Sweet are the meadow and the garden, but sweeter by far is the reading of the divine Scriptures. For there, the flowers fade; while here, spiritual thoughts abide in full bloom. There, breezes of the wind; here, the breath of the Spirit.

Sermons from the Life of St John Chrysostom, Translation and Introduction by David C. Ford

So let us give attention to the study of the Scriptures. For if you do this, the Scriptures will drive out your despondency; they will bring forth pleasure, uproot vice, and implant virtue…

This is an extremely long sermon, touching on more than one theme (and I will break it into more than one post). It is usually referred to as “Homily II on Eutropius,” recalling the eunuch from last week’s post who sought refuge in Hagia Sophia, John’s church. But it is clear from the context that the sermon was not preached for this purpose or on this occasion.

I have to say, I recall an Orthodox Christian once say something like “to preach a sermon longer than 15 minutes is a sign of ego and pride.” Whoever said this obviously wasn’t familiar with John Chrysostom. This is the second book of his sermons that I have read / am reading, and I recall only one sermon that might have been around 15 minutes. This present one runs almost 50 pages – by my estimate, this approaches an 80-minute sermon!

To begin: John focusses on the value of Scripture. What I have come to meaningfully appreciate about the early Church was just this: the focus on Scripture, the real dedication to study it, understand it, reflect on it, and utilize it to defend orthodoxy.

This strikes me for two reasons: it does not conform to the caricature I had of heavily liturgical churches with strong value placed on tradition – as they weren’t sola scriptura, then they didn’t place value on Scripture; second, it is the opposite of what I find today in heavily liturgical churches – many of the parishioners (and also many deacons and others in the clergy) know little of Scripture.

The sea rages, but you travel along as in a great calm, for you have the study of the Scriptures as your pilot. This is the rope that the trials of life do not tear apart.

There have been times in my life when everything under me was sand, when it was easy to stop reading Scripture, stop praying, even stop attending church. All I had left was to “do”: to read, pray, attend, even though I “knew” it wouldn’t help. It was the rope that John describes – it gave me something to hold on to, when everything around me was failing me.

John next moves to “recent events,” the issue of another individual seeking refuge in his church. He uses these events as evidence for the value of and protection offered by Scripture. The church was “besieged,” an army came with fire in their eyes. Yet, those in the church were not scorched.

Why? We held fast to this pledge: You are Peter, on this rock I will build my Church; the gates of hell will not prevail against her.

For when you take refuge in the Church, you do not seek shelter primarily in a place, but in her wisdom and judgment. For the Church is not primarily a wall and roof, but faith and life.

John will develop this idea – the protection of the Church is eternal, and not limited or even defined by its four walls. We receive certain promises now, but there are other promises to be fulfilled in the future. Not promises of a wall or roof, but of faith and life.

Remain within the Church and she will never abandon you to those outside, for she is not like the world.

Many have waged war against the Church over the years, yet they have perished and the Church has soared to the heavens. Today we face another war; this is so our victory will shine ever more brightly.

Here again, John is not promising a life of ease and comfort, a life without trials and tribulations. He says that the Church will not fail you, because the measure of things is not limited to this life.

Conclusion

Why was I not dismayed? Because I do not fear any of the terrors that can happen in this life.

Death? I am immediately rushed into Heaven. The confiscation of my property? Naked I came into the world, and naked will I depart. Exile? The earth is the Lord’s. Defamation? Rejoice when they say all manner of evil against you falsely.

I saw the swords, and thought about Heaven. I expected to die, and thought about the resurrection.

True, I was led away against my will, but that was not an outrage against me. There is only one real outrage, and that is sin.

Let the entire world treat you disrespectfully, but don’t bring disgrace upon yourself. We have a certainty that awaits us; act accordingly!

It has now been more than half a century since Fr Georges Florovsky, Vladimir Lossky, and Fr John Meyendorff began to draw the attention of the western world to St Gregory Palamas (1296 – 1359).

Divine Energies and Divine Action: Exploring the Essence-Energies Distinction, by David Bradshaw

Palamas is well-known for the essence-energies distinction, but it was not discovered or founded or invented by him. The three aforementioned scholars and theologians claim three things about his teaching: first, that it represents the authentic teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church; second, that it is fully in line with the teaching of the historical Greek Fathers; and third, that it represents the best and most cogent way of understanding the relationship of God to the world.

These three claims have landed differently to the western audience: the first is unanimously accepted; the second, has widespread, through not unanimous, acceptance; the third has received very little attention – let alone agreement – outside of the walls of Eastern Orthodoxy. It is the third one that is the subject of Bradshaw’s book.

If this third claim is true, that Palamas’s teaching represents the most cogent way of understanding the relationship of God to His creation (so far in my journey, this is where I have landed as well), why has it not made a dent in the West?

First, it is because the Western tradition is focused on Western sources – Augustine, Anslem, Aquinas, etc. But Bradshaw looks within for the more appropriate answer: those who advocate for Palamas have failed to place his thoughts within the framework of western (Greek) philosophy, and they have failed to explain his thoughts in relation to Biblical sources.

The Bible and Greek philosophy are dealing with the same subject: God and the soul; each of the Bible and Greek philosophy shed light on the other. Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus belong to both the Eastern Church as well as the Western – with the Eastern Church also sharing a common language, the same source of concepts, etc., with the Greek philosophers. Energeia is a term coined by Aristotle, yet it is found as either a noun or a verb twenty-six times in the Pauline writings as well (it just isn’t usually translated as “energy”).

Bradshaw will work through both the Greek philosophical underpinnings as well as the Scriptural sources to introduce the concept of divine energies. He will do this without leaning on Palamas, in order to demonstrate that the concept was in the Eastern Church from the beginning – a concept certainly understood by the Cappadocian Fathers of the fourth century, for example, and even earlier in the likes of Clement of Alexandria.

Now…I am going to dive into the philosophy part. It is a bit over my head, but by writing it out I am hoping to better understand it. I am not sure that understanding the philosophy is necessary for me, but I guess I won’t know unless I at least try to understand it better – and writing always helps me in this.

Energeia. As mentioned, the term was coined by Aristotle. He meant it as the active exercise of a capacity; in other words, as something more than merely possessing the capacity. It is distinguished from the idea of motion or change, as these are aimed at some other end; an energeia is its own end: seeing, thinking, understanding, living well – yes, these are activities, but they are activities that are fully actual in and of themselves, complete in each moment. I am seeing when I am seeing; I am thinking when I am thinking.

The most interesting application of energeia in this sense is in Aristotle’s theory of the Prime Mover.

For Bradshaw’s purposes, the important point is that the Prime Mover’s substance is nothing other than the self-subsistent activity of thought – call it wisdom or intellect.

…the Prime Mover not only thinks all possible intelligible content, it is all possible intelligible content.

Bradshaw isn’t concerned about the Prime Mover as such; he is focused on what this implies about the meaning of energeia. As the Prime Mover thinks and is all possible content, one can say that the Prime Mover is present in all things – thus imparting their intelligible structure and, therefore, their being.

…the Prime Mover is pure energy, an energy which constitutes the being of other things.

So, what does it mean to say that the Prime Mover is pure energeia? Bradshaw offers a couple of options, concluding it is both…and neither. He believes that the closest thing we have in English is to say that the Prime Mover is pure energy – “the power exercised [toward a worthy cause] with vigor and determination.”

Bradshaw points to Plotinus as harmonizing concepts from Plato and Aristotle to help make this more intelligible to us.

The great achievement of Plotinus lay in harmonizing the Platonic conception of the first principle with that of Aristotle. Plotinus identified the One (or Good) as the ultimate first principle, and Aristotle’s Prime Mover he rechristened as Intellect, the first hypostasis after the One. The One is no-thing, not any particular being because it is the source of all particular being.

This sounds somewhat analogous to something I came to many years ago, considering God the Father as Plato’s form of the Good, and the Incarnate Lord Jesus Christ (God the Son; God’s Wisdom) as the form of the Good made manifest.

Analogous, not identical….

Conclusion

The One is the source of all being. Which begins the overlap with the concept of energy in the New Testament. The apostle Paul picked up on this, and recognized that the Greek philosophers were pointing to God – the true God:

Acts 17: 22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:

TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.

Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.

And, as if summarizing Plotinus:

28(a) for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said

It is not certain who it was that Paul was citing – or, if by this point in time, this concept was a generally accepted Greek philosophical tradition which had many fathers.

The One is the source of all being; the Prime Mover (pure energy) is the first hypostasis of the One. From this energy we live and move and have our being.

That’s the best I can do with the Greek philosophy as it opens the door regarding energeia in the New Testament – this for next week.

I seemed to be standing in a busy queue by the side of a long, mean street.

The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis

So the story begins. The protagonist reflects that he has been wandering for hours in similar mean streets, always in the rain and always in evening twilight. It is as if time stood still for hours.

And just as the evening never advanced to night, so my walking had never brought me to the better parts of the town.

The picture painted is that of an aimless life, a life without meaning or purpose. But it is the opening scene of the afterlife. Is this the opening scene for everyone – those who chose the good forks in the road as well as those who didn’t? Those who lived a life of meaning and purpose as well as those who wandered aimlessly? These questions will be answered soon enough.

Please keep in mind, in this novel Lewis is making a point about how completely different are Heaven and Hell; he is not teaching theology and doctrine on this topic.

A bus pulls up to pick up passengers. The Driver looks unlike the gray people seen by our protagonist. He seems “full of light,” driving a bus bathed with golden light. This raised a growl from those in the queue.

I could see nothing in the countenance of the Driver to justify all this, unless it were that he had a look of authority and seemed intent on carrying out his job.

I have seen such reactions in young people today, when they come across a peer who does not share in their nihilistic lifestyle. They mock and ridicule, in order to hide their own relative lack of worth and meaning in life. it is, perhaps, a form of the persecution Jesus warned of if we follow Him in His path.

Some of those in the queue chose to not get on the bus, staying in the gray, lifeless place.

‘Do they like this place?’ I asked.

“As much as they’d like anything,’ [a fellow traveler] answered. ‘They’ve got cinemas and fish and chip shops and advertisements and all the sorts of things they want.’

I keep coming back to the picture of an aimless, meaningless life – a life filled with amusements, but no valuable purpose.

By this time, the bus was several hundred feet in the air.

Another traveler struck up a conversation with our protagonist. For this traveler, everything about life was unfair: the examination system for school didn’t properly capture his capabilities, the economic system enslaved him and the workers, his father gave him an inadequate allowance. He became a Communist, wanting to travel to Sweden – but no one would give him the means by which to travel there. He solved all of this by throwing himself under a train.

What do we see in this traveler? The road where the aimless and meaningless life leads; the road where the life of “rights” and entitlements runs into the wall of reality; where the one blaming others finally realizes there is no one to blame but oneself.

Hours later, the darkness outside of the bus began to turn to light. They soon arrived at the destination. It was only here that the protagonist could see: his fellow travelers were transparent – fully transparent. They were ghosts, whose footsteps could not bend even the grass under their feet.

Bright people (Spirits) would come to meet them. Our protagonist came upon a conversation between one of these Spirits and a fellow traveler (Ghosts). They knew each other from their lives before death. In life, this traveler’s intellect wouldn’t allow him to accept the Resurrection – God gave him critical faculties and he was using them. He sees no sin in this, as his opinion was “honest.”

“Mine certainly were. They were not only honest but heroic. I asserted them fearlessly.”

He openly rejected the Resurrection, and preached a sermon accordingly.

“I defied the whole chapter. I took every risk.”

The Spirit responds:

“What risk? What was at all likely to come of it except what actually came – popularity, sales for your books, invitations, and finally a bishopric?”

The Spirit goes on to explain: none of our opinions are honestly come by – that we come to these without any outside influence at all. He reminds that at college they would write the kind of essays that would get good grades, and the right kind of essay was known due to the prevailing opinions of the time.

“When, in our whole lives, did we honestly face, in solitude, the one question on which all turned: whether after all the Supernatural might not in fact occur? When did we put up one moment’s real resistance to the loss of our faith?”

Eventually, having drifted bit by bit from the faith, we convinced ourselves that we came at this honestly.

None of this had any effect. Instead, the Ghost offered: you haven’t asked me about my current paper. It is for this paper that he is planning to return to ghost town, and not stay here with the Spirit. It addresses the issue of Jesus dying at a very young age, and wonders what might have happened had he lived a full life.

“He would have outgrown his earlier views… What a different Christianity we might have had if only the Founder had reached his full stature!”

I see here a picture of our desire to create a god made in our image: had He grown older, He would have had more mature views; had He lived in our time, He would not have taught such outdated concepts; had He known modern democracy, His views would have been put up to a vote by His followers.

Conclusion

Our protagonist comes upon another Ghost. This one comes across a bunch of apples. He tries to pick several up and carry them, but the weight was too much. He then chose the single largest apple, and the issue was the same.

Finally, he was able, just barely, to life the smallest apple. The weight doubled him over, and he could only advance an inch at a time.

“Fool, put it down,” said a great voice suddenly. It was quite unlike any other voice I had heard so far. It was a thunderous yet liquid voice.

The voice continued: you cannot take this back with you; there is no room for it in Hell. But if you stay here, you will learn to eat such apples. Even the leaves and the trees will delight in teaching you.

My take: there is nothing from Heaven that belongs to Hell, no mixing between the two, no compromises. Make a choice and live it.

Matthew 25: 29 ‘For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

On the surface, the parable is about money and investing, but this conclusion to the parable doesn’t sound right. Everywhere else in Scripture, we read that the ones with money are to give to the poor. Is Jesus telling us otherwise here? Further, is Jesus saying that poor investors will be punished in the outer darkness? This seems unlikely – or, at least, unlikely given what we understand elsewhere of the reasons for such punishment.

It seems clear He is not teaching such things, as He continues – immediately after concluding the parable:

31 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. 33 And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on His right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; 36 I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? 38 When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? 39 Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’

Jesus is explaining how His disciples – and how we – are to understand this parable. “Talent” was a measure of money; it also can just mean “talent,” as in the gifts we have received from the Holy Spirit. The parable teaches us to use whatever gifts (talents) we have received to increase the wealth of the master. In other words, we are to use our talents in the service of God’s Kingdom.

If we use our talents to serve God’s Kingdom, He will reward us by increasing our talents (think “spiritual gifts,” not “prosperity gospel”) such that we can be of even more use. As Jesus said, “For to everyone who has, more will be given…”

The history of Western Europe in the eighth century is overshadowed by the rise of the Carolingians; at the end of the eight century the only part of Christian Western Europe that was not part of the Carolingian Empire was the British Isles.

Greek East and Latin West; The Church AD 681-1071, Andrew Louth

The story of the Church in the West at this time cannot be told without some background regarding the story of the West more broadly (and this really brings me back to my studies on medieval Western Europe at my other blog).

Much of this expansion took place during the reign of Charles the Great, Charlemagne, reigning from 768 until his death in 814. His legacy can still be seen in the tensions of Europe today.

Charlemagne’s tribe, the Franks, embraced Christianity in its Catholic – that is, not Arian – form, unlike many of the barbarian tribes in the West. Yet, like many of these barbarian tribes, the Franks inherited something of Roman civil and governance structures.

The Merovingians ruled prior to this, but by the end of the sixth century their rule was increasingly theoretical. The power behind the throne was in the person known as the “mayor of the palace.” Charles Martel (“the Hammer”) was this mayor from 714 until his death in 741. During this time, he consolidated the Frankish realms under his rule. He is also well-known for turning back the Muslims in 732 or 733 at Poitiers, in modern day France.

He was succeeded as mayor by Pepin the Younger (or, the Short), who in 751 asked the pope if it was good that the Merovingian kings had no power. Pope Zacharias answered no: such a state of things was not proper. At the time, the pope was hard-pressed by the Lombards and without help from Byzantium (partly due to the different view on iconoclasm, more certainly due to the East being unable to provide military support).

He looked to the Franks for this military support. Pepin needed no further prodding; he deposed the last Merovingian king, Childeric III, and declared himself king.

By 771, with the death of his brother, Pepin’s son Charlemagne became sole Frankish ruler. Over the next three decades, he saw war virtually every year. He would also use his power in support of the papacy – his reign coinciding with the reigns of two popes: Hadrian I and Leo III. This relationship between the king of the Franks and the papacy was complex, each side seeing in it a way of advancing its own interests.

Pope Leo was elected in 795. The aristocracy resented his election, and he was seized by a mob, deposed and imprisoned four years later. He would escape and make his way to Charlemagne – received as pope. In 800, the pope’s declaration of innocence was accepted, and his position as pope was confirmed. The conspirators were condemned to death; however, Leo showed mercy and commuted the sentence to exile.

Two days later, on Christmas Day, 25 December, at the beginning of the third mass of Christmas, Pope Leo solemnly crowned Charlemagne “Emperor of the Romans” …

Not emperor of the Franks – emperor of the Romans. Of course, this challenged the emperor in Constantinople – at that time, a woman, the Empress Eirene! A century or so later, the “Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation” would claim succession from Charlemagne, and hold this position until it was extinguished by Napoleon in 1806.

Now, we come to the Church! Keep in mind that after the fall of Rome, it was through the Church that any form of governance structures remained in the West. Charlemagne had traditional views about his role and the role of the Church: The Church would pray for the realm and for victory over its enemies, and the emperor would defend the Church and promote the faith.

Of course, the reality was not this clean, and the reality is also clouded in what we do not know. The emperor certainly had a say regarding the bishops and abbots in the more important parts of the empire; this much seems clear. At the same time, the Church offered stability and unity, a force for social harmony.

The spread of Christianity went hand-in-hand with the expansion of the Carolingian Empire, which took place mostly towards the north (Saxony) and the east (Bavaria and Pannonia). “Evangelizing” (if one can use that term) the Saxons proved especially difficult.

In 772, Charlemagne cut down the Irminsul, the giant tree that, as far as the Saxons were concerned, was the axis of the world and the support for heaven. He threatened the death penalty to anyone who would not accept baptism. There was zero tolerance for paganism.

At the same time, Charlemagne ushered in a Renaissance – a re-creation of Latin culture: study and education was supported, with a revived interest in Latin classics; a recourse to texts – the Scriptures and the Church Fathers especially. Monasteries were required to provide instruction in reading for children, the psalms, and grammar – although how effective this was is a different matter.

The development of the papacy is one of the most striking features of the first Christian millennium, and the result of that development a dominating feature of the second Christian millennium.

Claims were made regarding the authority of the Church of Rome, if not for the pope personally; claims regarding its position relative to that of the other sees – initially, primarily Alexandria and Antioch. To these, Constantinople would be added, and Jerusalem given some sort of honorary status.

Even though Constantinople was recognized at Chalcedon as having a second place after Rome (even above Alexandria), Rome would not recognize this as it was deemed an innovation and opened the door to the possibility that in the future a council could change the ordering.

In any case, Rome claimed some sort of universal jurisdiction, and, as we have seen elsewhere, sees in the East also looked to Rome in this manner – most notably during the Christological controversies of the fifth century.

By 800, with the elevation of Charlemagne to Emperor of the Roman Empire (by the pope), the pope had achieved some independence from Byzantium – although, again, this independence was intertwined with the iconoclast controversy in the East. Was the papacy active or passive in these changes? Both can be seen.

While most popes during the period from 680 – 751 were “Greek,” this is a bit misleading. They were from southern Italy or Sicily, where Greek was still the vernacular. Their sympathies were almost certainly Roman. In the latter eighth century, the popes increasingly came from the aristocracy, with an even firmer Roman foundation.

Conclusion

Iconoclasm in the West. In the East, this was introduced by emperor Leo III in 726, but his decree was never accepted in Rome. It wasn’t the first time that Rome refused the emperor: Rome refused to pay taxes a few years earlier to fund the wars against the Muslims.

The issue of iconoclasm was not as meaningful in the West as it was in the East during the eighth century. After emperor Leo’s initial decree in 726 and the pope’s response, there is little written evidence of any such struggles until the time of pope Hadrian at the end of the century. The West understood icons in a different way than did the East.

The West, it might seem, did not invest religious images with anything like the theological significance found in them in the East…

The classic defense of icons in the West comes from St. Gregory the Great: pictures are placed in churches for the benefit of the illiterate, so they can learn by picture that which they cannot read in a book. In the East, this was seen as only a small reason for the defense of icons.

Yet the Carolingian court did not see eye-to-eye with the pope on the matter, seeing icons as idolatrous. The issue being that the distinction of “worship” and “veneration” in Greek had no corresponding difference when translated to Latin.

This put Pope Hadrian in a difficult spot. He would find a reason to reject Nicaea II on a basis other than the issue of icons, such that he could present his rejection to Charlemagne in order to demonstrate that he was not reverting in some way to Byzantine authority.

When a Gentile commits many evils and impure acts, it is not appropriate for a Jew to indict him; for the Gentile has committed sin without possessing a written Law, whereas the Jew has done so by disregarding the Law. In the case of the Jew, he has not only committed a sin, but he is also guilty of ‘violation’. Therefore, his responsibility is greater and his penalty is more severe.

The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans, Fr Tadros Yacoub Malaty (PDF)

Since a person who is outwardly a Jew is convicted due to his lack of spirituality and his deadly literal observances, then a Christian will be all the more guilty if he keeps the name and the formalities but without staying the course.

The Jew was handed the Law; we were given a greater gift: Christ. We bear even more guilt when we fail.

St Paul is dealing with the conceit of the Jew who relies on being “chosen” out of all nations as recipients of the Law.

Romans 2: 1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?

When we ordain ourselves as judges of others, we inflict judgment on ourselves as we share the same failings. We not only indict ourselves, but we usually are wrong in our judgment as well.

The Jews, and especially their leaders, were using the Law as a means to criticize and indict people instead of seeing the Law as pointing to a way of life. Their pride in their outward appearance made them blind to the need for an inner change.

4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”:

God is patient with us; He gives us numerous opportunities to repent (I know in my case I am glad He has kept me until now, just for this). At the same time, however, if we – as Christians and knowing the truth – are unrepentant in our wickedness, the penalty only increases.

“The penalty increases.” Such a concept was outside of my view in the past; perhaps it still is. There is one penalty – death and hell. Yet, I can accept that the reward for faithfulness increases for some compared to others (St Peter has more treasure stored up than I ever will), then why not accept that the same is true for different sinners and different sins – increasing our penalty?

Paul speaks about the righteous who are rewarded with eternal life, followed by those who are subjected to God’s wrath:

7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

The idea of “the Jew first and also to the Greek” is not to be understood as some order of importance; instead, it merely reflects the giving of the Law to the Jews before Christ was made available to all.

The reality that both Jew and Greek are the same in the eyes of God is made clear in the next first verse:

11 For there is no partiality with God.

At the same time, God judges based on how much one has received. From St John Chrysostom:

“It is only fair that someone who has received a greater share of knowledge should get a greater share of punishment if he disobeys the Law. Consequently, our punishment becomes more severe as it corresponds with our wisdom and authority. If you are rich, you are required to give more than what is required of the poor. If you are wiser than others, you are required to be more obedient than others; and if you are entrusted with authority, you need to offer remarkable services.”

The Jews received a greater share of knowledge, by the revelation of the Law:

12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law

The Law was never an end in itself. It certainly wasn’t an opportunity for boasting about somehow being special, or “chosen.” The Law afforded one thing for those to whom it was given: it presented an opportunity for work.

13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified

Those who received the Law receive a harsher penalty for violating the Law; the Law testifies against them. The Jews are in need of divine grace even more than are the Gentiles.

St John Chrysostom:

“Not all penalties are alike for all sins. Rather, they are various and numerous: it depends on the times and the persons – their ranks, intelligence, and circumstances….”

Yet, even those without the Law have some understanding of the Law:

14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

We all have a conscious. While not a perfect judge, it accuses us when we are wrong, when we sin, when we hurt others. We know it.

17 Indeed you are called a Jew, and rest on the law, and make your boast in God

Paul does not say “you are a Jew,” but you are “called” a Jew.

In other words, ‘you imagine you are loved and honored by God above all mankind.’ We believe that the Apostle is gently sarcastic about their lack of logic and their wild lust for glory.

They have abused this favor, putting themselves in a place above others, treating others arrogantly. The Jews demean God while imagining they were teaching others about Him.

St John Chrysostom:

“Anyone who plays a leading role needs to shine more brilliantly than any other star.”

Conclusion

24 For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” as it is written.

St John Chrysostom:

“The Jews are not only insolent towards God, but they encourage others to do so …they drive them to blaspheme.”

The apostle Paul is writing this to Jews. But don’t we see this today in the face of many so-called Christians and Christian leaders?

Which brings me to…we need not read the criticisms of Jews, Pharisees, priests, etc., by Jesus or any gospel writer or in any epistle, and think “that was the Jews; it isn’t me.”

It is me; it applies to all of us. Every criticism, every rebuke: we are subject to the same failures. We are all fallen and all subject to sin.

Pope Gregory the Great:

“I now ask: What is Israel today? The Apostle answers: Those who act according to the Spirit and not according to the letter. Those walking according to the Law of the Lord Jesus Christ: these constitute the Israel of God.”

This knife cuts both ways, and that’s what I’m getting at. If I am not acting according to the Spirit, if I am not walking according to the Law of Jesus Christ, every criticism of “Jews” found in Scripture applies to me.

There is no partiality with God.

Early in 399, Eutropius, a wily and exceedingly ambitious court eunuch, had attained the highest position in the imperial government, that of consul; he was the only eunuch ever to reach such heights.

Sermons from the Life of St John Chrysostom, Translation and Introduction by David C. Ford

Eutropius was fabulously wealthy, but it seems much of his wealth was acquired through various schemes of extortion – not atypical for people who hold such power. He was considered to be the most powerful person in the Eastern Roman Empire at the time – powerful enough to arrange the marriage of his Emperor Arcadius with Eudoxia, a Germanic princess, in 395.

By 399, Eutropius fell out of favor with the now Empress Eudoxia; she had previously been protecting him from ever-increasing opposition against him. Imperial guards came to arrest him, so he fled to the leading church of Constantinople, Hagia Sophia. Once inside, he clung onto the alter for dear life.

St. John was the preacher at this church. And this is the setting for this sermon, preached the day after Eutropius fled into the church and while he was still clinging to the alter. John allowed him to stay in the cathedral as a place of refuge – this despite the fact that Eutropius had a history of doing harmful things to the church.

Ironically, one of the things Eutropius had done against the Church was restricting her right to provide sanctuary to those fleeing there.

Yet, John forgives him and urges his flock to do the same.

To the sermon:

Vanity of vanities! All is vanity! It is always appropriate to quote these words – but especially now.

Where now are the glittering trappings of your consulship? Where are the gleaming torches? Where are the rounds of applause, the choral dancing, the banquets, the public festivals?

So the sermon begins. All of that is no more, says John; no drinking parties, no feasting.

All these things were like a dream in the night, or a fleeting vision in the day.

Was I not telling you constantly, Eutropius, that wealth is fleeting? But you did not heed us.

Did I not say to you when you continually rebuked me for speaking the truth, “But I love you more than those flattering you”? And, “I who reprove you care more for you than those currying your favor”?

John is not one to just breeze past their history. Now the truth is clear: none of your so-called friends are here for you. They abandoned you; we do not. The Church you made war against is protecting you.

I am saying these things now, not as trampling upon one who is prostrate, but as wishing to make more secure those who are still standing.

John is making clear: anyone who believes they are on sure footing has to realize this isn’t the case: all is vanity.

Nothing is more fragile than human affairs. … For who was more exalted than this man? Did he not surpass the entire world in wealth?

Yet look at him: more wretched than those in bonds, more pitiable than household slaves. Yet, however much we try, we cannot adequately describe his suffering – suffering due to his expectation of being put to death at any hour. When they came the day before to drag him away, he had the look of one already dead – just as he does now.

This is not a reproach of Eutropius; John is wishing to soften the disposition of the congregation toward him. We should glorify God that He put in front of Eutropius such a need that he might learn the power of the Church and her love for mankind.

…she whom he attacked now casts her shield in front of him, receiving him under her wings, and placing him in all security…

Such an action shames the Greeks and disgraces the Jews. it shows the brightness of the Church’s face; having received her enemy as captive, she spares him. Just as the prostitute took hold of Jesus’ feet and was made pure by the touch of the purse and spotless one, so we see Eutropius when clinging to the alter.

This is a lesson for any who believe they are standing on a pinnacle of power. Look at this man, more powerful than any, and here he is, lowlier than the lowest one among us.

Conclusion

So! Have I quelled your passion? Have I expelled your wrath? Have I extinguished your inhumanity? Have I led you to compassion? I very much believe I have.

This was John’s purpose with his sermon. Show mercy; develop sympathy. This is what he wanted for his congregation.

As for Eutropius… once the emperor heard he was here, he made a long speech to allay the wrath of the soldiers – take account not only of his sinful deeds, but also of the many good things he has done. The emperor declared that he was ready to pardon him.

John concludes: After all of this spectacle is over, how will you handle the Holy Mysteries? How will you feel when repeating the command, “Forgive us, as we forgive our debtors”? How can you say such things if you stand here right now and still demand vengeance.

Epilogue

Shortly after this sermon was preached, mercy was shown to Eutropius. He was not immediately tried and executed; instead, he was exiled to Cyprus. Unfortunately for him, this was not a permanent condition: he was recalled from exile, tried, found guilty of high treason, and beheaded.

In contemporary Orthodox theology, the essence-energies distinction is often mentioned, but rarely understood.

Divine Energies and Divine Action: Exploring the Essence-Energies Distinction, by David Bradshaw

This post is taken from the Foreword, by Paul Gavrilyuk

That opening describes me pretty well. I have enough of an understanding to accept the idea that God became man so that man could become God. I hope that by working through this book, I can explain why I link the essence-energies distinction to my understanding of that statement in a simple enough manner.

The subject also interests me because it opens the door to what seems to me a much more complete (and rewarding) understanding of what is meant by “salvation” or what it means “to be saved.” Much more than escaping eternal hell and entering eternal heaven, salvation is to enter into the life of the Trinity – not in essence or nature, but in … well, how to put it exactly? Activity, relationship? Like I said, I hope to be able to understand and explain it all better.

[The book’s] main contribution is to demonstrate that the essence-energies distinction is philosophically defensible, theologically foundational, and spiritually beneficial.

As I noted, one of my questions is: just what is meant by “energies”?

The first abiding contribution of this work is its discussion of the uses of energeia / energein in the New Testament.

Yes, this will be helpful.

… the Cappadocian Fathers provided a philosophical framework for the divine glory by articulating the essence-energies distinction and by understanding divine glory as the divine energies rather than the divine essence.

This idea is a key point in understanding how it is that God became man so that man could become God. Not in His essence, but in His energies.

Is the distinction real, or is it conceptual? It seems it has been considered in both ways, and Bradshaw will examine this – without getting the reader lost in the history of philosophy (which I am hoping is true, because I will get lost here). This will culminate in the work of St. Gregory Palamas, but, as has already been noted, the concepts were in the Eastern Church (and in the New Testament) very early on.

… [Bradshaw] points out that it is not completely accurate to understand the distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies as that between what God is in himself and how God manifests himself to creatures.

God as “I AM,” as the only one who has being in Himself, as opposed to how I experience God in the world. Well, that was one of the ways I made sense of it to myself, so I am glad that while it is not “completely accurate,” it seems that leaves room for my unqualified thought to be at least somewhat accurate.

Of course, there are energies that are made manifest to creatures, yet these energies belong to God as He exists in Himself. But what does it mean to exist in Himself? How are we to understand God’s “essence”?

Bradshaw points out that the essence is understood in the patristic writings in three ways: as the equivalent to the Father, as what is shared between the three persons of the Trinity, and as the source of divine energies.

Conclusion

The following from Bradshaw’s Preface:

The distinction between the unknowable divine essence and the divine energies that “come down to us” and can be known through experience is central to Eastern Orthodox theology. It provides the basic structure for Orthodox thought about the relationship of God to the world …

It is one of the key things that has attracted me to the Eastern tradition (albeit the Oriental wing) of the Church.

… only such a distinction can do justice to the transcendence and unknowability of God, on the one hand, and God’s immanence within creation and within human life, on the other.

Maybe I should stop here, because I understand this point and the need to find both in our understanding of and relationship with God.

My main concern in this study is that I may get lost in some of the philosophical distinctions. My understanding is that this book is readable by the educated layman, so I guess we will find out together on which side of that divide I fall.

‘No, there is no escape. There is no heaven with a little hell in it – no plan to retain this or that of the devil in our hearts or in our pockets. Out Satan must go, every hair and feather.’

- George MacDonald

The Great Divorce, by C.S. Lewis

From the Preface:

Blake wrote The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.

In this novel, Lewis writes of their Divorce. He does this because he sees perennial attempts to make the marriage possible. We don’t like facing “either-or” questions; we often want to find a way to embrace two mutually exclusive alternatives. However, we cannot turn evil into good, no matter our attempts.

We live in a world where every road eventually forks into two, and eventually each of those two roads fork into two other roads, and so on. This is life, and with each choice we either move toward the good or away from it – which means moving toward evil. Each time we choose good, we are moving farther from evil.

I do not think that all who choose wrong roads perish; but their rescue consists in being put back on the right road.

We cannot get back to the good road by continuing on a path that was the result of taking the wrong fork in the road. I have this vision of The Pilgrim’s Progress, where the protagonist, known as “Christian,” is often steered off course – and the only hope for him to reach Paradise is to return to the right course.

Evil can be undone, but it cannot ‘develop’ into good. Time does not heal it. … If we insist on keeping Hell (or even Earth) we shall not see heaven.

To accept Heaven requires rejecting every aspect of Hell – not even the tiniest souvenir of Hell can be retained. In Heaven, we will find that even plucking out our right eye was both worth it – and, ultimately, our eye was not lost.

But what, you ask, of earth? Earth, I think, will not be found by anyone to be in the end a very distinct place. I think earth, if chosen instead of Heaven, will turn out to have been, all along, only a region in Hell; and earth, if put second to Heaven, to have been from the beginning a part of Heaven itself.

It is a wonderful statement: we are either moving toward heaven or moving toward hell, moving toward Christ or moving toward Satan, attaining theosis or attaining damnation. Our journey – as Lewis mentioned earlier, our choices as we come to each fork in the road – begins now, right here, and not merely after we die. How we live matters; how we live produces heaven or produces hell.

Conclusion

In this novel, Lewis paints a picture of heaven and hell, of life after death. He does this to make a point, not to teach orthodox theology about the afterlife:

I beg readers to remember that this is a fantasy. It has of course – or I intend it to have – a moral. But the transmortal conditions are solely an imaginative supposal: they are not even a guess or a speculation at what may actually await us.

Proverbs 15: 21 Folly is joy to him who is destitute of discernment, but a man of understanding walks uprightly.

22 Without counsel, plans go awry, but in the multitude of counselors they are established.

I have been thinking more about my leaning on the early Church Fathers – my reasons for doing so, the benefits and risks to me, etc. I would like to touch on this a bit more.

I have written often of the value I find in understanding Scripture and the Gospel through their eyes – they lived much closer to the time, place, culture, and context of the authors of the New Testament books. Some of these were disciples of the apostles, and even more of these were only two or three people removed in this chain of teacher/student relationships. The value of this is incalculable, as far as I can tell.

So, why these verses from Proverbs? Well, first of all, I didn’t go seeking these out; they found me. I may have mentioned: whatever verses I lean on for these Sunday posts I only take from my Bible reading during the immediate six days before Sunday. It has been a way to keep me disciplined in opening Scripture regularly (sadly, still not every single day, but much more regularly than in the past).

I am currently reading through Genesis, Matthew, and Proverbs – reading something from two or three of these each time I open the Bible. And these verses from Proverbs were presented to me.

These verses describe how I lean on the early Church Fathers. Not as infallible sources, but as a multitude of counselors – counselors who happened to live in the time, place, culture, and context of the authors of the New Testament books. Who could ask for better than this? (Not to dismiss more modern counselors – as you know, I lean on these also.)

Yet, as seen in the first of the two verses, I pray that I am not destitute of discernment when it regards what I am reading; when I find things that don’t sit well with me, I pay close attention to why. Is it merely that I am uncomfortable with it (which is good), or is it that I find it contrary to what seems to me to be found in Scripture (for which I approach with extreme caution).

In other words, I pray that God gives me discernment and understanding through these counselors to continue to walk upright.

That’s what these early Church Fathers mean to me; and that is how I relate to them.

Epilogue

By the way, the reason I write publicly is two-fold: I write, because it helps me to think, to better absorb what is being taught in the book I am studying. I make my writing public, because I learn from and am tested by all of you. For example, if it turns out that you find I am leaning too much on the early Church Fathers!

I also write because my hope is that what I am studying could also be of benefit to others. Although I have never once cared how many read or follow; that is irrelevant to me when compared to having good company on this journey.

Modern scholarship on this question [of icons] has, almost universally, taken the side of the iconoclasts; for most scholars it is beyond question that icons and their veneration are a late phenomenon in the life of the Church.

Greek East and Latin West; The Church AD 681-1071, Andrew Louth

About a third of the page on which this quote appears is one long footnote of sources backing up this statement.

The eighth century and the first half of the ninth was dominated by this issue: iconoclasts wanting to destroy icons, iconodules who defended and venerated icons, and iconophiles who loved icons.

The controversy reverberated through every level of Byzantine society – from the emperor to the people, and for the Eastern Church with Rome. The issue cannot be separated from the Muslim advances of the time in the East and the Carolingian Empire in the West.

What role did devotion to icons play in the Church at the time? This question is the most fundamental. As noted above, modern scholarship regarding the early Church takes the side of the iconoclasts. The view in real time was that the iconoclasts believed that icons were not inherited as part of the apostolic tradition – it was an innovation resisted by some of the Fathers, but “spread like cancer” anyway. Those who defended the practice claimed it was there from the beginning.

Archeological evidence demonstrates Christian art early on, but literary texts are not available to explain the meaning or use. Evidence becomes more clear beginning in the fourth century and on – just as is true for evidence on any “Christian” history once the religion was no longer persecuted. By the fifth and sixth centuries, there is ample evidence of a developed cult of icons.

Lacking in those same centuries – the fifth and sixth – is any evidence condemning the practice of icons. Louth considers that this points to the possibility that by then it was a well-established practice – not a recent innovation. The earliest objections we have come from Jews in the seventh century, who saw veneration as tantamount to idolatry.

The outbreak of iconoclasm came in either 726 or 730 – a dispute about when Emperor Leo issued his decree. By this time, icons were an established practice within the life of the Church and of the Christian community.

The immediate historical circumstances prior to the outbreak of iconoclasm are sketched out by Louth. Suffice it to say, it involved political intrigue, deposing and exiling emperors, escaping exile and returning with a vengeance, establishing partnerships with non-Christians to retake power from the “nominally” Christian usurpers, etc.

Ultimately, Bardanes, an Armenian, took the throne and took the name Philippikos. He would call a synod that repudiated the sixth council; the pope then ordered pictures of all six council to be set up in St. Peter’s. Meanwhile, the Arabs were advancing in Asia Minor. More rebellions would follow, until Leo took the throne.

It was in the context of these Arab threats to the empire that Leo III invoked the policy of iconoclasm. Then there was a volcanic eruption in the sea, resulting in the creation of a new island – another portent from God to Leo. Leo attempted to introduce his policy to Italy, but Pope Gregory II condemned iconoclasm in return. Papal lands were seized by the emperor as payback.

If it seems little of this explains at the root the causes of iconoclasm, Louth agrees:

A good deal of obscurity surrounds the early period of iconoclasm…

I wonder how much of this is because the texts of what are ultimately deemed as heresies often are destroyed. In any case, the best Louth can do with this history is that somehow all of these changes and the chaos of the events led to the policy of iconoclasm. One benefit, for an emperor, is that the removal of icons eliminates the competition for images; what was left were images of the emperor and empress.

A Palestinian monk, John of Damascus, offered the most comprehensive response to Leo’s iconoclasm. It perhaps helped that he was an Umayyad subject, out of the reach of the empire. Yet he wrote as a Byzantine churchman, providing a characteristically Byzantine statement of the relationship between the Church and the Emperor.

Over the course of about fifteen years, beginning in 726, he would write three treatises “against those who attack holy images.” He writes with assurance, and says that icons are not some peripheral area of Christian devotion, but lie at the very root of the Christian faith itself.

Idolatry is, he argues, worshipping the creature instead of the Creator, and the veneration of icons is far from this, for two reasons: first, because of what an image is; second, because of what is meant by veneration (or “bowing down”).

Part of the argument hinges on two different words which are both translated as “worship.” One means to honor or “bow down,” and the second explicitly means to “worship.” Further, with the reality of the Incarnation – the invisible becoming visible – “you may depict the likeness of something seen.” He further appeals to St. Basil: “the honor offered to the image passes to the archetype.”

As to the emperor, he has no right to interfere in sacred matters. John writes:

“We shall not suffer the custom of the Fathers to be subject to an imperial constitution that seeks to overthrow it.”

Conclusion

A new emperor, the ten-year-old Constantine VI, would rule – and with him, his mother Eirene as co-ruler. More intrigues, palace coup attempts, blinding and mutilating enemies, etc., would follow. Eirene called what we now know as the seventh council, in Nicaea, the purpose of which was to condemn iconoclasm and to proclaim that the veneration of icons was orthodox.

Despite this somewhat damning record, the Orthodox Church has preserved fond memories of Eirene.

She restored icons, although this would only prove temporary; iconoclasm will have a “Round Two” after a brief respite of a few decades.

In the meantime, the entire controversy would bring repercussions with Rome and the West. This will be addressed in the next chapter.

This Chapter constitutes the introduction to the Epistle. St Paul reveals in it the essence of his whole message.

The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans, Fr Tadros Yacoub Malaty (PDF)

Paul is writing to both Jews and Gentiles; however, his desire is to oppose the movement of Judaism. He does not wish to do this in a negative manner (turning off the Jews), so he begins with indicting the sins of the Gentiles.

Romans 1: 1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God

Paul uses three designations to identify himself: he is a bondservant (or servant), thereby identifying himself with all believers; he is called to be an apostle – the operative word being “called”; he is separated to the gospel of God – separated is equivalent to the Aramaic word “Pharisee.”

St John Chrysostom:

“St Paul speaks about the gospel of God in order to bring joy to his listeners from the start (for the word gospel means joyful proclamation). He would come with news that would not sadden them as former prophets had done.”

Paul opens with the idea that what he is about to tell this is good news – a joyful proclamation.

2 which He [God] promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

This gospel of which Paul is writing is to accept our Lord Jesus Christ; through Him we are granted to be God’s children. He is the seed of David; it is He, and not Solomon, who built the divine home – the true temple.

5 Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, 6 among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;

7(a) To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints:

The grace we have received is not from anything in us, but only through Him, our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul does not offer a definition of grace – his focus is not theoretical, philosophical discussion. This grace is available to all nations, not only Jews. The calling to be saints is available to all; it is an invitation to honor that does not pass with this life:

St John Chrysostom:

“Other honors are granted for a period of time, they end with the passing away of the present life, and they can be bought with money…as for the honors that God grants- the honor of sanctification and of adoption as His children- even death cannot ever destroy these. These make human beings honorable on earth, and this stays with us in our journey into eternal life.”

Paul concludes the introduction with a familiar blessing:

7(b) Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

St John Chrysostom notes that Paul begins by mentioning grace and then peace. The order is important, as we cannot enjoy true inner peace unless God’s grace is working in us.

Paul begins with encouragement, even though he will eventually come to reproach:

8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Paul starts with thanks to God regarding the faith of this community.

9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers, 10 making request if, by some means, now at last I may find a way in the will of God to come to you. 11 For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift, so that you may be established— 12 that is, that I may be encouraged together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.

These people are the object of Paul’s love; they preoccupy his thoughts, plans and prayers. He is in need of them as much as they are in need of him. For Paul, there is one end for this church in Rome: that they, too, might enjoy the spiritual and divine gift – the gospel, the good news.

13 Now I do not want you to be unaware, brethren, that I often planned to come to you (but was hindered until now), that I might have some fruit among you also, just as among the other Gentiles. 14 I am a debtor both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to wise and to unwise. 15 So, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome also.

Just as Paul has done elsewhere, he longs to do in Rome.

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

A side note: “power” here is dunamis in the Greek; it is correlative to energeia, the active exercise of a capacity – and from which the Eastern Church has come to understand God’s energies. Here we see God’s energies active to salvation for all who believe.

17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

“…from faith to faith”: according to Malaty, the idea is evident “in those who have faith in His commandments; and it is simultaneously reflected in believers who are moved to accept faith in the Gospel.”

As for “The just shall live by faith”:

A firm believer in God carries God’s righteousness within himself. This does not mean that he is immune from sin as some like to believe. However, such a person enjoys continuous progress and endless spiritual development as he walks in the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I will add: we “live” by faith; faith is demonstrated in how we live, what we do. Every time I come across a verse like this, I think “faithfulness” – a word of activity, not merely assent or acceptance.

Now we get to the part of this chapter that many would like to ignore, beginning with verse 18 and speaking to the wickedness of the nations:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.

Malaty comments that here Paul begins not with the Jews, but with Gentiles. I think this is evidenced by the reference not to the Law, but to what is “manifest in them.” Paul goes on to describe how these things are visible to them, yet they darkened their hearts; for this, then, they have no excuse.

Paul then identifies many of the ways that those which as these have turned their backs on God – a passage ignored today by the world and also by many so-called Christian leaders.

The point here is: the Gentiles were not left blind; there was much evidence presented to them in creation. We see this in the search by philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle – the light outside of the cave and the Unmoved Mover; Paul noted it in the alter at the Areopagus: “To the unknown god.”

They knew God but did not glorify Him – they abandoned God by their own free will. God granted them their desire.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves

Conclusion

By turning from God, we are left to our corrupt nature. Our pride strips us of God’s grace, a grace which grants sanctification.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29(a) being filled with all unrighteousness

Our debased mind does not know limits.

St John Chrysostom notes that the Apostle uses the following expressions in his list: ‘filled’, ‘with all’, ‘burned in their lust’. It is as though these evils are no longer temporary matters in a man’s life, but they flood his inner being and charge him fully so that he performs ‘all unrighteousness’ and not just one or two evils!

We see this, maybe not in every individual but in our society, in our culture, in what is “acceptable.”

32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

At the same time, this sin and corruption both destroys our inner peace and increases our pride and arrogance. It is a sign of placing oneself as the true north of determining virtue.

I decide what is right and what is wrong. It is the ultimate manifestation of pride. This is what Paul identifies as the most debased and corrupt of man.

I said yesterday that great is the fruit of the earthquake. Do you see the Lord’s love for mankind in shaking the city and making your minds firm?

Sermons from the Life of St John Chrysostom, Translation and Introduction by David C. Ford

John preached this homily after an earthquake in Antioch at the end of 395 or the beginning of 396. It is the second of two “earthquake” sermons we have from John, the first after an earthquake in 388. As you can see from the above quote, John didn’t look at earthquakes the way most people do – not the way I normally do!

John was ill for some time until immediately before this earthquake. He missed that time of teaching, as he sees the teaching necessary for the right ordering of the soul.

Up until yesterday, I was fixed in my bed; but God did not permit that I should be entirely ruined by this famine. For just as it is a famine for you not to hear, so it is a famine for me not to speak.

Those to whom John is preaching did commendable work in the days since the earthquake. They did not know the difference between day and night, keeping vigil over the city in its troubles.

For your yearning for Christ has conquered the weakness of your nature.

They ceased being human in their bodies by imitating the heavenly powers, choosing labor instead of rest. John describes this as the fruit of the earthquake – a benefit that will never be used up, one that makes the poor well-off and enriches the wealthy.

…you accomplished a great all-night vigil, and you purified the entire city with the steps of your holy feet… You sanctified the ground, the marketplace; you made our whole city a church.

Now no one remembers collecting interest, no one speaks of greediness.

By shaking the ground for a little while, the Lord strengthened us constantly. By rocking the foundations, He made us steadfast. By cracking the city, He strengthened our powers of discernment.

How were you harmed by being upset for a little while? You became angels instead of men. You transferred yourselves to Heaven – if not in place, yet in your way of life.

John was anticipating that after a day or two of such effort, sleep would have overcome the bodies of those to whom he is speaking. But what he sees instead is that as the sleeplessness increases, their desire increases.

The heavens were opened, and a judgment was brought down – the sharpened sword. The wrath appeared inevitable, about to knock the city to the ground. Yet we had need of nothing except repentance, tears, and groaning; everything was averted.

God appeared, and we ourselves dissolved His wrath. One would not be mistaken in calling you the caretakers and saviors of the city.

Why was the city shaken?

…because of acts of greediness, and injustice, and lawlessness, and arrogance, and illicit pleasure, and deceit.

And who was responsible for all this? The rich!

And why did the city stand firm?

…this happened because of psalmody, and prayers, and vigils.

It is the poor who are responsible for this.

Conclusion

This is such an interesting sermon. The connection of natural catastrophes tied to the sin of the city. It is a connection I have yet to grow comfortable with.

More importantly, John speaks to the charity of the people in the aftermath of this catastrophe. It is through such acts of charity that early Christianity advanced throughout the empire. It also is a reminder that only through difficulties can we truly grow. This lesson always rings true for me.

Now, one is the Holy Spirit, and he is proclaimed singly. He is joined through the one Son to the one Father, and through himself, he completes the famed and blessed Trinity. That he is not ranked in the multitude of creation but rather, uniquely named makes clear enough his kinship with the Father and the Son.

On the Holy Spirit, by St. Basil the Great

1 Corinthians 14: 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an uninformed person comes in, he is convinced by all, he is convicted by all. 25 And thus the secrets of his heart are revealed; and so, falling down on his face, he will worship God and report that God is truly among you.

To prophesy is a gift that comes from the Spirit, yet it demonstrates that God is among the believers. The two, Father and Spirit, are inseparable in this work. Can it be the case, then, that the Spirit is of creation?

Acts 5: 9(a) Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord?

Acts 5: 4(b) You have not lied to men but to God.

Testing the Spirit is lying to God. Sins against God and the Holy Spirit are the same thing. There is unity and indivisibility in every work of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. The Lord’s presence in the flesh is from the Spirit, as is His anointing. The Spirit was present when Jesus was tempted in the desert. The Church was clearly and undeniably founded through the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 2: 10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God.

Again, the Father and the Spirit are inseparable. Just as the Son is begotten, the Spirit is the breath of God’s mouth – a mouth not like ours, but appropriate to God, and the Spirit a breath not like ours but as a living substance.

While the kinship is thus made clear, the manner of its existence remains unspeakable.

A sentiment I share, and one, if lived by in the early centuries, that might have prevented certain divisions.

Throughout Scripture, we see names given to the Spirit, the greatness of His works, and the kindness He bestows on us.

John 4: 24(a) God is Spirit

Job 33: 4(a) The Spirit of God has made me

Exodus 31: 3 And I have filled him with the Spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship

His works are both great and uncountable. The working of miracles and the gifts of healing are all through the Holy Spirit; demons are driven out through Him; the devil is hindered when the Spirit is present; the deliverance from sins is the grace of the Spirit.

Our kinship with God comes through the Spirit:

Galatians 4: 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, “Abba, Father!” 7 Therefore you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

The Spirit of the Lord is referenced several times as well, not as if He is a slave or a creature, but as one with equal authority to God the Father. Unlike creatures (including even angels), the Spirit is not limited to being in only one place at a time. He worked in both Daniel and Habakkuk in Babylon; He was simultaneously with Jeremiah in stocks and Ezekiel at the Chebar.

Basil continues by expanding on non-scriptural (and by this, he does not mean anti-scriptural) sources for our understanding of the Holy Spirit:

Of the dogmas and proclamations that are guarded in the Church, we hold some from the teaching of the Scriptures, and others we have received in mystery as the teachings of the tradition of the apostles.

If we reject the non-scriptural customs as insignificant, we would lose very vital parts of the Gospel.

Both hold the same power with respect to true religion.

I know many reject this idea. For me, I hold that Scripture is the only infallible source, but this does not make it the only source. I think about this often, as should be obvious from my writing.

Why do we not accept and teach Arianism? Those who were Arians had numerous proof-texts at their disposal, just as did those who taught orthodox Christology. Try having a proof-text debate with a Jehovah’s Witness; they are far better catechized than most Trinitarian Christians.

So, why one and not the other instead? It seems to me that we accept orthodox Christology and the Trinity because this is how the early Church understood what they were taught; it is how they were taught to interpret Scripture. More on this in the Epilogue below.

Conclusion

Basil’s closing chapter is entitled “Explanation of the present state of the churches.” It seems no matter how much some want to present the historic Church as unified, it appears to be not much different than what we see today.

To what, then, will we compare the present condition?

He compares it to a naval battle: two fleets crashing together to fight it out; ships driven by a violent storm, clouds and fog obscuring everything – hiding friend from foe. All resulting in terrible disorder and confusion.

This is how he describes the Arian attack against orthodox Christianity. A war, fracturing into many parts, stormier than the waves of the sea; irreconcilable hatred.

Such chaos did not end once Arianism was defeated:

We have in common with each other that we hate our common opponents, but whenever the enemies leave, then we harm each other as enemies.

Now we fight with each other; personal hostility deteriorates into public warfare. The glory of lording over one’s opponent is preferred to the common good of all.

Just like today.

Epilogue

And, as if coming to my comments above about using only Scripture for such battles:

Inspired Scripture cannot mediate between these two, and apostolic traditions arbitrate the disputes that they have with each other.

Absent this, everyone becomes their own theologian. It is built on arrogance. The result – in his time and even after the defeat of Arianism:

In everyone love has grown cold, and fraternal communion destroyed. Even the name of unity is unknown, and loving correction has disappeared. Nowhere is there Christian mercy; nowhere a sympathetic tear.

Just like today.

For transparency, many times throughout this book Basil was as polemical as the most polemical of any modern-day apologist for their tradition / denomination and against the “other.” In other words, he didn’t consistently practice what he was preaching here at the conclusion….

I Have Some Things Against You

In almost each case, the comments about good works (covered in the previous post) are followed by admonishments where the church is somehow lacking:

Nevertheless I have this against you, that you have left your first love. Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.

In the context of the church to whom this is addressed, it is a gentle reproach given their good works. How might I understand this? Perhaps the first love means: love God, love your neighbor. When identifying the good works of this church, there nothing said of loving the neighbors – those who are orphaned and widowed, those who are otherwise in need. It all starts here, and the rest is meaningless without this.

But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

Here we see a church that has allowed heresy in its midst – both Balaam, and, once again, the Nicolaitans.

Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.

Jezebel is an unrepentant teacher of evil deeds; she has been allowed a place of authority in the church. It says something about the necessary character and personal attributes of those who have a role of leader or teacher.

Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God. Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you.

We see the word “perfect,” and think that this church is failing only in one or two areas. Yet, there is only one way to be perfect, and that is to be in Christ. Hence, it is a church described as “dead,” a church that must repent.

So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth. Because you say, ‘I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing’—and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked— I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me.

Here again is the church that is neither hot nor cold. It is a church that believes it is doing fine, that it needs nothing from God and, therefore, God can focus His efforts on someone else (this reminds me of a past “me”).

He Who Has an Ear, Let Him Hear

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

This is told to each of the seven churches, yet it is applied to all those who “hear,” in other words, all believers in all churches. To “hear” means not merely to know what was said; it is to act according to that which was said. To “hear” is to “do” according to what was heard.

Those who Overcome

And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations— ‘He shall rule them with a rod of iron; They shall be dashed to pieces like the potter’s vessels’— as I also have received from My Father; and I will give him the morning star.

The language of “he who overcomes” indicates that such faithful churches and individuals will be continuously and even increasingly tested. The morning star is the prize. It drives away the night and introduces the day – in other words, those who hold fast will be freed from darkness and will free others from darkness.

To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it.

From Victorinus of Pettau:

The hidden manna is immortality; the white gem is adoption to be the son of God; the new name written on the stone is Christian.

This idea is repeated:

He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God, the New Jerusalem, which comes down out of heaven from My God. And I will write on him My new name.

We will be joined in the unity of the Church – a pillar in God’s temple, holy men.

Conclusion

Continuing with those who overcome, but (at least for me) the climax of our entire life in Christ:

To him who overcomes I will give to eat from the tree of life, which is in the midst of the Paradise of God.

He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death.

This is eternal life – fully healed, in God’s Paradise. But we are given so much more:

To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

We are fully adopted, in the Trinity. This is how I understand salvation; it is deification, or theosis.

Matthew 16: 24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. 26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?

27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. 28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Ok, to be clearer: every heresy has its series of proof texts.

A Trinitarian and a Jehovah’s Witness meet on the street. They start throwing verses at each other. Each one finding verses that support their belief about God.

How to decide which understanding of seemingly contradictory verses is the right way to eliminate the seeming contradiction (because the Bible cannot contradict itself)?

I choose to understand this by reading people who lived in the culture in that time and in that language. Disciples of the apostles, and their students, etc.

It doesn’t mean they’re right, but my bet is they understood it better than anyone around today.

My text to a Jehovah’s Witness friend.

When it comes to Christology and Trinitarian theology, I have always accepted that which was handed down to me – and, fortunately, this is also what has been handed down through the history of the Church. I have, in the last few years and for various reasons, chosen to examine this understanding – not to challenge it, but to get a better grounding in why I believe what I believe.

Call it faith seeking understanding.

I would like to develop my thoughts on this a bit further. Perhaps this post might end up in the hands of my friend. I want to begin with the grounding in the early Church, in the first centuries after Christ – in those who knew Greek, who lived in the same culture as did the apostles, who learned from the apostles and those who learned from these (as my text above makes clear).

We know that there were many different beliefs about Christology and the Trinity even in the earliest Church – well before the first ecumenical council was called to address Arianism. This council, the Council of Nicaea, was held in the year 325. It was called by Emperor Constantine, and tradition holds that it consisted of 318 bishops from throughout the Christian world.

What was this Arian controversy? In brief summary:

Arius argued that the Son of God did not always exist and that His substance is different from the Father’s. This conflicted with the view advanced by Alexander, and later also by Athanasius, who argued that the Christ is coeternal with God the Father.

The Son is a created being, and He is not coeternal with the Father. A view held by Jehovah’s Witnesses and, therefore, held by my friend.

Out of this council (and modified in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople), came what we now know as the Nicene Creed. The relevant portion of the Nicene Creed to this topic:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial of one Being with the Father.

The Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God.

There is an anathema that follows the Creed:

As for those who say there was a time when the Son was not, or there was a time when the Holy Spirit was not or that they came into being out of nothing; or who say that the Son of God or the Holy Spirit are of a different substance and that they are changeable or alterable, such do the catholic and apostolic holy Church anathematize.

This anathema applies to Jehovah’s witnesses, and, therefore, to my friend. Those who believe other than what is stated about the Son (and the Holy Spirit) in the Creed are anathematized by the catholic (universal) and apostolic (roots identified in or traced to an apostle) Church.

What does it mean to anathematize? To excommunicate: to be placed outside of communion. Even this can be understood in different ways. But we can look to the apostle Paul for how he used and understood the term:

Galatians 1: 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed (Gr. anathema). 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.

Let him be accursed. It was important enough that Paul said this twice. To be accursed is to be outside of the Church; to be outside of the Church means to be outside of Christ. To summarize the meaning of the anathema: those who believe something other than what is presented in the Creed about the Son are outside the Church: they are accursed.

Now, St. Paul was certainly not referring to the Nicene Creed when he wrote those words; I only introduced him to explain the Biblical grounding for the meaning of the term anathema. So, the question arises: why should those who claim to be Christians today place their faith in the statements found in Nicaea? After all, it isn’t Scripture.

As a starting – even foundational – point: Christians must believe something about the person and nature of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. They must have some firm belief about the nature and person of the God they worship. There were many “somethings” about this God floating around in the early centuries – minor positions though they were.

A council was called in 325 by the emperor to resolve this. Why the emperor? Why not a bishop? The bishops were to keep that which was handed down from the apostles; the emperor was to defend and ensure this faith. A model quite different than what we know today, but this was the model for many centuries – let’s say until perhaps the Enlightenment of the post-medieval period (but a generalization doesn’t really do justice to this history).

As mentioned, this council was held in 325. It was only a few years prior, in 313 with the Edict of Milan, when Constantine made Christianity a legal religion within the empire. Before this, Christians were subject to being – and were often – persecuted and martyred.

Keep in mind: tradition holds that 318 bishops attended this Nicene council (though estimates range from about 250 and up). These bishops were men who just a few years before, when Christianity was illegal to practice, suffered beating and whippings; they lost many of their co-religionists to martyrdom at the hands of pagan emperors. In other words, these were men willing to suffer persecution and even death for the faith that they say was handed down to them.

And they gave us the Nicene Creed.

Is it feasible that they did this only to please the emperor despite this Creed being against their faith? It doesn’t seem likely, given the recent persecutions they suffered. In fact, I find it impossible to believe. Had they been forced to a position contrary to what they say was handed down to them, it seems clear to me they would have willingly suffered persecution – as they and those who came before them did.

In fact, what we have seen of the behavior of emperors through these early several centuries of Christendom is that “what” was believed was secondary to them when placed against their desire that all confessed the “same” belief.

Further, even after this first council, there were many emperors sympathetic to Arian Christology (remember Athanasius contra mundum – Athanasius against the world), yet this didn’t change the Church nor did the emperor successfully impose his will on the Church.

Conclusion

Why “faith seeking understanding”? God gave us this Church; it is the Church passed down to Christians. Whether or not the various denominations recite the Creed, they all fundamentally believe about Christ what has been handed down in the Creed.

I am accepting the God that the Church handed down to me; my friend is not. Either my friend is or I am worshipping a false God. I don’t know how to say this in kind terms.

One of us will have to answer the question: why were you worshipping a god other than Me, the true God? If it is asked of me, my answer is simple: I am worshipping the God handed down through the Church. This is the Church that God preserved. He did not preserve an Arian Church.

My friend will have a more difficult time if he is asked this question. What will he say? “I disagree with what the Church has always believed”? “I could not understand the idea of one God in three Persons, so I didn’t believe it”?

My faith is seeking understanding – as those of you who have been with me on this journey recognize. My friend seems to have a desire for his understanding to seek faith. He is searching for a God that makes sense to him, one that he can comprehend.

I think God is much bigger than what my mind (or my friend’s mind) can hold.

Epilogue

Now, because I write the above, does this mean I am beholden to all Church councils, called everywhere at any time? Regular readers know the answer to this is “no.” I am not going to get into why or when, as I have done this all in the blog. But I offer it for completeness, in case it is read by my friend.

But this first one especially, given the character of the men and the persecutions they were willing to suffer when Christianity was illegal, seems pretty close to unimpeachable to me.

It will be convenient to divide this chapter into three sections: the Church in the West, under Islam, and in the Byzantine Empire.

Greek East and Latin West; The Church AD 681-1071, Andrew Louth

It will become clear that even these divisions aren’t sufficient, offering a superficial unity in each of the three where unity doesn’t really exist.

In the West

For most of the West, the Church was organized on the basis of Christian communities under the authority of a bishop attached to the city. As the collapse of political structures in the West increased, the role of the bishop increased.

Little is known about pastoral provision within a diocese; just as little is known about the form of Western monasticism of this time. There was not a Benedictine uniformity at the time (although, apparently, Western Church historians write otherwise).

The development of the papacy – both within the West and within Christendom – is described as “ambivalent.” Christological controversies of the time resulted in Pope Honorius being condemned by Pope Martin for his view of monergism and monothelitism. Yet, the pope’s prestige was enhanced by the accumulation of relics of early Christian martyrs in Rome.

Rome would become a haven for monks from the East fleeing from the Muslims, or for those seeking refuge from the various heresies in the East. In this way, Rome was to become a very cosmopolitan city. A Greek monk, Theodore of Tarsus, was sent to England as Archbishop of Canterbury, however accompanied by a Western monk to monitor his teaching.

Beyond this, it is difficult to sum up the state of the Western Church in the seventh century. The coming growth of the Carolingian Empire would change this.

Under Islam

The Arab conquest of the Eastern provinces of the Byzantine Empire was rapid.

Within a dozen years of Muhammad’s death in 632, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt had been conquered; Persia had also fallen to the Arabs. In the centuries leading up to this, these Christian lands were alternatively subject to condemnation by Byzantium as well as attempts at compromise between the two sides of Chalcedon.

The Muslims, on the other hand, were quite even handed toward all branches of Christianity – as well as to other “people of the Book.” The attitude was tolerant disdain, with non-Muslims required to pay a poll tax but otherwise bothered little at this time. In fact, in Damascus, for example, the fiscal administration was under members of a Christian family for almost one hundred years, until 750 – the family to which the monk and theologian St. John of Damascus belonged. John would describe Islam as the last heresy, the forerunner of the Antichrist. It was seen as a deviant form of Judaism, monotheistic in the narrowest sense.

The “mix” of Christians under Islam spanned the last centuries of controversies: Jocobites, “Monophysites” (non-Chalcedonians), and the “Church of the East” (Nestorians). Many of these would come to speak Arabic while preserving their languages of Greek, Coptic and Syriac. What we know of each of these traditions is very uneven – for example, little of the Coptic Church, but much of the Jacobites. The Church of the East was to be a great missionary Church, reaching India and even northwest China.

There were also Chalcedonian communities, primarily in the monasteries in and near Jerusalem. It is likely that pilgrimages from all of Christendom sustained these communities. Certainly, imperial patronage helped. Yet, even when the emperor abandoned Chalcedonian Christology, these communities persisted in their understanding.

In this Christian world under Islam, defending the faith became an increasing priority. Handbooks of logic were written, to include definitions of key terms used in the Christological controversies: hypostasis, prosopon, ousia, and physis. Further terms such as energia and thelema were defined.

Two other areas need to be included in this region: Georgia and Armenia. Both regions had long been Christian, with Armenia the first nation to embrace Christianity in 301. Due to their Christianity, their languages took a literary form; they celebrated the liturgy and read the Bible in their own languages.

Eastern Geogia quickly fell to Islam, but Western Georgia, protected by the Caucasus Mountains, remained faithful to Byzantine Orthodoxy. The Armenians, who did not participate at Chalcedon, would eventually come to reject it – described by Louth as preserving “older Christological traditions” (an interesting way for a Chalcedonian to phrase it). As Armenia was quite mountainous, it did not fall to Islam until the eighth century.

In Byzantium

The ultimate aim of the Arab conquests of the Middle East had been to secure the capital of the Byzantine or Roman Empire, Constantinople…

While the Persians attempted their conquests by land, the Arabs would come by sea. They already held the islands of Cyprus, Rhodes, Kos, and Chios. They then conquered coastal lands of Asia Minor. In 674, they began their assault on Constantinople, but by 678 they abandoned this goal – turned back by a “secret weapon”: “Greek Fire” (likely petroleum enhanced by other flammable substances).

This victory led to the returned strength of the Empire. Eventually Bulgarian and Slav lands would come under the control of Constantinople. The Sixth Ecumenical Council was held in Constaninople in 680-681, and this was followed by a council known as the Synod of Trullo in 691 – considered by some to be a continuation of the council from ten years earlier.

The purpose of the synod was pastoral, to recapitulate the canon law of the Greek Church. In a way, a reforming synod. Several canons point to earlier councils and synods of the faith; others list the recognized Church Fathers and theologians. There are canons dealing with married clergy, and there was a canon which censures the Armenians for eating eggs and cheese on the Saturdays and Sundays of Lent.

There were canons regulating monks and nuns, regulating the laity (no animal fights or keeping bears in tow, as examples); law students were not to adopt pagan customs. There were canons regulating visual arts – Christ is to be depicted in human form, and not as a lamb.

Several of the Trullan canons, either explicitly or implicitly, concern the practices of the Armenian.

There is some context to this: Justinian II had broken the peace with the Armenians, seeking to subject them once again to Byzantine control. Already having rejected Chalcedon, there was much to say about this Church if it was to be brought into the empire. In addition to the eggs and cheese, the Armenians added “who was crucified for us” to the trisagion; they would use unleavened bread in the Eucharist (oddly, not mentioned in the canons); they did not mix the wine with water.

The final canon, based on the canons of St. Basil, make clear that those with the power to bind and loose need to apply the canons in a pastoral way. We are to bring back lost sheep and heal the serpent’s bite; examine the fruits of repentance and wisely guide the faithful.

This means that the canons are to be understood, not primarily in a legalistic way, but with a view toward pastoral efficacy.

In this, there is the hint of the distinction between the East and the West: the East offering a hospital, and the West offering a courtroom. In neither case exclusively, but clearly in emphasis.

One can also deduce from this that even though many Eastern Orthodox see their Church as the one true Church, this does not necessarily mean to them that those outside of this Church are not saved. They don’t think legalistically.

Conclusion

Pope Sergius refused to accept the Trullan canons; Pope Constantine I seemed to give verbal assent on a visit to the East; Pope Hadrian I seems to have accepted these as part of the sixth council.

There are several “seems to” statements, leading me to conclude that nothing is really certain about any of these events. As Louth noted, the development of the papacy was “ambivalent” at this time; it may also be that our knowledge of these events is just lacking.

God is merciful towards believers not as a reward or a price for their will or their struggle; at the same time He asks us to be willing and to struggle through His grace in order to receive His free gift of mercy.

The Epistle of St Paul to the Romans, Fr Tadros Yacoub Malaty (PDF)

Malaty continues his introduction by outlining the key topics and themes of the epistle, and in these he presents the reasons why I chose to study this book next – and why I chose to do so through an Eastern lens. I am very familiar with how the West understands these topics (or, at least, the modern usage of these topics), and in some ways I have grown uncomfortable with how these are parsed in Western understanding.

Faith and the Free Gift of Salvation

Paul was a Pharisee and a scholar of the Law; he obeyed the Law religiously, yet he came to find that what he needed in his life was an internal renewal. He found this through Jesus Christ, and this is the life he chose. This was not merely an outward change, but a sanctification of the heart, his feelings, his thoughts – every part of his being.

This change could never be achieved neither through the Mosaic Law nor through the observance of its many literal practices.

Living the Mosaic Law perfectly (assuming this was even possible) is not what changed a man, not what saved a man in God’s eyes. This gives a clue as to the context of Paul’s discussion about works:

When the apostle speaks about faith without deeds in this Epistle, he is not referring to a spiritual struggle caused by true faith. Rather, he is referring to deeds carried out in literal compliance with the Mosaic Law.

There were Jews demanding that Gentiles first get circumcised, etc., before coming into the church. It was to this type of “works” that Paul was speaking: It isn’t the works of the Law that save – but this does not dismiss the necessity of works done in faith, a true faith in God through Christ and aided by the Holy Spirit.

The Universality of Salvation

The topic of “the universality of salvation” is the main line of thought throughout, and the apostle focuses on it with all his might. … He had believed that the whole world had been created for the benefit and service of the Jews. Then he realized that God’s love embraces all mankind, regardless of nationality, race, potentials, or behavior.

The idea of salvation due to being physical descendants of Abraham is dismissed; it is the spiritual descendants of Abraham who will be saved. God has opened His arms to the whole world.

Grace, Justification, and Sanctification

These words and their derivatives have been repeatedly used in this Epistle: grace, justification, holiness, etc.… It is worthy to note that St Paul is not concerned with presenting mere definitions and bare intellectual ideas for these words.

Paul wishes to bring every believer into the enjoyment of these blessings. Certainly, in the Western tradition, we have parsed these words into specific and distinct realities, where Paul sees them as a whole, all a gift from God.

Grace

Grace is the power of God entrusted freely into man’s hands, However, it is not granted unconditionally, Grace prepares man, by the Holy Spirit, to receive the gift of salvation and to enjoy a completely new and eternal life.

Grace is the antithesis to the idea of a wage. By receiving grace, this is not in exchange of some sort of labor on our part. It is a free gift from God. Yet this grace does not demolish free will.

Spiritual struggle is essential to our salvation, and without such struggle many have lost God’s free grace. Yet we do not consider such struggle or good deeds as a means of self-justification. … this grace works in us so that our will and our deeds become sanctified. As we endeavor and struggle to sanctify our will and our acts, the heart is more prone to accept God’s divine gift.

God communicates, we participate; narrow is the gate and difficult is the way (of our participation) which leads to life.

St Paul reports that ‘grace’ is a condition that an active believer enjoys. This refers to someone who has actively accepted the faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, faith is expressed in deeds of love

This takes our involvement, our commitment, our…participation.

Justification

Many scholars consider that the essence of this Epistle is comparable to an essay about ‘justification’. … The topic of justification has actually preoccupied man since his downfall.

We have proven to be unable to achieve righteousness, neither through the Law nor through our natural desires or abilities. Yet all people – Jews and Gentiles – are in need of God’s justification.

Here the Apostle distinguishes between righteousness rooted in the Law and which the Jews championed through vain formalities, and righteousness through faith and which God offers to the whole world through His Son Jesus Christ.

Here, again, we are involved – we must participate:

This cannot be done idly or literally but requires practical living application. Actually, righteousness is the fruit of His grace and does not result from any gained human entitlement. We struggle to attain it as we pray Him to sanctify our will and our practical life by His Holy Spirit.

But we see that it is all from God – God communicates:

… what we need to underline is that righteousness is not a personal achievement or a human virtue. Rather, it is an act of faith, and declared in the features of Christ which are evident in the lives of believers struggling spiritually and living in the Truth. This is what we seek to deliver in our study of this Epistle, for when the Apostle speaks about ‘the righteousness of Christ’, he associates it with practical spiritual behavior.

Sanctification

Sanctity is an attribute of God only … Sanctity/holiness is a gift that God grants to His believers. It is free grace granted to God’s children who struggle to be like their heavenly Holy Father … God grants us a sanctified life through His Holy Spirit … This free gift is granted to those who struggle through God.

Choice and Freedom of Will

Here, Malaty notes chapter nine in the letter. As one example:

Romans 9: 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.

Malaty notes that those who focus on this chapter without considering the context of the entire letter remove man’s free will from the entire relationship. He will address this in detail when we come to that part of his commentary.

Conclusion

The best analogy I have read on how to understand the relationship of God’s free gift and the necessity of our struggle is as follows: a man tells you he has placed one million dollars at the top of a high mountain. It is yours, freely, but you have to climb to the top to gain it.

Narrow is the gate and difficult the way and all that… Gaining that million dollars requires our participation.

Nothing was more solemn than our city; but now, nothing is more pitiable. … Before now, nothing was more blessed than our city; now, nothing is more barren of happiness. … Nothing is sweeter than one’s homeland, but nothing is more bitter now.

Sermons from the Life of St John Chrysostom, Translation and Introduction by David C. Ford

It was announced on the morning of Thursday, February 25, 387, that the Emperor Theodosius had mandated a new, exorbitant tax on the city of Antioch with no previous warning. This didn’t sit well; riots soon broke out, with statues of the emperor and his family torn down and desecrated – an act equivalent to personally insulting and abusing the emperor.

The people of the city understood the risk they now faced, that the emperor could send troops to raze the city in response – irrelevant whether an individual was guilty or innocent. Some people were already being rounded up and executed.

This was the setting just days before John preached this sermon – the second in a series of twenty-one sermons known as the Homilies on the Statues. In other words, this was a sermon series that was planned and begun before the events of the Thursday prior. Of course, this events modified somewhat his sermon plan for this particular Sunday.

What shall I say? How can I speak? This is a time for tears, not words – a time for lamentation, not discourse; a time for prayer, not oratory.

This is how the sermon began. The wounds from the events of the last days are so great that none of our physicians can heal these; it will require help from above. The population lives in fear. They face a siege not from an enemy, but from their emperor; not from outside the walls but within their city streets. Therefore, even the innocent do not venture outside of their homes.

John makes an insightful observation: the faces of those few who venture out are joyless, casting a heavy gloom over everyone. Even the sun seems gloomy. But it isn’t the sun that has changed; it is our eyes, clouded with the calamity.

Amos 8: 9 “And it shall come to pass in that day,” says the Lord God, “That I will make the sun go down at noon, and I will darken the earth in broad daylight

It wasn’t that the sun was hidden, but it seemed so because the people were engulfed with sorrow. We understand this image – a cloud hanging over our head, walking in a fog, etc.

John struggles to move on with his sermon, but indicates its necessity – just as the sun eventually beats down the clouds and breaks through to us.

So open your souls to me! Give me your attention for a little while! Shake off this despondency!

Cast everything upon God, and He will offer aid; our Christian life cannot be undone by difficulties such as those being experienced now.

So let us not fall down, beloved! We do not care about our own salvation as much as does God, the one who made us.

From this, John offers something totally unexpected – although he speaks to us of the same need we have today: we should have stopped and even punished those who brought on this calamity, who perpetrated the riot.

How much better it would have been, if it had been necessary, to have suffered at the hands of such men, and even to have been adorned with a martyr’s crown in trying to chasten and instruct them, than now to be in fright, to be trembling, to be expecting death because of their insurrection!

When hell is coming, it does not good to sit quietly; it will come for us one way or another, so better to fight to try to prevent it.

John describes those who committed the riotous acts as “foreigners, men of mixed ancestry.” They are blasphemers. The lawlessness was by a few, but now the blame falls on many – including us! Had we cast them out of the city, we would not be suffering this present fate. It appears that the Sunday before, in his first sermon on this series, he counseled just this, as if foretelling of the calamity to come!

Nevertheless, no one did anything.

We should have stopped them; we should have thrown them out. “We,” the Christians! Chuck Baldwin couldn’t have said it better or more forcefully.

So let us not continue to silently bear outrages and insults committed against God.

John believes that now his congregation will not overlook such insults; they will take action!

He then moves on to another theme: wealth.

1 Timothy 6: 17(a) Command those who are rich in this present age not to be haughty

John breaks this one verse into three separate parts. Here in the first part, he offers that by indicating “those…in this present age”, the apostle Paul is indicating that there are others who are rich in the age to come. Rich in the ineffable goods of the kingdom. When the present life ends, the riches of this present age end with it – so, don’t be haughty (or high-minded) if you are rich in this life.

For the truly wealthy man is not the one possessing much, but rather one giving much.

Paul did not say to command those who are rich to not be rich! The point is to not make accumulating wealth one’s motivating principle. If one is moderate, one is not zealous toward accumulating wealth. Also, Paul knew that wealth is not forbidden – it is the rapacity and lust for money that are evil. A covetous person is one thing, a rich person is another.

1 Timothy 6: 17(b) nor to trust in uncertain riches

John uses the current calamity in the city as evidence of this: even the rich are finding that their wealth cannot be trusted to save them; they are fleeing their well-adorned homes just as the poor are fleeing their humble homes.

Then there are those whose wealth abandons them before their life ends, with the following consequence:

Psalm 39: 6 Surely every man walks about like a shadow; Surely they busy themselves in vain; He heaps up riches, and does not know who will gather them.

The rich toil for our enemies, since after they are dead the inheritance is enjoyed by people that plotted against them. But we hold certain riches if we store these in heaven – in these riches we can hold trust.

1 Timothy 6: 17(c) but in the living God, who gives us richly all things to enjoy.

God gives everything abundantly, things much more important than material wealth. We have the air, water, the sun – given to all, rich or poor. The greater and more needful things are available to all; this is good, because if this was not the case the rich would also hoard these!

God has made you rich – so why do you make yourself poor? He has made you rich so that you might help the needy, so that you might be loosed from your sins through your benevolence to others.

Conclusion

John closes with advice to the poor on dealing with insults. Laugh at the words, show that these do not harm you. It is only when we are weak that insults wound us (good advice, for rich or poor!).

So let us abound in Christian philosophy in all things, my beloved, and poverty will not be able to do us any harm.

In all this, do not be cast down by the present circumstance in the city. Christ, who poured out His very blood, will not abandon us now.

And this was proven true. Archbishop Flavian travelled from Antioch to Constantinople to personally intercede before Emperor Theodosius the Great.

The emperor showed mercy to the city, rescinding the punitive measures he had previously ordered.