Blog

Monastery on Mt. Athos

Dear Friends,

We will (once again) be hosting a summer retreat and pilgrimage to Thessaloniki and Mt. Athos for present, past or future students of theology (roughly ages 19-30), including those only considering the priesthood or attending seminary.

There are up to 15 spots available for this 12 day intensive program which will include:

1. A five day pilgrimage to Mount Athos, where we’ll meet with contemporary elders and Abbots (July 13-17).
2. The all-night vigil at the Monastery of St. John the Theologian in Souroti, for the feast of Saint Paisios the Athonite (July 12).
3. A five day program of services, lectures, discussion and visits to Thessaloniki and local monasteries from our base in the mountain-top village of Petrokerasa outside of Thessaloniki. We will invite spiritual fathers and elders from Northern Greece, as well as professors of theology from the University of Thessaloniki, to visit with and speak to the participants.

Below is a description of the two-week program.

The deadline is March 30th. After that the price will rise.

Sincerely in Christ Jesus,

Fr. Peter Heers
Assistant Professor of Holy Scripture
Holy Trinity Orthodox Seminary
Jordanville, New York

For more information contact Fr. Peter Heers (frpeterheers@gmail.com)

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

A 12 day pilgrimage to Thessaloniki, Mount Athos and select Monasteries in Northern Greece which includes meetings with Athonite Elders and Spiritual Fathers, Abbots and Abbesses of Monasteries in Northern Greece, Professors of Theology from the University of Thessaloniki, talks and presentations on contemporary challenges facing the Church, Divine Services and the 9 hour Vigil for St. Paisios the Athonite held at the Monastery of Souroti, where he reposed and was buried.

During the retreat portion of the trip, participants will be hosted in a newly-built guest house in the village of Petrokerasa, in the mountains outside of Thessaloniki, where they will spend the first five days of their stay participating in a spiritual program of prayer, discussions, lectures and walks to mountain-side chapels, and from where they will also make one-day trips to nearby monasteries and the historic churches of Thessaloniki.

During the second part of their stay, they will travel to Mount Athos for a five day pilgrimage to the Monasteries, Sketes and Kellia of the Garden of the Theotokos and 1000+ year old Monastic Republic. The Participants will meet with elders and experienced monastics and have an opportunity to learn from their example and wisdom.

PROGRAM DATES

• JUL 6 Friday — Depart from U.S./Canada/UK/Australia
• JUL 18 Wednesday — Return to U.S./Canada/UK/Australia

• JUL 7 Arrive in Greece
• JUL 7-11 — In Petrokerasa
• JUL 7 Evening — Vigil for Elder Paisios (Souroti) (8:00pm-4:30am)
• JUL 12-17 — On Athos
• JUL 18 — Depart for U.S./Canada/UK/Australia

SPECIAL EVENTS

1. Pilgrimage to Mt. Athos
   Our five day pilgrimage to Mt. Athos will include visits to both large Coenobitic Monasteries and smaller sketes and kellia, so that our young pilgrims will experience the spectrum of monastic life that exists on Holy Mountain. The pilgrims will have an opportunity to speak with experienced spiritual fathers and abbots on the Holy Mountain, a blessing which is not available to most visitors.
2. Trips to Local Monasteries
   Two trips are planned to nearby monasteries, which may include Meteora, the Timios Prodromos Monastery in Serres, the Monastery of the Metemorphosis in Sohos, where the Elder Ioannikios resides (he is the author of the Athonite Gerontikon), and to the Monastery of St. Arsenios the Cappadocian, in Ormylia, Chalkidiki, which was founded with the blessing of Elder Paisios the Athonite.
3. Two days will be set aside for visits to Thessaloniki, both to see the historic churches of Ss. Demetrios and Gregory Palamas and to shop in the marketplace, which includes many ecclesiastical goods shops.
4. Vigil for the Feast of St. Paisios the Athonite at the Monastery of St. John the Theologian in Souroti, Greece, which was where the Saint reposed and his relics are interred.
5. During our stay in Petrokerasa, we’ll take walks out into the countryside, to the chapels, of which the parish of Petrokerasa has six, where we’ll hold vespers and compline. In the evenings, there will be a presentation or a talk on a particular topic, followed by a general discussion.

WHO CAN PARTICIPATE?

1. Past, present or future students of theology can participate. Because the program includes a 5 day trip to Mount Athos, the program is only open to men. Also, participants will only be accepted if they have a letter of recommendation from their spiritual father or bishop.
2. The Facilities and Stay in Petrokerasa
   We have facilities here – brand new! – that can host up to 15 individuals. They include, in addition to rooms, a large kitchen and dining hall, a smaller kitchen and several showers and bathrooms. The hall is equipped with a large interactive screen (whiteboard) which will be used during presentations to the participants.
3. Cost for Participants
   Each participant would have to fund their travel to and from Thessaloniki, provide $500 for the room, board and non-Athonite travel of the program, $50 for the Athos diamonitirion (visa) and roughly $50 for common travel expenses on Mt. Athos.

ADVANTAGES OF THIS PROGRAM

This is a unique opportunity for Orthodox from abroad to quickly and intensely be immersed in the life, ethos and teaching of Orthodoxy in Northern Greece.

The advantages of visiting Thessaloniki and Mount Athos as a part of this program, as opposed to on one’s own, should be obvious: the participants will not only spend less money, but will, in the span of 12 days be thoroughly and directly introduced to the spiritual environment of Orthodoxy in Greece and on Athos.

For more information contact Fr. Peter Heers (frpeterheers@gmail.com)

One of the earliest known icons of St. Paul the Apostle recently discovered in a sealed cave near ancient Ephesus

By John G. Panagiotou

In Biblical scholar Bonnie Thurston’s latest offering to the study of the Scriptures All the Fullness of God: The Christ of Colossians, we are given a wonderful analysis of the theology of the Apostle Paul in his writing of this epistle to the first century Colossian church. Thurston lays out for us the history and context of that church’s confused Christology in which the Apostle attempts to correct with the writing of his letter. Thurston’s study is broken into two parts. It is almost if we are confronted with two separate works within the covers of one volume.

The first part lays out for us the historical, societal, religious, and political context in which Paul and his associates found themselves in during their ministry to the Colossian Christians. It is precisely in this vein, that she highlights the alternative teachings to the Christian faith which Paul and his co-worker in ministry Epaphras brought to Colossae, but was being usurped by false alternative teachings by others. It is precisely this clarification of doctrine that is the aim of the Apostle in his writing to that local church. He wants them to be clear in Who the Person of Jesus is and that their salvation lies only with and in Him. And rightly, Thurston proclaims that nowhere is this more clear than in the “Christ hymn”. (Colossians 1:13-23)

Thurston notes the known fact that the so-called “Christ hymn” is an apparent adaptation by the author of Judaic wisdom literature most notably the Wisdom of Solomon. What she contributes to the conversation on the topic however is a thorough examination of the passage’s Christological teaching as to the Person of Jesus and His role in creation. Through a rich level of scholarly citation, she also highlights the soteriological with her explanation of Paul’s understanding of Jesus’ role in the salvation of creation through His death and resurrection. Finally, Thurston aptly recognizes Paul’s emphasis on the ecclesiological aspect with his declaration of the headship of Christ in relationship to the His Bride the Church. A Greek word study which highlights eikon (image) and pleroma (fullness) is provided which further provides us a reminder that Christ is the all-sufficient provider and solution for every need.

Thurston unites all of this within a baptismal context. The believer is mystically a participant who is united in Christ’s death and resurrection and added to the Body of Christ the Church through the mystery of baptism. It is precisely this baptismal ecclesiology which seems to permeate all of the other theologies in the book. If there were to be one critique which I may make is that Thurston leaves the reader wanting a deeper development of this notion of Pauline baptismal ecclesiology. We are brought to the precipice without taking the plunge into that wonderful abyss. Perhaps Thurston or another scholar will delve into reflection of the implications of that baptismal ecclesiology which richly lies in the writings of Paul to the Colossians.

In Part Two of the book, the reader is exposed to something different than in Part One. In Part One, we were given history and scholarly analysis. In Part Two, we are given a series of nine reflections with practical contemporary applications of the epistle. I find this refreshing to see a scholar write applied theology for practical usage by Christians instead of only abstract conceptual writings for academics. To be sure, Thurston is a top-notch scholar of the Bible. Yet, she does not miss the idea that the Bible needs to be communicated simply and practically to the people in the pews on Sunday who still have to go to work, go to school, and to face life in whatever stage they must do on Monday morning.

Thurston still manages to tie Parts One and Two together in the final paragraph of the book when she writes, “Colossians makes it very clear that we Christians are baptized into Christ Jesus. We live our lives to him, and, astoundingly, the writer tells the Colossians that Christ lives His risen life in them (and thus in us). Wonderful. But the implications of our being children of God in Christ is that we have all these siblings. In the reality of the spiritual life that is our authentic and eternal life, we are brothers and sisters to one another with all the rights and responsibilities pertaining thereunto.” (Thurston, 129)

In summary, All the Fullness of God: The Christ of Colossians is a welcome addition to the scholar’s and the person in the pew’s library. Thurston has reminded us in a scholarly, but not pedantic way of what it means to be united to Christ and His Bride the Church as expressed through the lens of Pauline theology. I would recommend this a good read in the further conversation on the writings of the Apostle Paul.

John G. Panagiotou is an Orthodox Christian theologian, scholar, and writer. He is a graduate of Wheeling Jesuit University and St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. Currently, hhe is completing his Doctor of Ministry degree at Erskine Theological Seminary and he is Professor of New Testament and Greek at Cummins Theological Seminary.

By Protodeacon Brian Patrick Mitchell

Advocates of the ordination of women as deaconesses have begun responding publicly to the public statement of opposition to deaconesses signed by over 50 clergymen and scholars and posted last month on the website of the American Orthodox Institute, where over 200 other Orthodox Christians, many of them also clergymen and scholars, have added their names. In time, we will no doubt see some well-researched, well-written rebuttals to the public statement, worthy of lengthy responses. But Paul Ladouceur’s posting last week on Public Orthodoxy can be quickly and easily parried in a few brief paragraphs.

Half of Ladouceur’s argument is the straw man that the “natural order” theory advanced by opponents of deaconesses involves “two opposing ontological principles, equality and subordination,” which they have made “no attempt to reconcile” and which are incompatible with patristic teaching. This is a straw man because it’s easy to knock down and doesn’t actually represent the views of opponents of deaconesses. Who believes in the “ontological subordination” of women? No one I know in the Orthodox Church.

What the opponents of deaconesses believe in, and what the Church plainly teaches, is the economical subjection of women on account of the Fall, which, like the economical subjection of men to men, is decreed by God for our own good. The difference between ontological subordination and economical subjection is that the former is a matter of nature whereas the latter is a matter of law. The woman is not naturally inferior to the man, but she is obliged to submit to him for the greater good, just as men are obliged to submit to other men for the same reason—to keep people together and at peace.

Thus St. John Chrysostom says both, “For with us, indeed, the woman is reasonably subjected to the man, since equality of honor causeth contention,” (Homily 26 on 1 Cor.) and also, “And from the beginning He made one sovereignty only, setting the man over the woman. [Gen. 3:16] But after our race ran headlong into extreme disorder, He appointed other sovereignties also, those of Masters, and those of Governors, and this too for love’s sake.” (Homily 34 on 1 Cor.)

Of economical subjection, Ladouceur says nothing, leaving his readers with only ontological equality justifying the rule of women over men in the Church and in the world. (For the patristic view of the natural and economical order of male and female see “The Problem with Hierarchy,” “The Disappearing Deaconess,” “Orthodox Deaconesses,” and “The Danger of Deaconesses.”)

The other half of Ladouceur’s argument is a claim that opponents of deaconesses commit the logical fallacy known as “the slippery slope” or “the camel’s nose” when warning that “women deacons will lead inexorably to a series of other unwanted changes in Orthodoxy.” These are Ladouceur’s words. Later, in developing this line of argument, Ladouceur lets his imagination run rampant. He writes:

Opponents of the ordination of women appeal to the inevitability of other changes which would ensue from the institution of women deacons in the Orthodox Church. These undesired downstream changes would include women priests, women bishops, acceptance of same-sex marriage, transgender confusion, LBGTQ2 priests, changes in the readings in marriage service, or in gender designations for God…

In fact, some public advocates of deaconesses have already shown their sympathy for some of these changes, but the public statement against deaconesses only warns: “Just as children who grow up in parishes with female readers are more likely to believe as adults that women should be deacons or deaconesses, so children who grow up in parishes with deaconesses will be more likely to believe as adults that women should be priests and bishops.”

This warning is easily defensible for three reasons:

1. It warns of only a probable change in the thinking of some people as a result of making women deacons or deaconesses: People conditioned by the experience of growing up with women deacons or deaconesses would be “more likely” to think as Ladouceur does—that there is nothing wrong with women taking leading roles in the Church as in the world, preaching publicly and exercising authority over men as well as women, as priests and deacons do. The expectation of such a change is hardly unreasonable.
2. There is a principle at stake—the natural and economical order of the man and the woman, which makes the man responsible for leadership. This is the reason why the duties of deaconesses were always so severely limited. It is also the only reason found in the Fathers for excluding women from the priesthood. No modern defender of that exclusion has been able to come up with the better one. Imposing clergywomen upon the faithful would effectively repudiate the principle of the male headship, leaving us with only the lack of precedent as a defense against women as priests and bishops. Yet a lack of precedent unbacked by principle, and instead at odds with the new principle of gender equality, is unlikely to fare well in this day and age, even among the Orthodox.
3. Making women deacons or deaconesses will free the advocates of full equality for women, who already believe women should be priests, to begin pushing for the next step, using the similarity of deacons to priests to their advantage. This is a lesson from experience, not just in other churches but in the military as well, where feminists used the similarity of some “non-combat” jobs to some “combat” jobs to argue for letting women into more and more of the latter. (Read all about that here.) Ladouceur himself employs this tactic when he uses women choir directors and parish council presidents to argue that women already exercise authority over men and therefore ought also to be deacons. Once women become deacons, he could easily extend his argument to priests and bishops. The difference he neglects to acknowledge is that allowing women to direct choirs and head councils is a concession to human weakness, an irregularity forced on us in the fallen world, whereas the ordination of a deacon, priest, or bishop is a sacramental act acknowledging that a man’s new rank is willed by God and in no way irregular. The Church may tolerate irregularity; she does not ordain it.

In sum, Ladouceur’s charge that opponents of deaconesses commit the fallacy of the slippery slope when warning of where deaconesses might lead is itself a logical fallacy, the fallacy of faulty generalization, which merely uses the fact that some warnings of slippery slopes are fallacious to dismiss an welcome warning without proof of its fallaciousness.

Of other faults, nothing need be said, except that the only arguments Ladouceur makes in favor of deaconesses are that ontological equality justifies women ruling over men, that no fundamental matter of dogma is threatened by deaconesses, and that we had them once so we can have them again without starting down the slippery slope.

But when we had deaconesses, no one dared to teach against the natural and economical order of male and female, so settled was it in Scripture and Tradition, whereas today we have teachers who ignore Scripture and Tradition to teach only equality and mock the Orthodox for keeping the Faith of our Fathers.

Protodeacon Brian Patrick Mitchell is a doctoral student at the University of Winchester and the principal author of “A Public Statement on Orthodox Deaconesses by Concerned Clergy and Laity.” His master’s thesis on deaconesses is available here: “The Disappearing Deaconess: How the Hierarchical Ordering of Church Doomed the Female Diaconate.”

The Theotokos (Virgin Mary) — Wider than the Heavens

By John G. Panagiotou

“Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Emmanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

The great prophet of God Isaiah prophesied this proclamation of the salvation of God’s creation some eight centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ. At first glance, in the realm of the natural order of things, to read that a virgin birth is even possible is to speak of madness or at the very least statistical improbability. Yet, this Scripture may very well be the most crucial in all of the Old Testament for it summarizes the need of Israel and Judah for a Savior and a Redeemer to stave off their unfaithfulness while offering hope and comfort of a future supernatural event where God would intervene in human history in a way previously unknown in depth and magnitude.

Before we can reflect on this great mystery, let us look at the personage of Isaiah and his historical societal context in the world into which he was living at the time of this prophecy.

Writing in about the eighth century B.C., we are told in the early verses of Scriptures attributed to Isaiah that Isaiah was a Hebrew who lived during the reigns of the Kings of Judah (also known as Zion): Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah (Isaiah 1:1). He was married to a woman that we know only as “the prophetess” (Isaiah 8:3). Most probably she was known as that because she was married to the prophet. They had two sons Shear-jashub which means “a remnant shall return” (Isaiah 7:3) and Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz which means “spoil quickly, plunder speedily” (Isaiah 8:3). It would be the birth of their second son whom we shall focus upon as an Old Testament type who is a prefiguration of the anti-type Who is the Savior the Lord Jesus Christ.

The great imminent political and military threat of Isaiah’s day was that Assyria was seeking to infiltrate and overcome both Israel and Judah. Isaiah is told by God and placed by Him in a position to give a word to King Ahaz of Judah warning him to be steadfast against forming an alliance with Syria just as Israel which was also known as Ephraim (Isaiah 7:2) had done to secure protection against the Assyrians. (Isaiah 7:3) Isaiah speaks on behalf of God warning Ahaz that to form such an alliance would ultimately lead to Ahaz’s and Judah’s downfall. (Isaiah 7:3-9) We read that King Ahaz due to his lack of faith in God does not submit to the prophet’s request even after he offers him to do for him a sign of which he still refuses to accept even that gesture with feigned humility. (Isaiah 7:11-12) Isaiah then proceeds to chastise Ahaz for his faithlessness. (Isaiah 7:13)

In spite of Ahaz not heeding Isaiah’s warning against an alliance with Syria and Israel and not allowing Isaiah to fulfill an offer of performing a sign, God still gives Ahaz a sign anyway. This is just another example that God does His own thing in His own way during His own timetable. God does this by the birth of Isaiah’s and prophetess’ son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Emmanuel.” (Isaiah 7:14)

The very meaning of Isaiah’s son’s name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz “spoil quickly, plunder speadily” should have served enough of a warning to Ahaz. (Isaiah 8:1-3) As a result, God was thus going to use the Assyrians to discipline Ahaz, Jerusalem, and all of Judah (Ephraim) when the Scripture states, “In that day, the Lord will shave with a razor that is hired beyond the River – with the King of Assyria – the head and the hair of the feet, and it will sweep away the beard also.” (Isaiah 7:20)

Consequently, Assyria was to be an instrument of destruction by God in dealing with Judah. The symbol of which was going to Isaiah’s newly-born younger son. In Isaiah 10:5-6, we read, “Ah, Assyria, the rod of my anger; the staff in their hands is my fury! Against a godless nation I send him and against the people of my wrath I command him, to take spoil and seize plunder, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.” Through this sign act of Isaiah’s son’s birth, the message to Ahaz is that his demise and the demise of Judah draws nigh.

Yet, beyond the type of Isaiah’s younger son, we are offered the hope that God will do something even greater with the remnant of Judah and Israel that will survive the Assyrian destruction. We find a bridge to the future hope in Isaiah’s older son’s name Shear-jashub which means “a remnant shall return” (Isaiah 7:3) The questions remain as to why God would spare a remnant and what would He do with them in the future?

I believe that the Scripture Isaiah 7:14 lends itself to answer these questions with two key words which do not necessarily apply in total within the context of the birth of Isaiah’s son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz in the original Hebrew Masoretic text but does have a definite significance in the Septuagint which is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The Septuagint was written approximately two hundred years before the birth of Christ during the Hasmonean Period. The words are: virgin and Emmanuel.

In the original Hebrew, the word “almah” which means “young woman or maiden” is used whereas the Greek text uses “parthenos” which means “virgin.” Thus, the Hebrew text as such can specifically apply to Isaiah’s son Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz since he was born through natural conjugal relations whereas the later Greek translation of the text can specifically apply in all its fullest sense to Jesus of Nazareth whose conception was supernatural through an activity of the Holy Spirit on a willing virgin.

The great Reformed Biblical scholar J. Gresham Machen would reflect, “The question, we think, cannot be settled merely by a consideration of the meaning of the Hebrew word ‘almâ.’ It has been urged, indeed, on the one hand that the Hebrew language has a perfectly unmistakable word for ‘virgin,’ betûlâ, and that if ‘virgin’ had been meant that word would have been used. But as a matter of fact there is no place among the seven occurrences of ‘almâ’ in the Old Testament where the word is clearly used of a woman who was not a virgin. It may readily be admitted that ‘almâ’ does not actually indicate virginity, as does ‘betûlâ’; it means rather ‘a young woman of marriageable age.’ But on the other hand one may well doubt, in view of the usage, whether it was a natural word to use of anyone who was not in point of fact a virgin.” [J. Gresham Machen, The Virgin Birth of Christ (New York: Harper, 1930), 288.]

Beyond this, Isaiah’s younger son’s name which we know conjures images of destruction and desolation. Isaiah’s older son’s name Shear-jashub conjures images of hope that a remnant will be spared. “And it will sweep on into Judah, it will overflow and pass on, reaching even to the neck, and its outspread wings will fill the breadth of your land, O Emmanuel.” (Isaiah 8:8) Though these individuals are seen as indicative of God working in history with the Hebrews during their time, they still pale in comparison as to what God is going to do a perfect way in the fullness of time. The serve as imperfect prefigurations to the perfect manifestation which is to come. To be said in neo-Platonic language and metaphor, they are but mere shadows of the realized ideal which is to come. Isaiah himself would refer to this expectation saying, “Then a shoot will spring from the root of Jesse and a branch from his roots will bear fruit.” (Isaiah 11:1-2) It is the difference in seeing some only partially and not with a total view.

St. John Chrysostom in his Fifth Homily on Matthew’s Gospel clarifies this when he writes, “For here he puts the event as a name: and this is customary in Scripture, to substitute the events that take place for names. Therefore, to say, they shall call Him Emmanuel, means nothing else than that they shall see God among men. For He has indeed always been among men, but never so manifestly.” [Translated by George Prevost and revised by M.B. Riddle. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 10. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.]

The name Emmanuel literally means “God with us” which gains one a real understanding that the pre-existent Second Person of the Holy Trinity – the Theanthropos (God-man) who is fully divine and fully human – has visited His creation in a unique definitive way. It is in the incarnation and birth of the God-man that we see the full realization and fulfillment of the Messianic promise. As we shall see in the following New Testament Gospel passages, the key to a full understanding of the meaning of Isaiah’s prophecy can only be found through the spectacle lens’ of a Christocentric understanding of this Old Testament verse which sees the Person of Jesus of Nazareth as the antitype to Isaiah’s typological prophecy of the ultimate vision of the future.

In Matthew 1:23, the words of Isaiah 7:14 reappear, “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel.” This verse comes after earlier in the chapter. we are given by Matthew the genealogy of Jesus Christ which makes reference to the facts that he is of the house of David and the root of Jesse. Matthew then proceeds to tell his readers, “Now the birth of Jesus was as follows. After his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit.” (Matthew 1:18)

In Luke’s Gospel, in the account of the Annunciation by the Archangel Gabriel to the Virgin Mary, we find further attestation to the virginity of Mary and the incarnation of Christ. We read, “And Mary said to the angel, ‘How will this be, since I am a virgin? And the angel answered her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy – the Son of God.’” (Luke 1:34-35)
In John’s Gospel we are told, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.” (John 1:14) The importance of this incarnational theology of Christ is so important to John’s understanding of the Godhead and His relationship to creation that he writes this in his later epistle, “By this you know he Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist which you have heard was coming and now is in the world already.” (I John 4:2-3)

Every heresy in the history of the Church could arguably be stated as having its roots in a wrong understanding of the incarnation. One need only look at examples such as Gnostocism, Arianism, Nestorianism, and Donatism with their attendant warped understanding of the Person of Christ. This was so much so that even as late as the fourth and fifth centuries at the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon respectively, the Church had to address such heresies by: a.) canonizing the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament to provide a basic manual of doctrine for the Christian faithful; b.) adopting the Nicene Creed as a statement of faith; c.) and proclaiming the Virgin Mary as Theotokos (in Greek, “Birth-Giver of God”) to affirm and uphold sound Christological teaching as affirmed by St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Fathers of the Council of Ephesus. All of these tenets of the “paradosis” (“deposit of faith”) as the Apostle Paul instructs Timothy “to guard which was entrusted to him” (II Timothy 1:14) form the pillars of what we call orthodox Christian theology.

In other Patristic writings, St. Gregory of Nyssa (335-395 A.D.) would refer to the Prophet Isaiah as one who “knew more perfectly than all others the mystery of the religion of the Gospel”. [“Isaiah 1-39” in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, Volume X, 10th edition; editor Steven A. McKinnon]. St. Jerome (342-420 A.D.) would write of Isaiah, “He was more of an evangelist than a prophet, because he described all of the mysteries of the Church of Christ so vividly that you would assume he was not prophesying about the future, but rather was composing a history of past events.” [“Prophet Isaiah” in The Lives of the Holy Prophets, Holy Apostles Convent, ISBN 0-944359-12-4, page 101]

All of the above we first hear of from Isaiah’s prophecy. Chrysostom reminds us, “For the mouth indeed was Isaiah’s, but the oracle was wafted from above.” [St. John Chrysostom, Homily V on Matthew 1:25, 23.] In the Person of Jesus and only the Person of Jesus do we see the full realization of Isaiah’s Messianic hope.

You may ask — what is the relevance and what are the implications for contemporary Christians today of the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy two thousand years ago? I would say that the relevance and importance can be found in three key distinct points for the believer of today.

First, they show that God works in history. He has not ever abandoned us though we as people may have abandoned Him time and time again. He is not disinterested in us. He is faithful to us just as He was faithful to Israel and Judah. He may use bad circumstances and even our enemies (the Assyrians of our life) to bring us to repentance with the hope of us drawing near to Him. Yet, time and time again history has the thumbprint of the Creator stamped all over it.

Second, having and maintaining a sound, correct theological doctrine of the incarnation is absolutely essential for it to be called Christian theology. The virgin conception and birth of Jesus is a non-negotiable of Christian Faith. Either Jesus is God and His birth was supernatural or else we live in delusion adrift amidst a sea of falsehoods. As St. Athanasius the Great writes, “He took our body, and not only so, but He took it directly from a spotless, stainless virgin without the agency of human father – a pure body, untainted by intercourse with man.” [St. Athanasius the Great in chapter 2 of his work On the Incarnation (St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press)]

Third, the mystery of salvation is the ultimate expression of God’s love for His creation. As the Ark of the Covenant was an imperfect typological prefiguration of the Presence of God among His creation, the perfect fulfillment of the Presence of God amidst His creation came in the virgin womb of Mary thus she becomes a new Ark of the Covenant and a new Tabernacle of God. As Athanasius and other Church Fathers have marveled at the mystery of how God’s creature Mary contained in her womb her uncontainable Creator. Let us look at how the marvel of this has found expression in the ancient hymns of the Church. Only God can do such things! He did not need to go and do all of this for us. He did so because of His great love for His entire creation.

Within the early hymns of the Byzantine Church which chronicle the theology of the people of God at worship, we read inspired references to all of these things. In the Akathist Hymn which dates as early as the sixth century A.D., we in various stanzas of it’s composed poetic hymnography we find the following: “the Archangel hastened into Joseph’s abode and spoke to the Holy Virgin. He Who bowed the Heavens with His descending, is wholly contained, yet unchanged in You. And seeing Him taking the likeness of a servant in your womb, I stand in amazement and cry to you: Alleluia.” (stanza 1); “Beholding herself in purity, the holy one courageously said to Gabriel: Your strange voice seems almost unbelieveable to my soul; for how do you speak of birth-giving without seed?” (stanza 2); “Seeking to know the incomprehensible knowledge, the Virgin cried to him who ministered to her: How may a Son be born from a virginal womb?” (stanza 3); and “The power of the Most High then overshadowed the Virgin, that she might conceive; and her fruitful womb He mad a fertile meadow for all those desiring to reap salvation.” (stanza 4)

If we subscribe to the ancient liturgical axiom, lex orandi, lex credendi (“the law of praying is the law of believing”) [Patrologia Latina, 51, 209-10], then what the Church prays and sings, the Church believes. It becomes clearly evident what Church has believed on this matter since it’s earliest days.

It is also interesting to note and no coincidence at all that in Patristic literature the Holy Sprit is often referred to in technical terms simply as “Panagio” (“the All-Holy One” masculine form using the omega ending) and the Virgin Mary as “Panagia” (“the All-Holy One” feminine form using the alpha ending). If you just look at their ending vowel letters, you get alpha and omega. The Church Fathers Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Gregory (of Nazianzus) the Theologian, and Gregory of Nyssa to name a few all believed in the virgin birth of the Savior. [see St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, St. Vladmir’s Seminary Press]

So, there you have it brethren, such is our faith. We serve a big God beyond our comprehension and loves us in such deep ways beyond our comprehension, even to the point of sending His Only-Begotten Son to be nailed to a tree and die for us in the flesh. We in turn are called to turn to Him, trust Him, repent of our sins, and follow Him. In the words of John the Baptist, “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” (Matthew 3:2)

I close with yet another hymn of the Eastern Church which summarizes nicely the theology articulated above. It is chanted at every wedding and ordination. “Rejoice and dance, O Isaiah! The Virgin is with child, and shall bear a son Emmanuel, both God and man, and Orient is His Name, Whom magnifying we call the Virgin blessed.” [The Priest’s Euchologion of the Eastern Orthodox Christian Church]

John G. Panagiotou is an Orthodox Christian theologian and writer who is a graduate of Wheeling Jesuit University and St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. Panagiotou is Professor of New Testament Greek at Cummins Theological Seminary and is a doctoral candidate at Erskine Theological Seminary.

Receive a FREE book from Uncut Mountain Press

Enter to get your FREE copy!

— Three random entrants will be selected to receive a print copy of “The Ecclesiological Renovation of Vatican II” by Protopresbyter Peter Heers

— Four random entrants will receive one eBook of their choice from Uncut Mountain Press!

Contest runs until Monday, December 4th, 2017.