Gregory addresses the subject of “theology,” in a series of orations that he delivered (most likely) in the summer of 380 while he was Patriarch of Constantinople.  These are known as the “Five Theological Orations”[2] and are probably his best known writings.  They deal with the nature and content of “theology.”   They are basically a summary of classical Greek patristic thought, and address the requirements for speaking in a meaningful way about the divine reality, derived from the Scriptures.  According to Brian Daley[3], these writings remain early Christianity’s “classic and most comprehensive expression of the late fourth century’s new consciousness of God, as three ‘hypostases,’ three irreducibly and inseparably  related poles of being, who form together—precisely in their relatedness—the single, ineffable, ontologically foundational ‘substance’ Christians adore as ultimate and immediate reality.”

These theological treatises were written in large part to combat the heresies of the Arian descendants, the Eunomians.  The Eunomians were a 4^th century sect of Arians who expressed the view that Jesus was of a different nature and in no way like God the Father.[4]  Gregory and the other Cappadocians spilled a lot of ink combating these heresies.  Gregory’s first two theological orations, give guidance towards proper theologizing, that will both lead us towards truth, and keep us safe from falling into dangerous heresy.

Gregory’s first Theological Oration, is an attempt to “protect” theology and put limits and restrictions on it.  Gregory begins this oration (Oration 27) with an attack on those who attempt to “theologize” inappropriately.   He quotes scripture against their “pride,” “itchy ears,” their delight in “profane and vain babblings” and their “contradictions of knowledge falsely so-called.”  He criticizes their “versatile tongues” and “resourcefulness in attacking doctrines nobler and worthier than their own.” (Or 27.1)    He is not only characterizing “the insatiable desire for theological debate,”  but setting the stage for what he sees as true theologizing.  But he’s not quite through railing against his antagonists.

Gregory in a somewhat humorous passage compares his opponents to wrestling promoters.  “They are like the promoters of wrestling bouts in the theatres, and not even the sort of bouts that are conducted in accordance with the rules of the sport and lead to the victory of one of the antagonists, but the sort which are stage managed to give the uncritical spectators visual sensations and compel their applause.” (Or 27.2) Gregory could have been talking about the WWF!  He is somewhat harsh, but his tone is about to turn a little more gentle.

Gregory then attempts to be pastoral.   He says that he is “moved with fatherly compassion.”   (Or. 27.2) He tells them that they should not be surprised to if what he says is “contrary to your expectations and contrary to your ways.”  But he cannot help but throw some shots at the same time, saying that they have “… an attitude which is too naïve and pretentious: I would not offend you by saying stupid and arrogant.”  Yes, good thing he didn’t say that, he might have offended them!

Gregory is certainly not afraid of offending and in the 3^rd section of this oration, he makes some exclusive remarks that would definitely offend people today.  According to Gregory, “Discussion of theology is not for everyone.”  This is quite offensive to our modern culture that doesn’t like to think that anything is off limits to anybody.  But Gregory states,

“Nor … is it for every occasion, or every audience; neither are all its aspects open to inquiry.  It must be reserved for certain occasions, for certain audiences, and certain limits must be observed.  It is not for all people, but only for those who have been tested and have found a sound footing in study, and, more importantly, have undergone, or at the very least are undergoing, purification of body and soul.  For one who is not pure to lay hold of pure things is dangerous, just as it is for weak eyes to look on the sun’s brightness.” (Or. 27.3)

 To Gregory, theology is serious business; nothing to be messed around with.    Only those who have been “tested” and have “found a sound footing in study” should theologize.  Because it is dangerous, it is most important that they are being purified in “body and soul.”  He goes on to qualify who should theologize and when it should take place. 

So, when is the right time to theologize?  When we are free from the mire and noise “outside,”  and our nous is not confused by “illusory, wandering images” that would lead us to mix the fine with the ugly and the “sweet” with the “slime.”  Gregory says that what is important is that we need to “be still,” for its as the Psalmist says, “Be still and know God.”  (Ps. 45:11) We should not be discussing theology in the marketplace, or with the television on, as just one more diversion.  We need to be still so God can illumine us from within to that we may understand His truths.  Then we can “judge uprightly.” (Or. 27.3)

Gregory then asks, “Who should listen to theology?”    He answers, “Those for whom it is a serious undertaking, not just another subject like any other for entertaining small talk, after the races, the theatre, songs, food and sex.”    Again, he was disheartened by those who counted theology as just one more thing among their many amusements.

Finally he addresses what aspects of theology should be explored and what areas should be restricted:  “Only objects in our grasp, and only to the limit of the experience and capacity of our audience.”  Food is good, but if you eat too much it will injure you.  Some loads are too heavy to carry.  What is needed but too much of it floods the earth.  “We too must guard against the danger … of our discourse may so oppress and overtax our hearers as actually to impair the powers they had before.” (Or. 27.3)  It seems Gregory sees our ability to comprehend on a spectrum; Christian leaders should consider their own ability to comprehend, based upon their “experience and capacity,” but also their audience.

In the fourth section, he strives to make it clear, that he is not talking about being mindful of God.  We should all be mindful of Him at all times, from most learned pastor to smallest child.  “… It is not continual remembrance of God I seek to discourage, but continual discussion of theology.” (Or. 27.4)  And he is not against the discussion of theology, but only when its “untimely” or goes on to excess.    Laughter is unseemly at a funeral as are tears at a drinking party.  We should be careful not to cast our pearls before swine.

Gregory goes on to discuss how even their arguments should be governed by rules of decorum, using wild horses as a metaphor as they “spit out the bit” and “run wide of the turning post.”  Rather, St. Gregory admonishes we should “conduct our debates within our frontiers and not be carried away to Egypt or dragged off to Assyria.  Let us not ‘sing the song of the Lord in a foreign land.’”  Basically, “Let even our contentiousness be governed by rules.” (Or. 27.5)  There are rules that govern the most base of human affairs, so it stands to reason that our highest speech, that having to do with God and our relationship to Him, should be conducted appropriately.

The rest of Oration 27 is more undercutting of the Eunomians authority to interpret the Scripture.  He asks how this discussion should be interpreted by one who “subscribes to a creed of adulteries and infanticides, who worships the passions, who is incapable of conceiving of anything higher than the body …” (Or. 27.6)  In the concluding chapters, he leads his opponents through a dialectic question and answer finally rebuking them with St. Paul’s reproach, “Are all apostles?  Are all prophets?”    He teases them about what he thinks they should be speculating about: the universe, matter, the soul, etc… in which he says, “… to hit the mark is not useless, to miss it is not dangerous.  But God Himself we should refrain from speculating on, as in this life we have so little knowledge to go on.

So the first oration addressed who should theologize, and when, where and what about.  Or as Gregory says in the first line of his Second Theological Oration, he “used theology to cleanse the theologian.”  He says that we are now prepared to go with him, up the mount to discuss the doctrine of God.  He says that if any follow him, they must be like Aaron, while those who are less purified must stand at a distance.  Gregory was certainly not a fan of egalitarianism nor embarrassed by hierarchy.

In chapter 3 of the second theological oration, Gregory articulates the experience of “entering the cloud of knowledge of God” like Moses.  “I penetrated the cloud, became enclosed on it, detached from matter and material things and concentrated, so far as might be, in myself.” (Or. 28.3) This is no philosophical pondering of truth that he is talking about here.  “I scarcely saw the averted figure of God, and this whilst sheltering in the rock, God the word incarnate for us.”  Gregory says that this is the only way you can speak of God; this “averted figure.”  For not only does God’s peace pass all understanding, so does exact knowledge of even His creation.  (Or 28.5) So what can we hope to accomplish through deduction?

Deductive logic plays little role in discerning the Divine.  “What can your conception of the Divine be if you rely on all the methods of deductive argument?  To what conclusion will closely-scrutinized argument bring you, you most rational of theologians, who boast over infinity? (Or. 28.7)  Once again, he stresses that knowledge of God is not a mental or intellectual activity.  God is more than just ideas set down on paper, and argued over.

But Gregory seems to be no fan of apophatic, or negative, theology either, the approach embraced by so many Orthodox theologians in the ages to come.  “A person who tells you what God is not but fails to tell you what he is, is rather like someone who, asked what twice five are, answers ‘not two, not three, not four, not five, not twenty, not thirty, no number, in short, under ten or over ten.   He is does not deny it is ten, but he is also not settling the questioner’s mind with a firm answer.  It is much simpler, much briefer, to indicate all that something is not by indicating what it is, than to reveal what it is by denying what it is not.”  It doesn’t seem like he is discounting the apophatic approach all together.  He is simply saying the negative approach is useless if you also don’t have something positive to say.

In this day where adherents in thousands of Christian sects, [5] fearlessly speculate about God, particularly the Logos Incarnate, the Man Jesus Christ, Gregory’s voice (and that of the other Church Fathers) is needed to help us find our way knowing God and finding our union with Him.  Gregory shows us how to theologize and warns us from the dangers of going into it without undergoing preparation and purification.  There is an Evil One who in the past has “caught at their unguided longing to search for God, meaning to divert power to himself and cheat that desire of theirs—it was like taking a blind man’s hand when he is eager to find the road.  He pushed them headlong down a variety of cliffs.” (Or. 28.15)  St. Gregory would have us follow reason in our pursuit of God, refusing “to travel without guide or helmsman.”

[1] Plato Timaeus, 28c.

[2] Or Orations 27-31 in his greater corpus.

[3] Brian E. Daley, Gregory of Nazianzus (New York: Routledge, 2006), 17

[4] Disimilarists

[5] Or quite divorced from any other assembly of believers and therefore all on their own

Bio: HERE (English below Greek)
 

1. The ultimate referent of the expression “Word of God,” is neither the Bible or its exposition; it is the Person of the eternal Logos, the second person of the Holy Trinity. 

2. Therefore, Scripture has to be understood from a Trinitarian perspective. Inspired by the Spirit, the Scriptures reveal the person and work of the Son, who shows us the face of the Father, and enables communion with Him. 

3. The witness of Scripture is the fruit of synergy or cooperation between God and the human author. As a theandric or divine-human reality Scripture contains elements that are historically, culturally and linguistically conditioned. Consequently it must be reinterpreted in every new generation of the Church’s life, under the inspirational guidance of the Holy Spirit. 

4. The Word of God serves God’s purpose for the salvation of the world. Thus its interpretation is properly ecclesial, serving the mission of the Church. Exegesis has its ultimate end in communicating saving knowledge of God; accordingly,, the purpose of exegesis is essentially soteriolgical. 

5. The Church holds that the New Testament writings are normative elements of Holy Tradition. This Tradition consists of both received witness (paradosis) and the personal contribution of the author. Scripture, inspired by and given authority by the Holy Spirit, is the canon or norm by which all true Tradition is determined. All Tradition is not contained in Scripture, BUT nothing constitutes authentic Tradition that contradicts the canonical Scriptures or is incompatible with them. 

6. The relation between Old Testament and New Testament is one of Promise to Fulfillment. Historical events and prophetic words in Israel’s experience are figures or types of realities fulfilled in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. Therefore the OT is to be interpreted typologically. This involves a double movement: from past to future (type to antitype), but also from the future to the past (the antitype being proleptically present in the type). Thus Scripture is endued with a “double sense,” both literal and spiritual, in that it already contains and to some degree manifests or reveals its eschatological fulfillment. 

7. Scripture, according to the patristic vision, is uniformly and integrally inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore it can be interpreted according to the rule of exegetical reciprocity: any obscure biblical passage can be interpreted in light of another biblical passage which is more clear, irrespective of the author, date of composition or historical circumstances. 

8. Finally, to interpret Scripture properly and to discern within its depths of truth, it is necessary for the exegete to interpret it from within. Scripture, in other words, prescribes a way of life— “Christ in us” in the apostle’s terms. This means life lived in conformity with the Scriptures: with their moral injunctions, but also with their spiritual vision. We cannot truly understand the Word of God, the Holy Fathers insist, unless we make that Word our own and commit ourselves to it with faith and with love.

Well, basically he wrote to correct sinful practices and refute false doctrines, of the fledgling church in Corinth. He was writing in response to a letter sent to him (7:1) asking for his advice. (Members of “Chloe’s household” also had kept him appraised. (1:11)).

His main goal was that the Corinthian church would be united in Christian love. “Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment.” (1:10) This was his goal; but the reality was, there was already all sorts of controversies and divisions among them. These had been reported back to him, so he’s now writing to address those issues.

Paul himself was right at the middle of one of the chief controversies. It had been reported to him that the brethren were all lining up behind specific leaders and teachers, and being contentious with each other, “’I am of Paul,;’ or ‘I am of Apollos’ or ‘I am of Cephas,’ or ‘I am of Christ.’” (1:12) Paul asks them, “IS Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

Another issue splitting up the community was sexual immorality. Corinth was a trade center and as a result had a population of transient people had quite an immoral environment. Like most ancient port cities, it had a reputation for its wildness. In the case of the Corinthian church, Paul cites some examples, specifically incest. He comes right out and says, they must not keep company with an immoral brother, but need to toss him out of the community. (5:11).

Another issue he was addressing was the fact that the believers in Corinth were suing each other. St. Paul claims that, “It is an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another.” (6:7) The saints will judge the angels, yet they want to take their affairs and have them judged outside the Church?

He addresses many other issues, but the unity of the Church is at the heart of each. Other issues include, “food offered to idols (chp 8-10),” Christian marriage (chp. 7), women praying and prophesying with heads uncovered (chp.11), the use of spiritual gifts (chp. 12-14), and the resurrection (chp.15). But St. Paul is certain all these issues that divide them, can be overcome with love. In his closing paragraph, he uses the word twice: “Let all you do, be done with love.” (16:14) and, “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed.” (16:22) He wrote to them to encourage them to overcome division, with love.

Mondays

9-noon Systematic Theology with Dr. Peter Bouteneff.  This is where we go systematically through the teachings of the Orthodox Church, from what we beleive about God to the nature of the Church.

Afternoons Music  w/ Prof. Alla Generalow and Fr. Elias Bitar.  NOt sure what this is going to be like this year as they are changin the program, but besides choral singing I understand all students will take BOTH Byzantine and Slavic chant.  (We Antiochians just did BYz last year).  My chanting has gone down hill since I have been here, mainly as I don’t get to do it enough….

Tuesdays

9-Noon  Liturgical Theology w/ Dr. Paul Meyendorff.  This class will be both an introduction to the theology behind our liturgical practices and a focus on the rites of initiation….baptism, chrysmation etc…

3:30-4:30 Antiochian Liturgics w/ Fr. Tom Zain, dean of the Brooklyn cathedral.  This focuses on the nuts and bolts of our Antiochian liturgical practice.

6:30-8:30 Arabic w/ Fr. Paul Tarazi.  I’ve already started learning the alphabet and phonics and writing, in preperation.  The alphabet held me behind in Biblical Greek last year….don’t want a repeat.

Wednesdays

6:30-9PM  Bioethics w/ Deacon Symeonides (I know nothing of him).  A survey and intorduction to bioethics along with discussion of several issues in the field.  Abortion, stem cells, contraception, cloning, euthanasia, organ donation are among the topics

Thursdays

9-Noon New Testament w/ Dr. Paul Barnett.  Having studied the Pauline epistles last term, this class will be focusing on the gospels, paying close attention to Christ’s parables.

1-2PM  Integrating Seminar w/ Dr. Al Rossi.  I understand that we will be discussing what we experience as we complete our 80 hours in the hospital chaplaincy internship….

All this in addition to Matins every Morning at 7:30, Vespers at 5….community service (I understand I am to be the sexton this year….responsible for keeping the chapel clean)…parish assignment (again at St, Mary’s in Bayridge, Brooklyn)…singing in the choir….serving as a deacon….and familial duties.  (and a baby arriving in the Spring!)

Thanks for the prayers!

“Oh God, are you there? Do you even care about me?”

I am a little older (I was going to say “mature,” but remembered I was intending to have an honest discussion here.) and have been through a few things. I know that they eventually end. Or at least they have in my experience. I’ve also committed myself to the Christian way….the way of struggle…the way of the ascetic….the way of the Cross. Intellectually I have come to terms with suffering:

 Christ suffered, and the servant is not greater than the Master.

He engineered our salvation through His torturous death on the cross.

He tells us that we too must take up OUR cross and follow Him, so that we participate in His resurrection through our participation in His suffering.

I understand that suffering entered the world due to Man’s sin. It is not God’s ultimate plan that we suffer….rather it’s a consequence of the exercise of our free will. And as all the world is connected, all bear the consequences for that…thus the innocents suffer with the rest of us.

I know all that. Yet, I sit in relative comfort in my cozy, convenient, lazy, ungrateful American life. Easy for me to say.

But then, I get a foretaste of my own death. Intense pain, that I do not know how to deal with. I leave the room, as the family adds to my annoyance. I think I want to be alone. But now my aloneness also annoys me. I go the medicine chest and try to doctor myself. I am in such a hurry that I dump pills all over the counter. I lay down. I get back up. I try to distract myself. I flee distractions. Finally, some sense of responsibility to not upset my family, I do leave the room and lay down on my bed. I begin to say the name of Jesus with each throb. I ask for deliverance, but realize my haste to escape may deprive me of the blessing that is underneath this. So I begin to try to give thanks. “Thank you for this. Forgive my ingratitude for the blessing of a painless life. Strengthen me. Help me.”

Can God release me from pain? Of course! What kind of God would He be if He couldn’t. Does He heal? Of course, He love mankind….what kind of Father would He be if not. Why would we worship such a God if He did not care about our suffering?

But physical healing is not the end all to end all. There is something much greater. That’s the healing of our soul. He endured pain and suffering to do so. Our healing ONLY comes from embracing the Cross.

I read recently in a book by Andrew Louth, from the University of Durham, Discerning the Mystery, about the role of suffering, in our ability to know God…to see Him. As a student at seminary, I read an awful lot of books about God. We do a lot of conversing about God, Who He is, what we know of Him. But God is not a concept that we can simply wrap our brains around. God is a person who must be “engaged.” And it is through experience, that we undergo the process of “undeception.” “For every experience worthy of the name runs contrary to our expectations.” Thus through suffering we enter the process by which we are “undeceived of our prejudices that do not ‘fit’ reality.”

According to Hans-Georg Gadamer, the point is that, “What a man has to learn through suffering is not this or that particular thing, but knowledge of the limitations of humanity, of the absoluteness of the barrier that separates him from the divine.”  If Union with God is our goal, than suffering becomes a means to that end.  God did not create us for suffering.  Suffering comes about because of our sin.  But Christ, transformed suffering by his own suffering.

It doesn’t make it easy, but at least we can know that our suffering can have “meaning.” Suffering is one thing. Meaningless suffering is despondancy.  Trust God with all your heart, and make sure you suffer well.

An Invitation to Divine Vision

 The 15^th Chapter of the collections of Origen of Alexandria’s writings called the “Philocalia,” (“love of the beautiful”) is at its heart an invitation; an invitation to leave the world of the base and the mundane, to enter a higher place; a place where it is all love, truth and beauty. And the best part is, is that is all the same world.

Origen of course, was both the most controversial as well as being the most prolific of the Church Fathers. He is counted as a Church Father, not only because he was indeed a highly esteemed authority within the Church at his time, but also because he basically died a martyr’s death; only the long delay between his torments and his finally succumbing to them, prevented him from being acclaimed with the martyr’s crown. But some of his ideas are controversial, and eventually, years after his death he was condemned along with ideas that were referred to as “Origenism.” But it cannot be denied that he both articulated the theology of his time, and influenced its future. As John Anthony McGuckin states, “All of the great thinkers of the patristic age were in his debt, and even after his condemnation he was too deeply inserted into the fabric of Christian theologizing ever to be dismissed or forgotten[1].”

He was also highly productive in the number of writings he put out. This of course led only to even great influence when coupled with the quality of his writing. He is said to have left over 6,000 different writings before his death. Unfortunately most of his writings were destroyed when his teachings were condemned. Thankfully, along with several complete documents that have survived until our time is a compilation of some of the writings of Origen, alleged to have been compiled and edited by SS. Gregory of Naziansus and Basil of Caesarea, known as the Philocalia[2]. It is to the Philocalia, that we now turn our attention, particularly the section known as the 15^th Chapter.

Chapter Fifteen, a compilation of abstracts, is pulled from a long discourse of Origen’s “Against Celsus” (Contra Celsum). Celsus was an early antagonist of Christianity. He was a philosopher who was either a Platonist or an Epicurean. Celsus’ argument against Christianity, as present in Chapter Fifteen is twofold: First, the crude style of the Hebrew Scriptures was not as able to communicate any “noble truths” that may have been present, as has the ornate polished style of the Greeks. And secondly, that the body of the Lord was “unsightly.” The editors of Philocalia have Origen address the former in Part One of this chapter (paragraphs 1-11) and the latter in the second part (12-20). Let’s look at part one.

Origen, in stating his reason for writing, quotes Celsus as alleging that the ideas in Scriptures have been “better expressed among the Greeks, and without the violent expedient of a message supposed to have come from God or from the Son of God.” (Philo. chp. 15, par. 1) In other words, ”don’t bother us with your tales of prophets, and burning bushes and insignificant kings; our philosophers preach about being virtuous, in a much more elegant manner.” This notion to Origen, was a like a big fat pitch in the center of the plate, just dying to be hit out of the park. And so he swings, and connects.

Origen is not content to merely rebut these charges, by perhaps showing that the Scriptures are “not” crude; he’s willing to concede the point, that perhaps they are, but that there is something more important beyond style. He says,

“Now we maintain that if the aim of those who represent the truth is to do as much good as possible to as many as possible, and out of love for men to win over to the truth, as far as may be, every single man, not only the quick and the ready, but also him that is void of understanding .” (Ibid.)

The goal is to “win as many as possible.” Therefore, the communication has a goal, and a meaning. And to communicate to him who is “void of understanding,” will require a different approach then to the one who is learned in languages and philosophy. It is to this aim, Origen says,

“Our prophets, and Jesus and His Apostles had the insight to adopt a mode of delivery which not only conveys the truth, but can win the many, until they are drawn to be Catechumens and then, every one so far as he can, rise to the ineffable mysteries contained in this seemingly poor language.” (Phil. 15:2)

So this “seemingly poor language,” not only can convey the truth and win many, but can draw them to commit themselves to the Church and “rise to the ineffable mysteries.” This is in contrast to what Origen sees happening with the ornate and polished style of “Plato and his imitators.”

Origen, himself being trained in the thought of the great philosophers, doesn’t totally besmirch them, but does hold them in contempt; his sarcastic appraisement of them, is really pretty funny. He says that this sophisticated style only “benefits a few, if it indeed does benefit them.” (Ibid.)(emphasis mine) He then adds, “We do not say this to disparage Plato, for the great world of men has found even him useful.” (Ibid.) (again emphasis mine) Origen is not saying that there is no benefit to the philosophy and learning of the Greeks; but that the thought of the philosophers could only enlighten the minds of those who had the luxury of being trained in its vocabulary and thought processes. The words of the Scriptures benefit all.

Origen stresses that to “rise to the ineffable mysteries,” what is said is not sufficient, no matter how true and persuasive. But rather, “…a certain power from God be given to the speaker and grace be shed over his words, and effective speakers cannot have this grace without God’s help.” (Phil 15.4) There is something beyond the text alone that enlightens the reader. What might it be?

The Greek philosophers wrangled over questions of purpose and meaning. Origen refers to Plato’s views on the Chief Good, and agrees that it is “…by no means communicable in word, but is acquired through much intercourse with it, and, kindled as it were from flaming fire, suddenly illuminating the soul.” (Phil. 15.5) The Chief Good, can be touched on by men in their intellectual ponderings. But Plato himself attests that words can’t communicate it. It can only be grasped by encountering it on its own terms; then it is the Chief Good itself (or “Himself” for the Christian) that becomes the subject, actively setting on fire the soul of the seeker.

He adds to this a quote from St. Paul, “For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity.” (Phil. 15.5) The “things that are made,” are not an end to themselves, but an aid to seeing the “invisible things,” the things that are “not made.”

Origen then lists the numerous verses in the Scriptures that support this idea of a “…sudden

kindling in the soul of a burning light.” But then states,

“Observe then, the difference between Plato’s fine saying respecting the Chief Good, and what was said in the Prophets considering the light of the blessed, and observe further that the truth in Plato concerning the Chief Good did not at all help his readers to attain to pure and undefiled religion; and what is more, it did not benefit the philosopher himself who thus expounded the Chief Good.”(Phil. 15.7)

Based upon Plato’s own criteria, there must be something more than the words, if we are to attain to the “Chief Good.”

Origen closes this section by referring to a synergy between God and reader of Scriptures.

“Just so, the Divine Nature taking thought not only for those who are reputed learned among the Greeks, but also for the rest of the Greeks, condescended to the ignorance of the majority of hearers, so that, employing words familiar to them, it aright encourages the unlearned multitude to hearken; for after the first introduction they can easily endeavor to get a hold on the deeper truths hidden in the Scriptures. For even an ordinary reader soon discovers that many passages have a deeper significance than appears on the surface, a signification revealed to devoted students of the Word, and revealed in proportion to the time they spend upon the Word and to their zeal into putting into practice what they read.” (Phil. 15.10)

According to Origen, the Scriptures are not like other books in that God, the Divine Nature was behind their origin, and was so directing their writing that they teach the unlearned. But to benefit, the reader must be a “devoted student,” and “put into practice what they read.” Then the deeper significance of the Scriptures will be revealed to them. And it is Christ that is the focus, and deeper significance of the Scriptures.

Christ is more specifically the focus of the second section of chapter 15. Origen quotes Celsus as referring to Christ’s body as “small, ill-favored, and ignoble.” Origen easily refutes this by pointing out how Celsus will quote Scripture “as if he believed such of them to justify the charge; but wherever, in the same Scriptures, anyone might suppose the opposite of what constitutes the charge to be asserted, Celsus professes not to know it.” (Phil. 15.12) Origen points out that Celsus employs Is. 53:1,2[3] to support his position, while totally ignoring such verses as Ps 44:4,[4] which refers to the grace and beauty of “the Mighty One.”

Origen goes further in refuting Celsus in many ways, particularly pointing out the irony of Celsus’ use of a prophecy about Jesus given hundreds of years before, assuming the reliability of it! If the prophecy can be seen as reliable, that only goes to support that idea that Jesus is the Christ, the Holy One of God, who was foretold by the prophets.

Origen points out that Celsus is missing the fact that Christ appeared differently to different people at different times:

How came Celsus to overlook the fact that our Lord’s body varied according to the capacity of the observers, and that a useful purpose was served when its appearance was such as was necessary for each individual? And it is nothing wonderful that matter, by nature mutable and variable and convertible to everything the Creator chooses, and receptive of every quality the Artificer desires, should sometimes have a quality corresponding to the descriptions, “He hath neither form nor beauty,” and sometimes should be so glorious, astonishing, and marvelous, that the three Apostles who ascended the Mount with Jesus at the sight of such wondrous beauty fell upon their faces .(Phil. 15.14)

God created matter, so it should not be surprising that it should serve his purposes. It is true at the same time, that He “hath no form or beauty,” and that the disciples fell on their faces at the sight of his wondrous beauty. It is “the capacity of the observers,” that is the key in tipping off, how they shall observe Him. But to what purpose, and what is the determinant of “capacity?”

Origen’s main thrust in this writing, is to show that if at times, the Christ seem humble and lowly, it is only to meet the viewer where he is at; to condescend to a level where He can be glimpsed, in the ultimate goal of bringing him to where Christ (God) can be seen in all His Glory. “For in the eyes of those who are below and are not yet ready for the ascent, the Word hath neither form nor beauty; to such as these its form is without honor, and marred more than the words ‘born of men,’ in the passage before us figuratively called ‘sons of men’” (Phil. 15.18) In the same paragraph he then states, “But for those who through obeying Him even when He ascends the lofty mountain, He hath a Diviner appearance.” (Ibid.) We see him as a man, with the frailty and limitedness of a Man. But through obedience, we are able to be brought with Him as He ascends to the Father, and see Him in His glory.

After all, as Origen points out, this is all about the incarnation; the Word of God Himself taking on garments of flesh. “And down below the Word has other garments; they are not white, they are not like the light; if thou shalt ascend to the lofty mountain, thou shalt see His light and His garments.” (Phil. 15.19) This is the purpose; to ascend with Him and thus see His light and garments.

“As then down below He looks different, but having ascended is transfigured, His face beaming like the sun, so it is with His clothing, so it is with His garments. When thou art below, they do not shine, they are not white; but if thou ascend, thou shalt see the beauty and the light of the garments, and shalt marvel at the transfigured face of Jesus.” (Ibid.)

It’s the “ascending” that is important. We see Him in one way, that we might see Him in another.

Origen offers St. Paul as an example of the goal; of leaving “our world of earth” so that we can be “rapt into the third heaven.” We must get beyond the world that we see with our physical eyes, to that we see with our spiritual. “Wherefore we see the Word of God on earth, for that He became man, in human guise … that He might tabernacle among us. But if we recline on the bosom of the Word made flesh and are able to follow Him when He ascends the lofty mountain, we shall say, ‘We saw his glory.’” (Phil. 15.19) By becoming intimate with the Word made flesh, We are given the chance to see His glory.

Origen wraps up this section, by uniting both sections of this chapter in that the Scriptures are ultimately about the Word of God. “They, who are able to walk in the footsteps of Jesus as He ascends, and is transfigured out of sight of earth, shall behold his transfiguration in every scripture. “ (Ibid.) This then is the point of both the Scriptures and of whom the Scriptures proclaim.

In fact, it is the Scriptures, that Origen says Christ is robed in: “The garments of the Word are the phrases of Scripture; The Divine thoughts are clothed in these expressions.” (Ibid.) Thus the apparent lowliness of Christ’s appearance corresponds to the apparent lowliness of the Scriptures. And it both of these, that are transformed, or rather the reader and viewer’s eyes are transformed, so that he can see the Truth and Beauty proclaimed in the Scritpures, and manifested in He whom the Scritpures proclaim, The Word of God Himself. As Fr. John Behr says, “The difference between seeing Jesus as an ordinary man and contemplating him transfigured in divine glory is that of merely reading the words of Scripture, expressed in the common idiom, and understanding their divine content.”[5]

We cannot touch this mystery, of the Divine revelation, without desiring to see it. You cannot see it without a love of truth. “But how can Celsus and the enemies of the Divine Word, and such as do not investigate Christianity with a love of truth,, know the meaning of the different appearances of Jesus? (Philo. 15.20) Just as the Scriptures are more than the “crude text” as it appears to Celsus, so too is Jesus more than “ill-favored and ignoble.” The love of truth is what makes the difference.

I submit that it is this, “investigating Christianity with the love of truth,” that is important about this writing by Origen, rather then what it appears to be on first read: a defense of the “crude style” of the scriptures. It is indeed an invitation to all who reads the Scriptures and considers the Christ. With a love of truth, one can read rise with St. Paul into the third heaven and marvel at the transfigured face of Christ.

[1] John Anthony McGuckin, The Westminster Handbook to Origen (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press), 26.

[2] Not to be confused with later compilation of spiritual treatises known as the Philokalia

[3] “Lord who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? For He grew up before him as a tender plant, as a root in a dry ground: he hath no form (nor glory: and we saw him and he had no form) nor comeliness; but his form was unhonored, marred more than the sons of men.”

[4] “Gird thy Sword upon thy thigh O Mighty One, in thy grace and beauty, and in thy majesty ride on prosperously.”

[5] John Behr, The Way to Nicea (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), 180.

A lot has transpired.  We miss home, that is Buffalo, Niagara Falls and WNY.  We miss the weekly contact with our family and friends.  But, we belong here.  This is where God has us for at least 2 more years.

We’ve had a good summer despite the disappointment and assorted other feelings over the cancelled (or more accurately, never authorized) ordination.  But we had a great family vacation in No. Carolina.  Spent time with Kelley’s dad and step-mom.  Kelley and kids got to spend a month in Western New York.  We spent the 4th of July on Liberty Island. Attended the ordination of a friend.  Had a great second honeymoon in St. Croix.  Two eldest got to go 2 weeks of camp at the Antiochian Village.  Spent a long weekend with our friends the nuns at the Orthodox Monastery of the Transfigurationin Ellwood City, PA.  Colin is now on his way to spend a week with my mom.  The 3 youngest have Vacation Bible School next week at a local Orthodox Church.  We’ve had visits from Kelley’s mom and SubDcn Justin (aka “Uncle Toad.”)

But  we are now BUSHED.  Following the news from Palm Springs wasn’t helpful either.   But some rest is in order; not only because I get the nose to the grindstone in 3 weeks, but also because it won’t be relaxing next summer with the Baby on the way and all that.  ( You heard me right!)

God is good.  Life is hard.  But He is constantly giving us blessings and opportunities to turn from our ways that lead to sickness and darkness, to rest in his love and light, that is never overtaken by night!  Our suffering, whether it be big or small, is not what he designed us for.  But He has turned it on its ear through it, brings us salvation.  That’s the message of the Cross and the empty tomb.  And more than that, thats the WAY of the Cross and Empty Tomb.

There is not a man or woman, boy or girl alive that does not have trials in there future….whether immediately, or down the road.  Ever person Christ healed, even those that like Lazarus He rose from the dead, went on to die and their bodies are smoldering in graves.  But He came that we might have life and have it more abundantly.  Our sorrow can bve transformed into a “Joyful Sorrow.”  But we must abandon our sinful ways, and the pursuit of our own will.  We must be willing to let Christ Himself be the “Lord and Master” of our lives.  Not easy to do as our fallen will demands to be satisfied.  BUT, with God ALL things are possible.

I have no clue what the future holds.  BUt to answere the question that Buffalo Bills coach Marv Levy would always aks his team: “Where would you rather be, than right HERE, right NOW?”  NO WHERE!

By your prayers…..

I went back to Niagara Falls for the Parish Life Conference, that I was supposed to be ordained at.  It was hard, but absolutley the right thing to do.  It was so good to be with my father in Christ, Saidna Alexander and all the brother clergy and faithful of the Ottawa diocese.  And of course our family of St. George Orthodox Church in Niagara Falls.  (Having lunch with my mom certainly did not hurt either!)  It was healing to worship God together…the bishop with the clergy and the faithful….receiving the body and blood of our Lord together…..

So, life goes on.  The jilted bride recovers.  I have the fall semester to prepare for, and some needed vacation time with Shamassey (for her, that is!  She works so hard, she needs it!  My life IS a vacation …) before that.  I have the joy of helping out the new Antiochian deacons.  They remind me of why I am here and, and why I became a deacon in the first place.

I am not sure what the future holds.  Most seem to think my ordination is inevitable.  I am on scholarship and the Archdiocese is going to want to see a return on their investment in me.  Maybe my candidness has (or will) ticked some one off, and they will prevent me from being ordained.  Perhaps God has something different for us to do.  Only He knows the future.  The thought of the priesthood does terrify me, and that’s only partly false humility.  And you certainly don’t need to be an Orthodox priest to serve him….

But I do know that as I sit here on my porch, listening to the bull frogs on Crestwood Lake, that God is present in this moment.  THAT is what I need to focus on. 

What is His will for my life?  “Right here, right now.” 

Who is the most important person?  “The one right before me.” 

What is the best place to be? “Right where I am.”

By your prayers…..