123 Book Meme

Christopher tagged me. Here's the instructions:

The rules state that I must pick up the book closest to me and:

1. turn to page 123
2. count the first five sentences
3. post the following three sentences

Here it is, fudging a little due to a fragment, a quote and the end of a chapter:

But he said no Sons, but the Son of the Living God. He recognised the oneness of the Person.

This Father therefore do we pray, that He prepare for us His wonted banquet, His precious and varied dishes, and that He place in the centre the bowl of His holy teaching; and that He may give us to drink of that strong drink which is the mother of sobriety. Let us then cry out to Him:Arise, O My Father, arise O my Glory, arise psaltery and the harp of the Holy Spirit, and the harp of glory and empire for ever. Amen.

(The Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers:A Manual of Preaching, Spiritual Reading and Meditation. M.F. Tofal, ed. Vol. 1: From the First Sunday of Advent to Quinquagesima. Preservation Press:New Jersey, 1996)

I tag: Fr. Milovan; Dixie; Scott; Hollywood; and Mason.

Mike Baker on Martyrdom

Mike Baker wrote the following, worthy of some serious meditation:

Read this passage and weep at how far we have degraded from the early church! As modern Christians try to copy the early church in her practice and legacy, hear very personal words from one of our early patriarchs. We who are Christian elitists complain when our congregation's climate control does not work properly on Sunday and we presume to even hint that we practice as they practiced?

Modern Christians institute "home church" and "small groups" and all other sorts of novel concepts under the false justification that they are following the ways of the early church. There is a difference between pretending to be like the early church in superficial things and learning from the apostolic example. To quote the passage presented below: "Do not talk Jesus Christ and set your heart on the world."

We need to rethink what we call persecution. We need to rethink what we consider to be difficult times and suffering. Our view of discipline is a mere shadow. It has the shape of following Christ, but none of the form or depth that distinguishes the real object from the darkened, two-dimensional copy that is cast to the ground by the light.

Modern church dilutes the message of Christ for mere public approval while scores of disciples of the early church eagerly waited to die for their own faith as their witness to the truth of the Gospel. Our view of showing the world a true "witness" is a pathetic farce. When we think "witness" we think of mailers, t-shirts, and telling co-workers that we will pray for them. We should rename our current Synodical outreach movement Spark! or Flicker! compared to with the steadfast, blood-written testimony of our church fathers as they pointed to Christ with their last breaths. They were ablaze. We're just blowing smoke.

This kind of "extreme" talk from the early fathers is so alien to our current brand of religion that it makes modern Christians very uncomfortable:

"You never grudged anyone. You taught others. So I want you to substantiate the lessons that you bid them heed. Just pray that I may have strength of soul and body so that I may not only talk [about martyrdom], but really want it. It is not that I want to merely be called a Christian, but actually to be one. Yes, if I prove to be one, then I can have the name. Then, too, I shall be a convincing Christian only when the world sees me no more. Nothing you can see has real value. Our God Jesus Christ, indeed, has revealed himself more clearly by returning to the Father. The greatness of Christianity lies in its being hated by the world, no in its being convincing to it."

"I am corresponding with all the churches and bidding them all realize that I am voluntarily dying for God--if, that is, you do not interfere. I plead with you, do not do me an unseasonable kindness. Let me be fodder for wild beasts--that is how I can get to God. I am God's wheat and I am being ground by the teeth of wild beasts to make a pure loaf for Christ. I would rather that you fawn on the beasts so that they may be my tomb and no scrap of my body be left. Thus when I have fallen asleep, I shall be a burden to no one. Then I shall be a real disciple of Jesus Christ when the world sees my body no more. Pray Christ for me that by these means I may become God's sacrifice. I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul. They were apostles: I am a convict. They were at liberty: I am still a slave. But if I suffer, I shall be emancipated by Jesus Christ; and united to him, I shall rise to freedom."

"Even now as a prisoner, I am learning to forgo my own wishes. All the way from Syria to Rome I am fighting with wild beasts, by land and sea, night and day, chained as I am to ten leopards (I mean to a detachment of soldiers), who only get worse the better you treat them. But by their injustices I am becoming a better disciple, "though not for that reason am I acquitted." What a thrill I shall have from the wild beasts that are ready for me! I hope they will make short work of me. I shall coax them on to eat me up at once and not to hold off, as sometimes happens, through fear. And if they are reluctant, I shall force them to it. Forgive me--I know what is good for me. Now is the moment I am beginning to be a disciple. May nothing seen or unseen begrudge me making my way to Jesus Christ. Come fire, cross, battling with wild beasts, wrenching of bones, mangling of limbs, crushing of my whole body, cruel tortures of the devil--only let me get to Jesus Christ! Not the wide bounds of earth nor the kingdoms of this world will avail me anything. "I would rather die" and get to Jesus Christ, than reign over the ends of the earth. That is whom I am looking for--the One who died for us. That is whom I want--the One who rose for us. I am going through the pangs of being born. Sympathize with me, my brothers! Do not stand in the way of my coming to life--do not wish death on me. Do not give back to the world one who wants to be God's; do not trick him with material things. Let me get into the clear light and manhood will be mine. Let me imitate the Passion of my God. If anyone has Him in him, let him appreciate what I am longing for, and sympathize with me, realizing what I am going through."

"The prince of this world wants to kidnap me and pervert my godly purpose. None of you, then, who will be there, must abet him. Rather be on my side--that is, on God's. Do not talk Jesus Christ and set your heart on the world. Harbor no envy. If, when I arrive, I make a different plea, pay no attention to me. Rather heed what I am now writing to you. For though alive, it is with a passion for death that I am writing to you. My Desire has been crucified and there burns in me no passion for material things. There is living water in me, which speaks and says inside me, "Come to the Father." I take no delight in corruptible food or in the dainties of this life. What I want is God's bread, which is the flesh of Christ, who came from David's line; and for drink I want his blood: an immortal love feast indeed!"

"I do not want to live anymore on a human plane. And so it shall be, if you want it to. Want it to, so that you will be wanted!"

- St. Ignatius of Antioch, bishop and martyr, from his Letter to the Romans, [ca 110 A.D.]

Pelosi Needs to Study Christian History

No doubt you've heard Nancy Pelosi's delusional claim that the Catholic Church was not always opposed to Abortion. Here's an excellent post from Western Orthodoxy that gathers all kinds of sayings of the Fathers, from many generations going back to Apostolic times that describe the Christian's abhorrence of abortion.

Forgive the "political" post, but a politician stepped into our territory. Our fearless Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, claimed on Meet the Press that Christianity has no clear teaching on when life begins, and hence on abortion, and St. Augustine denied life began until the end of the first trimester. Tom Brokaw asked her what she would tell Barack Obama if he asked her when human life has its genesis:

I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator--St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose...over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy.

She went on to say Christianity has believed life began at conception for "like maybe 50 years or something like that." You can see the disgusting display here.

If she has studied this issue "for a long time," she would have known the Church Fathers had an unbroken teaching on this subject for 2,000 years. Yes, it is true that St. Augustine of Hippo made a distinction between a child before its "quickening" (the time it began to move) and afterwards; so, too, did Aquinas. However, none believed abortion before that time was blameless (!). More importantly, there was a long tradition in the Church that corrected these unrepresentative views, going back to the earliest days of Christianity:

The Didache [A.D. 70]

"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2).

The Letter of Barnabas [A.D. 74]

"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following...Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19).

Athenagoras [A.D. 177]

"What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?...[W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35).

Tertullian [A.D. 197]

"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 ).

"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive...

"[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).

"Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (ibid., 27).

"The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]" (ibid., 37).

Minucius Felix [A.D. 226]

"There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods...To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 ).

Hippolytus [A.D. 228]

"Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies).

Council of Ancyra [A.D. 314]

"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21).

Basil the Great [A.D. 374]

"Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2).

"He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" (ibid., canon 8).

John Chrysostom [A.D. 391]

"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication...Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24 ).

Jerome [A.D. 396]

"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother...Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13).

The Apostolic Constitutions [A.D. 400]

"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten...[I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3).

Wonderful Prayer

O Lord Christ, Word of the Father, who came into this world to save sinners, I beseech Thee, by the innermost depths of Thy mercy, cleanse my soul, perfect my actions, put in order my manner of life, take from me what is harmful to me, and what displeases Thee. Grant me what Thou knowest is pleasing to Thee, and profitable to me. Who but Thou alone canst make clean what was conceived of unclean seed? Thou art the Omnipotent God, Infinite in mercy, Who makest sinners just, and givest life to the dead; Who changest sinners, and they are sinners no more.

Take from me therefore whatever is displeasing to Thee; for Thy eyes can see my manifold imperfections. Stretch forth, I beseech Thee, the hand of Thy mercy, and take from me whatever in me offends the eyes of Thy goodness. In Thy hands, O Lord, are my health and my infirmity. Preserve me in the one; heal me in the other. Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed, save me, and I shall be saved: Thou Who dost heal the sick, and preserve those who are healed, Thou Who by Thy nod alone dost renew what is ruined and fallen. For if Thou wilt sow good seed in Thy field, there is need also to pluck from it the thorns of my sins by the hands of Thy mercy....

(St. Augustine, Prayer for the Gift of Tears, PL 40, Book of Meditations I, Ch. 36, col, 930)

Time How Long

Hippolytus died in 236 AD, two centuries after the Apostles first began preaching the faith of Christ. It seems like a very long time before, yet he claimed to know what he traditional Apostolic doctrine and practice were, enough to know how things were changing in the 3rd Century.

On the surface, a ridiculous claim, like you or me knowing the stories told in the barracks of George Washington's Revolutionary Army. But let's make a few assumptions and so some math:

Assume that some people in the 1-3 Centuries lived to be 80 (probably high, but not un-heard of).
Marriage and children took place by age 15 (perhaps generous, but not unusual).
Children don’t remember much until they are 15 (probably excessively conservative).

Say St. John catechized a 15 year old boy in 100 AD and died soon afterward.
This boy died in 165 AD (80 y.o.)
He could have told his children about St. John in 115 AD.
He could have told his grandchildren about St. John in 130 (when they were 15).
He could have told his great-grandchildren in 145 AD (when they were 15).
He could have told his great-great grandchildren about St. John in 160 (when they were 15). These children could have lived as long as 225 AD!

Those great-great-grandchildren could tell their great-grandchildren second hand stories of St. John and third hand stories of Jesus in 225 AD! They could say, “My great-great grandpa, who taught me about Christianity when I was 15, was converted by St. John the apostle. Or another way, in 285 AD, there might have been a man who said, “I once met an old man who told me first-hand stories about Polycarp, who sat at the feet of St. John the Apostle.”

Next we must remember that literacy rates were incredibly small and the culture was primarily oral. Oral cultures are conservative, i.e., they retain language and stories much more accurately than literary cultures do. ¹

Thirdly, consider this. Hippolytus was a disciple of St. Irenaeus who died around 202 AD. St. Irenaeus testifies that St. Polycarp (ca. 69-155) catechized him in the Christian faith, and Polycarp was a disciple of St. John the Evangelist. In an oral Christian culture that held to keeping the faith once-handed over from the Apostles, this makes a very close connection.

_____
¹ See this article regarding Somali oral culture; also, "Because oral societies have no effective access to writing and print technologies, they must invest considerable energy in basic information management. Storage of information, being primarily dependent on individual or collective recall, must be handled with particular thrift. It is possible to approximately measure oral residue “from the amount of memorization the culture’s educational procedures require.”^[20]

This creates incentives to avoid exploring new ideas and particularly to avoid the burden of having to store them. It does not prevent oral societies from demonstrating dynamism and change, but there is a premium on ensuring that changes cleave to traditional formulas, and “are presented as fitting the traditions of the ancestors.” ^[21] (from Wikipedia). More scholarly citations can be found elsewhere. Go look :).

Traditionalists: A Thought Experiment

Suppose I began a crusade to bring back the "Traditional" celebration of Thanksgiving in America. I believed that America had lost its rich and storied tradition and we have gone much too far afield of how Thanksgiving Day really ought to be celebrated. So I decide to start a web page dedicated to the Traditional Celebration of Thanksgiving. Suppose that this page grows in popularity. In time, Southern Living, Good Housekeeping, and Redbook begin attacking my views in an effort to discredit me. But in spite of the powers-that-be in the homemaking and family life publications, people still listen to me as an authoritative voice for the traditional way of celebrating Thanksgiving.

Now suppose what I advocated quite passionately was this: "Get rid of the Turkeys! Get rid of the pumpkin! Our traditional Thanksgiving dinner should be roasted Grizzly bear and vine-ripened tomatoes, summer squash and spring peas!"

Do you really think that people would listen to me and respect me? Quite clearly I would be wrong. Grizzlies never lived in coastal New England, and, if Thanksgiving really was a harvest festival, peas and tomatoes would already have been consumed. If tomatoes even grew in New England at that time. No, in order for a Traditionalist to have any kind of respect, he had better be advocating something clearly traditional and not his own idiosyncratic ideas.

In a post below, Past Elder and I have been discussing just how accurate Hippolytus' description of the Apostolic Tradition truly is. My view is that if enough people supported him to elect him Bishop of Rome in opposition to the legitimate bishop, then there had to be truth to what he was saying was tradition and what wasn't. Otherwise, he would have been recognized as a fool and an idiot.

The reason that he was seen as a heretic in his day was not because his teaching was wrong, but because he refused to acknowledge the legitimate bishop and had himself elected as an alternate. It was not an issue of doctrine so much as rebellion. To be accurate, his strict views on tradition were indeed too strict, but it's not as if he was accused of inventing new doctrines. An analogy: a pastor claims that a neighboring congregation is lax and wrong to not kneel at communion, and some members of that parish issue a "call" to be their pastor--in opposition to their legitimate pastor. He would be wrong to insist on kneeling, wrong to agree to usurping the office of another congregation, but actually correct in saying that kneeling at communion is the older, more traditional practice.

The second issue is, could Hippolytus really know the Apostolic Tradition in 236 AD...200 years after Jesus ascended into Heaven? We'll explore this in the following post.

Liturgical and Historical Questions

St. Hippolytus the Anti-Pope (what a great name!) wrote Apostolic Traditions out of concern that certain ancient customs were being lost. The Traditions date to the early 3rd century. He includes some early liturgy, and here is the anaphora/Eucharistic Prayer:

We give thanks to you God, through your beloved son Jesus Christ, whom you sent to us in former times as Savior, Redeemer, and Messenger of your Will, who is your inseparable Word, through whom you made all, and in whom you were well-pleased, whom you sent from heaven into the womb of a virgin, who, being conceived within her, was made flesh, and appeared as your Son, born of the Holy Spirit and the virgin. It is he who, fulfilling your will and acquiring for you a holy people, extended his hands in suffering, in order to liberate from sufferings those who believe in you. Who, when he was delivered to voluntary suffering, in order to dissolve death, and break the chains of the devil, and tread down hell, and bring the just to the light, and set the limit, and manifest the resurrection, taking the bread, and giving thanks to you, said, "Take, eat, for this is my body which is broken for you." Likewise the chalice, saying, This is my blood which is shed for you. Whenever you do this, do this (in) memory of me. Therefore, remembering his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and the chalice, giving thanks to you, who has made us worthy to stand before you and to serve as your priests. And we pray that you would send your Holy Spirit to the oblation of your Holy Church. In their gathering together, give to all those who partake of your holy mysteries the fullness of the Holy Spirit, toward the strengthening of the faith in truth, that we may praise you and glorify you, through your son Jesus Christ, through whom to you be glory and honor, Father and Son, with the Holy Spirit, in your Holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen.

Note the "words of institution" (verba) included in the prayer directed to God, and the "offering" language. Note as well that Hippolytus' prayer does not indicate the celebrant offers to God the body and blood of Christ for appeasement, but that the elements are offered and the Holy Spirit is called upon the gifts (epiklesis).

For my Lutheran readers, these are big bugaboos, to say the least. Some of you know that while I am very interested in the Early Church and worship, I am by no means a scholar. And so I need your help.

In my Sunday Bible study on Church History I introduced this text and gave some exploratory thoughts on how this differs from the later Canon and Sacrificial language used in Medieval Roman Catholicism and that this is what the Lutherans were arguing against, a propitiatory sacrifice to God.

Please correct me if I'm wrong...and for my Orthodox readers, how does this jive with the Orthodox view?

Thanks.

PS...the labels on this post are like the Triple Crown of the LCMS Brute Squad :)

Is This Too Much To Ask?

Via Lutherpunk, via someone else:

All I want is a happy little anglo-catholic [editorial note: read Evangelical Catholic for LP] parish. I don’t want a multi-media extravaganza. I don’t want a praise band. I don’t want to sing U2. I don’t need to talk theology over beers. I really just want a parish that follows the lectionary, observes the rhythms of the church year and holds traditional worship on holy days of obligation. Is that too much to ask? Can I also maybe request that we not remove essential parts of the liturgy in order to make the service shorter? Because that’s not cool. At all. If you can’t hang with the J man for a full 90 minutes, just stay home.

If you are looking for a cool, trendy, good looking pastor who oozes charisma and charm and tells great jokes all while leading a service that looks more like American Idol than the Divine Service, then I am not your man. There’s a huge non-denominational church down the street. Enjoy.

The Orthodox Study Bible: First Impressions

Back in December I discussed the (then) forthcoming The Orthodox Study Bible. I ordered the leather-bound version and waited. For some reason it was available from other retailers back in February, but Amazon didn't ship mine until this week. I received it last night and spent a good amount of time with it so far.

Presentation
First things first, it smelled nice. (I'm an enthusiastic book-smeller) I'm also in favor of leather bindings, as they tend to wear better, and I side with the woman with the alabaster flask (Mar. 14:3) when it comes to Holy things. I was impressed with its thickness; it's not nearly as thick as some study Bibles are. But the pages seem very thin, and are a little more translucent than I prefer. I worried that it would be hard to read with the text bleeding-through, but after using it this morning I didn't notice it at all. I still am concerned that the pages may tear, especially if I am flipping pages while teaching. The Bible features some nice color plates of icons interspersed throughout the text. The icons vary a bit in style, being written by different hands and that variation is good.

Study Content
The study helps are excellent for the most part. The introduction provides a short explanation of the text used for the Old Testament and the philosophy behind what kinds of notes and study aids were provided. The purpose of the Study Bible is given too: "The prayer of the editors and contributors...is that is presents an understandable Bible text and commentary to (1) English-speaking Orthodox Christians the world over and to (2) non-Orthodox readers interested in learning more about the faith of the historic Orthodox Church." Following that is handy chart showing the listings of the books of the Bible in both this edition, Roman Catholic Bibles and Protestant Bibles.

An "Overview of Books of the Bible" follows--brief summaries of the books of the Bible. The author of this essay, Bishop BASIL of Wichita and the Mid-America, takes special care throughout to relate the summaries to Christ. "Introducing the Orthodox Church" follows this, a crash-course in Christian History that could be very helpful to many readers. One should be aware that this section is written in a persuasive style, attempting to convince the reader that the Orthodox Church alone has preserved the apostolic doctrine. Fair enough, given the purpose and prayer of the editors. I do think it goes too far at the conclusion, inviting readers of the Study Bible to attend Orthodox worship. At this point the essay feels more like a Gospel-tract, if you know what I mean.

Throughout the text the Bible includes mini-essays on doctrinal topics with generous quotations from Scripture and Church Fathers. In my limited reading so far, it doesn't seem to include as many quotes from the Fathers as I had hoped, but the notes provided seem quite good so far. One outstanding feature is that every Biblical text used in Orthodox liturgies throughout the church year are noted with a special symbol. The notes below the text tell the reader at what service they are read. The effect this has is to affirm just how much Scripture is used in the Eastern Rite liturgy. It's staggering. I wonder if the forthcoming Lutheran study Bible would benefit from doing this. I also wonder if Lutherans could boast of so much Scripture used!

After Revelation the Study Bible includes two essays, the first entitled "The Bible:God's Revelation to Man," written by Bishop JOSEPH, Bishop of Los Angeles and the West; the second, "How to Read the Bible," by Bishop KALLISTOS, Bishop of Diokleia. I've only read the latter so far and found it delightful. I don't recall any liturgical Christian who would object to this essay. Following that is a Lectionary, arranged roughly according to the Eastern Rite Orthodox liturgical year, an Eastern Rite order for Morning and Evening Prayer, a glossary, index, and the obligatory maps.

The Translation
As I discussed last year, one of the great benefits to this Study Bible is that the text of the Greek (Septuagint) Old Testament. So what is it like reading this? I'm not sure at this point, having only read a few short chapters. So far its hard to tell what differs due to translation and what differs due to a different original text. The language is easy to read, the print is good, the notes are helpful, but in some ways it's almost like seeing your house through a mirror; everything looks familiar, but things seem somehow different. After a few months I may be able to share more.


Who Should Have it?
1. Anyone interested in a readable English translation of the Greek OT, used by Christ and the Apostles and generations of Christians since (all the reasons I blogged about before).

2. Those who don't mind receiving some excellent insight and information about Orthodoxy (even at Concordia Seminary we learned vast amounts about Roman Catholicism and other Protestants; the Orthodox Church was virtually ignored!).

3. Those who are using a Protestant Study Bible (such as the Zonervan, Thompson, Life Application, MacArthur, etc) The Orthodox Study Bible is to be greatly preferred, as it shares a similar liturgical, sacramental, Christ-centered reading and understanding of Scripture as Lutherans.

How is it that Christ "is not able to do anything of himself, unless he sees the Father doing anything"?

For if the Father does not exist, neither does the Son. For the Son is of the Father and in the Father and with the Father, and not after the Father. In a similar way also what he does is of him and with him. For there is one and the same--not similar but the same--will and energy and power in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit."

St. John of Damascus, The Orthodox Faith. 4.18

Unceasing Prayer?

What does it mean to pray without ceasing? Some groups take this to mean that God wants perpetual prayer-prayer marathons, so to speak. So all day and all night long, people take turns to pray continually. Is this what God wants us to do? Obviously not, for He has given us work to do. He wants us to have rest periods as well. To pray unceasingly means to be diligent in prayer. Morning prayers, evening prayers, table prayers, and prayers in special circumstances add up to the diligence God wants. (Rudolph F. Norden, Every Day with the Savior: Daily Devotions. Concordia, St. Louis, 2004. September 14 devotion.)

I read this with severe disappointment. It sounds too much like my sinful nature which says, "God's Word certainly cannot mean it what it says. 'Pray without ceasing,' (1 Thes. 5:17) certainly is hyperbole." It should raise flags that our enemy also speaks this way.

Norden's objection to unceasing prayer is couched in a straw man, that unceasing prayer means a continual prayer vigil, where a church or group prays unceasingly. This is a straw man because the Epistle does not indicate that these are "group" prayers, but that all of us should pray unceasingly. Furthermore, his critique--that God doesn't mean this because we have other things to do--is invalid, as the example itself shows that no one person is praying all the time, but shifts are taken so that people can do other things. I wonder why he tries so hard to re-interpret this passage.

The Church Fathers have a radically different understanding of what unceasing prayer means. St. Basil the Great writes,

For prayer and psalmody, however...every hour is suitable, that, while our hands are busy at their tasks, we may praise God sometimes with the tongue (when this is possible, or, rather, when it is conducive to edification); or, if not, with the heart.... Thus we acquire a recollected spirit--when in every action we beg from God the success of our labors and satisfy our debt of gratitude to him who gave us the power to do the work, and when, as has been said, we keep before our minds the aim of pleasing him. If this is not the case, how can there be consistency in the words of the apostle bidding us to 'pray without ceasing," with those other words, "we worked night and day." (The Long Rules, Q37.R.; quoted from ACCS, vol. NT IX)

St. Augustine likewise says,

Let your desire be before him, and 'the Father, who sees in secret, shall reward you.' For it is your heart's desire that is your prayer. If your desire continues uninterrupted, your prayer continues also. For it was not without meaning, when the apostle said, 'Pray without ceasing.' Are we to be 'without ceasing' in bending the knee and prostrating the body and lifting up our hands, such that he says, 'without ceasing'? If that is what 'without ceasing' means, then I do not believe it is possible. There is another kind of inward prayer without ceasing, which is the desire of the heart. (Augstine, Commentary on the Psalms, 37.14; quoted in ACCS, vol. NT IX)

What's interesting about the quote from St. Augustine is that he says something similar to Norden, that we cannot pray "liturgically" without ceasing. It would be impossible to form petitions in our mind to God at all times--and especially to accompany that with proper prayer posture.

But both of these Fathers describe a kind of prayer of faith. It is not so much a prayer of the mind, which forms words and sentences, but more a prayer of the heart, a prayer that beats along with our heart, that accompanies our rising and resting, our work and our speech. Later Eastern Fathers describe this kind of prayer especially in terms of the Jesus Prayer: "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me (a sinner)." There is a host of teaching on what this means and how it was practiced. During the 14-15th Centuries it was controversial, and Western Christians since have been prone to denigrate this at times as nearly un-Christian mysticism and "navel gazing." (Which incidentally, was a slur against Eastern Orthodox monks, not against Hindus or Buddhists, as many today take it to mean).

Apart from the historical (and present) controversy, the practice of saying the Jesus Prayer is excellent and commendable. As a prayer it is Biblical, echoing the cry of the publican (Luk. 18:13); the blind men (Mat. 9:27; and in Mat. 20:30), the Canaanite woman (Mat. 15:22); etc. It is the simplest cry of a faithful Christian. It is also short and memorable, easy to say in the mind while doing other work, or even while falling asleep.

While saying the Jesus Prayer (or any prayer) continuously is far from our abilities, it is dangerous for the Christian to simply dismiss the notion as impossible. We can certainly take a page from the Fathers who show us how prayer is so conjoined to faith that they are inseparable.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.