Fr. Nicholas Newman
In the first two installments, we looked at questions concerning God’s existence as well as the seeming dichotomy of God being good and yet allowing suffering in the world. In this next section, the questions focus on a slightly different line of inquiry. Ceding the question of whether a deity of some sort might exist, at least for the moment, the questions now focus on how we can know that our faith is the right one, given how many religions there are now, and how many there have been in history. Krystal Smith offers two specific questions in this larger theme:
- What Makes you so Sure that there is only One God?
- Why Do You Think Your Religion is the Correct One?
Once again, these questions are interrelated, but they come at the central question of why the Orthodox faith is the true faith from slightly different angles.
- What Makes you so Sure that there is only One God?
It can be a difficult thing to pick the beliefs of prehistoric peoples out of mythology and archaeology, but the existence of some sort of organized religious belief can be seen in even in peoples in the Neolithic, even before the dawn of agriculture, so we see, for example, the temple complexes at Göbleki Tepe in modern Turkey. More information becomes available as these cultures develop writing, and almost invariably these early civilizations have polytheistic forms of religion. From the ziggurat temples in the Sumerian city states, to the temple complexes of ancient Egypt, to the horned deity figurines of the Indus Valley civilization, etc… With these numerous different pantheons of gods, is it not overly proud, then, of Christians to claim that our God is the only one, to claim that we are correct, and all others are incorrect?
In such a discussion, it is important to understand what is meant when we say “God.” There are now many religions in the world, and there have existed even more historically, but not all religions understand what it would mean to be God in the same way. St. John of Damascus discusses what the Orthodox mean when we say “God” in Book I of An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:
“We, therefore, both know and confess that God is without beginning, without end, eternal and everlasting, uncreated, unchangeable, invariable, simple, uncompounded, incorporeal, invisible, impalpable, uncircumscribed, infinite, incognisable, indefinable, incomprehensible, good, just, maker of all things created, almighty, all-ruling, all-surveying, of all overseer, sovereign, judge; and that God is One, that is to say, one essence ; and that He is known , and has His being in three subsistences, in Father, I say, and Son and Holy Spirit; and that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, except in that of not being begotten, that of being begotten, and that of procession…”
In looking at how the idea of a deity was understood in many of the pagan religions, one can take, as an example, Zeus, the greatest of the pantheon of the ancient Greek gods. Homer calls him “the king of gods and men,” so powerful that he was able to defeat his father, Cronus, the king of the Titans, as well as the giants who attacked Mt. Olympus. His power, however, rests to a great extent, on the lightning bolts smithied for him by the Cyclopes. Without them, he was nearly overthrown by a conspiracy led by his wife Hera, and only was able to survive the plot because of the intervention of the sea-nymph Thetis, who untied him as he lay bound.
Zeus, then, lacks in the essential qualities that would be necessary for him to be God. Zeus is not eternal, while he is immortal, he has not existed eternally but was born from the Titans Rhea and Cronus. St. John of Damascus puts this well in Book I of his An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:
“The Deity is perfect , and without blemish in goodness, and wisdom, and power, without beginning, without end, everlasting, uncircumscribed , and in short, perfect in all things. Should we say, then, that there are many Gods, we must recognize difference among the many. For if there is no difference among them, they are one rather than many. But if there is difference among them, what becomes of the perfectness? For that which comes short of perfection, whether it be in goodness, or power, or wisdom, or time, or place, could not be God. But it is this very identity in all respects that shows that the Deity is one and not many.”
Zeus is not omniscient, he did not know of the plot against him, for example. Zeus is not omnipresent. Zeus is not omnipotent. Zeus is not the creator of all things, as the universe existed before he was born. St. John of Damascus, when speaking of the proof of God’s existence in Book I of An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith: “All things, that exist, are either created or uncreated. If, then, things are created, it follows that they are also wholly mutable. For things, whose existence originated in change, must also be subject to change, whether it be that they perish or that they become other than they are by act of will.” Zeus, and by extension the other gods of the various pagan pantheons of the ancient world, are created and mutable, and cannot then, themselves be God.
St. Basil the Great is even more direct in his condemnation of the pagan gods in his treatise Address to Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature: “Least of all shall we listen to them when they tell us of their gods, and especially when they represent them as being many, and not at one among themselves. For, among these gods, at one time brother is at variance with brother, or the father with his children; at another, the children engage in truceless war against their parents. The adulteries of the gods and their amours, and especially those of the one whom they call Zeus, chief of all and most high, things of which one cannot speak, even in connection with brutes, without blushing, we shall leave to the stage.” The gods of the pagan pantheons are not only multiple, which means they cannot be perfect, they are not even united among themselves, but are divided against each other and fight amongst themselves. If God exists, then His nature must be different than that of humanity and transcend humanity, since humans are not God. In polytheistic religion, we see the gods as scaled up humans, extra power, but with a nature that is ultimately human, mirroring the faults and imperfections of humanity.
Similar issues present themselves in dualist religions like Zoroastrianism. Ahura Mazda and Ariman are equally powerful opposing forces. Ahura Mazda representing light and good, Ariman representing dark and evil. If these two beings are equally powerful and opposing, then neither of them can be God, in the way that we understand what God is, uncircumscribed, without limit, since the idea of two opposing forces are self-limiting.
It seems, however, that at the heart of this question is a misunderstanding. Christianity does not necessarily deny the existence of other gods. These gods, however, must be understood within the context of Christian cosmology. In this cosmology, God has created not only a physcial universe, but also a noetic one, filled with angelic beings. These beings are discussed in the Celestial Hierarchy of St. Dionysius the Areopagite, who describes the different orders of angels: the Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, Virtues, Archangels, and Angels. “Simply put, the God of Israel is depicted as a king enthroned, ruling over his creation. The angelic beings then are part of his royal court, a divine council, over which he presides” (https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/wholecounsel/2018/08/29/gods-divine-council/). Some of these angelic beings, particularly those who had been set over the nations as their guardians, rebel against God, and fall (this fascinating topic is extensively discussed by Fr. Stephen DeYoung and Fr. Andrew Damick in their podcast Lord of the Spirits, in Fr. Stephen DeYoung’s book Faith of the Apostles, and in Fr. Andrew Damick’s book Lord of Spirits). These beings then coopt the worship of humans as the various pagan gods, which is why Psalm 96:5 says: “the gods of the nations are demons.”
It is less to say, then, that Christians do not believe in other gods, in the sense that we acknowledge the existence of noetic beings that are powerful and have demanded worship, but that we “have no other gods before” God. Only God is worthy of worship, because only He is transcendent, without limit, beginningless, eternal. Only He is the creator of all things, including the beings who are called “the gods.” It is only of Him that we chant: “Who is so great a god as our God, Thou art the God who worketh wonders!”
- Why Do You Think Your Religion is the Correct One?
This is a very interesting question. It seems, at first, a simple question, but is, in fact, rather accusatory. It implies that by believing that our faith is the correct one and, by extension, that other faiths are not, we are being arrogant and closed minded, that faith is merely the product of preconceived and unchallenged ideology. This same accusation could easily then be turned onto the accuser, by questioning their own preconceived notions about the universe in which God has no place. Nevertheless, it is perhaps better to take this question at face value and examine what leads us to believe that the Orthodox Church is the true faith. Since we have already dealt with several fundamental questions, let us assume, for the sake of this discussion, that God exists, and that we are dealing with the God of the Abrahamic religions, not with the polytheistic “gods.” The Orthodox faith centers on the person of Jesus Christ, who we believe is God Incarnate, the Theanthropos. So our discussion begins with Christ.
Did Jesus Exist
In an article that appeared in American Atheists, Frank Zindler poses an important question: did Jesus Christ ever exist as a historical person? He claims surprise at a paucity of evidence, leading him to come to the conclusion that Jesus did not exist as a historical person, but is rather an amalgamation of different elements from the religious landscape of the first century. While it is beyond the scope of this blog post to offer a point-by-point refutation, there are a number of important issues with his approach.
First of all, he claims “the burden of proof does not rest upon the skeptic in this matter. As always is the case, the burden of proof weighs upon those who assert that some thing or some process exists.” This is not entirely true, the existence of Jesus Christ has been a matter of historical certainty, and it is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof. The burden then lies on those claiming no historical existence, a threshold which this article does not live up to.
The article begins by dismissing the Gospels as too late in authorship to be of use as proof of Christ’s historical existence. The author brings up the point too, that a large portion of Mark (he claims up to 90%) is “plagiarized” in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Of course, these sections of Mark make up less than half of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. It is also important to point out, that these Gospels are being written from the oral tradition of the early Christian communities in which they are being told. It makes sense, then, that there is a great deal of commonality between these versions of the Gospel. We see in examples of world mythology, just how powerful oral tradition is as a tool for the transferring of information, potentially passing down stories for thousands of years. The Gospels, then, which coalesce out of the stories being told in these early Christian communities, are perfectly acceptable as the eyewitness accounts of Christ, being written down as the eyewitnesses and their immediate circle begin to die.
He discusses, too, that the Epistles of St. Paul only give scant evidence for Christ, particularly since he rejects the authorship of St. Paul for a number of the Epistles. I am unsure what point this has. St. Paul is obviously a Christian, and authors a number of books to Christian communities, and eventually is martyred for Christ, a strange thing to do for someone who is unsure about Christ’s existence.
The author mentions little other early Christian literature, the Didache, the letters of St. Ignatius, the works of St. Clement, etc… all well within the first couple of centuries of the Church, well within the parameters of evidence for figures of antiquity.
Pagan literature also mentions Christ and the early Christians. He brings up works like Tacitus and Josephus. Some have argued, unconvincingly that these mentions of Christ are forgeries, and he, of course, takes up this argument. The evidence that these are forgeries is, however, poor. The Tacitus passage is in the same style as the rest of the work, there is no reason to assume that this is not original to Tacitus. Beyond Tacitus and Josephus, Pliny also mentions Christ and Christians, as does Lucian of Samosata.
The article attempts to undercut the evidence supporting the existence of Christ, by saying that it was either fabricated or an outgrowth of prevailing religious opinion of the time period. The argument is, however, not very compelling. There is no reason to doubt, unless one’s view is skewed by preexisting bias, that the pagan and Jewish writings about Christ are genuine. There is no reason to doubt that the Gospel stories about Christ, which arise out of the oral tradition of the early Christians, are telling the stories of a historical figure, even if they share a great deal. Perhaps most importantly is the witness of the martyrs. The apostles die a martyr’s death, as many in the early Church do. Why would they do this for a fabricated person, a person whom they would have themselves fabricated? Their witness, dying rather than giving up Christ, is undeniable.
Is Christ God?
The scholarly communis opinio, and the evidence points to the fact that Jesus Christ existed as a historical person. This does not, however, mean, necessarily, that He is God. One possibility, which comes up more in popular imagination than among scholars, is the idea that the historical Christ is overshadowed and replaced by an amalgamation of various pagan gods and philosophies, from which Christianity then develops. Even within the Christian world there was a question about the divinity of Christ, the Arians, for example, claimed that Christ was not God, but a created being. In this section we will first explore some of the more major claims of pagan influence on Christianity, then discuss whether there is a place for a Trinitarian understanding of God in the Old Testament, and finally discuss the question of whether Christ claims Himself that He is God, or not.
- Christ and the Pagans
A cursory search of YouTube reveals claims that pretty much every aspect of Christianity, from the Trinity to the Eucharist to the veneration of the Virgin Mary, has its origin in various pagan sources. There are also numerous responses, most hilariously, perhaps, from the group Lutheran Satire (Horus Ruins Christmas), which does an excellent job of debunking some of the more common claims of Christ’s origin: Horus, Mithras, Quetzalcoatl, Baldur, even Gozer the Gozerian. In some of my own blog posts and articles for The Orthodox Exchange, I have dealt with others of these claims as well, such as the claimed connection of the celebration Christ’s Nativity with Roman festivals such as the Saturnalia and the festival of Sol Invictus, or of Pascha with the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eoster, or the Babylonian goddess Ishtar/Inana.
An interesting further claim is that various aspects of the New Testament narrative, the person of Christ, and early Christian theology, was based on, or at least influenced by, the worship of the Greek god Dionysus. It has been suggested, among other things, that the death and Resurrection of Christ parallels similar stories in myth of Dionysus; that sections of the New Testament, particularly the Gospel of John, notably the arrest of Christ and His trial before Pilate, and sections of the Acts of the Apostles, were influenced by Euripides Bacchae.
There are examples of Christian literature that do borrow from Euripides Bacchae. the Christus Patiens, attributed to St. Gregory the Theologian, for example, consists primarily of quotations from Euripides Bacchae and Medea. While not directly a Christian text the Dionysiaca, written by a fourth or fifth century Christian author Nonnus of Panopolis, also borrows heavily from Euripides Bacchae. These texts are all, however, from a period in which Christianity had been accepted in the Roman empire, by authors who were well educated in Greek literature. While it is certainly possible that both St. John the Evangelist and St. Luke the Evangelist would have been familiar with the Bacchae, being educated in Greek, and the tragedies of Euripides being used in education in antiquity, it seems unlikely that they would have had the necessary in-depth knowledge of the work to base sections of their New Testament works on it.
The name Dionysus is a metathesis of an earlier *Dios-sunu, meaning “son of Zeus.” This is in reference to the myth of his birth, in which his mother Semele was tricked by the goddess Hera to look upon Zeus in his divine form and was killed. Zeus took the child from her womb and sowed him into his own thigh, from which he was later born.
The tragedy The Bacchae focuses on the return of Dionysus to the city of Thebes, after long journeying in “barbarian” lands. Most of the people of Thebes do not accept that Dionysus is a god, and as a punishment, Dionysus drives the women of the city into mania, the ecstatic madness of Dionysus worship, replacing them with his own followers as they leave to dwell on the mountains around the city. Pentheus, the king of Thebes, and the kinsman of Dionysus, puts Dionysus on trial and throws him in prison, but is himself slowly overcome by the madness as he speaks to the god. Finally, he takes on the persona and dress of a maenad, one of the followers of Dionysus, and goes out to spy on the rituals on the mountain, breaking the taboo of men viewing the rites of Dionysus. Pentheus’ mother and aunts and the other women kill him, thinking he is a mountain lion, and process in victory with his head back into the city. Dionysus, in a final punishment, removes the madness that has afflicted the women, and they see the horror they have committed.
If one looks at the two narratives from a certain distance, there are some similarities. Both Jesus Christ and Dionysus are, broadly speaking, divine figures who visit mortals and are rejected by their own people. Both are then put on trial by the authorities but are ultimately triumphant. The similarities really end there, however. Dionysus returns to Thebes, not out of love for humanity, but out of a need to be worshipped, to establish his cult there. While both Jesus and Dionysus are put on trial, Jesus is condemned and undergoes the Cross and death, culminating in the Resurrection. Dionysus overthrows the mind of Pentheus and causes his death at the hands of his own mother. If St. John the Evangelist bases his Gospel on the Bacchae, then Christ would have to be based both on the character Dionysus and that of Pentheus.
In the myths of Dionysus, there are several versions of a death and resurrection story, this does not come up in the Bacchae, however. Even taking this katabasis, this underworld journey, into account the parallel is no more than superficial. One issue is the reason for the death and resurrection of each. Dionysus is a vegetation god, and like many other vegetation gods has a death and resurrection that parallels the life cycle of plants. Christ’s death is part of the plan for the salvation of humanity, the culmination of His Incarnation, which restores human nature.
The idea that the person of Christ, and the theology of the Church derives from a pagan example is problematic. It relies very heavily on generalities, and on the principle that if things look vaguely similar, that means they must be the same. Instead every aspect of Christian theology is better understood in the context of Second Temple Judaism, and the history of salvation as played out in the Old Testament.
- Christ fulfills the Old Testament
In the Old Testament we see the relationship of God with humanity framed in terms of the berit, the Covenant. The fall of Adam necessitates a recreation of the covenant which was first made in Eden, a covenant which was with “all people.” Through successive covenants with His chosen, God prepares humanity for a New Covenant through the Incarnation.
In Noah, God creates a covenant with a single individual, which widens to a family in the covenant with Abraham, and to a nation in the covenant on Mt. Sinai and in the Davidic covenant. Christ brings about the New Covenant through a fulfillment of the Davidic covenant, that a king of the line of David would come again. This king, however, is God Himself, and so this line can never be broken again. Christ is “the ultimate covenant mediator.” As God-man, He is the suzerain, the vassal, and the sacrifice as well. The individual participates in this covenant, not through belonging to a particular people, but in participation in the Mysteries, these are the new “stipulations” of the covenant, through which we participate in the “blessings” of the suzerain. In Baptism we participate in the death and resurrection, joining ourselves to the New Covenant. In the Eucharist, we participate once again in the sacrifice, and in the ”periodic reading” stipulated in the traditional Bronze Age berit, “for as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes.”
Through His death and resurrection, Christ has perfected the berit, and brought the cycle of successive covenants to an end, the fall of Adam is undone, and all of humanity is again brought into the household of God, the Church. The Old Testament is, then, not separate from the New Testament, these are not distinct, but form one coherent history of Salvation, and so the Old Testament looks forward to its culmination in the New Testament. This understanding of the relationship, called typology, is discussed in I Peter, for example. St Peter discusses the prefigurement of Baptism in the waters of the flood: “…when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”
- Is Christ Acknowledged as God in Scripture?
The Jews of the first century B.C. were living in expectation of the coming Messiah. Jesus was, by far, not the only one who was hailed as the Messiah. The Jews were expecting a king to come and destroy the Romans, not the coming of the Incarnate God. While He may have fulfilled the Old Testament in His coming, does Christ ever actually claim to be God? There are some who claim that the earliest Christians did not believe that Christ was God, and that this understanding of Christ is a later addition to Christianity.
The answer to this question is woven throughout the narrative of the Gospels. It is beyond the scope of a blog post like this to tease all of these out, however, we will examine three examples of how Christ is acknowledged as God, in the Gospels. 1: When Christ reveals Himself as God to His disciples at the Transfiguration; 2. The use of the term “Lord;” and 3. The “I am” statements in the Gospel of John. These are just a few particular examples; however, the entirety of the Gospel is ultimately a theophany, in which we meet God face to face.
- The Transfiguration
Christ’s revelation of Himself as God on Tabor in the Transfiguration is shown in its close association with the theophany Moses has on Mt. Sinai. Where 2 Peter mentions that “we…were eyewitnesses of His majesty…” the Gospel accounts mention three apostles by name, whom Christ brings with Him up the mountain: Peter, James, and John. Moses too was accompanied by three companions, who are mentioned by name: Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu. Following the vision of God seated upon His throne, the initial giving of the tablets of the law, and the Golden calf episode, Moses ascends the mountain again and receives a second set of tablets, as he descends the mountain: “…when Moses came down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets were in Moses’ hand when he came down from the mountain), he did not know the skin of his face was glorified while God talked with Him. So when Aaron and all the children of Israel saw Moses and the glorified appearance of the skin of his face, they were afraid to come near him.” Christ too undergoes a transformation while on Mt. Tabor: “as He prayed, the appearance of His face was altered, and His robe became white and glistening.” Both theophanies, of course, culminate in a direct encounter with the divine. On Sinai: “…the glory of God descended on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. Then on the seventh day the Lord called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud.” The cloud, which signifies the presence of God on Sinai is seen again when God descends on the tabernacle: “the pillar of cloud descended and stood at the door of the tabernacle, and God talked to Moses…”8 God manifests Himself again in this same way at the Transfiguration: “…a cloud came and overshadowed them; and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son. Hear Him!’”
The literary, intertextual connection between the Transfiguration on Mt. Tabor and the Sinai theophany reflects the theological connection that exists between the two as well. The transfiguration on Mt. Tabor: “signifies two things, namely that it is impossible for man to see God, and that man will see Him in the latter times on the summit of rock…And it is for this reason that He conferred with him face to face on top of the mountain [at transfiguration], while Elijah was also present” (Bogdan Bucur Christophanic Theophanies pg 37. This is an excellent overview of the various times that Christ is seen in the Old Testament) This interpretation of Irenaeus, that the Transfiguration is a fulfillment of the promise given in Exodus 33, is shared by Tertullian (Ibid). While this interpretation of the passage becomes less prominent in western theology, under the influence of Augustine’s interpretation of theophanies (Bucur, pg. 38), it remains an important strain of thought, particularly in Byzantine hymnography and in the writings of church fathers such as St. John of Damascus (Bucur, pg. 37). In the writings of St. John of Damascus we see the idea of the Transfiguration as the fulfillment of Exodus 33 to underscore Christ as “setting the law of both covenants” (Ibid). As fulfilling the promise of Exodus 33, the focus of the passage shifts as well, this is not only a vision of Christ’s theophany offered to the apostles, but a “vision of a vision – a vision granted to Moses and Elijah, witnessed to by the disciples.” (Bucur, pg. 38).
The theophany on to Moses and Elijah on Tabor, showing them the face of God, that which was impossible on Sinai is made possible in the Incarnation. Tabor takes its place with Sinai and Zion as places where God is “enthroned.” In the Transfiguration, however, we see the identity of this “Lord” who is enthroned, it is Christ (Bucur, pg. 41).
- “Lord”
The title “Lord” is used for Jesus over 700 times in the New Testament. This may, at first, seem rather innocuous, a title of formality given to one in a position of authority over the disciples. In modern Greek, the word for “Lord,” Κήριος (Kirios), is just used as we use “Mr.,” a generalized honorific. In fact, the English “mister” has much the same origin, being a weakened form of the word “master.”
The term, however, has a different, and far more powerful connotation when seen in the context of the Second Temple Jewish culture of the apostles and evangelists. Kirios is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew “Adonai” (אדֹנָי), “my Lord.” Not only is this one of the titles for God in the Old Testament, but during the Hellenistic period it had become customary to replace the tetragrammaton, the name of God as given to Moses from the burning bush, by saying “adonai.” For the Evangelists, St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James, and the other authors of the New Testament, using the title “Lord” for Christ is no simple, pro forma, title, but a confession that Christ is “my Lord and my God” as St. Thomas the apostle confesses Him in John 20:28.
- “I am” statements
In the Gospel of John, there are seven “I am” statements made by Christ: “I Am The Bread Of Life” (John 6:35); “I Am The Light Of The World” (John 8:12); “I Am The Gate For The Sheep” (John 10:7); “I Am The Good Shepherd” (John 10:11); “I Am The Resurrection And The Life” (John 11:25); “I Am The Way The Truth And The Life” (John 14:6); and “I Am The True Vine” (John 15:1). Here again, we see a form that would have been of great significance to a Jewish audience. The form of each of these statements: “ἐγώ εἰμι …” followed by the description, parallels how God speaks to Abraham from the buring bush in Exodus: “ἐγὠ εἰμι ὁ Θεὸς τοῦ πατρός σου … ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ Ὥν…” (I am the God of your fathers … I am the existing one [Yahwheh]…). This parallel structure shows that Jesus means his audience to understand that He is to be identified in these “I am” statements as the same as the God who spoke to Moses from the burning bush. This is expressed in Orthodox iconography in the unique way that Christ’s halo is depicted. In His halo a cross is inscribed, and on the cross are the letters: omicron, omega, nu – the letters that make up ὁ Ὥν, “the existing one.” We see another example of this structure, and a more direct statement in John 8:58: “Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” The same formulation of the verb to be is found in this verse “ἐγὠ εἰμι” as we see in the “I am” statements and in Exodus. Here, Christ uses this form to establish His existence as prior to that of Abraham, and interestingly, He does not say “before Abraham was, I was.” Instead, He uses the present form of the verb, implying not only His existence before Abraham, but His continuous existence, His eternal existence.
- Christ is God
Jesus Christ is not an amalgamation of some pagan gods mashed together, nor a literary creation, but existed as a historical person. This historical person claimed to be God, not one of the various pantheons of gods, but the pre-eternal God who created the world, becoming incarnate in order to bring to fulfillment the plan of salvation laid out throughout the Old Testament. There is an internal consistency within the Old and New Testaments in which we see Christ and all aspects of Christian theology as natural progressions and fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets in the Old Testament. We have the testimony of the Evangelists, the Apostles, all the writers of the Early Church, who bear witness to the truth of the Resurrection. We also have the witness of the martyrs, who, starting with the apostles, were willing to lay down their lives for the truth of Christianity. If the early Christians were merely putting together pagan stories to create a new religion, or if they were hoping to pull off a hoax, why would they be willing to die for something they knew was untrue? What is particularly important in this argument is that it was not only those who later on believed that were willing to die, but those who first preached. If Christ was not risen from the dead, the apostles would have known. They would not give up their own lives for a lie.
- Christ and the Church
We see then, that Christ is a historical figure, who is the fulfillment of the history of salvation in the Old Testament, who is God incarnate. Christianity seems, then, to fit the bill as the true religion. We are met with another issue, however. The Center for the Study of Global Christianity estimates that there are approximately 45,000 various Christian denominations worldwide, and over 200 in the United States alone. Is there a denomination that is the “true” Christian Church, and how would one recognize it?
Some, particularly within the Protestant world, argue that there is no one group that can lay claim to such a title. Rather, they argue, based on Matthew 18:19-21: “For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them,” that the Church is made up of all true believers, regardless of denomination, although many would argue that denominations such as the Roman Catholics and Orthodox would not count as true believers. This understanding, however, undermines the Incarnation. The Word of God becomes Incarnate, taking on human nature. He chooses twelve specific individuals to become His apostles, these apostles choose men to be their successors and pass on to them the same Grace that they were given through the laying on of hands, for example Matthias in Acts 1:12-26. The Church, then, which Christ begins has a historical presence, a tangible presence in the world, not some nebulous undefined thing. The Church is described by Paul as: “house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” Christ Himself says that the very gates of hell will not prevail against the Church (Matthew16:18). The Church today must have that same tangible, historical presence as the Church Christ founded.
Where, though, can we find this Church? If the apostles pass on Grace through the laying on of hands, and Christ hands over to the apostles the fullness of the faith, for them to preach to the whole world, then the Church today must have an “apostolic succession” which stretches back to the apostles, both an unbroken succession of this laying on of hands, as well as an unbroken tradition of teaching the same faith as the apostles taught.
If we are to find the continuation of the early Church, what are we to look for? The early Church was 1. Trinitarian; 2. Hierarchical; 3. Eucharistic and 4. Martyric.
I was once teaching a Biblical Greek class, when one of the students, a local Protestant pastor, mentioned some pastors overseas whom he mentors. These pastors had come to him, questioning whether the Trinity is a doctrine that Christians must adhere to, since the word does not appear itself in Scripture. True, the word itself does not appear in Scripture, appearing first in the second century, but nevertheless, the Trinity is seen throughout Scripture, both veiled in the Old Testament, and directly in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, among numerous other examples, we see the Trinity cooperating in Creation in Genesis, when the Father speaks, the Son carries out, and the Holy Spirit hovers over the face of the waters. The Trinity appears to Abraham in the form of three young men in Genesis 18: “Then the Lord appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him…” When God speaks to Moses from the burning bush, it says that the “angel of the Lord” speaks to Moses, but then it goes on to say: “God said.” The angel of the Lord, while God, is another person of God, Christ. In the New Testament, we see the Trinity most clearly in three places. In the baptism of Christ, in the Transfiguration of Christ, and in the great commission. At His baptism by John, the voice of the Father says: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased…” and the Holy Spirit descended on Him in the form of a dove. Similarly, at His Transfiguration, the voice of the Father again witnesses to Him, and the Holy Spirit again descends, this time as a cloud. In the great commission, Christ Himself gives us the Trinitarian formula: “Go forth and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…” We see that the earliest Christians also worshipped God as Trinity in the Didache, a first or early second century Christian text. In the Didache, the same Trinitarian formula is given for baptisms. The Trinitarian God has always been defended by the Fathers of the Church against those who would introduce false teachings, Modalism, Montanism, Arianism, etc… Many of these ideas have returned in various guises in modern Christianity, those who deny the Trinity cannot be the Church established by Christ.
In the New Testament, we hear of three ranks of the priesthood. The bishops (episkopoi), the presbyters (presbyteroi), and the deacons (diakonoi). There is some overlap in this earliest time between the order of the bishops and the presbyters, as the apostles were carrying out both functions. As the apostles began to die, and as Christianity spread beyond their ability to minister to everyone, they began to choose successors and pass on to them their apostolic authority. These are the bishops, the icons of Christ in the Church community. They, like the apostles, participate in the triple ministry of Christ: prophet, priest, and king. The bishop with his council of presbyters, assisted by the deacons and surrounded by the people is the “catholic” Church, in the true sense of the word, the complete church. Although they are the icons of Christ at the head of the Church, the bishops are not infallible, nor is there any bishop that rules over all the others. Rather, the bishops have always met in synod in order to discuss matters of theology and of church order. We see this, for example, in the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. Ecclesiastical structure is important, then, and in the Church established by Christ we will see a hierarchical and synodal structure.
In Luke 24, we hear the story of two disciples making their way to the city of Emaus. On the way they are joined by a stranger, who seems not to know what has just happened in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, this stranger is able to explain the Scriptures concerning the Christ to the two disciples as they walk. Finally, when they get to the village, the two disciples invite this stranger in to dine with them. As this stranger blesses and breaks the bread, the two disciples finally recognize Him, it is Jesus. As suddenly as He appeared, He now vanishes from their sight. The disciples then return to Jerusalem, where they meet the other disciples, and they tell them that they recognized Christ “in the breaking of the bread.” The “breaking of the bread” is the Eucharist, and the Eucharist stands at the very heart of Christianity. The Church founded by Christ is a Eucharistic community, and the Eucharist has always been in the context of liturgical worship.
The Greek word “martyr” means witness. The Church is called to witness to the Gospel, no matter what political or social circumstances it finds itself in. The early Church was persecuted by the Romans for not worshiping the deified emperors. The heresies of the fourth and fifth centuries, which questioned the divinity of Christ, the nature of the Trinity, the natures of Christ, the title of the Theotokos, etc…, were discussed and rejected in the Ecumenical Councils. Under the Mongol rule, Muslim rule, Communist rule, the Orthodox maintained their faith in the face of relentless persecution. The Church established by Christ continues today to witness to Christ crucified and resurrected.
