SACRAMENTS OF THE SYRIAC ORTHODOX CHURCH- HOLY MYRON PART 1

The Sacrament of the Holy Myron, is a holy Sacrament, in which we receive the seal of the Holy Spirit and become strong and perfect Christians and soldiers of Jesus Christ.

Meaning of the word Myron
The names of this sacrament at present in use are, for the Western Church: confirmation,
Chrismation; and for the Eastern Church: the Holy Myron (Chrism).

In Syriac/Aramaic is called:
ܢܘܪ
Moroon Qadisho (the Holy Moroon)
•
ܬ ܕ Meshho d-mshihootho (Anointing oil)
• The word ‘Myron’ is a Greek word (Μυρον) which means: an unguent, ointment,
fragrant perfume, sweet oil, and chrism. In Syriac/Aramaic language ܢܘܪ is
derived from ܪ which means Myrrh, indicating the death of Christ.

The main elements of the Holy Myron is oil of olives and balsam, blessed by the head of the
Church (Patriarch) in a special manner and used in the administration of certain sacraments
and in the performance of certain ecclesiastical functions. For chrism to serve as valid matter
for the Sacrament of Confirmation it must consist of pure oil of olives, and added some spices
written in the Holy Bible. These two conditions are certainly necessary for validity; moreover
it is probable that there should be an admixture of balsam, and that the blessing of the chrism
should be special, in the sense that it ought to be different from that which is given to the oil
of the sick or the oil of catechumens.

In its primitive meaning the word chrism, like the Greek Χρισμα (Khrizma) chrisma, was
used to designate any and every substance that served the purpose of smearing or anointing,
such as the various kinds of oils, unguents, and pigments. This was its ordinary signification
in profane literature, and even in the early patristic writings. Gradually however, in the
writings of the Fathers at all events, the term came to be restricted to that special kind of oil
that was used in religious ceremonies and functions, especially in the administration of the

Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation.

This Origin could be traced to our fathers the apostles who granted this Sacrament by the
laying of their hands after Baptism, as we read in the Book of Acts when St. Peter and St.
John laid hands on the people of Samaria who were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,
and so received the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:2-6).

As the laying of hands for the dwelling of the Holy Spirit is a specific rite of the fathers the
Apostles and their successors the Bishops, and as the regions of mission increased,
consequently the number of believers and those who entered faith increased. It was not
possible for the Apostles to wander around all the countries and cities to lay hands on the
baptized, so they established anointment by Myron as an alternative for the laying on of hands
for the Holy Spirit’s indwelling.

The first who made the Myron were the fathers the Apostles as they kept certain fragrant oils
which were on the body of the Lord Jesus during His burial, and they added the spices which
were brought by the women who prepared them to anoint Jesus' body on Easter Sunday.

The apostles melted all these spices in pure olive oil, prayed on it in the Upper Room in Zion
and made it a holy ointment to grant the gift of the Holy Spirit to the baptized. It is also used
in the Sanctification of Baptismal water, consecration of Churches, and church altars and
vessels. They decided that their successors the Bishops, must renew the making of the Myron
whenever it was needed, by incorporating the original oil with the new.

The Sacrament of Confirmation is a striking instance of the development of doctrine and
ritual in the Church. We can, indeed, detect much more than the mere germs of it in Holy
Scripture; but we must not expect to find there an exact description of the ceremony as
presently performed, or a complete solution of the various theological questions which have
since arose. It is only from the Fathers and the Schoolmen that we can gather information on
these headlines.

We read in the Acts of the Apostles (8: 14-17) that after the Samaritan converts had been
baptized by Philip the deacon, the Apostles "sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they
were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit; for he was not yet come
upon any of them, but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus; then they laid
their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost".

Again acts (19: 1-6): St. Paul "came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples; and he said to
them: Have you received the Holy Spirit since ye believed? But they said to him: We have not
so much as heard whether there be a Holy Spirit. And he said: In what then were you
baptized? Who said: In John's baptism. Then Paul said: John baptized the people with the
baptism of penance . . . Having heard these things, they were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus. And when Paul had imposed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and
they spoke with tongues and prophesied".

From these two passages we learn that in the earliest ages of the Church there was a rite,
distinct from baptism, in which the Holy Spirit was conferred by the imposition of hands, and
that the power to perform this ceremony was not implied in the power to baptize. No distinct
mention is made as to the origin of this rite; but Christ promised the gift of the Holy Spirit and
conferred it. Again, no express mention is made of anointing with chrism; but we note that the
idea of unction is commonly associated with the giving of the Holy Spirit. Christ (Luke, iv,
18) applies to Himself the words of Isaiah (lxi, 1): "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
wherefore he hath anointed me to preach the gospel".

St. Peter (Acts 10: 38) speaks of "Jesus of Nazareth: how God anointed him with the Holy
Spirit".

St. John tells the faithful: "You have the unction (chrism) from the Holy One, and know all
things"; and again: "Let the unction [chrism], which you have received from him, abide in
you" (I Ep., 2: 20, 27).

A striking passage, which was made much use of by the Fathers and the Schoolmen, is that of
St. Paul: "He that confirmed us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God, Who also
hath sealed us, and given us the pledge of the Spirit in our hearts" (II Cor. 1: 20, 21). No
mention is made of any particular words accompanying the imposition of hands on either of
the occasions on which the ceremony is described; but as the act of imposing hands was
performed for various purposes, some prayer indicating the special purpose may have been
used: "Peter and John . . . prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit". Further,
such expressions as "signing" and "sealing" may be taken as referring to the character
impressed by the sacrament: "You were signed with the holy Spirit of promise"; "Grieve not
the holy Spirit of God, whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption" (Eph. 1: 13; 4:
30). See also the passage from II Cor. quoted above. Again, in the Epistle to the Hebrews (6:
1-4) the writer reproaches those whom he addresses for falling back into their primitive
imperfect knowledge of Christian truth; "whereas for the time you ought to be masters, you
have need to be taught again what are the first elements of the words of God" (Heb. 5: 12). He
exhorts them: "leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more
perfect, not laying again the foundation . . . of the doctrine of baptisms, and imposition of
hands", and speaks of them as those who have been "once illuminated, have tasted also the
heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit". It is clear that reference is made
here to the ceremony of Christian initiation: baptism and the imposition of hands whereby the
Holy Spirit was conferred, just as in Acts 2: 38. The ceremony is considered to be so well
known to the faithful that no further description is necessary. This account of the practice and
teaching of the Apostles proves that the ceremony was no mere examination of those already
baptized, no mere profession of faith or renewal of baptismal vows. Nor was it something
specially conferred upon the Samaritans and Ephesians. What was done to them was an
instance of what was generally bestowed. Nor was it a mere bestowal of charismata; the Holy
Spirit sometimes produced extraordinary effects (speaking with divers tongues, etc.), but
these were not necessarily the result of His being given. The practice and teaching of the
Church at the present day preserve the primitive type: the imposition of hands, the gift of the
Holy Spirit, the privileges of the episcopate. What further elements were handed down by
tradition will be seen presently.

See also: Heb. 6:2 - Paul gives instruction to the Hebrews about the laying on of hands, in
reference to confirmation, not ordination. The early Church laid hands upon the confirmed
to administer the sacrament of confirmation.

Heb. 6:2 - this verse also refers to the cycle of life and its relationship to the sacraments -
baptism, confirmation, death and judgment - which apply to all people.

John 6:27 - Jesus says the Father has set His seal on Him. As the Father sets His seal on
Jesus, so Jesus sets His seal on us on the sacrament of baptism, and later, in the sacrament of
confirmation.

Rev. 9:4 - the locusts could not harm those with the seal of God upon their foreheads. See
also Rev. 14:1 and 22:4.

In passing from Holy Scripture to the Fathers we naturally expect to find more definite
answers to the various questions regarding the sacrament. From both their practice and their
teaching we learn that the Church made use of a rite distinct from baptism; that this consisted
of imposition of hands, anointing, and accompanying words; that by this rite the Holy Spirit
was conferred upon those already baptized, and a mark or seal impressed upon their souls; In
examining the testimonies of the Fathers we should note that the word confirmation is not
used to designate this sacrament during the first four centuries; but we meet with various
other terms and phrases which quite clearly refer to it. Thus, it is styled "imposition of hands",
"unction", "chrism", "sealing", etc. Before the time of Tertullian (A.D. 206) the Fathers do not
make any explicit mention of confirmation as distinct from baptism. The fact that the two
sacraments were conferred together may account for this silence. Tertullian (De Bapt., vi) is
the first to distinguish clearly the three acts of initiation: "After having come out of the laver,
we are anointed thoroughly with a blessed unction according to the ancient rule . . . The
unction runs bodily over us, but profits spiritually . . . Next to this, the hand is laid upon us
through the blessing, calling upon and inviting the Holy Spirit," Again (De resurr, carnis, n,
8): "The flesh is washed that the soul may be made stainless. The flesh is anointed that the
soul may be consecrated. The flesh is sealed that the soul may be fortified. The flesh is
overshadowed by the imposition of hands that the soul may be illuminated by the Spirit, The
flesh is fed by the Body and Blood of Christ that the soul may be fattened of God."

What is anointing of the Holy Spirit?

It is the reception of the Holy Spirit. People received the Holy Spirit in different forms:

a) Holy Spirit abided upon our Lord in the form of a dove.

b) The Holy Spirit acted on the Apostles when our Lord breathed on them.

c) On the apostles as tongs of fire.

d) The Samaritans and Ephesians received the Holy Spirit when the apostles laid their
hands on them.

e) During the apostolic times by chrism - “But you have an anointing (KJV and Scofield
uses the word unction) from the Holy One, and you know all things.” (1 John 2:20)

Was there Holy Myron (Oil) during the apostolic time?

Yes, Refer to Mark 6, James 5:1, 1 John 2:20, 27.

• “They drove out many demons, and they anointed with oil, many who were sick” (Mark
6:13)

• “Is any one among you sick? He should summon presbyters of the church and they
should pray over him and anoint [him], with oil in the name of Lord.” (James 5:1)

• “But you have anointing that comes from the holy one” (1 John 2:20.)

• “As for you, the anointing that you have received from him remains in you” (I John
2:27)

Two words are used, anointing and unction. Both KJV and Scofied Bibles use the word
Unction. When St. John uses the word ‘Anointing’ it means the ‘act of anointing’. The word
used in the original Syrian version is ‘Mushihooso’ (anoint) for anointing. [George Lamsa’s
English translation uses the word ‘anointing’]. We also have to remember that John’s mother
tongue was Aramaic (Syriac). His usage was correct. Again, the early church fathers have
written about Chrism. So it is obvious that anointing is not a mental phenomenon, but the
receiver receives it through a visible, physical act, performed by a person of authority (Apostles
bishops, and elders).

When John talks about anointing in 1 John 2:27, he means anointing with chrism. “As for you,
the anointing that you received from him remains in you, so that you need not need anyone to
teach you” (1 John 2:27). St. John exhorts the believers to fight against heretic views.

In the Jewish community, only a privileged few were able to receive unction. The apostles
made it applicable to all who were baptized, as recorded by John.
The people of Samaria and Ephesus were baptized but did not have the Gift of the Holy Spirit.
The apostles had to come and "lay their hands on them" so that they may receive the Holy
Spirit. This proves that one will not receive the blessings of the Holy Spirit by baptism in water
alone.

Is anointing of the Holy Spirit (Chrism) only a psychological feeling?
Never, because we see that:

1) The Holy Spirit abided upon our Lord in the form of a dove and on the apostles in the form
of fire.

2) Our Lord gave the Holy Spirit to the apostles by breathing on them.

3) The apostles gave the Holy Spirit by laying their hands on the recipient.
Therefore the recipient receives the Holy Spirit by a visible act by an authorized person and is
not a mere psychological feeling.

From 1 John 2:27 (quoted above) it is clear that the apostles used chrism for the Gift of the
Holy Spirit. The word used in the Peshitta Bible is Maseehooso, meaning unction. John’s
language was Aramaic (Syriac).

Let us see what the early Church Fathers said
St. Theophilus (AD 181): “Are you willing to be anointed with the oil of God? It is on this
account that we are called Christians: because we are anointed with the oil of God." (174)
Tertullian (AD 160-240): “After coming from the place of washing we are thoroughly anointed
with a blessed unction, from ancient discipline by which in the priest hood they were
accustomed to be anointed with a horn of oil, ever since Aaron was anointed by Moses. So also
with us, the unction runs on the body but profits us spiritually, in the same way that Baptism is
itself a corporal act by which we are plunged in water, while its effect is spiritual we are freed
from sins. After this hand is imposed for a blessing, invoking and inviting the Holy Spirit”
(304)

St. Hippolytumus (AD 204) “Indeed, faith and love prepare oil and cleansing unguents for those
who are washed. But what were these unguents if not the commandment of Holy Word? And
what oil, if not the power of Holy Spirit? It is with these, after washing, that believers are
anointed as with sweet smelling oil.” (390)

Apostolic tradition: - After baptizing, “The presbyter says ‘I anoint you with holy oil in the
name of Jesus Christ’. … Then, pouring the consecrated oil into his hand and imposing it on the
head of the baptized, he shall say: I anoint you with holy oil in the Lord, Father Almighty and
Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit. And signing on the forehead he shall kiss them and say ‘The
Lord be with you”(394I)

St. Cornelius: (AD 252) – (referring to Novatian, a heretic). “As [Novatian] seemed to die, he
received Baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring – if, indeed, such a man can be said to
have received it at all. And when he recovered from his illness he did not receive the other
things, which in accord with the law of Church, it is necessary to have; nor he was sealed by the
bishop. And since this was not done, how could he have the Holy Spirit?” (547)

St. Cyprian (AD 254) “It is necessary for him that has been baptized also to be anointed, so that
by his having received chrism, that is, anointing, he can be anointed of God and have in himself
the grace of Christ. But in turn, it is by the Eucharist that the oil with which the baptized are
anointed is sanctified on the altar. He that has neither altar nor church, however, is not able to
sanctify that creature, oil” (592)

St. Ephraim (AD 308): - “the oil is the sweet unguent with which those who are baptized are
signed, being clothed with the armaments of the Holy Spirit” (725)

Laodicea council: - (Canon 48) “That those who have been illuminated are, after baptism, to be
anointed with celestial chrism, and thus become partakers in the kingdom of Christ” (745q)

St. Cyril (AD 315): - “And to you in like manner, after you had come up form the pool of
sacred streams, there was given chrism, the anti-type of that which Christ was anointed: and is
the Holy Spirit.” (841) “Beware of supposing this is ordinary ointment. For just as the Bread of
Eucharist after the invocation of the Holy Spirit is the simple bread no longer, but the Body of
the Christ, so also this holy ointment is no longer plain ointment, nor, so to speak, common
after the invocation. Rather it is the gracious gift of Christ and it is made fit for the imparting of
His Godhead by the coming of the Holy Spirit. This ointment is symbolically applied to your
forehead and to your other senses; and while your body is anointed with the visible ointment,
your soul is sanctified by the Holy and Life-creating Spirit” (842). “Just as Christ, after His
Baptism and the coming upon Him of the Holy Spirit, went forth and defeated the adversary, so
also with you; after Holy Baptism and the Mystical Chrism, having put on the panoply of the
Holy Spirit, you are to withstand the power of the adversary and defeat him, saying “ I am able
to do all things in Christ, who strengthens me.” (842a)

Those who ridicule anointing with oil, which is in vogue from the time of the apostles by
saying that "it is not in the scriptures" have to think carefully. From the above discussion and
quotes it is clear that the Holy Chrism was used for anointing from the time of St. John. All
ancient churches especially the Syrian Orthodox, the Coptic’s, etc…continue this till this date.
Here is the prayer of the Syrian Orthodox Church during the Baptism and Confirmation
ceremony – “(Name of the receiver) is sealed for the eternal life in the name of Father, Son and
living Holy Spirit, by chrism, which is the incense of Christ seal and sign of true faith and
completion of the gift of Holy Spirit”

The confirmation (anointing) done by laying hands by the apostles (Acts 8:17, 19; Heb. 6:2) is
still followed by the ancient eastern Churches at the time of baptism with a prayer for the gift of
the Holy Spirit.

THE PENTECOSTAL MOVEMENT: THE BEGINNINGS

Greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I wanted to write a little on the Pentecostal Church movement and its earliest beginnings here in America. What I will attempt to do is share the history of the movement and at the end give the position and teaching from that of the Eastern Orthodox perspective.

This is not an attempt to bash, but to show a comparison of the two beliefs. We will see how this movement is continually changing to adapt to times, the gathering of people and doctrinal errors that it encounters over time.

The Pentecostal Movement:

The Pentecostal church claims more then 250 million adherents worldwide. When Charismatics are included with Pentecostals, the number increases to nearly a quarter of the worlds 2 billion Christians.

Pentecostalism is a broad term that includes many different theologies and cultures. Pentecostalisms emphasis is on the charismata aspects within Charismatic Christianity. Its teachings on Spirit baptism and spiritual gifts vary from one group to another. This movement is very similar to the Charismatic movement.

Charles Parham (1873-1929)

Charles Parham was a man who was a Methodist believer. He left the Methodist church for a couple of reasons. He, along with William J. Seymour led the spreading of Pentecostalism. Parham associated glossolalia with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Parham began telling his students at a Holiness Bible College in Kansas about being filled with the Holy Spirit, when it occurred to him that those in the book of Acts who were filled, all spoke a foreign language.

So he encouraged them to be filled and that this speaking in a foreign language was the sign of a genuine filling of the Holy Spirit.

He started a nation wide revival tour, sending his students out to see what language they had been given as a gift. You see, Parham felt that with this new Spirit filled language, people could evangelise the world. It was seen as an opportunity to expand missions and the preaching of the gospel around the world.

Unfortunately, their new tongues bore no relation to any language on earth, so they concluded it was a language of heaven, given to them for worship, rather then missions. This was the third blessing, to top off salvation and sanctification.

Going back a little bit, before we continue. Parham left the Methodist church because he disagreed with its form of church government and hierarchy and also its freedom to preach inspired gospel messages. Rejecting denomination, he established his own itinerant evangelistic ministry. Parham moved his headquarters to Topeka, Kansas in 1898. There, he established the Bethel healing home. He then took a sabbatical from this ministry to experience "other" ideas of Pentecostal and Holiness teachings. Upon returning, he found his Bethel healing home was taken over by others and because he did not want to fight over leadership, he moved on.

In 1900, Parham started Bethel Bible College. Prior to starting the bible college, he heard of an individual who was part of Frank Sanfords "Holy Ghost and Us Bible College" who has spoke in tongues. Parham had spent a lot of time with Sanford and his Shiloh ministry. Parham reprinted this event of the individual speaking in tongues in his Apostolic Faith magazine.

Parham then asked his students to study the Bible to determine what evidence was present when the church of Acts received the Holy Spirit. The students had several days to pray and worship. On January 1, 1901 a female student by the name of Agnes Ozman felt impressed to ask to be prayed for to receive the Holy Spirit. Immediately she began to speak in tongues. It was thought to be a "known" foreign language. It was later discovered that none of the "tongues" resembled any language on earth.

Parham began a Bible college in Houston, Texas in 1906. Several African Americans were influenced by Parhams works, including William J. Seymour. Parham planned to send Seymour to preach to the African American communities throughout Texas. In 1906 Seymour left Houston to become Associate Pastor of an African American mission in Los Angeles, California.

Seymour's work would eventually lead to what is known as the Azusa street revival, which by many is considered the birthplace of Pentecostalism.

Seymour requested and received a license as a minister under Parhams Apostolic Faith Movement. However, Seymour soon parted ways with Parham over his harsh criticism of the "emotional" worship at Azusa and the intermingling of whites and blacks in the services.

Parham was considered racist by many because of his position, but he was a first to reach across racial lines to African Americas and Hispanic Americans. He also allowed an African American woman to preach in one of his services. Parhams views on race, most probably reflects those of his time. He was willing to defy the social restraints when it was not a popular thing to do.

In 1906 and 1907 he was alleged to have been involved in sexual misconduct. There were also allegations of financial irregularity and doctrinal aberration. The focus of the Pentecostal movement shifted from Parham to Seymour. Parham began to resent Seymour. Parham became an embarrassment to the movement and he was alienated from the group that he started.

This movement began to take on more extreme forms later on. In 1910 a Pentecostal preacher named George Hinsley began preaching on the text "They shall take up snakes", ended by him grabbing a rattlesnake and commanding his flock to do the same or be doomed to eternal hell. They obeyed. He kept snake handling until 1955, when he died of a snake bite. Today there are still 2500 still practicing this form of Pentecostal worship.



Eastern Orthodox teaching on baptism of the Holy Spirit

In the Orthodox faith we believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as it was taught by the Apostles. The following is taken from the Orthodox Bible:

Holy Chrismation   Holy Chrismation From earliest times the church has practiced Chrismation immediately following baptism. In the sacrament of Chrismation (Gr. chrismatis, "anointing") the newly baptized person receives the Holy Spirit through the anointing with oil by the bishop or priest. The roots of this sacrament are clear in both the Old and New Testaments, and are especially brought to light on the Day of Pentecost. Promises of the Holy Spirit from the Old Testament In his sermon on Pentecost, St. Peter quotes the well-known prophecy of Joel, "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh" (Acts 2:17; see Joel 2:28). This promise was significant because under the Old Covenant, the gift of the Spirit had been given only to a few - the patriarchs, the prophets, and some of the judges. Certain leaders of Israel were indwelt with the Holy Spirit to accomplish their tasks. Joel, however, prophesied that the Holy Spirit would be given to all God's people, "all flesh." This was fulfilled at Pentecost, for Peter exclaims, "this [outpouring of the Spirit] is what was spoken by the prophet Joel" (Acts 2:16).

Other Old Testament prophets who speak of this same promise of the Spirit include Jeremiah (Jer. 31:31-34) and Ezekiel (Ezek. 36:25-27). In fact, the Ezekiel passage ties together the water and the Spirit in a prophetic vision of baptism and Chrismation. Jesus promises the Holy Spirit Our Lord Jesus Christ repeatedly promised the gift of the Holy Spirit to His disciples. Early in His public ministry He said, "'If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.' He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.' But this He spoke concerning the Spirit ..." (John 7:37-39). Jesus also said, "I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever" (John 14:16). Christ promised the Holy Spirit would reveal truth to the Church. "When He, the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take what is Mine and declare it to you" (John 16:13, 14). Jesus says the Holy Spirit will bring glory to Christ. This gives us an excellent means of testing whether or not acts attributed to the Holy Spirit are indeed valid. The last words of Christ before His Ascension include a promise: "John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now" (Acts 1:5). This word was fulfilled ten days later on the Day of Pentecost. How is the Holy Spirit given to us? The people who heard Peter speak at Pentecost asked him how they might receive salvation. He answered, "Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). We repent (turn from our sins and toward Christ); we are baptized; we are given "the gift of the Holy Spirit," Chrismation. That practice has never changed. In Acts 8, Philip, the deacon and evangelist, preached in Samaria (Acts 8:5-8). Many believed and were baptized (Acts 8:12). The apostles came and later confirmed these new believers with the gift of the Holy Spirit through the laying of hands (Acts 8:14-17). Here is the sacrament of Chrismation following Holy Baptism. Later, the Apostle Paul met some disciples of John the Baptist who had not been present when Peter spoke at Pentecost (Acts 19:1-7). They believed in Christ, "were baptized" (Acts 19:5) and "the Holy Spirit came upon them" (Acts 19:6), again through the hands of the apostle. The promise of God includes both our union with Christ in Holy Baptism and gift of the Holy Spirit at Chrismation. From The Orthodox Study Bible Copyright © 1993 by St. Athanasius Orthodox Academy

CHURCH HISTORY: FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE 381

This will be a brief overview of the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople. There is much information on this, but I will keep this brief.

The council approved the current form of the Nicene Creed as used in the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox churches, but, except when Greek is used, with two additional Latin phrases ("Deum de Deo" and "Filioque") in the West. The form used by the Armenian Apostolic Church, which is part of Oriental Orthodoxy, has many more additions. This fuller creed may have existed before the Council and probably originated from the baptismal creed of Constantinople.
The council also condemned Apollinarism, the teaching that there was no human mind or soul in Christ. It also granted Constantinople honorary precedence over all churches save Rome.
The council did not include Western bishops or Roman legates, but it was accepted as ecumenical in the West
The First Council of Constantinople is recognized as the Second Ecumenical Council by the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Old Catholics, and a number of other Western Christian groups. This being the first Ecumenical Council held in Constantinople, it was called by Theodosius I in 381 which confirmed the Nicene Creed and dealt with other matters such as Arian Controversy. The council tk place in the church of Hagia Irene from May to July 381.

The council affirmed the original Nicene creed of faith as true and an accurate explanation of Scripture. This council also developed a statement of faith which included the language of Nicaea, but expanded the discussion on the Holy Spirit to combat the heresy of the Pneumatomachi. It is called the Nicene Creed of 381 and was a commentary on the original Nicene formula. It expanded the third article of the creed dealing with the Holy Spirit, as well as some other changes. About the Holy Spirit the article of faith said he is "the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified". The statement of proceeding from the Father is seen as significant because it established that the Holy Spirit must be of the same being (ousia) as God the Father.

This Council's decision regarding the Holy Spirit also gave official endorsement to the concept of the Trinity. By the end of the 4th century, the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius "issued a decree that the doctrine of the Trinity was to be the official state religion and that all subjects shall adhere to it"

This council condemned Arianism which began to die out with more condemnations at a council of Aquileia by Ambrose of Milan in 381. With the discussion of Trinitarian doctrine now developed and well under agreement to orthodox and biblical understanding, it led to Christology, which would be the topic of the Council of Ephesus of 431 and the Council of Chalcedon of 451.

CHURCH HISTORY: COUNCIL OF NICAEA:

When Scripture and tradition afforded no incontestable solution to the issue that arose between Arius and Athanasius concerning the nature of Christ, recourse was possible only to the consenss of the Church. Constantine therefore summoned a council, which met at Nicaea, in Asia Minor in 324 CE. It is called the First Ecumenical (or universal) Council because it included bishops from the East and from the West. To celbrate the twentieth anniversary of his reign, Constatnine invited the assembled bishop to dine with him. When those who had survived the great persecution filed between ranks of Roman soldiers to sit down with the emperor, on of their number wondered whether the kingdom of God had come or whether he dreamed. Here was another of those historical moments great with hope. The council did not resolve Constantine's problems with the church or the Church's own inner disputes. It rejected any subordination of the Son to the Father. The Greek work used to express their full equality was homoousios, meaning "of the same substance or being.: The English equivalent (derived from the Latin) is " Constubstantial." The Fahter and the Son were described as two persons sharing in one being or substance. With the Holy Spirit they constiture the Trinity.




The doctrine of the Trinity, as it was developed, is a formula that embraces a concept of great richness. It ascribes to God both unity and plurality: He is on and three. It ascrives to Him both being and becoming; as the ultimate ground of being, He is static and changless; yet ther in in Him an eternal, timeless process of generation, for the Son is begotten by the Fahter, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (according to the Orthodox Church) or from the Fahter and the Son (according to the Roman Church). God is above time and within time; in the incarnation and throughout the whole history of Israel and of the Christian Church, eternity impinges upon time. God is ultimate being, indescribable save by negatives, yet He has the personal characteristics of the God of Moses, the God who speaks. Christ is the very godhead become flesh, suffering and dying for the redemption of mankind. The doctine of the Trinity was unifying, as indeed all Orthodox Christian thought was unifying. The heretics were commonly dualists. In the second century the Gnostics had separated body and spirit. Now the Arians separated the creature from the creator. Later, as we shall see the Nestorians tended to split the divine and the human natures of Christ.



But, although the Athanasians were able to unite God, as it were, they could not unite the Church. The Council of Nicaea pronounced in their favor. Constantine banished five dissidents, including Arius, and threatened with death anyone who did not deliver up his books to be burned. But, after the coundil had disbanded, Constantine discovered that the buld of the popultasion in the heavily Christianized area of Asia Minor had Arian leanings. Ten years later, in 335 CE, a synot met at Tyre, and this time the Arians won; Arius was restored and Athanasius was exiled. But the struggle was far from over.



Source: Christendom Vol 1: Roland H Bainton: A short history of Christianity and its impact on the Western Civilization.

Ancestral Sin

In the Old Testament account of creation, God created mankind and established a place for him called Paradise. He also gave him a commandment regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil: "And the Lord God commanded Adam, saying, "You may eat food from every tree in the garden; but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you may not eat; for in whatever day you eat from it, you shall die by death" Gn 2:16, 17 In that Adam and Eve did not physically die the day they ate from the tree, the words "you shall die" indicate a spiritual death throught separation from God.

WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE FALL?

1. This fall of Adam caused mankind to become subject to mortality. While this is often seen mainly as a punishment, or penalty, the emphasis concerning Gods judgments on Adam and Eve at the fall is best understood in terms of His mercy. So, for example, concerning mans mortality (Gn 3:19), St Gregory the Theologian states, "Yet here too He provides a benefit - namely death, which cuts off sin, so that evil may not be everlasting. Thus His punishment is changed to mercy."
2. We who are of Adams's race are not guilty because of Adams sin, but because of our own sin. However, because all of mankind fell away from the grace of God through Adams disobedience, man now has a propensity, a disposition, an inclination towards sin, because just as death entered the world through sin, now sin enters through fear of death.
3. Mankinds strong propensity to commit sin reveals that in the Fall, the image of God in man (Gn 1:26,27) is also fallen, However, the ancient Fathers emphasize that the divine image in man has not been totally corrupted or obliterated. Human nature remains inherently good after the Fall; mankind is not totally depraved. People are still capable of doing good., although bondage to death and the influences of the devil can dull their perception of what is good and lead them into all kinds of evil.
4. Adam's Fall not only brought mortality and sin into the world, but also sweat, toil, hunger, thirst, weariness, sorrow, pain, suffering, sickness, tribulations, tragedy and tears.
5. Even after the Fall, the intellectual, desiring and incensive (forceful or driving) aspects of the soul are natural and therefore neutral. They can be used in a good way, or in a bad, harmful way. For instance, desire is very good when one directs it towards God. But when desire is out of control, one may use it in very inapporpriate ways, such as becoming gluttonous or desiring another person's spouse. The classic analogy is that these powers of the soul are like iron, which can be made into a plow to help grow food, or into a sword to be used to kill someone.
6. Christ, by His Death and Resurrection , conquered the devil and death, freeing mankind fromt eh fear death (Heb 2:14-15) and making possible a more complete communion between God and man than was ever possible before. This communion allows people to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2Pt 1:4), to transcend death and, ultimately, all the consequesnces of the Fall.

Source: The Orthodox Study Bible: Ancestral Sin

THE CHURCH

One of the tragic aberrations of so called modern religion is "Churchless Christianity."
The assertion is that it is Christ who saves, not the Church, so "all you need is Jesus".
Few who claim to be Christians would argue against the statement that it is Christ who saves. For He is the eternal Son of God who has assumed human flesh, and has done so "for us and for our salvation" (Niceene Creed). Thus Paul writes, "For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus" 1Ti 2:5.
But because this Mediator established the Church which is His body, we who are joined to Him are joined to His church as well. To say we love Christ, who is Head of the Church and at the same time reject His body is to deny New Testament teaching.
The Gospel and Acts. The first use of the word "church' (Gr. ecclesia) in the New Testament comes in the Gospel of Matthew, when our Lord gives His approval of Peters confession of faith and promises, "I will build my church" (Matt 16:18). Jesus Christ builds, and we cooperate with Him.
The Book of Acts amplifies what Jesus meant in Matthew 16. When Peters sermon on the Day of Pentecost concludes, those present ask for guidance toward salvation: "What shalll we do?" (Acts 2:37). Following Peters word, they are baptized and join with the other believers, three thousand of them (Acts 2:38, 41)
Having been joined to Christ and His Church, these baptized believers begin living as the body of Christ. We find them looking after each other, using their personal resources for one another;s care, continuing togeher in prayer and in the Eucharist (Acts 2:42-47). From this point on "the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved" (Acts 2:47), and throughout Acts, we see the Church being built as the Gospel of Christ spreads.
The Epistles. Pauls instructions in his letters to the churches throughout the eastern Mediterranean clearly show what it means to be members of Christ; to be the Church and to be in the Church. Nowhere in the New Testament is Pauls teaching on the Church more fully disclosed than in Ephesians 4. He instructs us that:
1. The Church is one, "endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (4:3). There is one Church, one God, one doctrine, one baptism.
2. The Church is people, men and women who are energized by the Holy Spirit. For "to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift" (4:7). We are not all given the same gifts, but together we are equipped to do Gods will.
3. The Head of the Church is Christ, "from whom the whole body is joined and knit together" (4:16)
4. The Church, then, is that place established by Christ where we each may become what we are created to be, maturing and being perfected, while the Church receives what it needs from each of us, so that it too is being perfected. The church as the body of Christ carries us beyond our petty and worldly concerns, stretching our vision to the eternal and the heavenly as we ascend together to worship the Father , the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

* ORTHODOX STUDY BIBLE:

The Second coming of Christ

The Orthodox understainding of the second coming of /Christ is clear: The Lord Jesus Christ truly will return. His second advent is not a myth nor an empty promise, nor is it a metaphor. In fact, eacth time the Divine Liturgy is celebrated, the priest makes a proclamation to the Father that reveals how the Church responds not only to the second comming of Christ, but to all of His work.

Remembering this saving commandment (Jesus' command to eat His flesh and drink His blood) and all that has been done for us the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious coming - we offer You Your own, from what is Your own, on behalf of all and for all.

Orthodox Christians also believe the New Testament revelation of the second coming of Christ is meant to stimulate our preparation for it, not our speculation about it. This explains the relative simplicity with which the Nicene Creed, the most universal confession of faith in all of Christendom, addresses Christ's return: "He....will come again, with glory, to judge the lving and the dead, whose Kingdom shall have no end." the emphasis of historic Orthodoxy is that Jesus will come again, not when He will come again.

Thus, St. Paul writes, "denying ungodliness and worldy lust, we should live soberly, righteousely, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and gloriouse appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own speacial people, zelous for good works: Tts 2:12-14

There are signs of Christ's coming, to be sure. Jesus phophesied many events that would take place in the world prior to His return (Mt 24; Lk 21:7-36). But even these Gospel passages close with Jesus' exhortation to virtue, righteousness, and preparation for the Judgment. Christ and His apostles issue severe warning, implicit and explicit, against second guessing the time of His coming (Mt24:3-8, 36, 43, 44, 50; Lk 21:7-9, 34 Acts 1:7; 1 Th 5:1-3: 2 Pt 3:8-10)

Much of medern Christendom has succumbed to divisive speculation regarding Christ's return. We are dividied into premillennial, postmillennial, and amillennial camps. Breaking it down even further, there are pre-tribulation, and post-tribulation adherents. Christians part ways and new denominations spring up around interpretations of events that have not yet even come to pass!

Thro0ught history the Orthodox Church has steadfastly insisted on the reality of the second coming of Christ as a settled belief, but has always granted liberty on the question of when it will occur. In the last chapter of Revelation, Jesus speaks the words, ":I am coming quickly.: Three differnt times (22:7, 12, 20). His comming will occur on a day and at an hour when it is not expected. The apostle John, the author of Revelation, concludes his book with a warning:

   For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book; If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in the book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy God shall take away his part form the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from  the things which are written in thei book (Rev 22:18, 19)

To confess the return of Christ is to stand squarely within the apostolic tradition. To add "when" to the promis of His coming is warned against in the Scriptures. As members of the Bride of Christ, let us attend instead to being ready.

Scriptures says to watch and pray.....

The Transmission of the Bible to English

The Transmission of the Bible to English

1. 500 BCE: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up the 39 Books of the OT

2. 200 BCE: Completion of the Septuagint Greek Manuscripts which contain the 39 OT Books and 14 Apocrypha Books.

3. 1 CE: Completion of all original Greek Manuscripts which make up the 27 Books of the NT.

4. 390 CE: Jerome’s Latin Vulgate Manuscripts produced which contain all 80 books (39 OT + 14 Apocrypha + 27 NT).

5. 500 CE: Scriptures have been translated into over 500 languages.

6. 600 CE: Latin was the only language allowed for Scripture.

7. 995 CE: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English language) translations of the NT produced.

8. 1384 CE: Wycliffe is the first person to produce a (Hand written) manuscript copy of the complete bible. All 80 books.

9. 1455 CE: Gutenberg invents the printing press; Books may now be mass produced instead of individually hand written. The first book ever printed is Gutenbergs Bible.

10. 1516 CE: Erasmus produces a Greek/Latin Parallel NT.

11. 1522CE: Martin Luthers German NT.

12. 1525 CE: William Tyndales NT; The first NT to be printed in the English language.

13. 1535 CE: Myles Coverdales Bible; The first complete Bible to be printed in English. (80 books: OT +NT+Apocypha)

14. 1537 CE: Mathews Bible; The second complete Bible to be printed in English. Done by John “Thomas Matthew” Rogers (80 books)

15. 1539 CE: The “Great Bible” printed; The first English language bible to add Numbered Verses to each chapter (80 books total).

16. 1568 CE: The Bishops Bible printed; The bible of which the KJV was a revision (80 books).

17. 1609 CE: The Douay OT is added to the Rheimes NT (of 1582) making the first complete English Catholic bible. Translated from the Latin Vulgate (80 books).

18. 1611 CE: The KJV bible printed; Originally with all 80 books. The Apocrypha was officially removed in 1885, leaving only 66 books.

19. 1782 CE: Robert Aitkens bible; The first English language bible ( a KJV without the Apocrypha) to be printed in America.

20. 1791 CE: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas respectively produce the first family bible and first illustrated bible printed in America. Both were KJV with all (80 books).

21. 1808 CE: Jane Aitkens bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The first bible to be printed by a woman.

22. 1833 CE: Noah Websters bible; After producing his famous dictionary, Webster printed his own revision of the KJV.

23. 1841 CE: English Hexapla NT; and early textual comparison showing the Greek and 6 famous English translations in parallel columns.

24. 1846 CE: The illuminated bible; The most lavishly illustrated bible printed in America. A KJV with all (80 books).

25. 1885 CE: The Revised Version bible; The first major English revision of the KJB.

26. 1901 CE: The American Standard Version; The second major American revision of the KJV.

27. 1971 CE: The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is published as a modern and “accurate” word for word English translation of the bible.

28. 1973 CE: The New International Version (NIV) is published as a modern and “accurate” phrase for phrase English Translation of the bible.

29. 1983 CE: The New King James Version (NKJV) is published as a modern English version maintaining the original style of the KJV.

30. 1993-2002 CE: The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language was created by Eugene H. Peterson. It is a paraphrase of the original languages of the Bible.

Holy Bible and Syriac Orthodox Church (Part II)

Holy Bible and Syriac Orthodox Church (Part II)


We have seen numerous differences in the translation of Bible in the first part.Now let us see how some of these changes affected the true faith. Please refer to the previous table shown in chapter ‘Holy Bible and Syriac Orthodox Church Part-1’ and see how each of these changes were used to twist the original church teachings. (You may please use a Bible to refer the verses where ever necessary)

Refer to Numbers From the Tables in Part I

CHANGES TO THE ORIGINAL BIBLE AND HOW THEY ARE USED TO CHANGE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE
(How changes mentioned in previous table in the previous chapter are used to change the teachings of the original Church)

1 They had to prove that Mary had other children too, and so to prove

that she is not a virgin. Hence they use “brothers”

2 To prove that there is no position of Bishop or episcopacy

3, 42 To prove that Ordination (of Priests) is not necessary

4 To prove that there were only teachings from Apostles and no Doctrines

5 To prove there is nothing like church, only groups

6, 16 To prove that there was no breaking of bread, but just fellowship meals

9, 22 To prove that for salvation, no Church is necessary or that one need not be a member of the church.

10 To satisfy the section of people who believes that Jesus is not Son of God and there for not equal to God

12 To prove that there was no Deacon positions in the early church

13 To prove that there was no ordination, but just appointment

14 To prove no one confessed to the apostles and they have no right to absolve your sins

15 To prove that there is no importance to Sunday

16 To prove that those elders who were given position were not guided by the Holy Spirit

19 To give the impression that baptism does not absolve one's sins.

20, 21 To prove that Christ has no ministers or priests

25 To prove that fasting (and lent) is not required - they left the word fasting

26,28 Apostles has no right to command, but only to teach

27 The cup of blessing is not the communion of the blood of Christ

29 To satisfy the section who believes that Christ is not God

30, 32,33 Faulty translations

31, 41 To prove that the Apostles or their successors are not the representatives of Christ

34,39 To give impression that there were no deacons or Bishops in the early church

35 Proves that there is no need of external ceremonies

38 – 40 In early church there were no Doctrines or traditions

43 Church means just a fellowship

45 Added a word to prove that anyone can confess to anyone

46 Added a word to support another view

47 To prove that to receive Holy Spirit, no unction is necessary

Yes, it is shocking for any independent scholar to see all these changes in the different translations. All these changes were made for ones own selfish gains.
“Soul Winner’s New Testament Bible" has substituted the word ‘baptize’ with ‘immerse’. This book also uses the word ‘immerse in Holy Spirit’. In the Good News Bible, they use ‘Holy Spirit poured on you’. Again in Mark 11:3, it is written ‘The Lord has need of it [Colt]…," In Good News Bible it is written ‘He will return it soon’ ie. Christ will return the colt!

Ruthor Ford established the Jehovah Witness, in 1870. He was 29 years old at that time. They have their own New Testament with their own translations. In 1954, F.W. France, president of the Jehovah Witness group, revealed how they received their interpretation of the Bible. “They are passed by Holy Spirit who invincibly communicates with Jehovah’s witness” (see it is not the real original Bible!). This

section does not consider the Son and the Holy Spirit as God. Again, The Church of Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the fastest growing religion in the U.S., is based on a revelation to Joseph Smith in 1820 (Again not the real and original Bible!). They have their own Bible and their own interpretations. Orson Prat a famous scholar in that church asks, whether there is a single sentence in the Bible now,which is original? (The cults page 88). These 'churches' have their own New Testaments and their own interpretations.

Since most translations are distorted, which version is the original? As you will see in the table of next chapter, the different books of the New Testament were written during the period AD 60-100. It is widely accepted that some of the books were written in Aramaic and some in Greek (but used lots of Aramaic words), which was also the prominent language in Palestine at that time. [Some scholars are of the opinion that nothing was written in Greek, as no one knew Greek there. Jesus Christ taught in Aramaic, as common man understood no other language. So it is unlikely that anything would have been written in Greek. What is the use of writing in a language not understood by the people?] Josephus wrote (AD 42): “I have taken a great deal of pain to obtain the learning of the Greeks and understand the elements of the Greek language; although I have accustomed myself to speak our own tongue, that I cannot pronounce Greek with sufficient exactness. ……there have been many who have done their endeavors, with great patience, to obtain this Greek learning, there have yet been hardly two or three that have succeeded herein. (Antiquities XX, X1 2)” (George Lamsa’s Translation)
Many scholars believe that it is very unlikely that the Epistles targeted for common man, were written in a language understood only by a few. “Aramaic was the language of the common people during the time of Jesus Christ. It is certainly the language of the Semetic culture, the language of the Hebrew Patriarchs and in the older days, the lingua franca of the Fertile Cresecent. The term Hebrew was derived from the Aramaic word Abor or Habor, which means ‘to cross over’. This name was given to Hebrew’s because Abraham and the people who were with him crossed the river Euphrates and went to Palestine. Therefore they were known by those who lived east of the river Euphrates as Hebrews that is ‘the people across the river’ (Lamsa’s Peshitta Translation). Another view is “Aramaic was the mother-tongue of the region comprising of present Eastern Syria and Northern Iraq. This region was called ‘Aram’, after Aram, Sem’s fifth son. Aramaic is the oldest of the semantic languages. Aram, the father of Armenians, was the grandson of Noe, while Heber the Father of the Hebrews was the great great grandson of Noe.”

The earliest manuscripts of the Bible are in Aramaic, and different versions are available which dates back to 2nd, 5th and 7th centuries. “Astonishingly enough, all of the Peshitta Texts in Aramaic agree”. There is one thing the eastern churches can boast about. They copied their holy books diligently, faithfully and meticulously. Sir Frederic Kenon, the curator of the British Museum, in his book Textual Criticism of the New Testament speaks highly of the accuracy of the copying and of the antiquity of Peshitta MSS. “The versions translated from sematic languages into Greek and Latin was subject to constant revisions. Learned men who copied them introduced changes trying to simplify the obscurities and ambiguities, which were due to the work of first translators.

The present translators and Bible revisers does the same, when translating the Bible.” The Scriptures in the Church of the East, from the inception of Christianity to the present day, are in Aramaic and have never been tampered with or revised as attested by the present Patriarch of the Church of the East. The Biblical manuscripts were carefully and zealously handed down from one generation to another and were
kept in the massive stonewalls of the ancient churches and caves. They were written on parchments and many of them survive to the present day. When expert scribes copied these texts, they (the copies) were carefully examined for accuracy before they were dedicated and permitted to be read in churches. Even one missing letter would render the text void. Easterners still adhere to God’s commandment not to add or omit to a word from the Scripture. The Holy Script condemns any addition, subtraction or modification to the Word of God.

• “You shall not add to the commandments which I command you, neither shall you take form it, but you must keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” (Deut. 4:2)

• "Everything that I command to you, that you must be careful to do; you shall not add nor take from it.” (Deut. 4:2)

• "Do not add to his words; lest he reprove you, and you be found a liar.” (Prov.30:6)

• “And if any man shall take away form the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his portion from the tree of life and from the holy city and from the things which are written in this book.” (Rev 22:19)

The term Peshitta means straight, simple, sincere and true, that which is the original. The name was given to this ancient and authoritative text to distinguish it from the other Bible revisions and translations which were introduced into some of the Churches of the East after the division at Ephesus and Chalcedon in 431 and 451 AD respectively. This Peshitta is still the only authoritative text of the Old and New Testament of all the Eastern Christians in the Near East and India, the Roman Catholic Church in the East, the Monophysites and Indian Christians. This was because this text was in use for 400 years before the Christian Church was divided to several sects.
(George Lama’s translation) “The originality of the Peshitta Text is strongly supported by the early evidence. Aphraates quoted it. St. Ephraim wrote a commentary on it and the doctrine of Addi placed it at apostolic times”
“The names Aram, Aramaeans and Aramaic were changed, during the course of time into Syria, Syrians and Syraic. The Greeks were responsible for this change. And Aramaic Christians gradually became reconciled with this change of name” (Syro-Chaldaic grammar by Fr.Gabriel)
Peshitta version of the Bibles existed in the 2nd Century. “The Peshitta version of the Bible was made about the first or second century.” (Helps to the study of the Bible – Oxford page 7) These isolated manuscripts were collected, examined, and approved by the early church fathers only in AD 389; and thus the New Testament became part of the Holy Bible. Soon after the New Testament was translated into Latin, this New Testament was in use till the 14th century. From the 15th century (see the list below) onward, different
protestant groups began to make their own Bibles through distorted translations to suit their arguments.

Syriac Bible

The Syriac Orthodox Church believes that the Holy Bible, which comprises of the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the divine word of God. The words of Christ were first transmitted in his native language, the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic, either orally or in a written form. It is from this Aramaic tradition that the Greek Gospels were derived. The Syriac New Testament as we know it today is an earlytranslation of the Greek, Latin and Aramaic (Refer to Part III) text back into Syriac, the Aramaic dialect of Edessa (Modern Urfa in Southeast Turkey). The Syriac Old Testament is a translation from the original Hebrew and Aramaic (a different Aramaic dialect from Syriac which is known by the name 'Biblical Aramaic'). Syriac Orthodox
Church insists on using only the Peshitta Bible. The close similarities between the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic spoken by Christ and Syriac offer us a unique understanding of some of the Biblical readings. For
example, in the English King James version of the Bible we read in Matthew 5:18 "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." What could jot mean? The Syriac Bible uses the word yod for jot in this verse. This word is the name of the tenth letter (out of the total 22 alphabets) of the Aramaic alphabet, shown below in the Syriac Estrangelo script (read from right-to-left;
yod is shown in red color. Syriac and Aramaic are read from right to left):
Note that yod is the smallest letter in size. The above verse means that not even the smallest of the letters shall pass from the law. This is rendered in the English New Revised Version as "not one letter. Another interesting reading appears in the Lord's Prayer. The King James reads "and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" (Matthew 6:12). The Syriac versions read “and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors." This implies that we must first forgive our debtors before asking forgiveness from God. The English New Revised Version agrees with the Syriac in this verse!
In many instances the Syriac language offers interesting interpretations of Biblical verses. An understanding of Syriac homonyms, for example, help us clarify the reading in Matthew 19:25 (also Mark 10:25 and Luke 128:25), when Jesus tells us how much easier it is for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God. The Syriac word corresponding to camel is gamlo whichmeans 'camel.' However, gamlo has other a meaning as well, one of which is given by the Syriac lexicographer Bar Bahlul (10th century) in his Syriac dictionary: "gamlo is a thick rope which is used to bind ships." Considering that Jesus was speaking to fishermen, this meaning of gamlo seems more appropriate.

The Syriac Fathers studied the Bible in a critical and scientific manner, though regarding it at the same time as a divine text. Witness to this are the numerous translations and revisions of translations and the massive body of commentaries that they have produced. Some of these translations were lost until they were discovered by
Western scholars in the past 150 years.

Many old Syriac manuscripts of the Biblical texts survive and can be found in the major museums and libraries of the world and of course in the ancient Syriac libraries of the Middle East as well. The Syriac Orthodox Church in India had many Peshitta Syriac Bibles and one of them, in 16th century, was transferred to the Oxford University library in fear of Roman Catholic Persecution, since the Portugal Roman Catholics were in search of all Syriac documents for destruction. The most famous manuscript is that of the Gospels which is written by a certain Rabbula, hence known as the Rabbula Gospels. It is famous for its decorative calligraphy and miniatures which are excellent representations of Syriac art.

The first printed edition of the Bible was an edition of the New Testament which was printed in 1555, soon after the advent of printing. It was published by Johann Widmanstetter, with the assistance of a Syriac Orthodox priest, Moses of Mardin. Moses was sent by the Patriarch of Antioch to meet with the Pope of Rome and served as a teacher of Syriac in Europe.

The Syriac Bible is available today from the United Bible Societies. The Peshitta Institute at Leiden is preparing a new annotated English translation of the Peshitta Old Testament (NEATSB, or The New English Annotated Translation of the Syriac Bible).

Questions to test your knowledge

1. What could be the reason (what is the impact) why there is a translational

difference in Good News Bible version from King James Version in Acts 1:14?

2. What could be the reason (what is the impact) why there is a translational

difference in Good News Bible version from King James Version in Acts 1:22?

3. What could be the reason (what is the impact) why there is a translational

difference in Good News Bible version from King James Version in Acts 2:42?

4. What could be the reason (what is the impact) why there is a translational

difference in Good News Bible version from King James Version in Acts 14:23?

5. What could be the reason (what is the impact) why there is a translational

difference in Good News Bible version from King James Version in Acts 2:47?

6. What could be the reason (what is the impact) why there is a translational

difference in Good News Bible version from King James Version in Phili 3:3?

7. What could be the reason (what is the impact) why there is a translational

difference in Good News Bible version from King James Version in 2 Tess

2:15?

8. What could be the reason (what is the impact) why there is a translational

difference in Good News Bible version from King James Version in Acts 19:18?

9. What could be the reason (what is the impact) why there is a translational

difference in Good News Bible version from King James Version in 1 Cori 7:5?

10. What could be the reason (what is the impact) why there is a translational

difference in Good News Bible version from King James Version in Phili 1:1?

11. When was Jehovah Witness established?

12. What was the language of the common men at the time of Jesus Christ?

13. Where (material) was the Biblical Manuscripts written in olden days?

14. What does the tern Peshitta means?

15. Which Bible is the original Bible?

16. Give an example to show how important it is to learn Syriac to interpret Bible?

17. How many letters are there in Syriac or Aramaic language?

18. Which is the smallest letter in the Syriac/Aramaic?

19. Where can we get Syriac Bible today?

20. According to the Syriac lexicographer Bar Bahlul, which is more appropriate

meaning of ‘Gamlo’ to interpret the Biblical verse in in Matthew 19:25?

Holy Bible and Syriac Orthodox Church (Part I)

Holy Bible and Syriac Orthodox Church (Part I)


Syriac Orthodox Church, one of the most ancient churches, considers Bible as the most authoritative source of doctrines. Our church has the utmost respect for the Bible.
While the Syriac Orthodox Church and other ancient churches treat the Holy Bible with great reverence, using it in all their prayers, ministry and sacraments, they also hold the apostolic traditions equally important. The Church has no doctrine that could not be proven by the Bible. The Bible is not to be degraded by independent interpretation by anyone according to their will and pleasure.
[In the Syriac Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Churches every ministry is done, as taught and done by the apostles. The church was not created out of a vacuum. Each generation learned from the previous generation, from the time of the apostles to the present. The Syriac Orthodox Church still uses Aramaic (Syriac) as its official language, the language used by Jesus Christ and the apostles]. Syriac Orthodox Church Fathers labored in translating the Holy Scriptures into Syriac since the very dawn of Christianity. These Syriac translations of the Bible are the oldest and most ancient in any language. Further, the Syriac New Testament is quite unique for it presents the teachings of our Lord in an Aramaic dialect (Syriac) which is akin and would have been mutually comprehensible with the Palestinian dialect of Aramaic in which Christ taught (see an example given in Holy Bible and Syriac Orthodox Church Part II later). Since the translation of the Bible into Syriac started as early as the first century (even though the New Testament was not codified at that time into a Book), the Syriac version preserves the very ancient renditions of the original texts. In fact,
the Syriac Church Fathers produced a number of translations of the Bible and revisions of these translations from the original languages of the Bible.

Translations of Bible and Differences
Below is a list of some of the variations in different translations. The list is from some popular versions. This encouraged many new interpretations and caused heresy. See below how two translations differ. Of all the Protestant English translations, King James Version has the least errors.

CHAPTER AND GOOD NEWS BIBLE KING JAMES

VERSE (1927) VERSION
1 Acts 1:14 Brothers brethren
2 Acts 1:20 place of service bishopric
3 Acts 1:22 must join us must be ordained
4 Acts 2:42 learning from Apostles Apostle’s Doctrine
5 Acts 2:47 to their group to the church
6 Acts 2:47 fellowship meals breaking of bread
7 Acts 2:27 Servant Holy one
8 Acts 2:38 God’s Gift Gift of Holy Spirit
9 Acts 2:48 who were being saved such as should be saved
10 Acts 3:13 Servant Son
11 Acts 4:30 Servant Holy Child
12 Acts 6:6 Helpers Deacons
13 Acts 14:23 appointed Ordained
14 Acts 19:18 publicly admitted confessed
15 Acts 20:7 Saturday evening 1 St. day of the week ( Sunday)
16 Acts 20:7 Fellowship meal breaking bread
17 Acts 20:28 flock which the Holy Spirit has placed in your care. Be shepherds of church of God which he made his own through the death of his son Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers to feed the church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood
18 Acts 22:14 Servant The just one
19 Acts 22:16 Get up and be baptized and have your sins washed away by praying to him Arise and be  baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord
20 Rom 15:16 Like a priest- Minister Of Jesus Christ         
21 Rom 16:21 My fellow Jews My Kinsmen - relatives
22 1 Cori 1:18 Who are being saved Who are saved
23 1 Cori 4:1 Servant Ministers
24 1 Cori 5:13 As the scripture says these words are not found
25 1 Cori 7:5 For Prayer For fasting and prayer
26 Acts 7:17 I teach I command
27 Acts 10:16 The cup we use in the The cup of blessing Lord’s and which we give thanks to God when we
drink from it we are sharing in the blood of Christ which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of the Christ?
28 Acts 11:2 Teachings ordinances I delivered
29 Acts 11:3 God is superior over Christ note: In Living N.T. - they use “ Christ is responsible to God” The Head of Christ is God
30 2 Cori 2:17 We are not like many others who handle God’s message as if it were cheap merchandise but because God has sent us, we speak as servants of Christ We are not…… which corrupt the word of God….. we speak in Christ
31 2 Cori 5:20 We are speaking for Christ… we pleaded on Christ’s behalf let God change you from enemies to his friends We are the ambassadors for Christ as though God did beseech you by us we pray in Christ’s stead you e reconciled to God
32 Gala 4:19 Until Christ’s nature is formed in you. I wish that people who are upsetting you ..let them go and castrate themselves Until Christ is formed in you .. I wish they were even cut off which trouble you (St. Paul did not say to castrate)
33 Eph 1:7 by the death of Christ we are set free that is our sins are forgiven In whom we have redemption through his blood for the forgiveness of sins
34 Phili 1:1 Church leaders and helpers Bishops and Deacons
35 Phili 3:3 We do not put any trust in external ceremonies We have no confidence in the flesh
36 Colo 1:2 By his son’s death on the cross the blood of his cross
37 Colo 1:25 Servant of the Church Ministers of the Church
38 2 Tess 2:15 those truths The traditions which have been taught
39 1 Tim 3:1 A Church leader Bishop
40 1 Tim 4; 6 Good teaching Good Doctrine
41 1 Tim 4:11 Give them these instructions Command them
42 Tim 1:5 to appoint to ordain
43 Heb 2:12 meeting Church
44 Hew 13:7 former leaders The rule over you
45 James 5:16 Confess your sins Confess your faults
46 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins to God If we confess our sins
47 I John 2:20 But you had the Holy Spirit poured out on you by Christ You have an unction from Holy One
Note: Unction - an anointing ointment that which is used for anointing. more details later
48 1 John 5:7 Three witness the Spirit, the water and blood There are there that bear record in Heaven - the
Father , the Word, and the Holy Spirit
This proves the point that translators have made their own changes from the original version!
To answer why there was such a difference in translations, we have to analyze two points. 1) Who codified the Bible and when was it codified? 2) Who made the changes, when, and why?

Ever since the Bible was codified, the ancient church (At that time there was only one church with three Patriarchs in full communion to each other) owned it;because the ancient church codified it in the Council of Carthage in AD 397. And thus the ancient Church was its custodian. This is why St. Augustine said, “Since the Church owns the Bible, I believe it. Its interpretation also belonged to the church.”

During those days the Church stood as a mighty pillar of the true faith, the body of Christ and as one against which the gates of Hell could not prevail. Later reformist groups began to make changes to the Holy Bible. Thus people like Luther, Calvin, Single, Matthew etc. brought different versions and different interpretations of the Bible into the English and other languages.
Even Luther who started the reformation, became uneasy about this trend [painfully heartbroken to see God’s words modified, twisted and changed] and wrote “Now there are so many sections as there are heads. Some do not need Baptism, some reject Sacraments, some others teach that there is a third world life for a person between this world and the end of the world. Some says Christ is not God. One person says it in one way and another person another way. It has come to this situation that if one sees a dream or one feels so, he decides that it was a revelation to him by the Holy Spirit and declares himself as a prophet.” (Rebuilding the Lost Faith - Pg. 386 Griser, Luther IV).

The Bibles by Wycliffe (AD1382), Tyndale (1535) came out and many copies of the early editions were burned by order of Cuthbert Tunstall, the Bishop of London who was offended by Tyndale’s translations of various ecclesiastical terms, such as Congregations for Church and Senior for priest or Elder.

Then came the Coverdale Bible, (1535) and Matthew’s Bible (1537) versions.
This was the first Bible that was printed with the Royal permission.
Some of the other translations are:

• Travaners Bible (1539)
• The Great Bible (1539)
• Wittim Graham (1557) - This bible was the first one, which formatted the Bible into separate sentences.
• Ganeva Bible (1569) - became popular among the Puritan Party.
• Bishops Bible (1568)
• Raim’s New Testament (1582)
• Authorized Version (1611)
• Revised Version (1881, 1885). This had the most significant changes, compared to the prior ones. “Mistranslation again have been corrected where ever necessary ”[Helps to study of the Bible]

It is obvious that from the 16th century, many translations came and each translator made considerable changes during the process. Those responsible for the Authorized Version Translation submitted a request to
King James which was “We shall be maligned by self conceited Brethren, who run their own ways and give liking unto nothing, but what is framed by themselves and hammered on their anvil.” This proves that so many translators did their works as they pleased.

Even the early Protestant scholars were of the opinion that the early translations were full of mistakes. Dixon says, unless one is a fanatic Protestant, one will agree to the fact that early translations were full of serious errors. Ward in his book
“Errata” proves that these errors were not accidental, but purposely introduced. Bishop Eikot in his book says that the translated versions have many additions which were not found in the original Bible. Blunt, another Biblical scholar, in his book says that “The personality of the translators were such that, it was easy for them to get the respect of the public.” (Keys to the knowledge and use of the Bible)

Robert Gell, who was a member of the revising committee and who was a chaplain to Arch Bishop Abbot tells - as many times the truth has taken a back seat to the interest of many sections and voted out (truth), as required by different sections of people. So, there are differences between translations and most of the
translations did not do justice to the original. This lesson is to be continued as Holy Bible and Syriac Orthodox Church Part II.

To learn more about why there was differences in translation and what impact did it had on the faith of the church and why is it so important to learn the translational mistakes, please read the Holy Bible and Syriac Orthodox Church Part II.

Questions to test your knowledge

1. How Syriac Orthodox Church does consider Bible?

2. What does the Syriac Orthodox Church considers as important as Bible?

3. How does the ministry in Syriac Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Church done?

4. What is the official language of the Syriac Orthodox Church?

5. When and where the Bible codified?

6. Who codified the Bible and who was the custodian of the Bible?

7. Among the all translations of Bibles available which translation is the oldest and

most ancient?

8. Why Syriac Translation is unique?

9. Why the Bibles by Tyndale (1535) were burned by Bishop of London?

10. Name at least 10 different translations of Bible?

11. Give one proof that different Bible was translated and framed by the translators

in their please or in their own interpretation?

12. What is the difference in translation in King James Version and Good News

Bible version in Acts 20:7?

13. What is the difference in translation in King James Version and Good News

Bible version in Acts 1:14?

14. What is the difference in translation in King James Version and Good News

Bible version in Acts 1:22?

15. What is the difference in translation in King James Version and Good News

Bible version in Phili 1:1?

16. What is the difference in translation in King James Version and Good News

Bible version in Tim 1:5?

17. What is the difference in translation in King James Version and Good News

Bible version in 1 Cori 1:18?

18. What are the differences in translation (give two) in King James Version and

Good News Bible version in Acts 2:47?

19. What is the difference in translation in King James Version and Good News

Bible version in Acts 19:18?

20. What is the difference in translation in King James Version and Good News

Bible version in 1 Cori 7:5?

21. What is the difference in translation in King James Version and Good News

Bible version in Acts 7:17?

22. What is the difference in translation in King James Version and Good News

Bible version in Acts 11:2?

Please copy and paste the questions to word or e mail text box and answer under each

question. Please limit the answer to each question to a maximum of 50 words.

Apostolic Tradition and Apostolic Succession: Lesson 2

Apostolic Tradition and Apostolic Succession

We have found that the religious doctrines are based on the Bible and apostolic traditions. But how do we interpret Matthew 15:3 “Why do you also transgress the command of your God, because of your tradition?” Since Christ said this, it is obvious that He was not referring to something after His crucifixion and

resurrection. He was referring to the Jewish traditions prevalent at that time. During this time there were many Jewish rules, which were created and enforced by the Pharisees. After Babel, the Jews created an administrative body called The Great Synagogue, whose responsibility was to maintain the faith and to interpret. This body existed for almost 150 years and became extinct in BC 291. They made a total of 613

rules. Christ referred to these as burdens or elder’s traditions. St. Paul also criticizes tradition (Colo. 2:8) Yes, this is true. What he says is “Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit according to the tradition of men according to the basic principles of the world and not according to Christ.” It is obvious that he is referring to philosophy and not the apostolic tradition. “You are not redeemed from

your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;” Then why hold on to tradition? (1 Pet. 1:18) Here also he does not refer to apostolic traditions, but discusses the traditions mentioned in the previous question.

Can we justify tradition from the New Testament? Yes. The reasons are

discussed below:

• We have seen earlier what apostolic traditions are and how important they are.

• In Luke 1:1-4, Luke says that his writings are based on apostolic teachings (traditions) and not based on any written documents. He tells us that he accepted traditions, and compared and wrote them. Paul converted Luke, a physician and an artist, to Christianity. He later drew a picture of St. Mary and

this picture is still kept in the house of Mark (which is a monastery). (Ref Biblical Encyclopedia pages 624, and 684)

• In 2 Thess. 2:14-15, “To which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Yes, our gospels are not written). "Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the traditions, which you were, taught weather by word or our epistle." (All gospels were not written!).

• In 2 Tim 1:13 “Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus” and in 2 Timothy 2:2 “And things that you have heard from me among many witness commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others too.” (These ‘sound words’ of St.

Paul are not written).

• In Matthew 28:20, “…teaching them (the baptized people), to observe all I have commanded you”

• “Whoever listens to you (the apostles), listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me”. (Luke 10:16).

• In Luke 10:16, “He who hears you hears me, he who rejects you rejects me and he who rejects me rejects Him who sent me”. Therefore if one does not consider what the apostles taught by saying that "it is not written or not in the Bible”, then their position is as in the above sentence.

• In Acts 20:20 Paul says, “… but proclaimed to you (i.e. people of Ephesus) and taught you publicly and from house to house “(He taught orally!)

• In 1 Thess. 5:12, “We beseech you, my brethren to respect those who labor among you and admonish you in our Lord and teach you”

• 1 Tim 5:17, “Let elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.”

• “They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles (doctrines) and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to prayers” (Acts 2:42) These words that the believers listened to and heard from the apostles are called traditions.

Is tradition acceptable?

Certainly, it should be accepted because it came from the apostles. It is a poor argument to say that one should not believe in anything not written in the Bible. We believe in world history not because it is written in the Bible, but because the historians have recorded it. Jesus predicted that the Jerusalem temple would not be remaining (Later Titus destroyed it). The Jewish historian Josephus recorded this.

[Josephus has recorded that even the foundation stones were ploughed, thinking that there would be hidden gold under the foundation!] If we can believe him, we should also believe the works of prominent disciples of the 1st and 2nd century. St. Ignatius, and Polycarp, who learned from St. John, had written epistles. Shouldn’t we respect them? Shouldn’t we obey them?

Isn’t it fair that we refer to their teachings to understand what the church did during, and immediately after the apostolic times? Isn’t it childish to argue that those teachings (and practices) were irrelevant and to argue that teachings and interpretations by the people of the18th or 19th centuries are acceptable? (Remember that modern Christian communities do just that; for they reject traditions, and do not accept early teachings, but follow modern era teachings and interpretations!)

The teachings written by these early church fathers are called traditions.

The church has its own history. The book of Acts contains the initial history of the church, but history is not limited to the book of Acts. Many church leaders and advocates immediately after the apostles had recorded facts about the church. We should also accept this as history of the church.

“The Bible is only a part of the Holy Traditions of the church (2 Tess. 2:15). We must not fall a prey to those who want proof i.e. texts for all of the teachings of the church. Again remember, theology is based on the Bible, but not limited by the Bible. The Bible and Traditions together are the primary sources of Theology (Gala 1:8, Colo. 4:16, Heb 2:1). “The Bible is to teach, and the church is to interpret". “Tradition

is the continuing stream of the mind of the Church.”

“On many fundamental questions of faith, the Bible used by itself without the knowledge of the Traditions of the Church can lead to heresy. All of the early heretics used the Bible in one form or the other. The tradition of the Christian truth can be found in its fullness only in the church. How important were the church, the

priesthood, and the sacraments for the disciples of the Apostles. The denial of these realities and the dependence on the Bible alone can be a great error. The truth is experienced and known only by membership in the church, which has a responsible and proper apostolic ministry and a high tradition of the Christian Mysteries". (Faith of Our Fathers --16)

St. Irenaeus: “As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the world, yet guards it. As if she is occupied in one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously proclaims them and

teaches them and hands down, as if she possessed but one mouth. Even though the languages of the world are diverse and nevertheless the authority of the tradition is one and the same." (192).

“Every church throughout this whole world received this tradition from the

apostles” (page 198)

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world…. For surely they (apostles) wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority” (209)

“All Churches agree that… it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”(211) “The true gnosis is the doctrine of apostles, and the ancient organization of the

Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of the bishops.” (243)
 Tertullian: “...all doctrine which agrees with apostolic Churches…. be regarded as truth.”(293) “Whenever it shall be clear that the truth of the Christian discipline and faith are present, there also will be found of the Scriptures and of their explanation and of all the Christian traditions.” (291)

So what are these traditions? Tertullian describes some of them below:

• Before baptism “in the church and under the Bishop we solemnly profess that we renounce the devil and his pomp’s and his angels.”

• Then we are baptized and from that day on for a whole week we abstain from the daily bath. (367)

• "The god-father takes the candidate into his protection for the purification of the soul"

• "After coming from baptism, we are thoroughly anointed with blessed unction, from the ancient discipline by which in the priesthood they were accustomed to be anointed with a horn of oil". (304)

• "We offer sacrifices for the dead on their birthday anniversaries. We regard it as unlawful to fast or to worship on our knees on the Lord’s Day. We rejoice in the same privilege from the Paschal day to Pentecost. At every forward step and movement, when coming in and going out, when putting on our clothes, when putting on our shoes, when bathing, when at table, when lighting lamps,

when reclining, when sitting, in all ordinary occupations of our lives, we furrow the forehead with sign of the cross.” (367)

St. Polycrates (AD196) “So also do I, Polycrates, the least of all among you, in accord with the tradition of my kindred, some of whom I have followed closely.” (190a) St. Hilary: The church, instituted by the Lord and confirmed by the apostles, is one for all men; but the frantic folly of diverse impious sects has cut them off from her. It cannot be denied that this tearing asunder of the faith has arisen from the defect of

poor intelligence, which twists what is read to conform the opinion, instead of adjusting the opinion to the meaning of what is read.” (865)

St. Augustine: “Each heretic says that the gospels are the basis and that he adheres to it. But they follow their own faults. They do not deny the gospels but do not understand the meaning.”

Now let us think if it is necessary to look at Christian History and if it’s enough to live according to what is said in the Bible alone. We have seen that the faith of the Church is based on apostolic doctrines and the Bible. The Church for its own use codified the Bible. We have also seen that the Bible supports the teachings of the Church. Some argue the other way because of the fact that they cannot show lineage from the apostles and Jesus Christ. It is like sneaking a copy of a family’s deed by a non-family member and after a long time the descendents of the duplicate deed holder abuses, insults, and teases the real deed holder’s descendants! Every country, society, or even organizations of people, have history. History is used to know how a community started and what they did and believed in. Jesus is a historical figure and what we see in the gospels is a narration of His life and teachings. The book of Acts is the history of the Church and we have seen in it how the apostles delegated authority to successors (in the epistles to Timothy and Titus). Every society has history. So why is history being denied for the Church? Some people deny it because they have no relation to the Church. By denying early Church history, they hope to blur the practices of the early church.

Apostolic Succession

We have already seen that Christ founded the church and that the Church is His. Ee commanded the apostles to go all over the world, preach, and baptize those who believed and to receive them to the Church. He gave power to the apostles to govern the Church, and commanded many important things the members of the Church should obey and observe. He taught them things pertaining to the kingdom of God. He opened their minds to understand the scriptures (Luke 24:45). He established the Eucharist after the Last Supper. He blessed the bread and wine and said, ‘this bread is My body and this wine is My blood, being shed for the remission of sins and for eternal life to all who eat and drink’. One should believe that:

(a) Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is God.

(b) He came to this world to offer salvation to humanity.

(c) He suffered on the cross, died, and ascended to heaven.

(d) He will come again for the final judgment, and therefore on should:

1) Be baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit, and

2) Participate in Eucharist after confession of sins and eat with firm belief that it

is the ‘body and blood of Jesus Christ’.

After the Last Supper, He gave His body and blood to the apostle and commanded them to perform this till the end of the world (for coming generations). The apostles also received from Christ the power to bind and loose (power to forgive or not to forgive sins). Some new church groups argue that those who believe in Christ, become disciples and that there is no distinction between the believers and apostles. This is wrong. If this was true every one is capable of forgiving sins (Jesus told the apostles that they could forgive sins). If this was the case, whose sins should they forgive, their own sins? (In that case, any one who sins can declare themselves as forgiven!) Is this what Christ meant? If each one can perform the Eucharist (breaking of the bread) to whom should he give it to?

Jesus Christ blessed the bread and wine and gave to the apostles and commanded them to do as he did and gave them the right to do. The apostles (or who ever appointed by them) themselves have to perform this and give it to the believers till the end of the world. So the above argument doesn’t make any sense. More over, after the resurrection, He gave them all power to do everything (John 20: 20-23). He also sent the Holy Spirit to the apostles after ascending to heaven. The apostles knew their special status. This is why St. Paul said, “We are the ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us” (2 Cori. 5:20). “We are God’s fellow workers” (1 Cori. 3: 9). The following powers were given to the apostles alone:

(1) To preach and baptize

(2) To forgive sins (Mat 16:19)

(3) To Offer Eucharist

So the apostles are the representatives or ambassadors of the Church (2 Cori. 5-20)

• They are fathers (1 Cori. 4;17)

• Stewards of God’s Mysteries (1 Cori 4;1)

• They have the power to punish ( 1 Cori 4;21)

• Command in the name of Lord (1 Cori 7:10, 14:37) “I give this instruction

(not I, but the Lord)”

• Make laws (Acts 15:1, 1 Cori 7;17)

• They are authorities (2 Cori 10:8)

• Christ speaks through them (2 Cori 13:3)

• Chosen and anointed (2 Cori 1:21-22)

• The mystery of God was revealed to them (1 Tess 2:7)

• Make rules for the church (1 Cori 11:34)

• Make rules for prayers (1 Cori 11:6)

• They are given the authority by the Lord (1 Tim 1:20, 2:8, 6:13, Titus 2:15, 2

Peter 1:3, 1 John 2;7)

• Key to kingdom of heaven is given to the apostles. (Mat 16;19)

• They are chosen and anointed (2 Cori 1:21-22)

The apostles were blessed at the time of ascension and received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. All powers are vested in them and are to be exercised till the end of the world. But the apostles cannot live till that time; it is only logical that they appoint their successors to perform their duties. This is seen in the epistles to Timothy and Titus (1:5). This transfer of power from the apostles to their successors is called

apostolic succession.

During the apostolic time itself we can see that pastors or presbyters of the church were appointed. The apostles were the authority of the church and elders received their authority and power from the apostles (Acts 5:13, 8:16). St. Clement (AD 96) has documented that the apostles appointed successors before their death. St. Ignatius has written that “there is no church without three grades of priesthood, i.e. bishop, priest and deacon’

Therefore the true church of Christ should have a continuous chain of succession from the apostles. It should have the apostolic faith and observances, which is in the book of Acts, Epistles, and in the writings of the immediate successors of the Apostles like St. Clement, St. Ignatius, and others (Refer to the Faith of early church fathers). Tertullian has written that believers should know if they are going to a true church - each church should have a bishop who should show a continuous chain from the apostles and should believe everything as taught by the apostles.

Merely making a building and calling it a 'church', fellowship, or an assembly and attending there will not make it a church that the Lord Jesus Christ had established!

 Questions to test your knowledge

1. What was the tradition mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 15:3?

2. What was Luke before accepting Christianity?

3. Who converted Luke to Christianity?

4. Give two examples for the existence of apostolic tradition from New

Testament?

5. What type of Bible interpretations can probably lead to heresy?

6. Who is authorized to forgive sins after Jesus Christ?

7. Who was authorized to perform Eucharist?

8. Whom did the mystery of God revealed to by Jesus?

9. Who were the chosen and anointed people of Jesus?

10. Who had the power to preach and baptize?

11. Who had the power to forgive sins?

12. When did the Apostles receive Holy Spirit?

13. What is Apostolic Succession?

14. How should a true Church of Christ be?

15. Who has the power to command in the name of Lord?