The Catalog of Good Deeds: Orthodox Theology

Showing posts with label Orthodox Theology. Show all posts

The tradition of Jews and Christians (and also later of Muslims) is that God is the creator of both the material and spiritual world. Angels as well as humans are both part of the same created order. The traditions of these three major religions give an account for how Satan came into existence – he was an angel who rebelled against God, and then led a rebellion of other angels. Satan is not a creator and can not bring demons into existence. Satan is not Sauron of the Rings Trilogy who can summon into existence orks and goblins nor is Satan a wizard Saruman. Satan is not an evil god or God’s opposite and equal. Satan is a creature belonging to the created order and subject to God’s grace and power.

The theology of Scripture, at least for Christians, says God had a wish for His human creatures, who also failed Him and rebelled against God. God wanted the material world and spiritual world to be united and so God became human so that humans might share in the divine life. The centrality of God’s plan for humanity is in the Quran and other related traditions the very cause of the rebellion of Satan and the other demons. They cannot accept that God ranks the humans above the angels. Fr. John Behr describes St. Irenaeus of Lyons’ understanding of God’s plan and love for humans.

“A further point of interest is that man, although made to be the lord of the earth, was, according to Irenaeus, but newly created, and so appeared as a child in a world specially prepared for his nourishment and growth. The angels were also appointed to be the servants of man.”

The angels are not the focus of creation, but humans are. Angels are created to serve God and to serve humans. This fact, according to some traditions explaining the existence of Satan, is precisely what these rebellious angels could not abide. These rebellious angels refuse to serve or kowtow to mere humans. Additionally, as Irenaeus points out, the first humans were created as children, while the angels were created as fully developed. This is a reason why Satan so resented being asked to serve an immature being.

“But as they [the angels] are eternal, and thus not subject to change or growth within the temporal unfolding of sensible creation, they were already fully developed. The infant man was thus ‘secretly’ established as their lord. Neither in protology nor in eschatology does Irenaeus ever characterize or assimilate man or human life to the angelic: it is man, and the becoming fully human in communion with God in Christ, that is the center of the divine economy and of Irenaeus’s theology.” (John Behr, Asceticism and Anthropology in Irenaeus and Clement, p 43)

The goal of the human life is not to become angels – the angels were created to serve us. The goal of the spiritual life for Orthodox Christians is to become fully human – to become fully realized material beings. There is no dualism in Christian thinking opposing the material to the physical or portraying the spiritual as good and the material world as evil. In fact, Satan and demons belong totally to the spiritual world, not to the physical world. Being totally a spiritual being does not automatically make one good! Our goal is not to become “angelic”, rather it is to be fully in communion with Christ our God.

As our Scriptures teach:

“For to what angel did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’? Or again, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son’? And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’ Of the angels he says, ‘Who makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.’ But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your comrades.’ And, ‘You, Lord, did found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all grow old like a garment, like a mantle you wilt roll them up, and they will be changed. But you art the same, and your years will never end.’ But to what angel has he ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies a stool for your feet’? Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to serve, for the sake of those who are to obtain salvation?” (Hebrews 1:5-14)

By Fr. Ted Bobosh

Source: https://frted.wordpress.com/2016/04/16/becoming-human-not-angels/

We Orthodox Christian hear this question quite often. In fact, it strikes a much deeper issue, namely, the issue with the Holy Tradition, which incorporates the works by the Holy Fathers. Here is a 101 on the Holy Tradition and why, according to the Church, you can’t understand the Bible without it.

Is the Bible Enough?

The correlation between the Holy Scripture and the Holy Tradition has been hotly contested between the Orthodox and the Protestants for centuries. It was as early as the 16^th century that Protestants proclaimed their famous doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Latin for “only the Scripture”), claiming that the text of the Bible is enough for proper Christian living.

They declared that the Bible contains just enough information for our salvation and that the Tradition was a later and useless invention, which Christians had to get rid of as quickly as possible.

Orthodox theologians radically oppose this approach.

The Church teaches that the Holy Tradition is the earliest way of transmission of the Divine Revelation.

The Holy Tradition existed before the Holy Scripture and served as its basis. It isn’t hard to grasp it: even during our everyday lives we experience something first and then express our experiences in written form, if necessary. Aside from that, even the Bible admits that the Holy Tradition comes first.

Thus, we learn from the book of Genesis that God talked with Adam, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses directly. We see that Abel already knows how to make a sacrifice of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof to God (Gen. 4:4). Noah knows which animals are “clean” and which are “unclean” (Gen. 7:8). Abraham knows the tradition of tithing when he gives tithes to Melchizedek, king of Salem (Gen. 14:20). It is worth pointing out that none of them read the Scripture because there weren’t any written Scriptures at those times.

Old Testament characters lived without the sacred texts of the Scripture for many centuries. Likewise, early Christians did without the written New Testament because they tuned their spiritual and everyday lives in accordance with the oral Tradition of the Church.

Therefore, the Scripture is essentially the recorded part of the Tradition, which is why the former cannot exist without the latter.

Furthermore, the very fact that the Divine Revelation had to be put to paper, according to Saint John Chrysostom, indicated a steady decline of morals and spiritual deafness, which was spreading among people:

“In fact, we shouldn’t need the Scriptures; instead, we should lead a life so pure that we could use the grace of the Holy Spirit instead of books; and to the extent that books are written with ink, our hearts should be written on by the Spirit. Given that we have rejected that grace, let’s at least use the second way [i.e., the written Scripture—Translator’s Note].

“Blank Spots” in the Holy Scripture

Interestingly enough, if we “remove” the Holy Tradition from the Divine Revelation, there will appear “blank spots” in the biblical text immediately—and it’s impossible to fill in those gaps without additional sources.

For example, Jacob tells his son Joseph in Genesis: “Moreover I have given to thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.” (Gen. 48:22). However, nowhere in the Scripture (in the book of Genesis) do we find any mention of military actions that Jacob undertook against the Amorite with his “sword” and his “bow”.

Apostle Paul matter-of-factly writes to Timothy, “Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.” (2 Tim. 3:8) Again, here is the question: Where did Paul read about it if there isn’t any mention of a Jannes and a Jambres and their conflict with Moses in the Bible?

Archdeacon Stephen informs the Jews, “And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds. And when he was full forty years old, it came into his heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel.” (Acts 7:22-23) And again, There is no mention of Moses’ age when it came into his heart to visit his brethren. There are plenty of similar examples in the Bible.

Moreover, there is a more fundamental problem, too. Readers of the New Testament must have faced it when they read the entire biblical corpus but could not find a detailed doctrine regarding certain basic tenets of Christianity, such as Sacraments. The question is: Why is the Bible silent about all those matters? This question can’t be resolved within the Sola Scriptura mindset.

Besides, the structure of the New Testament without the Holy Tradition appears vague due to discrepancies and incomprehensible passages. For example, what does Jesus Christ has in mind when He refers to the Heavenly Bread, to the grapevine, and to the water that flows into the eternal life? What does Apostle Paul urge us to do when he says, “[L]et a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body” (1 Cor. 11:28-29)? What do the grapevine, the water, the bread, and the cup refer to? The New Testament text doesn’t provide us with a clear explanation.

However, all those questions disappear as soon as we put the Scripture into its original context, i.e., the Tradition.

Archpriest John Meyendorff stresses that the aforementioned words of Jesus “cannot be fully appreciated without knowing that Christians of the 1^st century performed baptisms and celebrated the Eucharist.” Sayings about the cup, the grapevine, and the bread become clear as soon as we put them in the context of the Tradition. Again, it shows that the Scripture and the Tradition are reciprocally connected and inseparable. Their unity is the prerequisite for the conceptual completeness of the Divine Revelation.

The Holy Tradition is the prerequisite for true understanding of the Scripture, the point of reference based on centuries-long reading and analysis of the Bible, which allows every Christian to read God’s Revelation without the risk of distorting its meaning.

Remember the story from the book of Acts where Apostle Philip asked the Eunuch who was reading the Old Testament, “Understandest thou what thou readest?” The eunuch replied, “How can I, except some man should guide me?” (cf. Acts 8:30-31)? It is the Holy Tradition that “guides” a believer. It instructs us not only how to read the Scripture but also how to get saved.

There’s Neither Tradition Nor Scripture Without The Church

Both the Holy Tradition and the Holy Scripture exist only for the Church and only within the Church. There is neither the Holy Scripture nor the Holy Tradition outside of the Church.

Hieromartyr Hilarion (Troitsky) emphasizes that the Holy Scripture is part of the general grace-filled life of the Church. There is no Scripture, in the real sense of this word, without the Church.

Alexei Khomyakov pointed out that people who stay away from the Church are unable to comprehend the Scripture, the Tradition, and the practice of the Church.

At first, these statements might appear too straightforward and alienating. Yet, if we put them in the right context, all misunderstandings will be resolved.

Let’s imagine that I want you to discover Stravinsky’s music. I know a lot about his works; I can even give you a lecture on them, and then equip you with several good scholarly papers for additional reading. You will listen to my words, read the papers, and learn the facts, but you won’t discover Stravinsky’s music for yourself. The most important factor is missing: your personal encounter with his music, full immersion, and direct interaction with live performance of Stravinsky’s music.

Same with the Scripture and the Tradition. You can speak about them for as long as you wish and read hundreds and thousands of scientific papers about the Scriptures and the Tradition. Sadly, without a personal encounter and the unmediated experience of building your own life on the Scripture and the Tradition, they will merely remain curious artifacts of human history.

You can encounter them and discover them only in the Church, which lives and breathes the Scripture and the Tradition for several millennia already. The Church has an uninterrupted succession of those who dedicate themselves to preserving the Scripture and the Tradition, i.e., the saints.

Holiness means that a certain person lives according to the Tradition and the Scripture, that the fullness of Divine Revelation is fully embodied in the lives of certain people but first of all in the life of Jesus Christ. Stravinsky’s music is revealed to us only if we listen to it live; similarly, the Tradition and the Scripture are fully revealed to us only if we are in the Church, if we participate in Her holiness. The most profound experience of the Tradition is possible only through the Sacrament of Eucharist. The Eucharist is the crossroads where the Tradition and the Scripture meet.

The fullness of the Divine Revelation was given to the Church only once, on the Day of Pentecost. The Christians of the subsequent centuries merely unveiled and gradually explained this diverse Tradition.

Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, doctrines of the Church, works by Holy Fathers, iconographic canon, church architecture, and the biblical canon—all of those are parts of the Holy Tradition.

Therefore, Church doctrine doesn’t evolve or develop in any way. It is expressed in the history of the human race and in the lives of holy people.

Saint Augustine who discovered the Tradition and the Scripture only after he met Saint Ambrose of Milan, wrote the following paradoxical words: “I wouldn’t believe the Gospel if not for the authority of the Orthodox Catholic Church.” We can rephrase the saint’s words and declare, “I wouldn’t believe the Tradition if not for the authority of the Orthodox Catholic Church.”

The authority in the Church is the Holy Spirit who dwells in it.

By Tichon Sysoev

Translated by The Catalog of Good Deeds

Source: https://foma.ru/chto-peredaet-svyashhennoe-predanie.html

In the first chapter of Genesis we read that man is made in God's image and called to be like Him. The image, the Church Fathers say, is mainly our intelligence and free will. God so loved us, He sent His only begotten Son for our salvation (John 3:16).

If we put on Christ at baptism and continue to wash ourselves through repentance, then we are able to reflect the light of Christ. Our constant prayer is "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner." We are creatures. We have no independent existence. We depend on God for all and by his mercy we can have the light of Christ indwell in us. This is a spiritual reality revealed by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. The value of this is unfathomable.

Bishop Hierotheos Vlachos (1994, 1998) refers to the worth human beings can have:

It is said that God has essence and energy and that this distinction does not destroy the divine simplicity. We confess and believe that 'uncreated and natural grace and illumination and energy always proceed inseparably from this divine energy' And since, according to the saints, created energy means created essence as well . . . God's energy is uncreated. Indeed the name of divinity is placed not only upon the divine essence, but 'also on thee divine energy no less'. This means that in the teachings of the holy Fathers, 'this (the essence) is completely incapable of being shared, but by divine grace the energy can be shared.

This is a reality and truth. Based on the illuminative teaching of St. Gregory Palamas, Bishop Hierotheos tells us this is available to us "through God's benevolence towards those who have purified their nous." Bishop Hierotheos (1994) calls the Church a hospital that can cure our infirmities so our nous can be purified and this life in Christ can take place in us.

Passions: The Inclinations to Sin

After the Fall we are predisposed to self-centered choices directed by the passions (lusts) rather than choices based on agape. St. Isaac of Syria tells us: ". . . pandering to the flesh, produce(s) in us shameful urges and unseemly fantasies" (Early Fathers from the Philokalia).

The passions spring from the heart of the person. Jesus told us: "For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man" (Mark 7: 21-23).

St. Paul wrote "While we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death" (Romans 5:7). The work of the passions can take place either before marriage or after the marital union takes place. In either case they lead to a choice of singularity or self-satisfaction over a righteous joined union.

Passions may predispose a individuals to discord from God and mankind. St. Paul's warning applies to the "demon's" attack union with God and neighbor: "Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19-21). The Church Fathers attribute this to the demon of each passion that never tires of breaking union with God and mankind.

An example of how this works may aid our understanding. The demon of lust, the Church Fathers tell us, may take over our lives. Modern society facilitates this malady. Sex is broadcast everywhere for almost every use: art, fashion, music, news, pornography (especially the Internet), and the sale of almost any product from automobiles to computers. The secular world flagrantly exposes body parts, especially the genital areas.

The Church Fathers knew about such enticements a thousand years ago. St. Isaac of Syria wrote: "Passions are brought either by images or by sensations devoid of images and by memory, which at first is unaccompanied by passionate movements or thoughts, but which later produces excitation." One way to deal with these passions, continued St. Isaac: " . . . their thought must become attached to nothing except their own soul."

One has to make a choice between Christ and demon. St. Paul asked:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation . . . distress . . . persecution . . . hunger . . . nakedness . . . danger . . . the sword? For I am sure that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor power, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ our Lord (Romans 8:35-39).

Vigilance and discernment are major virtues to be acquired by those seeking Christ indwelling in them and desire to overcome the power of passions.

Ilias the Presbyter tells us: "Demons wage war against the soul primarily through thoughts . . . " (Philokalia, III). Ideally Orthodox Christians will make a "spiritual desert" for themselves removing them from the "enticements" so prevalent in modern life. Spiritual death occurs when these thoughts are self centered.

St. Maximus the Confessor knew this as well: "The self love and cleverness of men, alienating them from each other and perverting the law, have cut our single human nature into many fragments." How much more should St. Maximus' words apply to those all of us seeing union with God and our all mankind.

Sin is Disunion

Sin makes us to be out of communion or what might be called disunion with God and neighbor. St. John Chrysostom states: "Did you commit sin? Enter the Church and repent for your sin; for here is the physician, not the judge; here one is not investigated, one receives remission of sins". If the church is a "physician," then this break with God and neighbor needs healing. It is missing the mark of being centered on God and His Will. Sin is considered, therefore to be an illness or infirmity. With healing we are restored to a former condition.

We know this healing takes place in Holy Baptism, the Holy Mystery of Penance, Holy Unction and by worthy reception of the Holy Eucharist: The Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ. St. John Chrysostom, in his Divine Liturgy reminds us, of all that God did for us: take on our flesh, the cross, the grave and the Resurrection. The end of which is to reconcile us to Him: "when we had fallen away didst not cease to do all things until thou hast brought us back to heaven." Need we be reminded that when Christ gave us the Eucharist he said; "Take eat: this is my Body which is broken for you for the remission of sins," and "Drink ye all of this: this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins" (emphasis added).

Forgiveness is to be reconciled with Christ and all mankind. St. Matthew tells us:

But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire. So if you are offering your gift at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; truly, I say to you, you will never get out till you have paid the last penny" (emphasis added) (Matthew 5: 22-26).

This involves an active behavioral effort toward reconciliation.

Pride: A Barrier to Repentance; Humility: The Gate of Repentance

St. John of the Ladder (1982) points out:

Pride makes us forget our sins ... the remembrance of them leads to humility." Thus we must heed the further words of St. John: "He must not allow the memory of things that afflict him to be stamped on his intellect lest he inwardly sunders human nature by separating himself from other man although he is a man himself. When a man's will in union with the principle of nature in this way, God and nature are naturally reconciled.

St. Isaac the Syrian said that the person who has attained to knowledge of his own weakness has reached the summit of humility (Brock, 1997).

Repentance: The Condition for Forgiveness

When someone who offends God or us they must repent. God, and we in imitation of Him, should embrace the repentant sinner with God's own love, in order to forgive him. We have to pray that we or anyone who has offended us or God, be reconciled to God and to us through His Church. The foundation of this repentance is a sense of his unfaithfulness to God and offense to us, contrition of heart, and determination to amend and have a metanoia, a fundamental change of mind and heart so as not to offend again.

Repentance

God recognizes the difference between authentic and inauthentic repentance. If this knowledge is used as a justification for sin, no true repentance occurred no matter how many words might have been expended in prayer. If the fallen brother calls out to Christ like the thief on the cross however, they will find the forgiveness of God.

A wise person once said that God doesn't look where we have come from, only where we are going. If repentance is drawn from a desire for a pure heart, the repentant will find God no matter how many times they have failed. "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8).

Theosis

St. Silouan has pointed out that, "those who dislike and reject their fellow-man are impoverished in their being. They do not know the true God, who is all-embracing love." St. Peter in his second epistle tells us what God has given us: "His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness ... and become partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:3-4). We know this is not participation or becoming God in His Being or Essence but sharing in the warmth and light of His "Divine Energy" (Staniloae, 2003).

Healing Passions Leads to Theosis

This can only happen, indicates Bishop Hierotheos Vlachos (1994, 1998),if we heal the passions of our soul. For the offender this means healing the passion that led to the offense. For the one who to forgive this means healing the passion of anger and increase in the virtues of humility and meekness. Forgiveness and repentance are a two sided coin. One cannot exist without the other.

St. Maximus the Confessor tells us the path this takes:

The first type of dispassion is abstention from the body's impulsion towards the actual committing of sin. The second ... rejection of the impassioned thoughts ..the thirds is quiescence of passionate desire. ..the fourth type of dispassion is the compete exclusion from the mind of sensible images (Philokalia II).

Psycho-spiritually this means the decision and will to stop sin, act in accordance with Our Lord's counsels, and do all we can to remove ourselves from events and images that arouse sin. This means substituting and have available the works of God, exercise and practice Godly virtuous thoughts and acts, and base all on the foundation of prayer and the Holy Mysteries.

Let Us Commend Ourselves and Each Other ... Unto Christ our God

Theosis not only means being enlivined with the fire of God's warmth and light but being in communion with one another. St. Dorotheos of Gaza (Wheeler, 1977) likens our growth in union with God, to a compass. God is the center point. Each person is like the radials going out from the center to all the 360 degrees encircling it. As each person moves toward God, the center, they also move closer to one another, as each person moves away from God, the center, they also are more distant from one another (Morelli, 2007).

Let us end reflecting on the prayer of St. Ephraim the Syrian (1997):

If your brother is angry with you, then the Lord is also angry with you. And if you have made peace with your brother below, then you have made peace also with the Lord on high. If you receive your brother, then you also receive your Lord.

Jesus forgives our sins through the sacramental power given to the Church, first to the Apostles, then to their successors, the bishops and priests right down to the present day, when He told them: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20: 22-23).

By Fr. George Morelli

Source: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles8/Morelli-The-Orthodox-Understanding-of-Sin-A-Lenten-Reflection.php

Archimandrite Vassilios looks at the growth of popular interest in Gnostic writings, arguing that the Gnosticism of today is far removed from the tendency the early Church fought for so long, particularly in its view of the material world. In support of this view he examines the formation of the New Testament Canon and some of the most prominent Gnostic texts from the first few centuries AD.

Over the past few years, there has been an enormous popular interest in Gnosticism and early Christian writings. Bookshops are full of material on the subject and, on Christian holidays, the media bombards us with television productions on the topic. But the Gnosticism that is today being hailed as the ‘original Christianity’ is anything but the Gnosticism that plagued the Christian Church between the second and fourth centuries. One of the main characteristics of Gnosticism was an ethos that saw the material world as inherently evil. To the Gnostics, therefore, the idea of God made flesh (a thing evil and beyond redemption) was repugnant and ridiculous. For the Gnostics, salvation could only be achieved by an escape from the body and the material world. Christ therefore, according to the majority of the Gnostic writings, only appeared to be a man. His body was nothing more than a cloak or a mask by which He could be seen and touched, but which had no bearing on His person. As a result, many of the Gnostic writings do not contain a narrative of the Crucifixion and Resurrection (for these were not considered by the majority of Gnostics to be saving events), but are accounts of Christ’s ‘secret teachings’, often allegedly imparted to one or other of the apostles. The Gnostic writings that do contain narratives of the Passion and Resurrection are often imbued with a strong Gnostic ethos. A Christ that feels no pain on the cross is a classic example. The Gnostic writings for the most part were effectively polemical works which attempted to refute or ridicule the Christian belief that Christ was truly man as well as God, but they were also largely pseudonymous works (falsely attributed by the author to an important Christian figure, usually an Apostle). By contrast, Gnosticism is today being upheld by many as the exact opposite: a Christianity that saw Christ as a mortal prophet and not as the Son of God, and they claim that this form of Christianity, which some now claim is Christianity in its original, unadulterated form, was suppressed by the Constantinopolitan Church which portrayed Christ the mortal prophet as a divine being. How these Gnostic works can today be understood and put forward by anyone with half a brain cell as a Christianity that saw Christ as purely human and not divine is quite beyond my comprehension. In order to illustrate that the exact opposite is true, we will look at just a few of the best-known of the ‘lost gospels’ which still survive, if only in part, today. But to start with, it would be helpful to first have an idea of how the Church decided which of the many different sacred texts that were being written and circulated were authentic.

The New Testament Canon

In the early life of the Church, people who claimed to adhere to true Christian teaching believed in all kinds of strange things. Some believed in one God, but some believed in two; others believed in as many as 365! Some believed that Christ was both God and man, others believed that He was only one or the other. There were those who believed that Christ’s Death and Resurrection brought salvation to the human race, but others considered it to be irrelevant. Some even believed that Jesus never died. Today, one well may ask, ‘why did they not just read their New Testaments?’ The answer is simple: there was no such thing. The variety of Christian writings that were being circulated in the local churches created the need for the formation of a New Testament Canon: a selection of authoritative Christian texts. The formation of such a canon took some time to develop, beginning around the end of the 2nd century with Irenaeus’ Four-fold Gospel: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (which, even now – after all the recent discoveries of early Christian writings, such as those of the famous Nag Hammadi library – remain the oldest historical records of Christ’s life on earth) and ending with the famous encyclical by St Athanasius the Great in the 4th century, when for the first time we see the 27 books of our New Testament listed as the only canonical books of the New Testament. But what was the Church’s criterion for inclusion of a book in the New Testament Canon? For a book to be canonical it had to be:

1) Ancient. It had to be written near the time of Christ.

2) Apostolic. The book had to be written by an apostle or by a companion of the apostles.

3) Catholic. Different churches used different scriptures. To be included in the canon, a book had to have widespread acceptance among the local churches.

4) Orthodox. This fourth criterion was by far and away the most important. To a certain degree, the first two criteria hinged on this one criterion. If the theology of a sacred text was not Orthodox, then it could not have been apostolic or ancient.

A good example of how the Orthodoxy of a book helped determine its apostolicity can be found in Eusebius’ account of Serapion and the Gospel of Peter. Serapion, a bishop of Antioch during the late second and early third centuries, paid a visit to one of his churches in the village of Roussos, where he learned that the church there used a gospel written by the Apostle Peter in their worship. Serapion saw no problem with this, for he assumed that the gospel had indeed been written by Peter. After returning from his travels, he was informed that the so-called Gospel of Peter was infact a docetic Gospel. Serapion acquired a copy of the book and he noted that it was indeed shot through with docetic ideas. Serapion then sent an encyclical to the church in Roussos, ‘On the So-called Gospel of Peter’, instructing them to not use the Gospel in their worship. For Serapion, the fact that the Gospel of Peter contained docetic theology was evidence enough that it was not written in the time of the Apostles. Therefore, it could not have been written by St Peter, nor was it ancient. But it should not be thought that the Orthodoxy of a Christian work was the sole criterion for determining its inclusion in the New Testament Canon. The Shepherd of Hermas, a Christian text that the Church never considered to be heretical, was not included in the New Testament Canon simply because it was known to be a relatively recent work. Not all of the early Christian writings that did not find their way into the Canon were considered to be heretical. Indeed, some of those works have been integrated into Orthodox Tradition, but all of the above four criteria had to be met if they were to be included in the Canon of Sacred Scripture. The Gnostic writings however, simply did not meet a single one of the above-mentioned criteria.

In recent times, certain scholars have questioned the authorship of some of the New Testament writings, but this should not lead us to the conclusion that such books should now be omitted from our New Testament, for the Church has a fifth criterion: Tradition. As Bishop Kallistos Ware has put it:

“A book is not part of Scripture because of any particular theory about its dating and authorship. Even if it could be proved, for example, that the Fourth Gospel was not actually written by John the beloved disciple of Christ, this would not alter the fact that we Orthodox accept the Fourth Gospel as Holy Scripture. Why? Because the Gospel of John is accepted by the Church and in the Church”.

In other words, even if a work is proven today to not be written by the person to whom it is attributed, its Orthodoxy and Catholicity, its enduring position in the New Testament Canon and in the life and Tradition of the Church, means that such a book maintains its authority and so remains a part of the sacred Canon of Holy Scripture.

Ancient, Apostolic, Catholic, Orthodox: such were the criteria for determining a book’s place in the New Testament Canon, and the Gnostic writings simply did not qualify by a long shot. But if the Gnostics were to have any chance of having their views recognised as sacred scripture, they had to pass off their theological ideas as apostolic, and so many Gnostic Gospels were written by their authors in the name of one of the Apostles. We will now look at a few of these texts, beginning with the Gospel of Peter, which I briefly mentioned above.

The Gospel of Peter

Before the discovery of the surviving fragment of the Gospel of Peter in 1886, we knew of this gospel from the Christian historian Eusebius (as we saw above). It was probably written in the early 2nd century, making it the oldest surviving gospel from outside of the New Testament. This gospel, unlike many Gnostic Gospels, deals only with the Passion and Resurrection of Christ. It could perhaps be described as the first Passion Play. The fragment begins with Pontius Pilate washing his hands, an account found in the New Testament only in the Gospel of Matthew, but the Gospel of Peter slightly differs in that the Jews in Peter’s Gospel are described as refusing to wash their hands, thereby refusing to proclaim themselves innocent of Christ’s blood. This is more in line with the more anti-semitic literature of the 2nd century, something which is not found in the writings of the 1st century, to which the New Testament belongs. As the narrative progresses, we come across an account of the Crucifixion which in some ways resembles those of the New Testament, but significantly differs in other respects. Christ is crucified between two criminals, as in our New Testament Gospels, but we are told that “he was silent, as though he had no pain”. This is clearly a docetic interpretation of the Crucifixion: he was silent as if he had no pain because he had no pain. In the Gospel of Matthew, shortly before Christ dies, he exclaims: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” In the Gospel of Peter, we read something similar, but it has a distinctly Gnostic twist: “My power, my power, why have you left me?” Here, Jesus is mourning the departure of his divine nature from him before his death, leaving only his human ‘shell’ on the Cross – something that is very much in line with the views of many Gnostic groups.

Reading on, we come to a rather bizarre narrative of the Resurrection. The stone of the tomb rolls away of its own accord, and from within three men appear. The heads of two of them reach up to the skies, and they support the third, whose head reaches beyond the skies. Behind them appears a cross, and a voice from the heavens asks: “have you preached to those who are asleep?”, to which the cross replies: “yes”.

A Christ who feels no pain on the cross, who then resurrects in the form of a living skyscraper, accompanied by a talking cross. This is hardly a Gospel that portrays Christ as a mere mortal prophet!

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas probably dates back to the first half of the second century, and is an account of Christ’s life as a child, which is an area of Christ’s life that many Christians are still curious about. If Christ as an adult was the wonderworking Son of God, what was he like as an infant? According to the author of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, he was a nasty piece of work. Imagine an ill-tempered, vengeful, badly behaved school boy with deadly magic powers, and you have the ASBO Jesus of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. In Chapter 3 for example, we read:

The son of Annas the scribe was standing there with Jesus. Taking a branch from a willow tree, he dispersed the waters which Jesus had gathered. When Jesus saw what had happened, he became angry and said to him, "You godless, brainless moron, what did the ponds and waters do to you? Watch this now: you are going to dry up like a tree and you will never produce leaves or roots or fruit." And immediately, this child withered up completely. Then, Jesus departed and returned to Joseph's house. The parents of the one who had been withered up, however, wailed for their young child as they took his remains away. Then, they went to Joseph and accused him, "You are responsible for the child who did this."

And the examples of the God-child’s vengefulness continue in chapter 4:

Next, he was going through the village again and a running child bumped his shoulder. Becoming bitter, Jesus said to him, "You will not complete your journey." Immediately, he fell down and died. Then, some of the people who had seen what had happened said, "Where has this child come from so that his every word is a completed deed? And going to Joseph, the parents of the one who had died found fault with him. They said, "Because you have such a child, you are not allowed to live with us in the village, or at least teach him to bless and not curse. For our children are dead!"

In Chapter 5, Joseph expresses some concern about the behaviour of Jesus:

And taking his child aside, he warned him, saying, "Why are you doing these things? These people are suffering and they hate us and cause trouble for us. "Then, Jesus said, "I know that the words I speak are not mine. Nevertheless, I will be silent for your sake, but these people will bear their punishment." And immediately his accusers became blind. When they saw what he had done, they were extremely afraid and did not know what to do. And they talked about him, saying, "Every word he speaks, good or evil, is an event and becomes a miracle."

And in chapter 6:

When Joseph saw that Jesus had done this… he was outraged and took his ear and pulled it extremely hard. Then, the child became angry and said to him, "It is enough for you to seek and not find, but too much for you to act so unwisely. Do you not know that I am not yours? Do not trouble me."

Here we can see that the author of this Gospel is making a point that Christ is the Son of God and not the son of Joseph and focuses on Christ’s divine nature even in infancy. Again: not a Gospel that focuses on Jesus’ human qualities.

The Coptic Gospel of Thomas

Unlike the Gospels of our New Testament, which combine narrative accounts of the life of Christ with sayings, the Coptic Gospel of Thomas is nothing more than a Gospel of sayings. The date of this gospel is still debated by scholars. The difficulty in dating the gospel arises from the difficulty in deciding whether or not it is in fact a gnostic gospel. But there were many forms of gnosticism. This gospel does not appear to display the docetic or dualistic ideas found in many of the other gospels, but expresses the belief that people have the capacity within themselves to perceive the Kingdom of God on earth. This might sound compatible with Orthodox theology, but it also suggests that this perception of the Kingdom on earth is achieved by a quasi-intuitive knowledge of the mysteries of the universe and of secret formulae indicative of that knowledge – something very much in line with Gnostic teaching. It is therefore most likely that this gospel does not go back earlier than the late second century, although some contemporary scholars do not accept this conclusion, and some even claim that this gospel is in fact older than the canonical gospels, and have even suggested that it was written by Christ Himself. But the most sensible biblical scholars and historians agree that it does not date anywhere near the time of Christ and was certainly not written by Christ or by Thomas or by any other apostle.

The Coptic Apocalypse of Peter

Like the vast majority of texts in the Nag Hammadi collection, the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter is heavily gnostic. It was probably written around 200 A.D. The description of the Crucifixion is an example of docetism gone mad, picturing Jesus as laughing and warning against people who cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking they shall become pure; and in typically docetic fashion, it presents Christ’s flesh as nothing more than an illusion:

"'He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me.'"

The Gospel of Judas

The most recent discovery of early Christian writings is the so-called Gospel of Judas, though we already knew of this Gospel from our historical sources. Irenaeus in the 2nd Century makes mention of it:

“They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas.”

This gospel dates back probably no earlier than the second century since it contains theology that is not represented before the second half of the second century, and since its introduction and epilogue assume the reader is familiar with the canonical Gospels.

The Gospel of Judas, as suggested by Irenaeus’ comment on the gospel, portrays Judas in a very different perspective than do the Gospels of the New Testament. The author of the Gospel of Judas interprets Judas's act not as betrayal, but rather as an act of obedience to the instructions of Jesus. This conforms to a notion, current in many forms of Gnosticism, that the human body is a spiritual prison, and that Judas served Christ by helping to release Christ's spirit from his human body. Furthermore, the Gospel of Judas claims that of all the disciples, Judas alone knew the true teachings of Christ, asserting that the disciples had not learned the true Gospel, which Jesus taught only to Judas Iscariot.

One of the aspects of this Gospel, found also in the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, that has drawn a great deal of attention is found at the beginning of the narrative, during the eucharistic prayer, when Christ laughs. Some have claimed that this Gospel of the ‘laughing Jesus’ portrays Christ in more human terms than those of the New Testament. But the narrative indicates that Christ’s laughter has a very different agenda:

One day he was with his disciples in Judea, and he found them gathered together and seated in pious observance. When he approached his disciples, gathered together and seated and offering a prayer of thanksgiving over the bread, he laughed. The disciples said to him, “Master, why are you laughing at our prayer of thanksgiving? We have done what is right.” He answered and said to them, “I am not laughing at you. You are not doing this because of your own will but because it is through this that your god will be praised.”

In the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter, Christ’s laughter not only signifies his inability to feel pain; his laughter - as in the Gospel of Judas – is there to ridicule those who believe that their salvation will be achieved through the death of Christ’s humanity, which is commemorated in the Mystical Supper, mirrored in the Eucharistic prayer of the apostles in the Gospel of Judas: “…it is through this that your god will be praised”. For the author of the Gospel of Judas, like so many of the Gnostics, the death of Christ has nothing to do with the salvation of the human race. The Christ of the Gospel of Judas is laughing at those who believe that Christ’s death brought salvation to the world.

The Real Jesus

We have looked at just a few examples from Gnostic writings that some popular writers and even scholars today claim are older than those of our New Testament, and some even claim that these writings present Christ as a mere mortal prophet and not divine. I hope I have adequately illustrated that this is utter nonsense. Most biblical scholars and historians today still agree that these writings were far later than those of our New Testament. And yet, year after year, books are published on the topic of early Christian writings telling us the exact opposite, with titles such as “The Real Jesus”, “The Historical Jesus”, or something similar. But it remains the case that it is the Orthodox Church that has preserved the truth about Christ and it continues to preserve that truth today: fully God and fully man, of the same essence as God in divinity, of the same essence as us in humanity. The criteria for inclusion in the New Testament Canon were laid down for good reason, and of all the Gospels that we know of, only the Gospels of our New Testament fulfilled those criteria. To find out who the “real Jesus” is, one does not need to look very far. He will find what he is looking for in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

By Archimandrite Vassilios (Papavassiliou)

Source: http://www.bogoslov.ru/en/text/2594410.html

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Search This Blog

featured Slider

Some Thoughts on the Purpose of Angels and their Role in Our Spiritual Life

Why Do Orthodox Christians Need Holy Fathers? Isn’t the Bible Enough?

“Blank Spots” in the Holy Scripture

There’s Neither Tradition Nor Scripture Without The Church

The Orthodox Understanding of Sin in Our Life

An Orthodox Perspective on Gnostic Writings

Partners

Search This Blog

featured Slider

Some Thoughts on the Purpose of Angels and their Role in Our Spiritual Life

Why Do Orthodox Christians Need Holy Fathers? Isn’t the Bible Enough?

“Blank Spots” in the Holy Scripture

There’s Neither Tradition Nor Scripture Without The Church

The Orthodox Understanding of Sin in Our Life

An Orthodox Perspective on Gnostic Writings

About Our Blog

Most Popular Posts

Partners