t seem to resonate very well with him as he soon left in a dejected state because this sacrifice was one he was unwilling to make. This is a tough saying of Jesus that everybody is faced with, namely are you prepared to give up everything to follow Jesus! This is the radical nature of discipleship that Jesus was calling His people to then and to His people now. Many people do not know this, but Jesus had more to say on the topic of money and wealth than almost anything else He chose to address. This is likely because throughout human history people have equated an abundance of wealth as a means of security—I know I have in my life. And while Jesus never looks at money as evil per se, He certainly understands that wealth can be a dangerous substance that many will not easily part with. And in this narrative, we see how money acts like an idol or a god as it seductively draws this man away from what really matters. This is where Jesus illustrates the impossibility “not difficulty” for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God (Kingdom of God is a synonym for heaven). To illustrate how hard it is, Jesus says, take the largest land dwelling creature that people in that world were very familiar with (a camel), and contrast that with the tiny eye of a sewing needle; now try to get the camel through it—it’s impossible! The response of Jesus’s disciples and the reader now is, “Who then can be saved?” (Mark 10:26). Before we proceed any further into the text, I want to clear the air on some faulty interpretations of the camel and the eye of the needle. Many medieval and contemporary pastors have tried to soften this hard saying of Jesus by positing the notion that at the Eastern Gate of old Jerusalem there was a narrow gate called, the Eye of the Needle where people could enter. As the legend states, this gate was far too small to pass through if you were on a camel, so in order get through this tiny gate you had to get off your camel remove all your bags (riches) and have the camel crawl through the tiny little opening. This is just ridiculous and false because no such gate ever existed during biblical times, so at best this is anachronistic and at worst a legend. There are also some late manuscripts that use the word “rope” instead of “camel” because of the very close spelling of these two words in the Greek kamilos (rope) and kamelos (camel). If it were the former, the verse would then be rendered, “It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.” Now you won’t read that in any ancient manuscript or any reputable translation of the Bible because it’s not there. This notion of a rope rather than a camel didn’t appear until 1938 in the English New Testament of the Bible where the editors inserted it because their audience would be more familiar with a rope than a camel. Having put those arguments to rest—let’s look at the passage. Of course there are many things to say regarding the exegesis of this passage, but I want to briefly focus on two issues. The first is, the impossibility of the rich entering the Kingdom of Heaven; and the second having to do with how works and salvation are inextricably woven together. Now the first question I asked myself when I read this text was, what constitutes as rich? But that was the wrong question to ask, because the passage then becomes completely subjective to me and misses Jesus’s point. Jesus was talking to the rich man that approached Him with a concern about his eternal state, “What must I do to inherit eternal life?” Not to be redundant, but Jesus says, “keep the commandments.” But keeping the commandments doesn’t make us righteous before God. The young man surly realized that because even though he had kept the commandments, he still felt like he was lacking something—that’s why he approached Jesus in the first place. Sadly, we know how the story ends, wealth had such a grip on the rich man that he was unwilling to part ways with it, which resulted in a direct act of disobedience—here’s what I mean. Jews never viewed riches as a barrier to the Kingdom of God (heaven). Wealth in the Old Testament was viewed as a blessing from God to His people; and those that possessed wealth recognized the poor as those who had special protection from God (Deut. 15; Prov. 22:22) and that to neglect them by turning aside to the needs of the poor was blasphemous. This was the danger that the rich man was confronted with, a heart that was hardened to the poor, an unwillingness to part ways with his wealth for the extension of God’s Kingdom and a denial to follow Jesus. Now we can ask the question, “How does this apply in in my life?” and “How then can I be saved?” Of course salvation is impossible with man’s attempt, but with God it is possible. The key to unlocking this is found in the parallel account Matthew 19:29 where Jesus says, “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or land, for my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold and inherit eternal life.” But Jesus isn’t commanding everyone to divorce spouses and abandon children. According to St John Chrysostom, Jesus is referring to keeping faith under persecution even if it means to lose your family. It also means to accept other believers that may have been abandoned by their families because of faith in Christ. The second aspect of this narrative I wish to briefly examine is works and salvation. How are these two intertwined together and necessary? This subject is not only relevant to this passage, but to all that Jesus said and taught along with every other writer of the New Testament. Yes, the Orthodox Church affirms faith in Jesus Christ as an authentic teaching. But this distinction, has been completely blurred by the Evangelical Reformed movement which has lead countless souls to believe if they accept Christ as their Savior and ask for forgiveness they have a ticket to heaven and are “justified”. Now I don’t doubt the sincerity and intentions of those that use that phraseology, because we are justified by faith. However, the Evangelicals seem more concerned with a one-time event like, what date and time were you saved at? But where is this found in Scripture? The writers of the Bible seem to say something a bit different than say this prayer. For example, John the Baptist said, “bear fruit in keeping with repentance.” (Luke 3:8). Jesus said, “Every tree which does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.” (Matthew 7:19). In the very narrative we have been discussing, the rich young man asks, “What good deed must I do to inherit eternal life?” Notice in the context of this passage faith and works are acting as one—they’re unified and definitive in the Christian life. Jesus doesn’t correct rich man and say that works are wrong and you are justified by faith alone! This is also abundantly clear from Jesus’s sermon on the Mount. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus set forth standards that did not allow for lip service only, “And then I will declare to them; I never knew you, depart from Me.” (Matt. 7:21-23). And finally, at the last judgment in Matthew 25, the criterion for judgment is works of mercy: Feeding the hungry, welcoming the stranger, clothing the naked and visiting the prisoner. This is by no means an indictment on Evangelicals or those with Reformed views, but when the masses are told to adhere to sola Scriptura and if something is not explicit in Scripture, you don’t teach it—then how do you teach sola fide (faith alone) which is not even found in the Bible? There are many other passages to reference that support both faith and works. However, the chief danger for the Church in the West has been complacency, spiritual apathy, neglecting Scripture and comfort in our riches. These are the very things that Jesus warned His followers about. How is this possible with all the so-called blessings we have? We have more access to the Bible than ever before, more potential knowledge about God’s Word than any of our predecessors. If this is true should the gospel not be articulated clearer and more precise than ever? How have works become filthy rags as some suppose (misquoting Isaiah)? Paul says, “Examine yourselves to see if you’re in the faith.” (2 Cor. 13:5). Hard sayings of Jesus: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.” (Mark 10:11-12). In the New Testament documents there are five sources which discuss the topic of divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:32; 19:3-9, Mark 10:2-12, Luke 16:18 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-15). Of course there are many interpretations and arguments about the semantics of these passages and what constitutes for divorce and remarriage; (which we’ll briefly discuss) but one must never lose sight of the fact that divorce is a tragedy and is not designed by God—there is no so-called good divorce. I also realize that this is a very sensitive topic because there are possibly people reading this who have been divorced and since remarried and are wondering if they have sinned by doing so. It’s also possible there are some reading this who are contemplating divorce for a number of reasons and wanting to know if they have biblical grounds to do so. So this is a subject that I want to broach in a strictly biblical manner, because I am not a marriage counselor or a Priest (offering up ideas, solutions or alternatives), I am simply a biblical exegete that is prisoner to the text of Holy Scripture. Under normal circumstances, I would begin with our earliest extant written source on the subject which would be Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 7:10-15, however, we will begin with the oral passage (later written) that precedes Paul cited above, Mark 10:11-12 and its closest parallel Matthew 19:3-9. In both of these passages, Jesus is tested by the religious leaders (who harken back to Deut. 24) asking if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife. There is a slight variant reading between Mark and Matthew but the question is essentially the same, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?”. As a side note, this question was almost certainly not asked out of mere curiosity, rather it was asked in an attempt to damage Jesus’s reputation as a good teacher and make Him look bad by creating a dilemma—in a sense, this was a would-be trap. So before we look at Jesus’s answer, how did Jesus’s contemporaries understand divorce? During the first-century, there were two schools of thought on divorce (1) the school of Shammai which held to the belief that divorce was permissible but only by means of indecency or adultery (2) was the school of Hillel which was much more liberal, if your wife burnt the toast or grew unsightly in your eyes, you could simply write her a certificate of divorce and send her packing. So much like today, you can see that divorce was a hot topic in antiquity as well (although it was not as common among Jews). Of course, Jesus in all of His brilliance and wisdom circumvents the would-be dilemma by not agreeing with either school of thought, rather siding with Holy Scripture. But before Jesus answers, He uses a rhetorical device or “Socratic method” by which He answers the question with a question. “What did Moses command you, He replied?” (Mark 10:3). The response was, “Moses permitted a man to write her a certificate of divorce and send her away.” (Mark 10:4; Matthew 19:7). Jesus responds by saying, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard.” (Matthew 19:8A). Jesus also reminds them that it was never God’s design for divorce to take place, and that when a man and a woman are united, the two become one flesh (Gen.1:27 and 2:24). So based on the contemporary interpretations of the time, the schools of Shammai & Hillel whom permitted divorce for a variety of reasons, Jesus rightly points out that divorce was and remains to be the selfishness of an individual that always threatens to destroy a marriage. What then are the grounds for divorce? This is a much trickier question to answer, because we need to know what Jesus meant when He used the Greek word for sexual immorality porneia (which is not given). It is quite clear, however, that when one looks at the New Testament and the Septuagint porneia has a wide range of meanings from: unlawful sex acts, incest, prostitution, sexual immorality and even idolatry. Notice I didn’t use adultery in this list because adultery is a completely different word in Greek moicheia. This is where things can get a little confusing, because essentially, both Matthew 5 & 19 say, “And I tell you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9 and 5:32 para.). So while there is a distinction between these two words porneia and moicheia, they seem to mean the same thing in the end. Because sexual immorality encompasses any and all unlawful sexual acts—all of which constitute as adultery leading to a potential divorce. So is divorce and remarriage permissible? It depends. The Synoptic gospels and Paul seem to concur that once a marriage has been dissolved either by the death of a spouse or by divorce it is better to remain single (Matthew 19 and 1 Cor. 7). However, if a woman was divorced in the context of Matthew 5 or 19, it didn’t necessarily make her an adulteress thus leaving the door open for remarriage. So in this case, she could exercise her right to remarry and not be an adulteress. It should also be pointed out that in a patriarchal society, an unmarried or divorced woman was very susceptible to poverty and rape. So her ability to remarry was important as it provided a safety net for her to survive in an otherwise hostile environment. There are many different contexts and situations by which divorce takes place, but divorce should always, always, always be the last resort and thoroughly examined under the guidance and supervision of a priest. Also, if separation happens to occur, reconciliation should always be the end goal. However, reconciliation is a two-way street and if one party is unwilling to reconcile; it is my belief that the door for reconciliation must remain open until it is closed, i.e. marriage is terminated and one party remarries. In this case, if no sexual immorality has occurred the party “could” remarry (under the authority of a priest). In the end, no matter how you slice it divorce is a tragedy, because vows have been broken and lives have been damaged. Jesus said, “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Mark 10:9). Marriage is a gift from God that is to be cherished for a lifetime between a man and a woman until death separates them. “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:26). Of course this type of sentiment doesn’t bode well in our culture and society today (thus it’s a hard saying); and it would have been equally shocking and offensive to Jesus’s original audience as well. For starters, who was this guy from the backwaters of Galilee telling people that unless they hate everyone they love and cherish—they cannot not follow Him! This was a most audacious claim that could come from one being and one being alone--God. Was Jesus claiming deity in a subliminal way? Yes, He was. However, one must remember Jesus did not run around the countryside, yelling, Hey, I am God incarnate. Instead, Jesus pushed the envelope of His followers and listeners to the point where they were forced to make a decision about His ontology or nature. In other words, Jesus was drawing the proverbial line in the sand demanding something only God could demand—total allegiance. But to hate everyone including myself, that just doesn’t make sense or does it!
Imagine for just a moment there is an advertisement blurb on television for a politician running for Governor. In this ad, the candidate begins to tell people that everyone is going to lose their homes, their taxes are going to go through the roof and their wages are going to go down if they vote for him. We would be so thrown back by that we wouldn’t even know how to respond. Isn’t that what Jesus was doing in this passage? Essentially, if you want to be a follower of Jesus, then you’re going to have to be willing to lose it all. Of course, this strategy isn’t likely to win the favor of many. But let’s turn the table for just a moment. Now imagine that there is an individual that is leading an expedition through some treacherous terrain because a group of women and children are stranded and about to die. The leader of this expedition says, where we are going is difficult, there are steep cliffs, your backpacks will probably get tossed because of the narrow paths and some of you won’t make it back. Now we certainly don’t like sound of what is going to happen but we are nonetheless willing to comply because it makes sense. And the latter story is what Jesus is getting at! But doesn’t Jesus tell us to love our enemies and to do good to those who hate us? And to bless those who curse us, and to pray for those who treat us badly! (Luke 6:27B-28 paraphrase). Think about this for just a moment. If we are sold out for Jesus Christ and are willing to cash in all our chips to follow Him, then we will never hate anyone—much less our family or ourselves. Jesus is stating that both a willingness and preparedness to despise all things for Him is a sign that one has fully grasped the seriousness to obey His call. There is also a Hebrew idiom encapsulated in the text we’re examining which better helps us understand this whole idea of “hate”. For example, in the Old Testament there were occasions where a man had two wives (not prescribed by God, but nonetheless true). In one such narrative, we read that there was a man that loved one wife but hated the other (Deut. 21:15). In this particular incident, and in the gospels, “hate” meant to love less. We know this is what Jesus meant because in a parallel account Matthew 10:37 we read, “He who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.” So Jesus’s whole emphasis is based on total allegiance to Him and keeping our priorities in check. Are we called to sell all our possessions? Maybe. Again, the central meaning here is, in a world dominated by possessions, money and pleasure are we willing to listen when the Lord calls? So Jesus said to them, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. The bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” (John 6:51). Here is the original of the tough sayings of Jesus. Even some of Jesus’s own disciples upon hearing these words said, “This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?” (John 6:61B). The immediate implication for them was, we don’t understand this type of teaching and even if we did it would be unacceptable. Of course, the context of this whole teaching is extremely important as Jesus on several occasions made reference to Himself as being the true manna from heaven. The true manna or bread from heaven that is the antitype or better than what was given to those at the feeding of the five thousand, because that bread offered only temporal satisfaction. Jesus has essentially laid the foundation that not only does He give the bread of life, He is the bread of life.
So is the language here intended to be taken literally, I think it is. The majority of contemporary commentators disagree stating that Jesus’s original audience missed His meaning as He intended this teaching to be a spiritual teaching and not literal. But why then does Jesus feel it necessary to further elucidate on His original statement with an emphasis saying, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.” (John 6:53B). Now while Jews were strictly forbidden to consume blood and practice cannibalism. Jews were permitted to eat meat, but not with the blood in it, because the life is in the blood (Lev. 17:11). But with the inception of the Church, we see a break in the fast with the eating and drinking of His blood in Divine liturgy. There is also historical evidence that for the first 1500 plus years of Church history, this passage was understood as an aspect of the Lord’s Supper as John’s gospel was not written chronologically. Second, and most importantly, throughout ancient church history, Holy Communion has always been understood to be the real presence of the Lord, and in our partaking of it we are truly eating His flesh and drink His blood. Ask me how that works, and I’ll throw my hands up in the air and confess, I don’t know. But then again can we rightly understand the Trinity—it’s a mystery, or the incarnation of Jesus Christ—it too is a mystery. Even the Reformer Martin Luther believed that Christ was present in the Eucharist and had no disagreement with the papacy on that issue. Now one of his detractors was Huldrych Zwingli whose primary argument against Luther was the fact that John used metaphorical language in his gospel and sometimes his audience didn’t rightly grasp a theological teaching. Think of John 3 with Nicodemus and being born again. Here Nicodemus says, “How can a man be born when he is old?” (John 3:4). Surly, Jesus was communicating that “physical” rebirth was indeed impossible and that without the Spirit you are of the flesh and if one is born of the flesh he cannot enter the Kingdom of God. So with the pressures from the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, Protestant Reformers came to believe that both John 6 and the mystical aspect of the Lord’s Supper are merely symbolic. Of course, when a new idea comes around it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong, however, it ought to be examined carefully. This event that takes place with the believer has to be something that is taken very seriously, and while it is by many, it isn’t! I remember a few years ago while visiting a church. As Holy Communion was being distributed, one of the Elder’s dropped a piece of the bread on the floor and just left it there. I happened to be sitting in the front row, and as I starred at it, I never once thought of that as just another piece of bread from the bakery. As the seconds passed by, I couldn’t take my eyes off of it, because to me it was the broken body of Jesus Christ my Lord laying there on the floor ready to be trampled on after the service or swept up. So I slowly got up from my seat while the pastor was speaking, walked over to the bread, reached down and held it in my hands with great care. It wasn’t just a piece of bread laying there on the floor, that was Jesus’s broken body shed for me. Now I know there are a lot of savvy people out there that will say things like, Nick’s gone off the deep end or he’s into bread worship; but that’s just not true. I might be wrong on this whole thing, but I have thought long and hard about it, and I am convinced that in the partaking of Holy Communion there is something unknown and beautiful that takes place—a mystery. And I am deeply saddened at how cavalier people are today about Holy Communion. Saint Paul warned his audience in Corinth that eating the bread and drinking the cup in an unworthy manner brought guilt upon that person, and that is why some of them had fallen asleep (passed away). (1 Cor. 11:27 paraphrase). There has been a lot of revisionism and upheaval that has taken place in the church over the past few centuries; but after examining Orthodoxy and how little it has changed on its positions over the course of time, it has come as a resounding breath of fresh life that really resonates with me. What is the meaning of life? Of course the answer to that question depends on who you ask. For example, if you ask a Naturalist or an Atheist what the meaning of life is, they may simply opine that the meaning of life is to enjoy all of life's pleasures, do good things and live life to the fullest. It's kind of an Epicurean/narcissistic perspective on life; and I would argue that many Christian's in our society today live by the same mantra—eat, drink for tomorrow we die (they won't admit it but that's how they live). Is it possible that is why the Church in America is shriveling up, and in a sense, dying? Why is the sun setting on the church in America—this is perplexing. After all, don't we have state of the art facilities? Don't we have rock concert platforms and cutting-edge names? Don't we have eloquent speakers with great rhetorical skills? Why then the mass exodus? Now, I'm probably going to raise more questions than I have answers for, but there is a deep problem in the American church today.
For the past year and a half, I have been on somewhat of a mission to discover why the church is on the decline and what has been lost. I know right away people will say the Church needs to be Spirit lead. Okay, I get that, but isn’t the Church always Spirit lead, if the congregants are Christian? I don’t necessarily think that’s the central problem if we’re talking about “Christian”, rather it’s something else. I have been a Christian now for about ten years and seen some highs and lows. I have also witnessed firsthand people bicker and fight over music selections (contemporary or traditional), complain that the Pastor doesn’t do this or that, or this denomination does things wrong, and I've even been one of the complainers. If you have read some of my previous blogs, I have plainly stated my disdain for denominations, the splitting of the Church and all the ramifications that come with that. The Word from the Lord Himself while praying to the Father was, ". . .that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in Me and I am in You." (John 17:21A). It is not God's desire that the Church be divided into denominations, because denominations do exactly that, they divide! Sure, most denominations are willing to concede that while so and so may be Pentecostal or Methodist, they nonetheless adhere to the central tenants of the faith, and thus fall into the pale of orthodoxy making them palatable. So why is the church dying in America? For starters, almost all churches have capitulated to society. Let's face it, we are a very pragmatic people, if there is a popular trend in society that works, we follow it (and most of them get old really, really fast)! However, in doing so, we have exchanged the ancient traditions passed on by the Saints from generation to generation for a more modern and appealing type of Christianity in hopes to draw others in, which raises a question, do other major world religions do the same thing? What about Muslim's, are they conforming to society in the sense that they absorb cultural trends and then mimic those in their mosques and practices in hopes of winning others? Nope. As much as we attack and rightly disagree with Islam at many levels, at least they stick to their traditions and the origins of their belief system. And Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion. Traditions and origins of a belief system are vital and most Evangelicals have completely severed themselves from ancient traditions on the basis that they're to Catholic, they don't attract people or you can’t find them in Scripture. So, you can’t find praying to the Saints that have gone before us in Scripture, therefore it’s wrong. Well, that’s an argument from silence, which is the worst form of argumentation you can use. Nowhere in Scripture is such an act condoned. But what the modern Evangelical church has done is grossly distorted the meaning of praying to the Saints to make it sound idolatrous or a form of necromancy (communicating with the dead). I don’t know of a single Orthodox person or Catholic that thinks ANY Saint can answer their prayers! They do, however, believe that the Saints who have proceeded us are conscious, alive, in the presence of God and that they can pray for us too. Are we not surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses as the writer of Hebrews says (Heb. 12:1)? They’re not dead, they’re alive! Where is the error in that! I ask people all the time to intercede for me and pray that God might move on my behalf according to His divine will. Secondly, what about the tradition of burning of incense? You never see this in a Protestant or Evangelical Church as it is seen as foreign and weird. I have to confess at one point I thought it was weird too, until I spoke with a person of the Orthodox faith. The burning of incense goes all the way back to Exodus 30:7 where Aaron burned incense to the LORD, and that tradition runs right up to the present day. In the Orthodox Church, this is a beautiful thing that acts like a window into the heavenly realm, and a sweet aroma that brings us closer with our creator. These are a few traditions the American church has dispensed of, perhaps because of its shrunken view of our rich history. Karl Marx once said, "a people without a history are easily persuaded." Maybe I will take that statement and baptize it by saying, Christians that don't know their own history are easily deceived. Most Christian's today are completely oblivious to the Church's rich history--most think of the church as something American or an entity where nothing has really happened since the Apostles passed on to glory. Yes, we have our Bible's, our first and primary source of God's written revelation, but who reads them? We have more Bible's and more translations of Bible's than ever before, yet we are more biblically illiterate and historically ignorant of our great faith than ever. This is probably due to the fact that we are a post literary society and don’t know what we believe and why we believe it. And I confess, for a long while I was not a literary person either, but I am now. This is a good segway for my approach to icons. Icon is the Greek word for image. Step into any Orthodox Church sometime, and you will be blown away by these icons which are beautifully painted all over the church from top to bottom. They are absolutely breathtaking works that tell beautiful biblical stories that will pierce the soul. When I started to look at and gaze at these, I was fascinated by the stories they told from the Bible—the stories came to life. And the Church has used icons going all the way back to Saint Luke as a means of telling a story to those who were by and large illiterate. So what have the churches of today done? First, our churches are nearly indistinguishable from other structures and buildings (perhaps to fit in with society and not stand out), and these icons have all but disappeared as they have been replaced with coffee bars and bistros. Now I can't speak for anyone but myself. But I really feel like something is missing in most churches today. A good friend of mine not long ago said, "I can't put my finger on it, but something just seems to be missing." To which I agree. I see a church today that's desperately trying to satisfy society while dispensing with all of its roots and traditions that made it great for centuries and centuries. If we think of the Church as a web, Jesus is at the center of it and the One in whom we model everything after. But as that web spreads out beyond to Saints like: Peter, Paul, John, James, Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement and countless others and the sacred traditions they passed on, and the importance of preserving them--we seem to have lost that. The mass exodus of people from the church today is predominantly young people, but why? Maybe they’re not seeking big bands, cool names and a comedy act in the pastor’s message. The Church has existed just fine for some 2000 years without change and will continue to do so even with the upheaval of tradition in America. |
|