COPTIC ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE
MANY YEARS WITH PEOPLE’S QUESTIONS
By H.H. POPE SHENOUDA III
Title So Many Years with the Problems of People.
Author : H. H. Pope Shenouda III.
Translated By : St. George Coptic Orthodox Church Chicago, Illinios.
Revised By : Mrs. Wedad Abbas
Illustrated By : Sister Sawsan.
Edition : The second of February, 1993.
Typesetting : J.C. Center, Heliopolis.
Printing : Dar El Tebaa El Kawmia, Cairo.
Legal Deposit No. : 3035/1993.
I.S.B.N. : 977-5319-11-0.
Revised : COEPA - 1997
Table of Contents
[ 1 ] DAYS OF CREATION AND GEOLOGY (Gen. 1)
[ 2 ] WHEN WAS THE LIGHT CREATED? (Gen. 1)
[ 3 ] IS THE EARTH PART OF THE SUN (Gen. 1)
[ 4 ] ABOUT THE CREATION OF MAN (Gen. 1 & 2)
[ 5 ] THE SONS OF GOD AND THE SONS OF MEN (Gen. 6:2)
[ 6 ] MAKER OF PEACE AND CREATOR OF EVIL (Is. 45:7)
[ 7 ] WHAT IS THE MEANING OF "BUY A SWORD"? (Luke 22:36)
[ 8 ] THE THREE GUESTS OF ABRAHAM (Gen. 18:2)
[ 9 ] ALL WHO EVER CAME BEFORE ME ARE THIEVES AND ROBBERS (John 10:8)
[ 10 ] THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHERS ON THE CHILDREN (Ex. 20:5)
[ 11 ] THE COMMENDATION OF THE UNJUST STEWARD (Luke 16:8)
[ 12 ] "THIS GENERATION PASSED AWAY" (Matt. 24:34)
[ 13 ] THE BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY SPIRIT (Matt. 12:31)
[ 14 ] WHAT IS THE BOOK OF JASHER? (Josh. 10:13)
[ 15 ] THE APPEARANCE OF THE LORD TO SAUL (Acts 9 & 22)
[ 16 ] CHRIST BEFORE THE THIRTIETH
[ 17 ] LITTLE OF WINE (1 Tim. 5:23)
[ 18 ] THE POTTER AND THE CLAY (Rom. 9:20-21)
[ 19 ] IS THIS METEMPHSYCHOSIS? (Matt. 11:14)
[ 20 ] ABOUT THE MEANING OF THE "MAMMON OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS" (Luke 16:9)
[ 21 ] WHY FORGIVE THEM? (Luke 23:34)
[ 22 ] THE MEANING OF CERTAIN WORDS
[ 23 ] THE RICH AND ENTERING THE KINGDOM (Mark 10:24)
[ 24 ] WHICH HEAVEN DID THEY ASCEND TO? (John 3:13)
[ 25 ] WAS THE SIN OF ADAM ADULTERY? (Gen. 3:2)
[ 26 ] WHO IS MELCHIZEDEK? (Gen. 14; Heb. 7)
[ 27 ] DO NOT BE OVERLY RIGHTEOUS (Eccl. 7:16)
[ 28 ] DID JUDAS PARTAKE OF THE HOLY COMMUNION? (Mark 14; John 13)
[ 29 ] WERE SOLOMON AND SAMSON SAVED? (Heb. 11; 2 Sam. 7)
[ 30] THE MEANING OF "BE ANGRY AND DO NOT SIN" (Ps. 4; Rom. 12)
[ 31 ] DID ONE OR BOTH THIEVES BLASPHEME? (Matt 27:44)
[ 32] DID THE BAPTIST DOUBT? (Luke 7:19)
[ 34 ] WAS THE PLUCKING OF THE CORN TO EAT, STEALING? (Mark 2:23)
[ 35 ] FOR IN MUCH WISDOM IS MUCH GRIEF (Eccl. 1:18)
[ 36 ] ARE ALL EQUAL? (Matt. 20:1-14)
[ 37 ] IS IT OUR DAILY BREAD, OR OUR BREAD FOR TOMORROW? (Matt. 6:11)
[ 38 ] THEY WILL NOT TASTE DEATH. (Mark 9:1)
[ 39 ] SIGNS OF THE END OF THE WORLD (Matt. 24; 2 Thess.)
[ 40 ] THE ACCOUNT OF THE DEATH OF MOSES THE PROPHET (Deut. 34:5)
PART TWO Theological & Dogmatic Questions
(1) DOES MAN HAVE A FREE WILL OR NOT?
(4) MADNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR SINS
(5) DOES THE BODY (THE FLESH) SIN ALONE?
(7) DOES THE HOLY SPIRIT WORK IN THE UNBELIEVERS?
(8) WHEN DID THE DISCIPLES RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT?
(9) IS THERE A GOSPEL OF ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE?
(10) WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHRIST AS SON OF GOD AND US AS CHILDREN OF GOD?
(12) WHY - AFTER SALVATION - DO MEN TOIL AND WOMEN CONCEIVE
(13) WHY DID WE NOT DIE IMMEDIATELY AFTER SINNING?
(15) OUR ATTITUDE TOWARDS THE LORD CHRIST'S BLOOD.
(16) HOW CAN HE DIE THOUGH HE IS GOD?
(17) HOW DID THE LORD CHRIST DIE WHILE HIS DIVINITY WAS NOT SEPARATED FROM HIS HUMANITY?
(18) THE BODY OF THE LORD CHRIST IN THE CHURCH AND EUCHARIST.
(20) WHY DO WE BAPTISE BABES WHO HAVE NOT YET BELIEVED?
(21) WHY DOES ONE SIN AFTER RENEWAL OF BAPTISIM?
(22) CAN A BLESSING BE TAKEN FROM A HUMAN?
(23) THE HOLY TRINITY OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE SO CALLED TRINITY OF HEATHEN.
(24) DOES INCARNATION MEAN LIMITATION?
(26) WHAT DOES SITTING ON THE RIGHT OF THE FATHER MEAN?
(27) WHAT IS THE MEANING OF PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE?
(28) HAVE CHRIST'S MIRACLES BEEN WORKED BY IMPRESSION?
(29) DID CHRIST WORK HIS MIRACLES BY PRAYER?
(30) IS THE TITLE "SON OF MAN" AGAINST CHRIST'S DIVINITY?
(33) THOSE WHOM THE CHURCH DOES NOT PRAY FOR.
(34) THOSE WHO WERE FORGIVEN BEFORE THE CROSS
(35) HOW CAN IT BE THAT CHRIST PRAYS & GETS TIRED?
[ 1 ] THE ORIGIN OF BAD THOUGHTS
[ 3 ] SHOULD ONE GIVE FROM TITHES TO RELATIVES?
[ 4 ] MY OWN FINANCIAL NEEDS AND PAYING THE TITHES
[ 5 ] BEING NOSEY, AND PRYING INTO OTHER PEOPLE'S BUSINESS
[ 6 ] IS THIS VOW PERMISSIBLE OR FORBIDDEN
[ 8 ] RESPONSIBILITY FOR A SIN WHICH ONE HAS NOT COMMITTED
[ 9 ] IS SOCIAL SERVICE THE WORK OF THE CHURCH OR THAT OF THE STATE?
[ 10 ] HYMNS SUNG TO POPULAR TUNES
[ 13 ] PUNISHMENT AND THE AGE OF GRACE
[ 14 ] WHAT DOES "TO THE JEWS I BECAME LIKE A JEW" MEAN?
[ 15 ] HOW TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS
[ 16 ] ACTING QUICKLY OR TAKING ONE'S TIME
[ 17 ] IN PRIVATE OR IN PUBLIC
[ 18 ] CRITICISM AND CONDEMNATION
[ 19 ] SHOULD THE SACRAMENTS BE SOLD?
[ 20 ] WHAT DOES 'I HAVE KEPT YOU FROM SINNING AGAINST ME' MEAN?
[21] SINS ARE NOT EQUAL IN DEGREE, NOR IN PUNISHMENT
[22] THE VIEW OF CHRISTIANITY REGARDING ORGAN TRANSPLANTS
[ 25 ] THE HIGHEST VIRTUE OF ALL
[ 26 ] FOLLOWING THE LIVES OF THE SAINTS.
[ 27 ] WHETHER IT IS NECESSARY TO KNOW HOW TO READ AND WRITE IN ORDER TO BE A MONK OR A NUN
[ 28 ] THE MEEK WILL INHERIT THE EARTH
[ 30 ] EVERYONE WHO HAS WILL BE GIVEN MORE
[ 31 ] THE REAL ELEMENTS OF STRENGTH
[ 32 ] IF YOUR EYE OR HAND CAUSES YOU TO SIN
[ 34 ] THE ATTITUDE OF CHRISTIANITY TOWARDS WINE
[ 35 ] GOD'S WILL AND PERMISSION
[ 37 ] THE SPIRITUAL LIFE AND TROUBLES
[ 38 ] BEING PERFECT WHAT DOES IT MEAN ? AND WHAT ARE ITS LIMITS
[ 39 ] PEOPLE WHO HAVE CONFESSED BUT WHOSE SINS HAVE NOT BEEN FORGIVEN
[ 40 ] THE SPIRITUALITY OF THE MONKS AND LAYMEN
[ 41 ] JESUS CHRIST AND THE COMPLETION OF HIS MISSION
[ 42 ] THOUGHTS OF SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS
[ 43 ] WHO AM I? AND WHY HAVE I COME HERE?
[ 44 ] PRAYERS AND PROSTRATIONS
[ 1 ] THE SPIRITS AND THEIR WORK
[ 2 ] CAN THE SPIRITS RECOGNISE EACH OTHER?
[ 3 ] "NO-ONE HAS EVER SEEN GOD"
[ 4 ] HOW CAN SPIRITS SEE SPIRITS?
[ 5 ] THE CROWN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS
[ 7 ] JUSTIFIED FREELY BY HIS GRACE
[ 8 ] CONCERNING THE JEWISH RELIGION
[ 9 ] PRAYING FOR THE DECEASED
[ 10 ] IS THERE AN ETERNITY FOR THE WICKED AND FOR SATAN?
[ 11 ] DID GOD NEED CHRIST IN ORDER TO CREATE AND TO SAVE MANKIND
[ 12 ] THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE APOSTLES WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT
[ 13 ] HOW CAN I TELL WHICH LEAFLETS ARE ORTHODOX AND WHICH ARE NOT?
[ 14 ] CONCERNING THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST..
[ 15 ] IS THERE LIFE ON THE OTHER PLANETS?
[ 16 ] REPLYING TO A QUESTION WITH A VERSE
[ 17 ] QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HOLY SPIRIT
[ 18 ] WAS THE HOLY SPIRIT THE ANGEL GABRIEL?
[ 19 ] WHY ARE THERE SEVEN MYSTERIES OR (SACRAMENTS)?
[ 20 ] ARE THE SACRAMENTS NECESSARY FOR ALL PEOPLE?
[ 21 ] IS THE SACRAMENT STILL THE SAME WHEN A SHORTENED SERVICE IS USED?
[ 22 ] THE POINT OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION IN THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
[ 23 ] ABOUT THE PRAYER OF "THE UNCTION OF THE SICK" BEING SAID IN HOMES
[ 25 ] CAN SATAN ENTER A CHURCH?
[ 26 ] FASTING AND EATING FISH
[ 27 ] THE ASCENT INTO HEAVEN AND THE EARTH'S GRAVITY
[ 29 ] GOD'S JUSTICE AND MERCY
[ 30 ] ABOUT BEING RE-BAPTISED
[ 31 ] IS THERE A THIRD PLACE FOR WORSHIPPING GOD?
[ 32 ] HAS SATAN BEEN RELEASED FROM HIS PRISON AND IS THE LAST DAY APPROACHING?
[ 33 ] WHO ARE THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS?
[ 34 ] WAS THE USE OF INCENSE ABOLISHED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT?
[ 36 ] AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER..
[ 38 ] WHEN SHOULD THE HOLY CHRISM (MYRON) BE MADE?
[ 39 ] THE MAKING OF THE HOLY MYRON IN THE MONASTERY OR IN THE PATRIARCHATE
[ 40 ] WHAT IS THE 'GHALILAUN ' ?
[ 41 ] WHERE SHOULD THE OFFERTORY BREAD BE PLACED?
[ 42 ] WHEN SHOULD THE ORDINARY BREAD BE DISTRIBUTED?
[ 43 ] THE DEACONS AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE EULOGIA
[ 44 ] THE DEACONS AND TAKING COMMUNION
[ 45 ] CAN A DEACON HOLD THE CHALICE DURING THE COMMUNION SERVICE?
[ 46 ] A FUNERAL PROCESSION FOR A DEACON WHO HAS DEPARTED
[ 47 ] PREACHING DURING COMMUNION
[ 48 ] THE SUNDAY PRECEDING THE LENT AND GETTING MARRIED
[ 49 ] WHY WOMEN ARE NOT PERMITTED TO ENTER THE SANCTUARY
[ 50 ] ABOUT WOMEN DURING MENSTRUATION TIME
[ 51 ] WHY WE BEATIFY THE VIRGIN MARY
[ 52 ] CONCERNING HONOURING THE BODY OF THE VIRGIN MARY
[ 53 ] IS THE VIRGIN THE "GATEWAY" TO LIFE?
[ 55 ] THE VIRGIN MARY AS A 'WALL'
[ 56 ] WAS THE VIRGIN MARY EVER A BRIDE?
[ 57 ] IS THE VIRGIN MARY A 'SISTER' TO US?
[ 58 ] DID THE VIRGIN MARY KNOW?
[ 59 ] DID CHRIST HAVE ANY REAL BROTHERS?
[ 60 ] THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MARY AND ELIZABETH
The history of questions with me is lengthy. Since I have
been ordained a Bishop on September 30,1962, over twenty-
five years ago, I adopted a specific method in teaching and
preaching: to give a chance for the audience to introduce
their questions and have them answered before the beginning
of the main lecture.
This way thousands of questions accumulated before me
during the thousands of lectures that I have given, in the
weekly spiritual meetings, on Friday evenings; the Bible
study meetings on Tuesday (1968-1972); the theological
lectures on Wednesday; my meetings with the priests; with
the Sunday school teachers and their conferences; the
meetings of college societies; general meetings in
Alexandria, on Sunday; the lectures that were given in the
theological seminary in Alexandria and Cairo; or the spiritual
meetings during my visits to churches and dioceses.
Even before my monastic life, I used to answer the spiritual
questions of the readers of the Sunday school magazine and
the questions followed me everywhere, even in the
monastery.
The questions varied some around biblical verses, some
about theology, doctrines, ministry, spiritual life or social
relationships and many other subjects.. I excluded what
was repetitious, personal, or what I answered with one
sentence or a joke.
I chose what was fit from the questions for publication, so
the people would not have to ask the same questions again
and to have almost uniform answers to such questions.
Pope Shenouda III
Question
How can the saying of the Bible that God created the
world in six days coincide with the opinion of the
geologists that the age of the earth is thousands even
millions of years?
Answer:
The days of creation are not Solar days as our days now.
The day of creation is a period of time, not known how long,
which could haven been a second or thousands or millions of
years. This period was determined by the saying "so the
evening and the morning were..."
The evidences for this are many, among which are:
1. The Solar day is the period of time between the sunrise
and its rising again or between the sunset and its setting
again. Since the sun was only created on the fourth day
(Gen. 1:16-19)., then the first four days were not solar
days.
2. As for the seventh day, the Bible did not state that it
has ended.
The Bible did not say [so the evening and the morning were
the seventh day], and thousands of years passed from Adam
till now while this seventh day is still going on. Accordingly,
the days of creation are not Solar days but unknown periods
of time.
3. As a whole, the Bible said about all the creation and its six
days: ". This is the history of the heavens and the earth
when they were created, in the day that the LORD God
made the earth and the heavens," (Gen. 2:4).
So the Bible summed up in the word (day) all the six
days of creation...
Let the geologists say then whatever they want about the age
of the earth; for the Bible did not mention any age for the
earth that may contradict the views of the geologists.
The way the Lord looks to the measurement of time is
explained by the apostle as follows: "With the Lord one day
is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day " (2
Pet. 3:8).
Question
The Book of Genesis states that God created the light on
the first day (Gen 1:3), while it states that the sun, moon
and stars were created on the fourth day (Gen. 1:14-18).
What is the difference between the two matters?
And was the light created on the first day or the fourth?
Answer:
God created light on the first day as the Bible indicated.
But, what light? It is the substance of light, the shining mass
of fire from which God made the sun, the moon and the stars
on the fourth day. On the fourth day also God established
the astronomical laws and the permanent relation between
these celestial bodies...
Question:
I have read in a book a criticism of the story of creation
as mentioned in the first chapter of the Book of Genesis.
How can the earth be part of the sun as the scientists
say, while the Bible states that the sun was created on
the fourth day after the creation of the earth? So how
can the earth be part of something that was created later
on?
Answer:
Scientists do not say that the earth was part of the sun and
separated from it, otherwise the sun will be missing this
portion.
What scientists say is that earth is part of the solar system
and not of the sun itself. It was part of the Nebula; that fiery
mass which was no doubt luminous. This Nebula is what the
Bible meant by saying on the first day "Then God said, let
there be light, and there was light."
Earth was part of this mass and separated from it. The earth
gradually cooled down until its surface became completely
cool and on the third day became fit to grow
plants and trees on, using the light and heat radiating from
the Nebula.
On the fourth day, from this mass God created, the sun,
moon, stars, meteors and all other celestial bodies and
regulated the interrelations and the movement of these
bodies.
The sun, on the fourth day, remained as it is; a whole with
the earth attached to it, but God set the relation between
earth and sun, moon and other stars and planets through the
astronomical laws.
Question:
In Genesis there are two stories about the creation of
man, the first is in the first chapter where God created
man; male and female, and the second is in the second
chapter where Adam and Eve were created. Do these
two accounts coincide with each other.
Answer:
The story of making man is one story for the same man.
The account is mentioned as a whole in the first chapter
but in detail in the second chapter.
In the first chapter, the making of man was part of all the
process of creation. Then the details came in the second
chapter about how Adam was created of dust then God
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; how Eve was
created from one of Adams'ribs. It also mentioned the
feelings of Adam before and after making Eve and giving
Adam and Eve their names.
The two accounts are integral; in the first you find the given
blessing and the allowed foods and in the second you find
how they were created, the names given to them and a hint
about Paradise.
Question:
(Gen. 6:2) describes before the account of the flood "that
the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were
beautiful,. and they took wives for themselves of all
whom they chose." Who are the sons of God? and who
are the daughters of men?
Answer:
The sons of God are the descendants of Seth and the
daughters of men are the descendants of Cain.
After the slaying of Abel the righteous, Adam begot another
son and named him Seth, "for God has appointed another
seed for me instead of Abel" (Gen. 4:25) “And as for Seth,
to him also a son was born; and he named him Enosh. Then
men began to call on the name of the LORD.” (Gen. 4:26).
In the genealogy of Jesus Christ it is mentioned that "the son
of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God."
(Luke 3:38).
The sons of Seth were called the sons of God for they were
the sanctified offspring from which Noah came, then
Abraham, then David, then Christ through whom all the
tribes of the earth were blessed. They are the believers that
belong to God; those took the blessing of Adam (Gen. 1:28)
and then the blessing of Noah (Gen. 9:1).
It was good that God called some humans His sons
before the flood.
The sons of Cain were not attributed to God for the curse
that befell Cain, befell them also (Gen. 4:11) and they
walked in the way of corruption so they were called the sons
of men and they all drowned by the flood.
Question:
Isn't God the absolute goodness? How then is it said
about Him that He is the maker of peace and creator of
evil (Is. 45:7) while evil doesn't agree with God's nature.
Answer:
We should know first the meaning of the word "good" and
the word "evil" in the biblical terminology for they have
more than one meaning.
The word "evil" could mean sin which is not the case in the
verse "creator of evil" in (Is. 45:7).
"Evil" meaning sin doesn't agree with the goodness of
the Lord for He is the absolute goodness. But it comes
also in the Bible to mean tribulations and hardships.
The word "good" has also two contradicting meanings: it
could mean righteousness - opposite of sin, and it could
mean opposite of tribulations - richness, blessing, abundance
and various kinds gifts.
* This is very clear in the story of Job the Righteous, when
the tribulations befell him and his wife grumbled, he rebuked
her saying " "You speak as one of the foolish women speaks.
Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not
accept adversity?" (Job. 2:10).
Job did not mean by the word "evil" here "sin"; for no
sin befell him from the Lord but he meant by evil the
tribulations he underwent.
As for the death of his children, the destruction of his house
and the plundering of his oxen, donkeys, sheep and camels,
all these tribulations and calamities commonly known as evil,
the Bible says " when Job's three friends heard of all this
adversity that had come upon him, each one came from his
own place; to mourn with him and to comfort him."
(Job.2:11)
With the same concept the Lord had spoken about His
punishment for the people of Israel saying "'Behold, I will
bring calamity on this place and on its inhabitants, all the
curses that are written in the book” (2 Chr. 34:24). Surely
the Lord here did not mean by evil the sin.
What He meant by evil was the captivity of the children
of Israel, their defeat before their enemies and the other
afflictions that He brought upon them to punish them.
* Another example is the saying of the Lord about Jerusalem
"Behold, I will bring such a catastrophe on this place, that
whoever hears of it, his ears will tingle " (Jer. 19:3) The Lord
mentioned the details of that evil saying "I will cause them to fall
by the sword before their enemies... their corpses I will give as
meat for the birds of the heavens and for the beasts of the earth.
I will make this city desolate and a hissing... even so I will break
this people and this city, as one breaks a potter's vessel, which
can not be made whole again" (Jer. 19:7-11).
* The same meaning is given in the Book of Amos. (Amos 9:4).
* In the promises of the Lord to rescue the people of Israel from
captivity, difficulties and defeat “For thus says the LORD: 'Just
as I have brought all this great calamity on this people, so I will
bring on them all the good that I have promised them.” (Jer.
32:42) the word evil meant captivity and the promise was to
return them from captivity.
The word "good" here does not mean righteousness or godliness as
it is also clear that the word "evil" here did not mean sin.
The word good means also blessings, wealth, and prosperity.
The Psalm says " Who satisfies your mouth with good things, So
that your youth is renewed like the eagle's" (Ps. 103:5) and the
Lord says in (Jer. 5:25) " Your iniquities have turned these
things away, And your sins have withheld good from you."
In the same meaning also it is said about the Lord that He is "the
maker of good and creator of evil" which means He gives the
blessings and prosperity and also He allows afflictions and
adversities.
If the word evil means afflictions, then it can be from God. He
wants or allows it as a discipline for people or to urge them to
repent or for any spiritual benefit that might be gained from
these afflictions (James 1:2-4).
The phrase "creator of evil" or "maker of evil" means whatever the
people regard as evil or trouble or tribulation which also might be
for good.
Examples for good in the sense of righteousness, and for evil in
the sense of sin:
+ " for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those
who do good." (1 Pet. 2:14).
+ Also "Depart from evil, and do good. " (Ps. 34:14).
+ And the saying of the Lord " your little ones and your children,
who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of
good and evil" (Deut. 1:39) and also the verse "the tree of
knowledge of good and evil" (Gen. 2:9).
Accordingly the verse "He treated him well" means helped him,
aided, rescued, had mercy and gave him good gifts and presents.
On the other hand the verse "you meant evil against me" means to
harm him.
When the Lord brings evil on a nation, it means put them
under the rod of correction by tribulations and plagues which
are considered evil.
Question:
How can the Lord Christ he the maker of peace and the
king of peace, and at the same time tell His disciples "he
who has no sword let him sell his garment and buy one.”
(Luke 22:36)
"What did He mean by ordering His disciples to buy a
sword? Why when they told Him "here are two swords
He replied "it is enough." (Luke 22:38).
Answer:
The Lord Christ absolutely did not mean the sword in its
literal sense.
As an evidence of that, hours after He said this statement,
and during His arrest "Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it
and struck the high priest servant and cut off his ear... then
Jesus said to Peter: put your sword into the sheath'' (John
18:10-11), "for all who take the sword will perish by the
sword. " (Matt. 26:51-52). If the Lord was asking
them to use the sword, he would not have stopped Peter
from using the sword in such circumstances.
But the Lord meant the symbolic meaning of the sword
which is the spiritual struggle.
The Lord was talking to them on his way to Gethsemane
(Luke 22:39) in His last minutes before His arrest to be
crucified. He said "Let him sell his garments and buy a
sword" then right after that He said 'for I say to you that
this which is written must still be accomplished in Me", "and
He was numbered with the transgressors"(Luke 22:37).
What is the common line between these two statements? It
seems as if He was telling them, while I was with you, I
guarded you, I was the sword that protected you, but now I
am going to give myself up in the hands of sinners and the
saying "numbered with transgressors" will be fulfilled... then
take care of yourselves and struggle.
Since I am going to leave you, every one of you should
fight the spiritual fight, and buy a sword.
St. Paul had spoken about "the sword of the spirit" in his
epistle to the Ephesians and about: "the whole armour of
God, the breast plate of righteousness, and the shield of
faith" (Eph. 6:11-17). That is what the Lord Christ meant
by that; so we might be able to be steadfast in face of the
snares of Satan in these spiritual fights.
The disciples did not understand that spiritual symbol at
that time so they answered: here are two swords.
As He told them before in the same symbolic concept
"Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees" (Luke 21:1), He
meant their hypocrisy but they thought He spoke about the
bread (Mark 8:17). In the same manner they answered Him,
when He talked to them about the sword of the spirit, here
are two swords, so He replied that "It is enough"... It is
enough discussion in this subject since there wasn't enough
time... He did not mean the swords by the statement "It is
enough" otherwise He would say they are enough...
We should distinguish between what the Lord meant to
be understood symbolically and what literally. The flow
of the conversation usually indicates that.
Question:
Who were the three that Abraham the patriarch hosted
in Genesis 18? Were they the Holy Trinity? Was
Abraham's worshipping them an indication of that? He
talked to them at times in plural and at other times in
singular, is that a proof for the Trinity?
Answer:
We cannot say that these three were the Holy Trinity.
For there is no clear separation in the Trinity as it is the case
here. The Son says "I and My Father are One. " (John
10:30) and says "I am in the Father, and the Father in Me;
He who has seen Me has seen the Father" (John 14:9-10)
and it was also said about the Father "no one has ever seen
God" (John 1:18).
The prostration of Abraham was the prostration of respect,
not of worshipping. As Abraham bowed himself before the
sons of Heth when he bought from them the Cave of
Machpelah (Gen. 23:7).
If Abraham had known that he was before the Lord, he would
not have offered them butter, milk, bread and meat and said
"rest yourselves under the tree. And I will bring a morsel of
bread that you may refresh your hearts. After that you may
pass by. " (Gen. 18:4-8).
The three were the Lord and with Him two angels.
The two angels, after the meeting, went on to Sodom (Gen.
18:16 & 22; Gen. 19:1) and Abraham remained standing before
the Lord (Gen. 18:22) interceding for Sodom (Gen. 18:23).
When our father Abraham saw these three men, while he was
sitting at the tent door, they surely were not in the same
magnificence or reverence. The Lord no doubt was
distinguished from the angels in reverence and glory, and
perhaps the two angels were walking behind Him.
Therefore our father Abraham talked to the Lord in the
singular considering Him the representative of this group.
He said to Him "My Lord, if I have now found favour in Your
sight, do not pass on by Your servant. Please let a little water
be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the
tree". By all means, 0 Lord allow the two with You, so a little
water be brought, and wash their feet.
For this reason, our father Abraham at times talked in the
singular and at other times in the plural. An example of that, if
you meet an officer and two soldiers with him, you will
address the conversation to the officer about himself and
include the two soldiers at the same time.
As we mentioned, the three were the Lord along with two
angels. The two angels went to Sodom (Gen. 19:1) and the
third remained with Abraham.
It is clear that the third was the Lord and the evidences
are:
He told Abraham "I will certainly return to you according to
the time of life, and behold, Sarah your wife shall have a son"
(Gen. 18:10). Furthermore the same chapter clearly indicates
that He was the Lord in many verses:
* And the Lord said to Abraham, "why did Sarah laugh" (Gen.
18:13).
* And the Lord said "shall I hide from Abraham what I am
doing" (Gen. 18:17).
* And the Lord said "Because the outcry against Sodom and
Gomorrah is great" (Gen. 18:20).
Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom,
but Abraham still stood before the Lord. (Gen. 18:22).
* The saying of Abraham, "shall not the judge of all the
earth do right?" no doubt indicates that he was talking to
God as in the rest of his conversation interceding for
Sodom.
* The way Abraham put his words "Indeed now, I who am but
dust and ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord".
* And the way the Lord put His words "If I find in Sodom fifty
righteous... I will spare all the place for their sakes" "I will not
do it if I find thirty there" "I will not destroy it for the sake of
ten". It is clear those were the words of God who Has the
authority to condemn and to forgive.
But the other two, were the angels that went to Sodom as it
is clear from the verses (Gen. 18:16,22) & (Gen. 19:1) and
their known account with Lot in (Gen. 19).
The fact that the three were separated is an indication that
they were not the Holy Trinity.
Two went to Sodom and the third remained with Abraham to
talk to him about giving Sarah an offspring and listen to his
intercession for Sodom.
This separation fits more talking about God and the two angels
but not about the Trinity.
Question:
What is the meaning of the statement of the Lord "I am
the door of the sheep all who ever come before Me, are
thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them "
(John 10:7-8). Is it believable to say about all the
prophets that came before Him that they were thieves
and robbers?!
Answer:
The Lord Christ, absolutely did not mean by this
statement the prophets.
Here He talked about those who did not enter from the door
by saying "I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold
by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a
thief and a robber" (John 10:1), but the prophets had
entered through the door and were sent by the heavenly
Father.
Who are those thieves then?
They are those who came shortly before Christ, led
people astray and Gamaliel talked about them.
When the chief priests brought the Apostles before them in
the council, to judge them for their preaching the
resurrection of the Lord, said to them "look, you have filled
Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's
blood on us" (Acts 5:28); "they took council to kill them"
(Acts 5:33). Then one in the council stood up, a Pharisee
named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law held in respect by all
the people and commanded them to put the apostles outside,
and he said to the members of the council: "Take heed to
yourselves what you intend to do regarding these men."
For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be
somebody.
A number of men, about four hundred, joined him. He was
slain, and all who obeyed him were scattered and came to
nothing.
After this man, Judas of Galilee rose up in the days of the
census, and drew away many people after him. He also
perished, and all who obeyed him were dispersed.
And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let
them alone, for if this plan or this work is of men, it will
come to nothing, but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it
lest you even be found to fight against God" (Acts 5:34-39).
About those as Theudas and Judas of Galilee, the Lord
Christ said, they were thieves and robbers.
Those that came before Him and claimed to be somebody
and drew away many people after them, were dispersed.
We can add to them, those false teachers who troubled the
people with their teachings and Christ called them "blind
guides" who had the keys of the kingdom, they did not enter
and prevented others from entering. (Matt. 23:13-15).
Question:
Could the iniquity of the fathers visit the children as the
Bible says in (Ex. 20:5) and as we say "The fathers ate
sour grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge"?
Answer:
The fathers can hand down to their children physically
the result of their sins or sicknesses.
The parent could sin and as a result of his or her sin they
may have contract a sickness and then the son or the
daughter could inherit that sickness. The children could be
stricken by mental or neurological diseases, some blood
disorders or congenital defects as a result of what was
inherited from their parents.
Often the sickness of the children and their suffering are a
cause of pain for the parents especially if they knew that the
sickness was a result of their sins.
The children might inherit ill-nature or bad character
from their parents.
But this is not a rule; king Saul was cruel, merciless and of
bad character. His son Jonathan was the opposite. Jonathan
was a friend of David. He loved him and was faithful to him.
Even if the children inherit ill-nature from their parents, they
can with ease get rid of it if they wish.
A son can inherit poverty or debts because of his father's
mistakes...
He suffers because of it, of course on earth, and that would
have nothing to do with his eternal life. Many are the end
results that the saying of the poet agrees with (This is what
my father inflicted upon me, and I did not inflict on anyone).
As for judging the children for the sins that were committed
personally by their parents, the Bible has refuted completely
as written in he Book of Ezekiel "what do you mean when
you use this proverb... the fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge? 'As I live' says the
Lord God, you shall no longer use this proverb the soul who
sins shall die... "
The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the
father bear the guilt of the son:
"The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and
the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself. (Ezek.
18:1-20).
The righteous Jonathan did not bear the evil of his father king
Saul nor Josiah the righteous king the sin of Aaron his father or
Manasseh his grandfather or the rest of his forefathers.
The curses of the law in the Old Testament was abolished in
the New Testament. As we say in the Anaphora of St.
Gregory:
[You have lifted the curse of the Law].
As an example of this curse, Canaan, did bear the curse of his
father Ham, (Gen. 9:22-25) and his sons also bore it till the
days of the Lord Christ and not only till the fourth generation.
Now, we are in the era of "grace and truth" (John 1:17) so do
not be afraid of the curse of the Law which was inherited by the
children from their grandfathers.
Often the father could be evil but the son is righteous refusing
to walk in his father's footsteps, and even he might resist him as
the Lord says, "He who loves father or mother more than Me is
not worthy of Me." (Matt. 10:37).
Naturally it would be unjust for God to visit the sins of this evil
father on his righteous son who deserves to be rewarded.
Question:
The Bible says "So the Master commended the unjust
steward" (Luke 16:8). How did the Lord commend the
unjust steward?
Answer:
The Lord did not commend all his actions, He only
commended his wisdom.
The conclusion of this verse says "so the master commended
the unjust steward because he had done wisely". This man was
prepared for whatever the future might bring him before he was
discharged from his stewardship. This readiness in this parable
symbolises the readiness that we should have toward eternity
before we depart from this world.
The Lord, by this parable admonishes us by the wisdom
which the people of the world have.
So if the people of this world in spite of their sins, have such
wisdom then the sons of God should also have it. For
immediately after praising the unjust steward on his wisdom
He said, 'for the sons of this world are more shrewd in their
generation than the sons of light" (Luke 16:8). The Lord is
reproaching us by the parable of the unjust steward who being a
son of this world, knew how to be ready for his future.
We need to bring up an important point in this parable and other
parables like it:
There is a specific point of comparison, not a generalised
one.
For example if we praise the lion, we do not praise its
savageness and wildness but we praise its strength and courage.
If we describe a man as a lion we do not mean that he is an
animal or a savage but we praise him for his strength and
courage. Also in the parable of the unjust steward the praise
was for one specific point only which is the wisdom of being
ready for the future, not his other qualities.
Here we give another example to clarify this point: The
serpent, which is the cause of the calamity and fall of the human
race, the Lord found a nice thing about it that we might adopt,
He said:
"Be wise as serpents... " (Matt. 10:16)
Does that mean that we should be like the serpent in every
thing? While it is a symbol of wickedness, evil and cunning.
The only point that God praised in the serpent is the wisdom, so
the resemblance is only limited to this quality, as with the unjust
steward.
38
Question:
The Lord Christ in chapter 24 of the gospel of St.
Matthew talked about the signs of the time and the end
of the age saying " Assuredly, I say to you, this generation
will by no means pass away till all these things take place
" (Matt. 24:34). This generation had passed and many
other generations after it and the world did not end ... !
How can we explain that'?
Answer:
In fact the Lord Christ in (Matt. 24) and also in (Mark 13) was
talking about two subjects: the destruction of Jerusalem and the
end of the world and not about the latter only.
His saying "this generation will by no means pass away till
all these things are fulfilled" meant the realisation of His
prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem. This was
fulfilled when Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70 AD and
the Jews were dispersed all over the earth and that generation
was still around.
Other prophecies of the Lord Christ in this chapter regarding
the destruction of Jerusalem, not the end of the world are as
follows:
39
+ "Matt. 24:15-20 "Therefore when you see the 'abomination
of desolation,' spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the
holy place" (whoever reads, let him understand), "then let those
who are in Judea flee to the mountains. "Let him who is on the
housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. "And
let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. "But
woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing
babies in those days! "And pray that your flight may not be in
winter or on the Sabbath."
+ " Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and kill you,
and you will be hated by all nations for My name's sake. "And
then many will be offended, will betray one another..." (Matt.
24:9-10).
+ "Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the
other left. "Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be
taken and the other left. " (Matt. 24:40-41)
Therefore, do not take the whole chapter as prophecies
about the end of the world.
The phrase “the coming of the Son of Man " means the second
coming at the end of the age and it also means His coming as
far as the life of every human, as He said "Blessed are those
servants whom the master, when he comes, will find watching...
therefore you also be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at
an hour you do not except... blessed is that servant whom his
master will find so doing when he comes" (Luke 12:37,40,43).
Also "lest, coming suddenly He find you sleeping" (Mark
13:36).
Question:
The verse that says "Therefore I say to you, every sin and
blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy
against the Spirit will not be forgiven " (Matt. 12:31)
alarm me very much. Sometimes I think that I
committed the sin of blasphemy so I fall into despair.
Please explain the meaning of the blasphemy against the
Holy Spirit? And how is that there is no forgiveness
either in this age or in the age to come? How does this
unforgiveness coincide with the mercy of God and His
many promises?
Answer:
All your fears are temptations from the devil to make you fall
into despair so be comforted.
As for the meaning of the blasphemy against the Spirit and
the sin that is without forgiveness, this, with the grace of
God I shall explain to you.
The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is not the unbelief in
the Holy Spirit or His Divinity or His work and it is not
insulting of the Holy Spirit. If the atheists believe, God forgives
them for their unbelief and their mockery of God and His Holy
Spirit. All those who followed Macedonius in his heresy and his
denial of the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, when repented the church
accepted, them and forgave them.
What then is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? And why
there is no forgiveness for it?
The blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the complete and
continuous refusal of any work of the Spirit in the heart which
is a life time refusal.
As a result of this refusal, man does not repent and accordingly
God does not forgive him.
God in His mercy accepts every repentance and forgives as He
said, "The one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out"
(John 6:37) and the saints were correct in their saying: "All that
the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to
Me I will by no means cast out".
[There is no sin without forgiveness except that without
repentance].
So if a person dies in his sin without repentance, he will perish as
the Lord said "Unless you repent you will all likewise perish "
(Luke 13:5).
Then non repentance till death is the only sin that is without
forgiveness. If the matter is so, that brings up a question:
What is the relation between lack of repentance and the
blasphemy against the Holy Spirit?
Obviously, a person cannot repent without the work of the Spirit
in him. For the Holy Spirit will reprove the world of sin (John
16:8) and lead the person in the spiritual life and encourage him.
He is the power that aids in every good work.
Without the communion of the Holy Spirit, no one can
accomplish any spiritual work.
So the refusal of the communion of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 13:14)
absolutely can not produce any good. For all the works of
righteousness the apostle had put under the title "fruit of the
Spirit" (GaL 5:22). That person without any fruit will be cut
down and thrown into the fire (Matt. 3:10) & (John 15:4-5).
He who refuses the Spirit, will not repent, and will not bring
forth any spiritual fruit.
If his refusal of the Spirit is a complete and life long refusal, then
he will spend all his life without repentance, without works of
righteousness and without fruit of the Spirit, so of course he will
perish. This is the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
It is not that the person grieves the Spirit (Eph. 4:30) or quenches
the Spirit (1Thess. 5:19) or resists the Spirit (Acts 7:51) but it is
the complete and persistent refusal of the Spirit. So he would not
repent and would not have fruits in a righteous life.
Here we are faced with a question:
What if a person refuses all works of the Spirit then turns back
and accepts Him and repents?
We say that his repentance and acceptance of the Spirit even just
before the end of his life, is an indication that the Spirit of God
still works in him and led him to repentance. Then his refusal of
the Spirit was not complete and not life long. A case like this is
not a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit according to the definition
mentioned before.
To fall into a sin that has no forgiveness is a form of a war of
the devil against us to make us fall into despair which will
destroy us, make us depressed; and that does not help us in any
spiritual work.
To the person that asked the question I say: the mere asking of the
question is an indication of your concern about eternal fate. This
is not blasphemy against the Spirit.
Now we need to answer the last part of the question.
How this unforgiveness coincides with the mercy of God?
God is always ready to forgive and nothing prevents His
forgiveness, but the important thing is that the person repents to
deserve forgiveness.
If the person refuses repentance, God waits for his repentance till
the uttermost breath of his life, as happened with the thief at the
Lord's right hand. If the person refuses to repent all his life and
refuses the work of the Spirit in him till the time of his death then
he not God-blessed be His name would be responsible for the
perishing of his soul.
Question:
What is the book of Jasher? Is it one of the Books of the
Holy Bible or the Torah (Pentateuch)? How was it
mentioned in the Book of Joshua and in the Book of 2
Samuel and yet it is not part of the Bible?
Answer:
The word "book" could mean any book; religious or secular.
The book of Jasher is an old secular book which included
the popular songs, that were in circulation among the
Jews, which were based on important religious and
secular events. Some of these songs were military songs for
the soldiers.
This book dates back to 1000-800 BC, more than 500 years
after Moses the Prophet. It contained things pertaining to
David the Prophet and his lamentation for king Saul.
It is not part of the Torah (Pentateuch) of Moses, for it
included events that happened many centuries after Moses.
People chanted some of the important historical events of
the olden times, and wrote hymns about these events and
gathered them in this book which grew by time and had
nothing to do with the Divine inspiration.
An example is: The battle of Gideon during the days of
Joshua, where the sun stood still. The people wrote songs
about this. These were added on to the book of Jasher.
Joshua referred to them saying "Is this not written in the
book of Jasher" (Josh. 10:13), which meant isn't this one of
the important current events, that because of its fame,
popular songs were written about, in secular books as the
book of Jasher.
Also, the beautiful and moving song, by which David
mourned king Saul and his son Jonathan, the people admired
and chanted it. They included it in their popular secular
books, since it concerned the killing of their first king along
with the successor to his throne. So when this event was
told in the Book of 2nd Samuel, it was said about it "indeed
it is written in the book of Jasher" (2 Sam. 1:17) which
meant that the lamentation of David became a popular song,
the people added it to their book of hymns known as the
Book of Jasher. This is exactly as we speak about a
famous event that is mentioned in the Holy Bible as it is
also mentioned in the history books.
Finally: did the Jews omit it from the Torah (the Pentateuch)
for a religious reason? and the answer is clear:
A. It is not part of the Torah. For the Torah is the five
Books of Moses which are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers and Deuteronomy.
B. If the Jews wanted to hide it for a religious reason,
they would not mention it in the Book of Joshua and the
Book of Samuel the Prophet.
C. The oldest and most famous translation of the Old
Testament which is the Septuagint that was written in the
third century BC does not include this book.
Question:
There are two accounts in the Book of the Acts of the
Apostles about the appearance of the Lord to Saul. It
seems that there are some contradictions between both
accounts, in what they saw or heard, please explain.
Answer:
The account of the appearance of the Lord to Saul recorded
in the ninth chapter, verse 7 states "And the men who
journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but
seeing no one. " The same incident also described in the
twenty second chapter, verse 9 states "Now those who were
with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did
not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. "
The key to this problem, is that the men who
accompanied St. Paul were not on the same spiritual
level to see what he saw and to hear what he heard.
This vision was not for them, the apparition of the Lord was
not for them and the conversation of the Lord was not with
them, but that all was only for Saul of Tarsus.
Nevertheless, there is no contradiction between the two
accounts as far as what the men heard or saw as we closely
examine both stories, we realise that the men who
accompanied Saul, heard his voice talking to the Lord,
but they did not hear the voice of the Lord when He
talked to Saul.
So if we read the two statements carefully, we realise what
proves that, without any contradiction:
1. Hearing a voice but seeing no one.
2. They saw the light but they did not hear the voice of Him
who spoke to Paul.
The voice that is mentioned in the first statement, is the
voice of Saul. They heard him talking without seeing with
whom he talked. The voice that they couldn't hear is that of
the one talking to Saul. Then there is no contradiction as
far as the voice is concerned.
It could have been contradicting, if it had been said in the
first statement "They heard the voice of he who spoke to
me" or "heard what I heard", but the word (voice) only
meant here the voice of Saul for the spiritual level of those
men is to hear the voice of a man but not the voice of the
Lord.
The same applies to the vision also: They saw the light, but
they did not see the person who was talking to Saul. This
is clear from the way the two statements were put:
1. seeing no one (Acts 9:7).
2. Saw the light and were afraid (Acts 22:9).
The light is one thing but the face and shape of the person
that was talking is another.
Question:
Why did the Bible not mention the biography of the
thirty years the Lord Christ spent before His ministry?
Did He go to China to study Buddhism as some say?
Answer:
It was not meant for the Holy Bible to be a book of
history.
If the Gospels were to mention all the events and the
historical details "even the world itself could not contain the
books that would be written" (John 21:25). The details of
one day in the life of the Lord Christ on earth with all the
teachings and miracles would alone need more than one
book.
The intent of the Gospel is to be the good tidings of
salvation, telling the history of our salvation.
Therefore the Gospels started by the miraculous birth of
Christ from a Virgin, the angels involved in the story of the
Divine birth, also the genealogy of Christ, and the fulfilment
of the prophecies pertaining to His birth. Then
they moved on to His baptism and the start of His ministry.
As an example of His childhood, His meeting with the elders
of the Jews and their astonishment of His answers (Luke
2:46)... was mentioned to point out His teaching abilities
since His young age.
But the claim that He went to China is unfounded.
This claim has no support from the Bible history or tradition.
Those who say that are anti-Christ whose purpose is to
mislead the people that Christ took His teachings from
Buddhism. Therefore it was proper for the Gospel to
mention the surpassing knowledge of Christ since His young
age so that the elders were astonished by His answers. He
did not need to go to China or elsewhere.
The teachings of the Lord Christ are superior to
Buddhism and to any other teaching.
Any learner can discover this unmeasurable superiority. It is
not the place here to compare, but if there were a
resemblance between His teaching and Buddhism, the
Buddhists would have believed in Him.
The magnificence of the Lord Christ is not confined only
to His teaching. Did He also take His majestic miracles
from Buddhism?!
Did He take from Buddhism the raising of the dead, opening
the eyes of the blind, the rebuking of the sea, walking on
water, the feeding of the multitudes, healing
the incurable diseases, casting out demons and the other
countless miracles.
Did He take from Buddhism the Salvation that He
offered to the world?
We should not let our imagination run about the thirty years
prior to His ministry. It is enough to know that the Lord
Christ started His public ministry according to the Law
(Num. 4:3, 23 & 47; 1 Chr. 23:3) when He was thirty.
What we need to know about the story of Salvation is the
ministry of Christ after His thirtieth year, added to that His
Virginal birth and all the prophecies and miracles around it.
Question:
Is there a verse in the Bible that says "A little wine is
good for the stomach". Does this verse encourage the
drinking of alcoholic beverages?
Answer:
There is no verse in the Bible with this wording, but this
is a common distorted saying among the people.
St. Timothy, the bishop and disciple of St. Paul the apostle,
suffered from many ailments in his digestive system, and it
was also said that he had dropsy. The apostle prescribed to
him not to drink much water and to take; as a treatment for
his special condition; a little wine, so he said to him "No
longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your
stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities." (1 Tim.
5:23).
We notice here that we have a specific patient, who has a
particular disease, needs a special treatment suitable for his
condition in a time medical sciences had not developed as it
is nowadays and at that time wine was used as medicine.
Then the Bible did not give a general ruling that a little
of wine is good for the stomach but the apostle gave a
treatment for a specific condition.
So if you had the same condition as Timothy and were in the
same time, this advice would be suitable for you. Nowadays,
even if you have the same disease of St. Timothy medical
sciences will offer you the most recent advances in remedies.
Notice, in the parable of the good Samaritan, that when he
found a wounded man by the road, "he bandaged his
wounds, pouring on oil and wine" (Luke 10:34). The
alcohol in the wine was used as an antiseptic to control
bleeding.
So all what we understand from the advice that was given to
St. Timothy is that:
The wine was prescribed as a treatment and not as a
pleasure and only for a special case.
This is also a matter of conscience; does every one who
partake of it now, take it only as a treatment and has no
other suitable treatment except it?
We are speaking about wine as a treatment. The subject of
wine and alcoholic beverages in detail is not the question.
Question:
Don't we say that man is free to choose? Then why are
these verses mentioned in the Bible: " But indeed, O
man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing
formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me
like this?" Does not the potter have power over the clay,
from the same lump to make one vessel for honour and
another for dishonour? "(Rom. 9:20-21)
Was it my fault then, if the potter made me a vessel of
dishonour?!
Answer:
Yes, the potter has power over the clay to make of it what
he desires, a vessel for honour or a vessel of dishonour and
the clay cannot say "Why did you make me like this?".
But the potter also is wise and just.
One of the wonderful explanations that I read about this
subject:
56
That the potter, with all his freedom and authority,
wisely looked at the piece of day. If he found it good,
soft and smooth, he would make of it a vessel for honour;
for its quality qualifies it for that.
It is illogical that a wise potter with a piece of high quality
clay, will make of it a vessel of dishonour, that would be
carelessness, far be it from God to do so!
If the clay was rough and of poor quality and not fit to be a
vessel for honour, the potter, because of the clay condition,
would make of it a vessel of dishonour.
With all possibilities, he will try to make of the clay, all the
clay in front of him, vessels of honour as far as the quality of
the clay allows it.
Then, after all, it depends on the quality of the clay and
how good it is, recognising the authority of the potter and
his freedom adding to that this wisdom and justice.
Therefore God said " Look, as the clay is in the potter's
hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel! "The
instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a
kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, "if
that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I
will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.
"And the instant I speak concerning a nation and
concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, "if it does
evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will
relent concerning the good with which I said I would
benefit it." (Jer. 18:6-10). Then the clay has the chance to
improve or change its fate.
This reminds us of the parable of the sower that went out
to sow (Matt. 13:3-8).
The sower is the same as the seeds are the same and the
sower wishes all to grow, but according to the nature of the
earth on which the seeds fell, was the result, growing or
spoiling. The sower did not prepare the seeds to be
devoured by birds, or wither away or be choked by the
thorns but the nature of the earth controlled that.
Do not say then, "was it my fault that I became a vessel of
dishonour?!"
Be a good and soft clay in the hand of the great potter
and be assured that He will make of you a vessel of
honour, and the matter is still in your hand.
Question:
What does the Bible mean by saying that John the
Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke
1:17), and its saying: he is Elijah who is to come. (Matt.
11:14). Is this metempsychosis (reincarnation)? Did the
spirit of Elijah reincarnate in John?
Answer:
The coming of John in the spirit of Elijah, means he
came with the same style of Elijah, his manner, his
method and his spirit of doing things.
1. Elijah was ascetic, and also was John the Baptist. Elijah
“was a hairy man, and wore a leather belt around his waist"
(2 Kin. 1:8), and John "himself was clothed in camel's hair,
with a leather belt around his waist" (Matt. 3:4). They both
had the same look and same clothes.
Elijah lived in the wilderness, on Mount Carmel (1 Kin.
18:19 & 24), in a cave on Horeb, the mountain of God (1
Kin. 18:9), in an upper room (1 Kin. 17:19) or at the brook
cherish (1 Kin. 1 7:3) and John the Baptist was in the
wilderness (Matt. 3:1; Luke 3:2) and then beside the Jordan
river. He was the voice of one crying in the wilderness
(Mark 1:3).
2. Elijah started with the life of solitude and contemplation
and the Lord chose him for ministry and prophecy. John also
lived the life of solitude in the wilderness; then started
preaching repentance.
3. Elijah was courageous and firm in the truth. He killed the
prophets of Baal (1 Kin 18:40), and also said " And fire
came down from heaven and consumed him and his fifty." (2
Kin. 1:10). John the Baptist was harsh in admonishing the
sinners. He used to say, "And even now the axe is laid to the
root of the trees. Therefore every tree which does not bear
good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire " (Luke 3:9).
4. Elijah rebuked king Ahab and told him, "Is that you, 0
troubler of Israel?... but you and your father's house
have, in that you have forsaken the commandments of the
LORD and have followed the Baals " (1 Kin. 18:18). He
also rebuked and warned him for the slaying of Naboth
the Jezreelite (1 Kin. 21:20-29), and he also vowed the
punishment of queen Jezebel.
John the Baptist rebuked king Herod saying, "It is not lawful
for you to have your brother's wife" (Mark 6:18).
Then John was acting with the same spirit as Elijah and his
method.
Elisha requested from his teacher Elijah before he was taken
away to heaven, "Let a double portion of your spirit be upon
me" (1 Kin. 2:9) and it was. So when Elisha performed
miracles with the same strength as Elijah and the sons of the
prophets saw him they said, "The spirit of Elijah rests on
Elisha and they came to meet him, and bowed to the ground
before him." (2 Kin. 2:14-15).
If the matter is transmigration of souls, what is the meaning
of the phrase "double portion of Elijah's spirit". Did Elijah
have two spirits? Did his spirit reincarnate in Elisha before it
was reincarnated in John?!
It was a double strength, double the power that was in
Elijah, that came down upon Elisha and the same power
was in John.
When the apostle said, " endeavouring to keep the unity of
the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one
Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling "
(Eph. 4:3-4), he did not mean literally that we all should
have one spirit or one body but the same course, way, and
style. The same meaning about the phrase, "One heart and
one soul", that was said about those who believed in the
apostolic age. (Acts 4:32)
Christianity does not believe in the reincarnation of the
spirits.
When the spirit leaves a body, it does not return again to this
body or to any other body. If it is righteous it goes to
Paradise as the spirit of the thief, but if it is evil it goes to
Hades as the spirit of the rich man while Lazarus' spirit went
to Paradise.
You find reincarnation in a religion like Brahmanism or
in a philosophy like Plutonism.
The Brahmans believe that the soul transmigrates from one
body to another and these reincarnations represent
punishment or reward for that spirit. The spirit goes on like
this until it is freed to the upper space. This condition is
called "Nirvana" which is reached by much asceticism.
As for Plato, he saw that the number of spirits were limited
so that it was necessary for the spirits to transmigrate from
one body to another.
These beliefs and religions have no relation to
Christianity.
Question:
What is the meaning of the saying of the Lord Christ
"Make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon "
(Luke 16:9)? Can the money that we gain by injustice or
through sin in general, be accepted by God, or can we
use it to do good, or to win friends with it?
Answer:
"Mammon of Unrighteousness" does not mean the illicit
money that the person gains unjustly or through any
other sin for that is unacceptable to God.
For God and the church do not accept this money.
The psalm said "The oil of the sinner will not anoint my
head", and in Deuteronomy "You shall not bring the wages
of a harlot... to the house of the Lord your God" (Deut.
23:18).
God does not accept the good works that come through
evil ways.
63
The oblations that are offered to the church, bring blessings
and are mentioned in the litany of crops and in the litany of
oblations before God. Therefore there are rejected offerings
which the church does not accept and does not allow in the
house of the Lord, if the church knows that it came by
wrong means, and the canon of the apostles explained that
subject.
Then what is the mammon of unrighteousness by which we
should make friends?
The mammon of unrighteousness is not the money that
you gain unjustly but the money that you keep unjustly.
What does that mean? When would the money be called so?
Here is an example:
God gave you money, with it He gave you the commandment
of paying tithes. Then the tithes does not belong to you. It
belongs to the Lord, the church, and the poor. If you do not
pay it, you are being unjust to those who deserve it, and by
keeping this money you are stealing from them. This tithes
that you did not give to their rightful owners is mammon
of unrighteousness you are keeping.
The Lord says in the Book of Malachi the Prophet " Will a
man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, 'In
what way have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings ".
(Mal. 3:8).
64
So if you keep the tithes, the first fruits and the votive
offerings, you will be unjust to the poor, orphan, and the
widow, and they are all crying to the Lord for your injustice
towards them.
Spending this money for your own purposes entails injustice
to the house of God. This money belongs to God and His
children and is not yours.
We can say that also about all the idle wealth that you
might have and in the mean time the poor need it and
they are in trouble because of their need.
Then make friends to your self by this mammon of
unrighteousness. Give it to those in need of it, satisfy their
needs. They will become your friends and pray for you and
the Lord will respond and bless your money and you will be
rewarded more and more.
Question:
Why did our Lord Jesus Christ say on the cross "Father,
forgive them... " (Luke 23:34) and did not say by His own
authority "your sins are forgiven...
Answer:
The Lord Christ on the cross was representing all
mankind.
He represented all humanity in paying the wages of sin to the
Divine Justice... " All we like sheep have gone astray; We
have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has
laid on Him the iniquity of us all." (Is. 53:6). For this
reason, He was on the cross "a burnt sacrifice... a sweet
aroma unto the Lord" (Lev. 1:9), and He was a sin offering,
and also a "Passover" (1 Cor. 5:7).
He was offering to the Father an atonement for our sins, and
as He offered this sacrifice, He said to the Father "forgive
them".
In other words: "I have satisfied the Justice that You, 0
Father, have demanded, and therefore, forgive them".
66
I have paid the wages of sin and shed My blood to redeem
them, therefore forgive them". He spoke as an advocate on
behalf of all humanity before the Father, as a representative
of every sinner from Adam until the end of all ages.
In His intercession, He was announcing His abdication of His
rights toward His crucifiers, those who insulted Him without
reason, condemned Him to die unjustly, who falsely accused
Him, and stirred the crowd against Him without knowing
what they were doing.
He said that as a representative on their behalf as an
intercessor for them on the cross.
However, in other circumstances, He performed the
forgiveness by Himself as God. He said to the sick man
with palsy "Your sins are forgiven" (Mark 2:5) giving the
evidence of His Divinity and His authority to forgive sins.
Also He said to the sinful woman in the house of Simon the
Pharisee "Your sins are forgiven. " (Luke 7:48). His
authority to forgive sins did not depart from Him on the
cross, for He forgave the thief on His right, and said to him
"Today you will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43)
declaring His forgiveness of his sins, without which he could
not enter Paradise.
67
Question:
We read in the Bible some words which need to be
translated or explained in simple terms, as in the
following:
Selah : Which is mentioned quite often in the psalms, as in Psalms 46 to 50.
Maran-a'tha : mentioned in (1 Cor. 16:22).
Anathema: mentioned in (Gal. 1:8-9) and (1 Cor. 16:22).
Kedar: as in (Ps. 120:5) and (Song. 1:5).
Please explain the meaning of these words, so that we may understand them.
Answer:
SELAH
It is a word that is repeated in the Psalms 71 times. It means
a musical stop to change the tune to another, for the psalms
were sung associated with music at the time of
David, Asaph and others. At a certain place of the song, a
sign was given to stop to give a chance to the musicians to
adjust their musical instruments to a new tune.
MARAN-A'THA
The word "Mar", in Syrian and Aramaic means Master or
Lord.
The word 'a'tha" means come.
The whole word means "the Lord comes" or "the Lord will
come".
It was an expression that Christians used to greet each other
with during the apostolic age, comforting each other with the
coming of the Lord. In other words, they say to each other
"rejoice, the Lord is coming again".
Sometimes, they wrote it at the end of their letters, as St.
Paul concluded his first epistle to the Corinthians.
ANATHEMA
It is a Greek word that means "curse", and it also means the
"cutting off" or the excommunication from the church. As in
the Anathemas that were written by St. Kyrollos (Cyril) the
pillar of faith during the heresy of Nestor upon every one
who would violate the canons of faith.
St. Paul used it in his epistle to the Galatians to
excommunicate by his ecclesiastical authority everyone who
taught against the teaching of the apostles, even if it was an
angel, he said "But even if we, or an angel from heaven,
preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached
to you, let him be accursed.(anathema). " (Gal. 1:8). He
used the same statement at the end of his first epistle to the
Corinthians. This statement is very well known in the church
canons.
KEDAR
Kedar is the second son of Ishmael, the son of Hagar (Gen.
25:13). The area where he lived was called after his name
also (Jer. 49:28). The children of Kedar lived in tents that
were black in colour or looked black because of the smoke
of the fire that warmed them at night. Perhaps this is what
the virgin of the Song of songs meant when she said "I am
dark, but lovely, 0 daughters of Jerusalem, like the tents of
Kedar... " (Song. 1:5). The psalmist mentioned "the tents of
Kedar" as a sojourn country (Ps. 120:5).
Question:
The Lord said: "It is easier for a camel to go through the
eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom
of God." (Mark 10:25)
Does this mean that all the rich cannot enter the
kingdom?
Answer:
No, for some rich people are righteous and saintly.
The Lord made this statement as a comment on the conduct
of the rich young man whose riches hindered him from
following the Lord. He went away grieved for he had great
possessions.
The Lord did not say that the entrance of the rich into the
kingdom was impossible but He said it was hard. He did not
mention all the rich but He said: "Children, how hard it is
for those who trust in riches to enter the kingdom of
God!" (Mark 10:24).
Therefore, there is a specific shortcoming, which is the
dependence on money not on God. This shortcoming then
develops from depending on money, to the love of money
and its worship, to being a competitor against God. The
Lord said "No one can serve two masters.. You cannot serve
God and mammon" (Matt. 6:24).
Those who allow money to compete with God in their
hearts will find it difficult to enter the kingdom.
This is exactly what happened with this young rich man. He
could observe all the commandments from his youth, except
his love for money, for it was indispensable to him.
There is also another flaw that can prevent the rich from
entering the kingdom and that is the stinginess in spending
money and consequently the cruelty of the heart toward
the poor.
An example for this is the rich man who lived at the time of
Lazarus the beggar who desired to be fed with the crumbs
which fell from the rich man's table. The rich man did not
have any pity toward this beggar, for in his cruelty of heart,
he left the dogs to lick his sores. (Luke 16:19-21).
In spite of all that the rich can be saved and enter into
the kingdom.
The rich that owns the money and does not allow the money
to own him. He owns the money, but does not allow the
love of money to enter his heart to prevent him to love God
and the neighbour. He spends his money in charitable acts.
The Bible gives us examples for saintly rich people like
Job the Righteous...
Job was the richest man in the east in his days, and the Bible
gives us a detailed account of his wealth before his trial (Job
1:2 & 3) and after (Job 42:12). The Lord Himself testified
for Job saying: "There is none like him on the earth, a
blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns
evil" (Job 1:8). He gave to the poor, he was as father to
them, and he caused the widow's heart to sing for joy, he
was eyes to the blind, and he was feet to the lame. He
delivered the poor who cried out and he who had no helper.
(Job 29:12-16).
The Lord blessed Job's wealth after the tribulation and
doubled it.
For the wealth in his hand was a tool for the good and
also for the building of the kingdom.
Also the Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, were very
rich in their times. Abraham was like a king who could
defeat four kings, and was received by kings upon his return
from the battle (Gen. 14). He was generous and had great
love for God and for people. In the other world, Abraham
had a great gulf fixed between him and the rich man in the
Lazarus parable (Luke 16:26). This scene gives us the
difference between two rich people, one in bliss, and the
other in torment.
The gospel gives us another example of a holy rich man
as Abraham, that is, Joseph from Arimathea.
St. Joseph of Arimathea was worthy to take the body of
Jesus to wrap and bury it in his new tomb. It was said about
him that he was a rich man (Matt. 27:57) and in spite of that
he was waiting for the kingdom of God (Mark 15:43). The
Gospel of St. Luke said about him that he was "A council
member, a good and just man." (Luke 23:50) Joseph of
Arimathea was one of the rich men who entered the
kingdom.
We should also mention the righteous rich people who
lived during the apostolic age.
The Book of Acts says about them: " Nor was there anyone
among them who lacked; for all who were possessors of
lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the
things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet;
and they distributed to each as anyone had need. (Acts
4:34-35). An example of these people was Joseph who was
also named Barnabas by the apostles (Acts 4:36-37). He was
the one that the Holy Spirit chose to serve with St. Paul
(Acts 13:2).
History also gives us other examples of holy rich people
who entered the kingdom of God.
St. Melania, who was very rich, spent much of her money
on monasteries and on building churches. She then chose the
monastic life after she was widowed.
St. Paula, who sponsored St. Jerome and his monastic life,
built a monastery and a convent in Palestine. She became
the abbess of that convent after her widowhood. Her
daughter "Yustokhiom" became the superior after her
departure.
Another example for these righteous rich people is
"Ibrahim El-Gouhary" who spent his money on
maintaining churches, monks, monasteries and the
construction of holy places.
Wealth is not a hindrance toward the kingdom, but the
hindrance is the heart...
The problem is: that the heart surrenders to the love of
wealth, and it becomes a burden to give even the tithes and
gather money without a certain goal in mind, and money
becomes an idol that he worships, which becomes a
hindrance to the love of God.
The rich man who uses his money in charitable acts in
sacrificial love is not the rich man that our Lord Jesus Christ
described.
A reference to this subject is a book written by St. Clement
of Alexandria. He was the dean of the school of Alexandria
who preceded Origen. The name of the book is "The rich
man who can be saved". This book has been translated by
father Mousa Wahba, and is recommended for reading.
Question:
It was said about Enoch that he ascended to heaven
(Gen. 5:24), and the same was said about Elijah the
prophet (2 Kin. 2:11). St. Paul also said that he was
caught up to the third heaven, whether in the body or
out of the body, he did not know (2 Cor. 12:2).
How then did our Lord Jesus Christ say to Nicodemus: "
No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down
from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven."
(John 3:13)? Did not Enoch and Elijah ascend to
heaven? Also, what is the third heaven? and how many heavens
are there in the Bible?
Answer:
The heaven that the Lord descended from and again
ascended to is not the same heaven that Enoch and
Elijah ascended to.
The heavens that we know of which the Bible mentioned are:
1. The heavens of the birds. The heaven where birds fly is
the atmosphere that surrounds us. The Bible mentions the
birds of the air (Gen. 1:26) and (Gen. 7:3). This heaven has
the clouds which carry rain (Gen. 8:2) and where aeroplanes
now fly, whether below or above.
2. The second heaven, is higher than the heaven of the
birds. It is the heaven of the sun, the moon and stars. In
other words the firmament as it was called by God: "And
God called the firmament Heaven " (Gen. 1:8).
The Bible says "The stars of heaven" (Mark 13:25), and God
said about it: "Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heavens... to give light on the earth... then God made two
great lights... and the stars" (Gen. 1:14-17). This heaven is
different from the heaven of the birds. This heaven will pass
away on the last day "Heaven and earth pass away" (Matt.
5:18) and as St. John said in Revelation: "And I saw a new
heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first
earth has passed away. Also there was no more sea" (Rev.
21:1).
3. The third heaven is Paradise.
That was the heaven that St. Paul ascended to, and said
about himself: "Such a one was caught up to the third
heaven... he was caught up into Paradise" (2 Col. 12:2-4).
It is the same heaven about which the Lord said to the thief
on His right: "You will be with Me in Paradise" (Luke
23:43). It is the same place to which the Lord relocated
the spirits of the righteous people of the Old Testament, who
waited on the hope of salvation and to which the spirits of
the righteous ascend now till the day of resurrection when all
will be moved to the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21).
4. The heaven of heavens, is above and beyond all the
previously mentioned heavens.
The psalmist said about it: "Praise Him, you heavens of
heavens" (Ps. 148:4). This is the heaven about which the
Lord said: "No one has ascended to heaven but He who
came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in
heaven. (John 3:13).
It is the heaven where the throne of God is.
The psalmist said about it: "The Lord's throne is in heaven;"
(Ps. 11:4; 103:19). The Lord commanded us not to swear
by heaven, for it is God's throne (Matt. 5:34). This is what
is mentioned in (Isaiah 66:1) and what St. Stephen also saw
during his stoning: "I saw the heavens opened and the Son of
man standing at the right hand of God. " (Acts 7:55 & 56).
All the heavens that humans have reached, are nothing
compared to the heaven of heavens. For this reason, it was
said about our Lord: "Has passed through the heavens"
(Heb. 4:14), "And has become higher than the heavens"
(Heb. 7:26).
Solomon the Wise mentioned the heaven of heavens on the
day he consecrated the temple. He said to the Lord in his
prayer: "Behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot
contain You" (1 Kin. 8:27).
This heaven of heavens, no human has, ascended to. The
Lord alone came down from it and again ascended to it.
Proverbs say: "Who has ascended into heaven, or
descended?.. "what is His name, and what is His Son's name,
if you know?" (Pr. 30:4).
Therefore, the heavens that the Bible mentioned are:
1. The heaven of the birds.
2. The heaven of the stars, the firmament.
3. The third heaven, or Paradise, and
4. The heaven of heavens to which no human has ever
ascended.
Question:
Some people say that the sin of Adam and Eve was
adultery. As the Bible does not say this, therefore how
did this idea come about? And what is the right answer
for it, if it is wrong?.
Answer:
The origin and the source of this idea was "Origen" who
exaggerated in his interpretation of the Bible using the
allegorical method.
He tried to emphasise the meaning of symbols (Allegories) to
include everything, even the sin of Adam, the trees of the
garden of Eden. He said that the sin of Adam was adultery
providing the evidence as follows:
He said that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was
in the middle of the garden, as the sexual organ is in the
middle of the human body. He said by eating from the tree,
it was said "Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she
conceived" (Gen. 4:1). He also said by their sexual sin,
Adam and Eve became ashamed and hid themselves for
they were naked, and they sewed fig leaves together to cover
themselves (Gen. 3:7). Origen furthered his idea about the
sexual sin by saying that the whole world is controlled by
sexual immorality.
However, this opinion has many objections:
1. He said that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil
was in the middle of the garden, and likewise, the sexual
organs are also in the middle of the body. So, if we consider
that the sexual organ is the tree as Origen explained, the
body would have become the garden, and we would have
two gardens: Adam and eve and two trees (in each of them
there is a tree). In this case, Adam would have eaten the
fruit from the tree of Eve, and Eve would have eaten in turn
from the tree of Adam. Consequently, God could not have
placed Adam in the garden according to the Bible (Gen.
2:14), but Adam himself becomes Eve's garden!! However,
the Bible says that God placed him in the garden of Eden to
tend it and keep it (Gen. 2:15).
According to the allegorical interpretation, what is the
garden of Eden then? And what does it mean to tend it
and to keep it?
2. Also, what would be the meaning of the rest of the
symbols in the garden of Eden?
What is the meaning of the river which went out of Eden to
water the garden, and from there it parted and became four
river beads (Gen. 2:10)? what are these four rivers? Also,
what do the rest of the members of the body represent?
Do they represent other trees in the garden? Are the fruits of
these trees allowed?
3. The tree of life was also in the middle of the garden
(Gen. 2:9).
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not alone in
the center of the garden. Does the tree of life represent also
something in the body if we went along with Origen? How
can we understand then the meaning of the Cherubim
guarding the way to the tree of life by flaming sword (Gen.
3:24).
4. How can we understand the dismissal of man from the
garden if the garden symbolised his body?
How did he depart or was driven out of it? And how could
he live outside his body? How then did he separate from the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil that was in the
middle of the garden (his body)?
Origen's allegorical interpretation cannot provide any
meaningful understanding, but it only causes endless
confusions.
An important question we put before us if the sin was
adultery.
5. If Adam’s sin was adultery what was the
commandment? Did Adam understand it?
Was the commandment "Do not commit adultery" and Adam
disobeyed it? What could Adam and Eve understand from a
statement that says "do not commit adultery"? as they were
simple and innocent, and they did know the meaning of such
a statement. The evidence for their innocence was that they
were naked but were not ashamed (Gen. 2:25). Did God
explain for them the meaning of such a commandment?
This is impossible, for God Himself would have opened
their own eyes!! God forbid.
Was there no commandment? This would be against the
Scripture. Did they not understand the commandment? In
this case, there would be no punishment, and the
commandment would be meaningless.
6. If the sin was adultery, they would have committed
this sin at the same time.
What is the meaning therefore of Eve taking of the fruit and
eating it, and then giving it to Adam? (Gen. 3:6) If the sin
was adultery, they would have eaten of the fruit at the same
time.
7. The phrase "And the eyes of them both were opened,
and they knew that they were naked" (Gen. 3:7) was
after eating the fruit.
If the sin was adultery, their eyes would have been opened
first to know that they were naked, and then they would
commit the sin of Adultery. Since, it was impossible for
them to commit a sin as this with their eyes closed.
8. Shame and the knowing of Adam to Eve was not their
sin, but the sin was in their downgrading themselves to
the level of the flesh in lusting food.
For this reason, it was said that Adam knew Eve his wife
after they had been driven out of the garden (Gen. 4:1).
This did not happen in the garden. This shame also was after
eating of the fruit and not during or before eating of it.
Adam was spiritually free of the lust for material things, and
of eating, and of the sensual lusts. When all these things
happened by eating from the tree, he downgraded himself to
the level of the lust of flesh, and it became easier for him to
complete the works of the flesh by committing the sexual
act. This happened due to the fall, but it is not the fall itself.
9. If we could consider that the sexual relationship
between Adam and Eve was a sin of adultery, then what
is the meaning of (Gen. 1:28) "Be fruitful, and multiply,
and fill the earth... "
This blessing was mentioned on the sixth day, before the
Bible said (Gen. 1:31) "And God saw, that every thing, that
He made, and behold it was very good... "
10. If the sin was adultery, then there was no need for
the enticement of the devil to Eve to become like God.
The enticement of the serpent to Eve was not to commit
adultery, but it was to become like God knowing good and
evil (Gen. 3:5). The sin was sin of pride. It was the desire
to become equal to God. In the same sin, Satan himself fell,
when he said in his heart "I will be like the Most High (Is.
14:14).
In this sin, the sin of becoming like God, Eve fell then Adam
followed her.
11. The wide spread of the sin of adultery today is like
the wide spread of many other sins...
The love of greatness, the love to possess, the love of one's
self, the love of wealth, the love to eat (gluttony), anger,
lying... all these sins are widespread even in the young age
(who have no knowledge of the sin of adultery) and in very
advanced age (incapable to commit that sin).
12. To say that the sin of Adam and Eve was adultery is
groundless.
It developed through the unacceptable allegorical way of
interpretation. The allegorical way of interpretation has its
own beauty and depth, only if it is supported by the
Scriptures.
(*See my book "Adam and Eve" which analyses Adam and Eve's sins into 27 sins)
Question:
Who is Melchizedek? What is the meaning of what is
said in the psalm "You are a priest forever According to
the order of Melchizedek." (Ps. 110:4). What is the order
of Melchizedek?
Answer:
The first time that the name Melchizedek was mentioned in
the Bible was when he received our father Abraham on his
way back from the defeat of Chedorlaomer and the kings
that were with him (Gen. 14:17-20). On this occasion it was
said about Melchizedek that:
1. He was king of Salem (probably Jerusalem).
2. He was the priest of the most high God and that he
brought out bread and wine.
3. He blessed Abraham and Abraham gave him his tithes.
St. Paul acknowledged Melchizedek is greater than
Abraham.
For the inferior is blessed by the superior (Heb. 7:7), and
that Abraham gave him tithes. Accordingly, the priesthood
of Melchizedek is greater than that of Aaron (who is the
posterity of Abraham).
The priesthood of Christ and of Christianity is according
to the order of Melchizedek for the following points:
1. It is priesthood that offers bread and wine and not animal
sacrifices. For the animal (or the bloody) sacrifices, were
according to the order of Aaron's priesthood. It symbolised
the sacrifice of Christ, and was abolished by the sacrifice of
Christ on the cross. Christ instituted for us the sacrament of
Eucharist (Body and Blood) by bread and wine according to
the order of Melchizedek.
2. It is a priesthood that is not inherited. Christ was from
the tribe of Judah (according to the flesh), and He was not
from the tribe of Levi from whom was the Aaronic
priesthood. Christ did not inherit the priesthood, neither did
all the apostles of Christ. All the priests in the New
Testament do not inherit their priesthood.
3. The priesthood of Melchizedek is higher than the Aaronic
priesthood. St. Paul explained this point in (Heb. 7).
It was said about Melchizedek that he was in the likeness
of the Son of God.
This is true from the points that have been mentioned. St.
Paul says also about him " without father, without mother,
without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor
end of life, but made like the Son of God, remains a priest
continually." (Heb. 7:3).
We should not take these words literally, otherwise
Melchizedek would be God.
Even literally we cannot say that he is like the Son of God,
because he has no father, but Christ has a father, the
Heavenly Father, and he had no mother while Christ Has a
mother, the Virgin St. Mary.
But Melchizedek had no father, no mother, no descent in
his priesthood.
In other words he did not get his priesthood through his
descent from a father or a mother and so is Christ. This
coincides with what St. Paul said " And indeed those who
are of the sons of Levi, who receive the priesthood, have a
commandment to receive tithes from the people according to
the law, that is, from their brethren, though they have come
from the loins of Abraham; but he whose genealogy is not
derived from them received tithes from Abraham and
blessed him who had the promises." (Heb. 7:5 & 6).
This means that Melchizedek did not descend from Aaron, or
from the tribe of priesthood and the expression "with no
father and no mother" means the same.
St. Paul explained further by applying this statement to
Christ "For He of whom these things are spoken belongs to
another tribe, from which no man has officiated at the
altar." (Heb. 7:13).
Furthermore, the Scriptures did not mention anything about
the descent of Melchizedek, who was his father or mother.
As if the Scripture says about him "Without father that we
know of, or mother that we are acquainted with".
The Bible said also about him "Having neither beginning
of days nor end of life... "
This means that he entered the history abruptly, and left it
also abruptly without knowing the beginning of his days nor
the end of his life. He appeared at a certain time to
accomplish a mission and to become a symbol, without
knowing his history or descent.
But Christ on the other hand, according to the flesh, His
days are known.
The day of His birth, the day of His death on the cross and
the day of His ascension are known. However, according to
His Divinity, He has no beginning nor end.
Nevertheless, Melchizedek did not typify Christ
according to His Divinity. His mention in the Scriptures
(Gen. 14; Ps. 110 & Heb. 7) was only for his priestly
function.
The opinion that says that Melchizedek was Christ
Himself, has several objections: the saying of the apostle
that he is like the Son of God, and that he is after the
similitude of Melchizedek, and after the order of
Melchizedek (Heb. 7:3,15 & 17). If he is the same person,
the apostle would not have said "like"-, "similitude"-, "order".
The translation of the name indicates also that Christ is not the
same person Melchizedek.
His name's meaning is the king of peace or the king of
righteousness, does not mean Christ, but a mere symbol.
The translation of names as to their relation to God reflects wonders:
Elija : My God is Yahweh.
Elishah : God is salvation.
Isiah : God saves Elihu: He is God (Job 32:2).
Samuel: : The name of God or God hears.
Elijah : God is father (Num. 1:9).
Elizur : God is rock (Num. 1:5).
Elimelech : God is king (Ru. 1:2).
Elisha :God is salvation (2 Sam. 5:15).
No one of these people claimed, in regard of his name, to be
appearances of God in the Old Testament. We should also reflect
on the meaning of the angel's name and many other names in the
Old Testament, but the time is lacking.
The personality of Melchizedek is one of the personalities that
baffled the Bible scholars.
Many arguments have been made, most of which are
contradictory. It suffices for us to say that it is a symbol of the
priesthood of Christ without going into the details which would
lead to misconceptions and misunderstandings, and which the
Bible does not substantiate.
Question:
What is the meaning of the saying of the Bible "Do not
be overly righteous"?
Answer:
The saying of the Bible " Do not be overly righteous, Nor be
overly wise " (Eccl. 7:16), does not mean the person should
not grow spiritually and does not mean there is a behaviour
higher than the righteousness that God requires from us.
It means that the person behave within his spiritual level
without spiritual jumps, otherwise he could be bit by a
strike of self-righteousness.
The spiritual person does not "think of himself more highly
than he ought to think, but to think soberly" (Rom. 12:3).
Don't walk in the way of righteousness over zealously but
step by step until you reach. The evil can easily fight with
strikes of self-righteousness pushing a person to higher
degrees that he spiritually cannot sustain. The person will be
unable to continue, then falls into distress and despair.
During his short practice in these spiritual levels he might fall
into arrogance and judging others. He will murmur
against his spiritual father as if he does not wish perfection
for him.
So do not be righteous in your eyes, do not be overly wise,
go on slowly and quietly without jumping into levels that you
might not be able to continue in, and then might be troubled
spiritually.
Question:
Did Judas partake of the Holy Communion along with
the disciples on Maundy Thursday?.
Answer:
The opinion of the fathers of the church is that he
attended the Passover but not the Eucharist.
This is clear from the saying of the Lord Christ about His
betrayer "It is one of the twelve, who dips with Me in the
dish." (Mark 14:20). The phrase "dips... in the dish" goes
along with the Passover but not partaking from the body and
blood of the Lord where He broke the bread and gave them,
then tasted from the cup and gave them. (1 Cor. 11:23-25).
The Gospel of St. John said "having dipped the bread He
gave it to Judas Iscariot... now after the piece of bread,
Satan entered him... having received the piece of bread, he
then went out immediately. And it was night. " (John
13:26-30).
Clearly, in the Sacrament of Eucharist there is no dipping of
bread but this was the Passover.
Furthermore, if Judas did partake of the Body and Blood,
then he partook it unworthy not discerning the Lord's Body,
and partook judgment to himself (1 Cor. 11:27-29).
However, the fathers said that he partook of the Passover
only; then went to carry out his crime. The Lord gave His
covenant only to the eleven disciples.
Question:
We know that when Samson sinned and broke his vow,
Grace forsook him and he was taken captive (Judg. 16).
We know also that Solomon was enticed by his women,
built high places for their gods and did not keep his
covenant with the Lord who divided his kingdom (1 Kin. 11).
Were Solomon and Samson saved? What is the proof?
Answer:
No doubt Samson was saved, and the Lord accepted his
repentance.
The Lord listened to him near the end of his life, and through
him He achieved a great victory, which the Lord had not
achieved through him, all his life (Judg. 16:30). But the
biggest proof of Samson's salvation is that St. Paul put him
in the list of the men of faith along with David, Samuel and
the prophets (Heb. 11:32).
I believe that Solomon was saved also and the Lord
accepted his repentance.
A sign of his repentance is his writing the Book of
Ecclesiastes in which the spirit of asceticism is evident.
Moreover, the main proof on his salvation is the promise of
God to David concerning Solomon saying " I will set up
your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I
will establish his kingdom. "He shall build a house for My
name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.
"I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits
iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the
blows of the sons of men. "But My mercy shall not depart
from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I removed from
before you." (2 Sam. 7:12-15).
The phrase "If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him...
but My mercy shall not depart from him " no doubt is a
proof that the Lord accepted Solomon's repentance and
his salvation.
Question:
Is the verse "Be angry and do not sin " (Ps. 4:4) a
permission for us to get angry? Is that applied also to
the verse "But rather give place to wrath " (Rom. 12:19)?
Answer:
The Bible says "For the wrath of man does not produce the
righteousness of God" (James 1:20), and also "Anger rests
in the bosom of fools" (Eccl. 7:9), and "Make no friendship
with an angry man, And with a furious man do not go"
(Prov. 22:24).
The verse "Be angry, and do not sin" was explained by
the fathers in two ways:
1. The holy anger for the sake of God, as long as it in a
spiritual manner with no trespasses, is holy in its purpose and
its action also.
2. The anger of the person because of his personal faults and
of the sins he committed, will result in him not sining in the
future.
The saying of the apostle "Do not avenge yourselves, but
rather give place to wrath" means to give a chance for the
anger to depart from you and not give it a place to settle
inside you... do not keep the anger inside you. It might turn
to hatred and desire for revenge. Give it a chance to depart
from you.
Question:
Who blasphemed the Lord during His crucifixion, the
thief on the left or the thief on the right? How could it
he that one deserved Paradise?
Answer:
In the beginning both thieves blasphemed the Lord.
St. Matthew the Evangelist said "Even the robbers who were
crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing." (Matt.
27:44) And St. Mark also said "And those who were
crucified with Him reviled Him." (Mark 15:32)
St. Luke is the one who mentioned the faith of the thief
on the Lord's right hand saying " Then one of the
criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If
You are the Christ, save Yourself and us." But the other,
answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God,
seeing you are under the same condemnation? "And we
indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds;
but this Man has done nothing wrong." Then he
said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into
Your kingdom" (Luke 23:39-42).
Probably it was the miracles that happened during the
time of crucifixion that changed the heart of the thief on
the right.
When he saw the earth quake, the rocks split, and the
heavens darken, his heart was touched as he was touched by
Christ's forgiveness of those who crucified him and His
prayers on their behalf. So he stopped reviling and
blaspheming. He believed and defended the Lord Christ,
admonishing the other thief. He declared his faith to the
Lord asking to be remembered, and received the promise of
Paradise.
Question:
When St. John the Baptist sent two of his disciples to the
Lord, he asked "Are You the coming One, or do we look
for another?" (Luke 7:19) Was that doubt in Jesus
person?
Answer:
John did not doubt the Lord for many reasons:
1. It was impossible for John to doubt Christ as he was
the messenger before His face to prepare the way before
Him (Mark 1:2) "This man came for a witness, to bear
witness of the Light, that all through him might believe".
(John 1:7).
He could not witness of the Lord unless he knew Him, and
John did witness with strength " This was He of whom I said,
'He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was
before me.'" (John 1:15).
2. John clearly recognised Him and his testimony of Him
during baptism was obvious.
When he saw the Lord Christ coming toward him he said: "
Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the
world! "This is He of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man
who is preferred before me, for He was before me." (John
1:29 & 30).
3. John explained how God guided him to recognise Him
saying: "I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptise
with water said to me, 'Upon whom you see the Spirit
descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptises
with the Holy Spirit. ' "And I have seen and testified that
this is the Son of God." (John 1:33-34).
4. It was because John knew Him and believed in Him
that he hesitated to baptise Him.
Therefore when the Lord came to be baptised John tried to
prevent him, saying, "I need to be baptised by You, and are
You coming to me?"(Matt. 3:14) but he yield when he heard
the Lord's words "It is fitting for us to fulfil all
righteousness".
5. John's faith grew when he saw the Divine revelation at
the time of the baptism.
"Then Jesus, When He had been baptised, Jesus came up
immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were
opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending
like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice
came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased." (Matt. 3:16-17).
6. John bore another witness when Jesus began to
baptise and preach.
John's disciples came and told him, so he said "He who has
the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom,
who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the
bridegroom's voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled.
"He must increase, but I must decrease. "He who comes
from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly
and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is
above all." (John 3:29-31).
7. Furthermore, from the second day of the baptism he
witnessed also and sent his disciples to Him.
The Bible says after the account of the baptism “Again, the next
day, John stood with two of his disciples. And looking at Jesus
as He walked, he said, "Behold the Lamb of God!" The two
disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus ." (John
1:35-37).
8. Why then did John send two of his disciples to Christ
saying "Are You the coming One, or do we look for
another?"
St. John sent these two disciples to Jesus, while he was in jail
(Matt. 11:2). When he heard about the miraculous works of
Christ, he realised that his ministry was over and he was about
to die. He wanted before his death to hand down his disciples
to the Lord Christ. So he sent them with this massage to hear,
see and then join the Lord... and so it was.
That is why the Lord said to these two disciples " Go and
tell John the things which you hear and see: "The blind see
and the lame walk; the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear;
the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel
preached to them. "And blessed is he who is not offended
because of Me" (Matt. 11:4-6).
This message was more for the two disciples than for St.
John.
About John, the Lord told the people on the same occasion:
"But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you,
and more than a prophet. "For this is he of whom it is written:
'Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will
prepare Your way before You.' "Assuredly, I say to you,
among those born of women there has not risen one greater
than John the Baptist; but he who is least in the kingdom of
heaven is greater than he." (Matt. 11:9-11).
9. It is illogical that the Lord would say this testimony
about a man that doubted Him.
Another point about St. John's faith in Christ is:
10. St. John was introduced to Christ while he was in his
mother's womb.
The Bible recorded that St. Elizabeth while she was pregnant
with John, said to St. Mary when she visited her "For indeed,
as soon as the voice of your greeting sounded in my ears, the
babe leaped in my womb for joy. " (Luke 1:44) John the babe
leaped to the Babe inside the Virgin St. Mary. How could that
be? The angel of the Lord answered that saying "For he will
be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine
nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit,
even from his mother's womb. " (Luke 1:15) .
Question:
How did Christ that loves peace and is the prince of
peace say " Do not think that I came to bring peace on
earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. "For I
have come to set a man against his father " (Matt. 10:34-35)?
Answer:
He meant the sword that befell the believers (Christians)
because of their faith.
In fact the start of Christianity incited the sword of the
Roman empire, the Jews and the pagan philosophers against
the believers. The saying of the Lord "They will put you out
of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that whoever kills
you will think that he offers God service." (John 16:2) was
fulfilled. The martyrdom era which lasted till the reign of
Constantine is a proof for that.
There was also the division that happened between the
members of the family because of the faith of some
members while the others remained unbelievers.
For example, a son would believe in Christianity, so his
father opposed him; or a daughter believed then her mother
antagonised her. This way the division finds its way to the
family between those who accepted the faith and those
family members who opposed it, as the Bible said "Father
will be divided against son and son against father, mother
against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-
law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law." (Luke 12:53).
Often the believer was faced with a tense pressure, even fight
from his household members to forsake his faith. Therefore,
the Lord continued his warning "and 'a man's enemies will
be those of his own household.' "He who loves father or
mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves
son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. "
(Matt.10:36-37).
He spoke about the sword against the faith not the sword
in the public relations.
Therefore, His saying "I did not come to bring peace but a
sword" was directly followed by His saying "But whoever
denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My
Father who is in heaven." (Matt. 10:33)
The sword can be an element in establishing and applying
the. spiritual Christian ethics.
A division can occur between a religious girl and her mother
about the subject of decency in clothing and make
up. The same division can occur between a son and his
father about the subject of serving the church or devoting
one's life to serving the Lord or about health and fasting, or
many other sides of Christian behaviour and in all that, "A
man's foes will be those of his own household..." Of the
normal relation between people, the Lord said in the sermon
on the mount:
"Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called
sons of God." (Matt. 5:9).
The Lord Christ was called "Prince of Peace" (Is. 9:6).
When the angels announced His birth they said "Peace on
earth" (Luke 2:14). He said to His disciples "Peace I leave
with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I
give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be
afraid." (John 14:27). The Bible says " Now the fruit of
righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace."
(James 3:18), and "The fruit of the Spirit is love, Joy, peace.
(Gal. 5:22).
Question:
When the disciples of the Lord Christ were going
through the grain fields; they became hungry; so they
began to pluck the corn to eat (Mark 2:23). Was this
considered stealing because they plucked ears of corn
belonging to someone else without his permission or
knowledge?
Answer:
This was not a theft because the Law allowed it. In this
respect the Book of Deuteronomy says " When you come
into your neighbour’s vineyard, you may eat your fill of
grapes at your pleasure, but you shall not put any in your
container. "When you come into your neighbour’s standing
grain, you may pluck the heads with your hand, but you
shall not use a sickle on your neighbour’s standing grain."
(Deut. 23:24-25).
For this reason the disciples' act was allowable according to
the Jewish law and common customs. Anyone passing
by could pluck corn to eat if he was hungry but not take it
with him. That is exactly what the disciples did when they
were hungry, they plucked corn and ate (Matt. 12:1).
In fact, the Pharisees did not criticise the disciples for
plucking corn, but instead blamed them because they did that
act on a Sabbath (Matt. 12:2), accusing them of breaking the
Sabbath and not of stealing.
Therefore we should judge each act according to the
applicable rules of the time.
Question:
Does the Bible discourage the growing in knowledge and
learning by saying "for in much wisdom is much grief?"
(Eccl. 1:18).
Answer:
The Bible meant the harmful knowledge that troubles
man's mind.
There is information you gain, that might bring on you
spiritual fights and lusts, which later on you regret having
known it.
There are readings and knowledge that might bring doubts
and affect one's faith. Other information, may affect one's
good feelings toward others, or may lead one to judge them,
and in all that, one might regret having known it.
Therefore, a person should have control of what to know
and what to read.
Not every thing should be known to every one. Some things
may open one's eyes on things not in his favour to know at a
certain age or in certain psychological status, or before
spiritual or mental maturity.
Of this and other similar cases the sage said "for in much
wisdom is much grief".
As for the rest of the good and useful knowledge the doors
of learning are wide open for all.
Question:
In the parable of the land owner who hired labourers for
his vineyard (Matt. 20:1-40), he gave one denari to each
labourer, the one who started from the beginning of the
day like those who started at the eleventh hour. Will we
all be equal in wages in the kingdom?
Answer:
Absolutely not, because it was said that "every one will
be rewarded according to his deeds" (Matt. 16:27).
The same statement was also mentioned in (Ps. 62:12 &
Rom 2:5-7) and also the Lord Christ said "I am coming
quickly,. and My reward is with Me, to give to every one
according to his work" (Rev. 22:12)
Since the deeds of people differ, so rewarding them
should differ, "whether it is good or whether it is evil"
(Eccl. 12:14), "Which were written in the books according
to their works". (Rev. 20:12)
The righteous will differ in the reward and the sinners will
differ in the punishment, for it was said about the righteous
that "for one star differs from another star in glory" (1Cor.
15:41), and as for the sinners, the Lord said about the city
that refused the word of God "Assuredly I say to you it will
be more tolerable certain land of Sodom and Gomorrah on
the day of judgment than for that city" (Matt. 10: 15). Then
there is a state much more tolerable than other in
punishment, as the Lord said to Pilate "therefore the one
who delivered Me to you has the greater sin" (John 19:11)
The difference in reward and punishment befits the
Divine justice.
So what did it mean that all received a denarius, equally in
this parable?... It meant that all were equal in entering the
kingdom but not in the same rank.
Everyone enters the kingdom, even those who repent in the
last moment of their life, but inside the kingdom, every one
will be according to his deeds, the one who gave 100 fold,
the one who gave 60 fold and the one who gave 30 fold,
every one according to his works.
Question:
The translations of the Lord's prayer differ, some say
"our daily bread" and others say "our bread for tomorrow" which one is more appropriate?.
Answer:
The Greek word "Epi-osios" has more than one
meaning, even the early fathers of the church differed in
translating this word.
+ St. Jerome's Vulgate translated it to "substantial
bread" or "over super substantial bread" which means in
Latin "panem nostrum super substantial" and so did Origen.
+ While St. Augustin and St. Gregory, bishop of Nyssa,
translated it to "our daily bread" which in Latin "panem
nostrum quotidianum".
+ St. John Chrysostom also used the same phrase "our
daily bread" in his commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew
(Article 19 - Section 8).
+ The Coptic translation, which is considered one of the
most known and trusted translations used the phrase "our
bread for tomorrow".
+ The English translation, (king James Version, and the
New Revised Standard Version) says "our daily bread" and
in the margin it says "our bread for tomorrow".
I do not intend to put you in a linguistic rebuttal, as I do
not want to bring up what the other fathers said in explaining
the Lord's prayer for that will not benefit you in any way.
Furthermore, I do not want to make your prayer time a
time for linguistic debates, so during prayers someone may
attempt to raise his voice to dominate the voice of others, or
to show that he knows what is better, or to make himself a
leader or an example for the others to follow. This way the
prayer itself will lose the spiritual goal which is the
conversation with God to be a scientific rebuttal...! we do
not need that in our spiritual life.
Basically, it is enough to understand one fact during the time
of prayer which is that the bread that we are asking for, is
the spiritual bread necessary to our eternal life.
We say that having in mind the following points:
1. The Lord's prayer is composed of 7 requests.
The first three requests are pertinent to God.
a. Hallowed be Your Name.
b. Your kingdom come.
c. Your will be done.
The other four requests concern us, they start with "our
bread"... and it is illogical for us to start our requests by
asking for material food before we ask for the forgiveness
of our sins and before asking to he rescued from
temptations and all evil.
2. This also contradicts what the Lord said: .."therefore I say
to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or
what you will drink..."therefore, do not worry saying what
shall we eat? or what shall we drink?... for after all these
things the Gentiles ask... but seek first the kingdom of God
and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added
to you. " (Matt. 6:25,31-33). " Do not labor for the food
which perishes, but for the food which endures to
everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because
God the Father has set His seal on Him " (John 6:27).
3. Nevertheless, if we need the bread we should ask for it but
then we should ask for our daily bread, not worrying about
tomorrow. That what St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. John
Chrysostom have said, we here ask for the bread not the
pleasures of foods.
4. If we say "our bread for tomorrow" what do we
mean?
The bread necessary for our souls, our eternity and for our
future life, tomorrow... and here we should put in our
hearts to ask for all the foods of the spirit as prayer,
contemplation, love of God, contiguity to God and as
partaking of the Holy Communion.
Notice here that the Coptic translation was spiritual in
understanding this request.
5. If some say "our daily or sufficient bread," that means
the material bread if it is lacking... or, alternatively, the
spiritual bread that is needed for their satisfaction, lest they
should fall into sin or luke warmness, nor more than they
need lest they fall into vain glory or conceit.
Question:
The Lord said "Assuredly I say to you that there are some
standing here who will not taste death till they see the
kingdom of God present with power" (Mark 9:11).
How could that be, and which kingdom did He mean?
Answer:
First we should understand the meaning of the word
kingdom.
Apparently the person who asked the question had in mind
the "Eternal Kingdom", so he was puzzled about how some
of the living at that time would live until they see the
kingdom!!.
Of course, here He did not mean the "Eternal
Kingdom".
We should know that before the redemption, Satan was the
prince of this world (John 14:30), and sin reigned, and by sin
we die (Rom. 5:14&17) but by redemption God started
to reign "the Lord reigned over a piece of wood", bound
Satan, saved the people from death and started His kingdom.
Then here it means the kingdom of God that spread by
faith through the redemption of Christ "and the Lord
added to the church daily those who were being saved" (Acts
2:47), so those joined the kingdom of God, the congregation
of the believers.
The kingdom of God came with power, the power that came
upon the disciples from above when they received the Holy
Spirit. Few years, before St. Paul was martyred (year 67
AD); the kingdom of God had spread all over the known
places of the world, and the people living then saw the
kingdom of God coming with power.
Question:
What are the signs by which we will recognise that the
end of the world is near? Many speak about, and
predict the time for the end of the world and even
suggest dates for it.
Answer:
We shall mention here the signs that were recorded in the
Bible:
The coming of the Anti-Christ
This subject is very clearly indicated in the words of St. Paul
" Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will
not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of
sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts
himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so
that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself
that he is God. … whom the Lord will consume with the
breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His
coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the
working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish,
because they did not receive the
love of the truth, that they might be saved." (2 Thess. 2:3-10).
There will be enormous falling away because of the
wonders that will be manifested by the false prophet
with the power of Satan and many will believe and
apostatise from the true faith.
This falling was mentioned in the previous point (2 Thess. 2:3)
and also in (1 Tim 4:1) "Now the spirit expressly says that in
latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to
deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons. " This failing
away will be a severe and general one to the point that the
Lord said about it "And unless those days were shortened,
no flesh would be saved,. but for the elect's sake those days
will be shortened. " (Matt. 24:22).
Although during history many things had happened, this
general falling which is due to the miracles of that false
prophet, did not happen yet. The Lord also said:
"For false christs and false prophets will arise and show
great signs and wonders, so as to deceive, if possible, even
the elect. " (Matt. 24:24).
All these will be reasons for the fall. The Lord also said
about these difficult days "Satan will be released from his
prison, and will go out to deceive the nations. " (Rev.
20:7&8)
Another sign is the salvation of the Jews ie. their belief in
the Lord Christ.
When St. Paul talked about the belief of the Jews first then
the joining of the Gentiles to the faith, ie. "the grafting of
the wild olive tree into the original olive tree, " he said
"How much more will these, who are the natural branches,
be grafted into their own olive tree?" (Rom. 11:16-24).
Then he said explicitly "... that hardening in part has
happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has
come in, and so all Israel will be saved" (Rom. 11:25&26)
he means the spiritual salvation by their joining the faith.
Final signs which are the desolation of nature...
The Lord said "Immediately after the tribulation of those
days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its
light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the
heavens will be shaken. " (Matt. 24).
The Last sign is the appearance of Christ's sign in
heaven...
After the desolation of nature, the Lord said "then the sign
of the Son of Man will appear in heaven and they will
see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with
power and great glory, and He will send His angels with a
great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His
elect... " (Matt. 24) and that will be the end.
A comment on these signs: It is clear that the Anti-christ
did not appear yet with his miracles, and accordingly the
general falling did not happen. As the Jews did not believe
yet, and the false prophets making signs and wonders did not
appear either, but as of the wars and rumours of wars, these
are the beginning of sorrows. (Matt. 24:8).
Question:
If Moses the prophet was the writer of the first five
Books of he Bible, how could they include the account of
his death? (Deut. 34:5-8).
Answer:
This account was of course written by Joshua the son of
Nun, and did not come at the beginning of the Book of
Joshua but came at the end of the five Books to complete
the story of Moses.
This coincides with the beginning of the Book of Joshua
"After the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, it came to
pass.."
When I thought of printing the collection, "So Many Years
With The Problems Of People", I found before me thousands of
questions I had answered throughout more than twenty years. I
classified them into sections according to topics.
Part I of the collection includes questions on the Holy Bible.
It contained forty questions often addressed by many. Some
were answered briefly and the others with some elucidation, but
in both cases with much concentration.
The first part was out of print and was reprinted before
printing this second part.
This Second Part includes theological and dogmatic questions
that occupy the minds of the people. We tried to tackle them in
an easy way as far as possible so that everyone may understand
them. However, we still have enough theological and biblical
questions for many books.
We hope that this collection will be beneficial and convey the
message, especially among the youth, in the service and to the
students of the religious institutes as well as to whoever wants
to know the answers to these questions.
Pope Shenouda III
Question:
Does man have a free will or not? And if he does, is it
for everything?
Answer:
There are certain matters which man has no choice.
A person has no choice regarding the country in which he
was born, the people amidst whom he grew up, the parents
who brought him into existence, the environment in which
he was brought up and its impact on him, nor the way he
was brought up.
His shape or colour, his height, intelligence, the talents he
is endowed with or deprived of, what he inherited from his
parents ... etc.
On the other hand a person no doubt has free will with
respect to his actions and works.
He has the choice either to do something or not, or to
speak or to keep silent. He can even - if he wants - correct
many things which he inherited and change what he
acquired from the environment or while being brought up.
A person can set aside the whole past and begin a new
life completely different, getting rid of all previous
influences.
Many people were able - when they grew up to release
themselves of the influence of the environment, education
and inheritance which they had undergone in their
childhood. They could do this by bringing themselves into
the scope of new, different influences through reading,
friendship and company, spiritual guides and new teachers
or through religious life and meetings. There are actually
some people who were brought up in a dissolute life but
repented; and others who were brought up in spirituality
yet they deviated.
Even with respect to talents ...
A person can develop the talents with which he was born,
or diminish them by neglecting them. Someone may have
only few talents which he is careful to improve and
protect, so they develop. Another may acquire new talents
which he had not and become better than one with talents
which are neglected.
Many things prove that man has free will:
1. The existence of God's commandment is a proof that
man has a free will.
If a man is directed and has no control over his will or
freedom, why would there be a commandment? And what
would be its use if a person is unable to comply with or is
directed against it involuntarily? We remember here some
words of a part which apply to this:
He was cast into the water with hands tied and he was
warned not to get wet!
Even if a person is directed in the way which the
commandment requires him to walk, the commandment
will not be necessary since he will walk that same way
whether there is a commandment or not!
It is logical then that since there is a commandment, man
has free will. He has the choice either to follow God's
commandment or not. This is also the actual state of
affairs which we see in life. A person is able to obey the
commandment if he wants to and can disobey if he wants.
God has endowed him with a free will and a free choice.
God is put in his sight, but he is not forced to go along it.
2. The existence of sin is a proof that man has a free
will.
If man has no free will, would it be reasonable that God
leads him to sin? Would not that mean that God
participates with man in committing sin? God forbid. It is
unreasonable and does not conform with God's nature as
Holy and good, hates evil and does not accept it, but calls
all people to repent and forsake sin.
When sin exists, it means that man has done it voluntarily
by his own will while he had the choice to commit it or
not.
If man has the free will to do evil, he is rather more free to
do good and free to repent and forsake sin. God calls all
people to repent, but leaves the matter to their choice
either to repent or not.
3. The existence of a condemnation is a proof that man
has free will.
Mere existence of punishment and reward is a proof that
man is free to do whatever he wants; for the simplest rule
of justice necessitates that no man may be condemned
unless he is apt, free and willing. If a person is proved to
have no choice or will, he will not be condemned nor
justified; for no responsibility is there in the case of lack
of free will.
Accordingly, God cannot condemn a sinner with eternal
torment unless such a person has full choice and chose for
himself bad conduct and walked in it, so he reaps the fruit
of his choice and work and as far as a person has control
over his will his punishment will be.
God never punishes a person who has no free will for he
has no control over his will, but punishes him who led that
person to sin. The same principle applies to reward; God
rewards the person who does good voluntarily, by his own
will and choice. If such a person has no free will, he will
not deserve to be rewarded.
4. Finally, there are four remarks:
First: God urges everyone to do good and guides him to
avoid wrongdoing whether through one's own conscience,
through guides, fathers and teachers and through the work
of grace.
Yet God leaves to everyone the choice to accept or refuse.
Second: Sometimes, God interferes to stop certain evils
and prevents some doing them. In this case, the person
who was prevented from doing evil has no hand in this
and will not be rewarded. Here God - for the sake of
general benefit undertakes the matter or turns evil to good.
As for the other affairs of a person and his conduct, he has
the choice and the will.
Third: A person may lose his will by his own choice,
such as when he submits to a certain sin by his own will
until the sin becomes a habit or another nature to him
which he follows afterwards as if he has become without
any will.
It is in fact lack of will caused by a previous action
taken by a person with his free will and choice.
Fourth: God will condemn everyone on the last day
according to the reason and discretion endowed him by
God and according to his capabilities, his will and choice.
God takes into consideration man's circumstances and the
pressures he faces as well as his ability or non ability to
overcome such pressures.
Question:
Why did God create man?
Did he create man to worship and glorify Him?
Answer:
God did not create man to worship and glorify Him; for
God does not need any glorification or worship from man.
Before creating man, God was glorified and worshipped
by the angels and even then He was not in need of being
glorified by the angels. He is glorified by His own
attributes.
God lacks nothing to acquire from His creation whether
man or angel.
How true this is expressed in the Mass written by St.
Gregory, in which man prays to God, saying,
"you were not in need of my servitude, but it is I who am
in need of Your Lordship."
Why then did God create man?
God created man out of His goodness and munificence,
in order to make man enjoy existence.
Before creation, God was alone. Since eternity He was
the only being in existence and had satisfaction in
Himself. It was possible that man does not exist nor any
other creature, but God out of His munificence and
goodness granted existence to this nothingness which He
called man. He created man to enjoy existence.
Creating man was then for the benefit of man himself
not for the benefit of God. He created man to enjoy life
and if he behaves well he will also enjoy eternity.
The same can be said regarding angels. God was so
bountiful that He made us part of existence which He
would have been alone in it. It is impossible that God
created man because He desired to be glorified by that
man or any other creation.
When we glorify God, it is we, not God, who benefit.
We benefit because when we mention God's name and
give glory to Him, we raise our hearts to a spiritual level
which gives our hearts elevation, purity and closeness to
the Godhead. We need always to contemplate on God and
glorify Him; for by this our spirits feel connected to this
great God who has all such glory and this gives us
comfort.
Therefore we say, "It is I who am in need of Your
Lordship."
On the other hand, God - theologically speaking - does
not increase or decrease in greatness. Nothing is added
to Him when we glorify Him and He lacks nothing
when we do not.
I can say that God created us out of His love for us as His
pleasure is in the human beings.
God loved us before we existed and that is why He brought
us into existence.
But what do the words "loved us before we existed" mean?
This reminds me of what I wrote in my notebook in 1957 as far
as I remember, I wrote: "I have a relation, 0 Lord with you
which began since eternity and will continue for ever. Yes, I
dare say it began since eternity! I mean since eternity when I
was in Your mind a thought and in Your heart a pleasure."
Question:
Is conscience God's voice?
Answer:
No, conscience is not God's voice, because conscience
often errs whereas God's voice never does.
The best evidence of this is found in the words of the Lord
Christ to His disciples, for He said to them, "They will put
you out of the synagogues; yes, the time is coming that
whoever kills you will think that he offers God service."
(John 16:2). Of course such conscience which considers
killing the disciples is a worship offered to God can never
be God's voice. This is just an example of many other
cases.
Conscience might be strict and suspicious, thinks a thing
sinful while it is not, or has an exaggerated look to sin.
Conscience might also be lenient, accepts many wrong
things and justifies them. Neither of these two kinds of
conscience - that which strains out a gnat or which
swallows a camel - (Matt 23:24) can be God's voice.
When a person murders someone to avenge for killing his
brother or father and his conscience becomes troubled
until he avenges for the blood of his relative, this
conscience cannot be God's voice. Likewise a person who
kills his sister for committing adultery to cleanse the name
of the family cannot claim that he was called by God's
voice to kill her.
Some people mix up between conscience and the Holy
Spirit.
God's voice within a person is the voice of God's Spirit
working within him and thus it cannot err. On the other
hand, conscience can be mistaken; for sometimes a person
gets enthusiastic to do something and his conscience
irritates him for not doing it while God's Spirit is in fact
not pleased by such action.
Conscience may develop when instructed and guided.
It can discern today that the thing it deemed allowable
yesterday due to ignorance or misunderstanding is in fact
forbidden. Can it (conscience) be God's voice while it
judges matters differently from one day to another? The
changing of conscience is an evidence that it is not God's
voice.
A person may, in the name of mercy and compassion, help
a student to cheat in the exam when he sees him crying for
fear of failure, or a physician, in the name of mercy and
compassion, may write a certificate that someone is sick
while in fact such a person is not sick. Afterwards, he is
instructed that what he has done was wrong and refuses to
do it again in future.
How then can such conscience be God's voice in man
while it calls for something and on another occasion calls
for something else?
Another example is a person who is urged by his
conscience to obey some spiritual father or guide even in
doing something wrong, but afterwards he understands
that such obedience should be within obedience to God.
His conscience rebukes him for his previous obedience by
which he broke God's commandment.
Conscience is a voice put by God in man to call him to
do good and reprimand him for wickedness, but is not
God's voice.
God put also in man a mind to invite him to good.
He gave man a spirit which covets against the body.
However, the mind often does wrong and the spirit also
often errs.
Both are from God, but not God's mind nor God's voice.
God's voice in man is the Spirit of God working within
man.
Question:
To what extent can a mad person be held accountable
for his sins? Or is he accountable at all?
Answer:
It is well known that according to one's aptness and
discerning one is held accountable by God.
Madness is of various degrees and types. There may be a
person who is mad with regard to a certain subject and in
other cases he behaves as if he is completely sane so that
those who do not know him will never imagine that he is
mad. There is also a kind of madness which is not
continuous, of which a person can be cured but returns
again. Another kind is sheer madness or absolute madness
in which the mind is totally insane.
A person who is absolutely mad cannot be held
accountable for anything at all.
He is not charged for any sin he commits while being mad
because he is not aware.
He is only charged for the sins he committed before
getting mad, after which time he is considered dead and is
not held accountable.
With regard to other kinds of madness he is charged as
far as he is discerning and as far as he is able to control
his behaviour.
Seeing that the Lord has said about those who crucified
Him, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what
they do " (Luke 23:34), how much rather the mad should
be forgiven; for mentally "they do not know what they are
doing".
Question:
Is the body the element of sin in a person? Is it the
cause of all sins? Is it accountable for sins so as it
might be called the body of sin? Does it sin alone and
the spirit has no hand in the matter because what the
spirit desires is opposed to the flesh (Gal 5:17)?
If so, why did God create the flesh?
Answer:
If the flesh had been evil in itself, God would have not
created it.
We observe that after creating man, flesh and spirit, "God
saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very
good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
(Gen 1:31). So, God did not create the flesh as an element
of sin. Adam and Eve lived in the body in Paradise
without sinning; they lived in simplicity, chastity and
innocence before sin entered into the world.
We cannot say that the body began with sin!
It is true that the fruit was forbidden and they ate from it,
but before eating there was the lust for divinity, the lust
for knowledge and doubting God's words (which are all
sins of the spirit). The enticement of the serpent was
clear, "You will not die." Thus began doubting God's
words. There was also the enticement of divinity, "you
will be like God, knowing good and evil " (Gen 3:5).
Would it be that the spirit coveted after divinity and
knowledge and it let the body fall with it and eat from the
fruit? Perhaps, or at least we can say:
The first man's fall was a fall of the flesh and spirit
together.
Both joined together in one action, i.e. breaking God's
commandment.
However, most people speak only about the sin of the
body which took the fruit and ate it, forgetting the inner
factors that led to this which are sins of the spirit. The
spirit can sin the same as the body and we should not say
that the body sins alone.
Moreover, the first sin known in the world is a sin of
the spirit.
We mean the sin of the devil; for he is a spirit without
flesh being an angel and the angels are spirits (Ps 104:4).
The devil fell in the sin of pride when he said, "'I will
ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars
of GOD... I will be like the Most High..’" (Is 14:13,14).
The first sin is pride and it is a sin of the spirit.
In the case of the devil, it was followed by obstinacy,
resistance and stumbling others.
He made other angels fall, then he made man stumble.
These were all sins of the spirit without the body.
The devil fell also in the sin of envy as we say in the Holy
Divine Mass, "The death which entered into the world by
the envy of the devil, You have abolished".
The devil - though a spirit - fell also in the sin of lying as
he lied to Eve and the Lord said about him, "He is a liar
and the father of it." (John 8:44).
The spirit then can sin alone without the body.
Not all the sins of the spirit lie in its submission to the
flesh. Nay, there are sins in which the spirit falls alone.
The body might fall with the spirit, taking part in these
sins. But with respect to the devil, all the aforementioned
sins were sins of the spirit alone.
We should not say that the flesh is the cause of all sins.
There are many sins in which the spirit falls and we even
say that the flesh alone without the spirit cannot sin. Like
a dead body which takes life from the spirit, the spirit
takes part in the sins of the body by submitting to it. Take
for example the sin of killing. Do you think that the flesh
alone attacks, beats and kills, or rather the sins of the spirit
such as hatred and violence urge it to do so? Cain fell
with the spirit before murdering his brother with his hand.
Being aware of the sins of the spirit and the soul, we pray
in the Holy Mass, saying, "Purify our souls, our bodies
and our spirits".
And we say that we partake of the Holy Communion "A
purification for our souls, our bodies and our spirits".
And because the spirit like the body may be defiled and become
unclean we say in the third hour prayer:
"Purify us from the defilement of the flesh and the spirit".
Since the spirit sins with the body, it will therefore be punished
with the body in eternity so as the body is not punished alone.
If the spirit were strong, it would not fall in its own sins nor
submit to the body in its sins. The most awful description given
in the Holy Bible to the spirits of the fallen angels is the
term "unclean spirits" or "evil spirits" as in (Matt 10:1). How
much rather this description can be given to the spirits of the
evil human beings.
The problem with the body is that it is made of material
and so it is fought by being attracted to it.
It is fought with material and fleshly things and has more
occasions which make it fall; for many are the fields in which it
is fought. However, it is not necessarily subject to the material;
it can be elevated over it.
For all these and the alike we honour the relics of the saints.
Their bodies struggled for God's sake, suffered for Him, lived in
chastity, conquered the enemy and took part in every worship.
They are honoured not only by us, but also by God Himself who
allowed that a dead man comes to life on touching the bones of
Elisha the Prophet (2 Kin 13:21).
The Lord so honoured the body that He made it a temple of
the Holy Spirit.
The apostle therefore said, "Or do you not know that your body
is a temple of the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor 6:19).
Can we say then that this temple of the Holy Spirit is the body
of sin? God forbid. The apostle says further, "Do you not know
that your bodies are members of Christ." (1 Cor 6:15).
The bodies then are holy and the words of the apostle are
well said,
"..your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit ... which you
have from God ... therefore glorify God in your body."
(1 Cor 6:20).
We can thus glorify God with our bodies as well as with
our spirits, "always carrying about in the body the dying
of the Lord Jesus, that the life of Jesus also may be
manifested in our body." (2 Cor 4:10).
Our bodies which we took from the Lord in baptism is not
the body of sin; for the apostle says, "For as many of you
as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal
3:27).
God will honour the body when He will raise it in glory.
The body will rise imperishable, a spiritual shining body
with a glorified nature like the body of His glory.
The greatest honour for the human body is that Christ
took on Himself a human body.
If the body had been evil in itself or an element for sin,
Christ would not have taken for Himself a body of our
same nature blessing our nature in it.
The body may sin and may also live in purity.
The same applies to the spirit. We cannot forget also that
when the body - though being material - overcomes
material attraction and behaves in a spiritual way. God
will not forget this loving fatigue and will consider it a
great thing.
Let us then glorify God in our bodies and in our spirits
which are from God.
(6) DO HUMAN BEINGS GET MARRIED TO DEVILS AND PROCREATE?
Question:
Some people tell stories about human beings married to
devils giving birth to children. To what extent is this
correct? And how did they come to know of it?
Answer:
We do not believe this at all. It is not supported by any
creed or historical evidence.
We do not know of any person descending from the
devils. It is something unreasonable and can be refuted on
basis of faith. Among the refutations we mention the
following:
The devils are spirits having no bodies to procreate like
human beings.
Devils are spirits because they are angels and they are
called spirits in the Holy Bible (Luke 10:17,20).
They are even called "unclean spirits" (Matt 10:1) and
"evil spirits" (Luke 7:21; Ac 19:12). How then can spirits
procreate? And how, without having bodies, can they
produce an offspring having bodies?
Of course sexual relations and marriage have no
existence among these spirits.
The devils, though they lost their holiness, still have the
angelical nature. That is why it is written in the
Revelation that a war broke out in heaven between
Michael and his angels and the dragon and his angels.
They fought, "So the great dragon was cast out, that
serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives
the whole world, he was cast to the earth and his angels
were cast out with him." (Rev 12:7-9).
And whereas they are angels, see what the Lord Christ
said about the angels when speaking about the
Resurrection. He said, "For in the resurrection they
neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like
angels of God in heaven." (Matt 22:30).
Angels do not marry and this applies to the devils as they
are angels. The devils may arouse sexual feelings in
human beings but they themselves do not have such sexual
nature. The devil may appear in the form of a man or a
woman, however:
There are no males nor females among the devils. They
do not have bodies of men or women, nor do they have
ovum or sperms. They cannot give a human offspring nor
even a devil offspring. The devils are great in number
because of the great number of the fallen angels not
because of procreation among themselves. If they do not
procreate among themselves, how can they procreate from
human beings!
Moreover, procreation needs conformity of kind or
species.
For example, no procreation can take place between a fish
and a bird, a bird and an animal, nor between an animal
and a fish nor between a human being and a bird. There
must be conformity in sex and kind. Accordingly, no
procreation can take place between a human being and a
devil. Besides, a devil has no body.
History has not presented to us even one example of
such procreation.
We have not heard of any person born of parents; one of
them a human being and the other a devil, so that such a
person might give us an answer to the confusing question:
Which of the two natures prevails in such a relation, so
that the offspring might be either a human being or a devil,
or even a human-devil! Would such a being be visible or
not!
Perhaps such questions are due to the stories of demons
told to children and regretfully fill the children's libraries.
Add to this the stories spreading among the common
people and villagers who circulate these stories forming of
them an important part of their folklore.
Question:
In the story of the baptism of Cornelius while Peter was
speaking, "The Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard
the word." This made the believers astonished, "Because
the gift of the Holy Spirit has been poured out on the Gentiles
also" (Acts 10:44,45).
Does this mean that the Holy Spirit works in the
unbelievers?
Answer:
The Holy Spirit works in the unbelievers to make them
believe.
Or how can they believe without the work of the Holy Spirit in
them? Does not the Holy Bible say, "No one can say that Jesus
is Lord except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor 12:3).
The work of the Holy Spirit to make people believe differs
from His permanent dwelling in a believer.
The Holy Spirit may work in the heart of an unbeliever to call
him to believe, or work a miracle or some wonder to him which
might lead him to believe, but after believing, a person must
obtain the Holy Spirit through the Holy anointment in the
sacrament of the Holy Myron (Chrism) so that the Spirit may
always work in him.
The Spirit may also work in the unbelievers for the benefit
of the church.
As the Scriptures say, "The Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus,
King of Persia. (Ezra 1:1). This was for the purpose of
building the house of the Lord in Jerusalem. There are many
similar events both in Scriptures and in history.
Question:
When did the disciples receive the Holy Spirit? Was it
when the Spirit came upon them in the form of tongues as
of fire (Acts 2)? Or when the Lord breathed on them and
said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20)?
Answer:
They received the Holy Spirit for permanent dwelling on
the day of Pentecost.
At that time the Lord's promise was fulfilled that they would be,
"Endued with power from on high." (Luke 24:49) and also the
promise, "If I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you:
but if I depart, I will send Him to you." (John 16:7). This text
shows that they were to receive the Holy Spirit after the Lord's
ascension to heaven which happened on the day of Pentecost
(Acts 2:2-4).
But when the Lord breathed on them it was to give them
the sacrament of the Holy Orders (Priesthood).
It is stated, "He breathed on them and said to them 'Receive the
Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven
them, if you retain the sins of any, they are retained'" (John
20:22, 23).
It means that He gave them, by the Holy Spirit, the authority to
forgive sins, or rather He gave them the Spirit by whom they
can forgive sins, thus forgiveness comes from God.
This breathe that gave the Holy Spirit is confined to them,
not for all believers.
It is given to those who were to perform the work of priesthood
from among the 'apostles' disciples and successors, whereas the
coming of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost was for all
and the apostles gave this gift to people by the laying on of
hands (Acts 8:17), then by the Holy anointment (1 John 2:20,
27) which is now given in the sacrament of Holy Chrism
(Myron) to all believers.
Hence, the apostles received priesthood when the Lord
breathed on them.
Then they took over this priesthood on the day of Pentecost
when they baptised people.
The Lord knew that they were in need of Holy priesthood in
order that they might baptise the new members of the church,
loose and bind, and practise all other sacraments.
Therefore, He gave them the Holy Spirit - who was to give
them priesthood - before giving them the Holy Spirit to dwell
permanently in them as necessary for their ministry and lives as
well.
Question:
St. Paul the Apostle said, "But I make known to you ,
brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not
according to man but it came through the revelation of
Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:11, 12).
Is there a gospel of St. Paul?
Answer:
The word "gospel" is a Greek word meaning good news.
St. Paul the Apostle used it in this sense, not meaning a certain
book. In some instances he said, "The gospel of your
salvation." (Eph 1:3), i.e. the good news of your salvation. In
other instances he said, "The gospel of peace." (Eph 6:15)
meaning the good news of peace or preaching peace and "The
gospel of the glory of Christ." (2 Cor 4:4) and "The glorious
gospel of the Blessed God." (1 Tim 1:11) by which he means
preaching about this glory.
Of course, there were no gospels carrying these or other
names.
When St. Paul the Apostle said, "The gospel for the
uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the
circumcised was to Peter." (Gal 2:7), he meant that he was
entrusted to carry the gospel or the good news to the
uncircumcised, i.e. the Gentiles and St. Peter to carry the
gospel to the circumcised, i.e. to the Jews.
What is meant by gospel is the good news of salvation and
redemption. He did not mean of course that there was a gospel
called gospel for the uncircumcised and another called gospel
for the circumcised.
The same is understood from all other words of the Apostle.
By the words, "My chains for the gospel," (Philem 13), he
meant the imprisonment he undergoes for his preaching the
gospel. And when he said, "The things which happened to me
have actually turned out for the furtherance of the gospel."
(Philem 1:12), he meant the furtherance of the preaching of
salvation. By the words, "I have begotten you through the
gospel." (1 Cor 4:15), he meant the preaching he preached.
The same goes for all other texts because there were no written
gospels at that time.
The Lord Christ Himself used the same expression.
At the beginning of His preaching - when John the Baptist was
in prison - the Lord Christ came "preaching the gospel of the
Kingdom of God and saying, 'The time is fulfilled and the
Kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel'"
(Mark 1:14, 15).
Which gospel was it that the Lord Christ meant, though
there were no written gospels at that time and He had not
yet chosen His disciples?
He meant then to say "Believe in this preaching of the Kingdom
which I preach you now."
It is the joyful news that the Kingdom of God is at hand.
Christianity came preaching salvation; salvation from the
punishment of sin and of the dominion of the devil, eternal
salvation through redemption. This preaching was given the
name "gospel".
The same can be traced in the Lord Christ's words where He
used the term "gospel" often.
An example of this is found in the words of the Lord to His
disciples, "go into all the world and preach the gospel to every
creature." (Mark 16:15).
There was no written gospel at that time, but the Lord Christ
meant preaching the news of salvation to all people.
The same applies to St. Paul the Apostle; by the words, "The
gospel which was preached by me," he meant the good news of
salvation which he preached.
Moreover, "I went up again to Jerusalem and
communicated to them the gospel which I preach among the
Gentiles" (Gal 2:1, 2); by which words he meant the preaching
among the Gentiles that they also have attained salvation.
When he said, "For God is my witness, Whom I serve with my
spirit in the gospel of His Son" (Rom 1:9), he meant preaching
about His Son; for there is nothing called "the gospel of His
Son" or "the gospel of Christ".
Question:
We are God's children and we pray, "Our Father Who are
in heaven" and Christ is the Son of God; what is the
difference between Christ's sonship to God and ours?
Answer:
The Lord Christ is the Son of God, of God's essence and
same Divine Nature.
He is of the same divinity with all divine attributes. Hence He
could say, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." (John
14:9) and "I and My Father are One." (John 10:30). The Jews
took up stones to stone Him because being a man, He made
Himself God (John 10:31, 33). This fact was asserted by St.
John the Evangelist when he said, "The Word was God" (John
1:1).
The Lord Christ is the Son of God since eternity, before the
ages.
He is born of the Father before all ages as He said in His
soliloquy with the Father, "O Father, glorify Me together with
Yourself with the glory which I had with You before the world
was." (John 17:5).
As He was before the world and being God's uttered reason it
was said, "All things were made through Him and without Him
nothing was made that was made." (John 1:3).
On the other hand, our sonship to God is a kind of
adoption and honour granted in a certain time.
St. John the Beloved said, "Behold what manner of love the
Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of
God!" (1 John 3:1). We are called so, out of God's love for us.
It was also said, "But as many as received Him, to them He
gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe
in His name:" (John 1:12).
Therefore, it is not natural sonship of His essence, otherwise we
would be gods!! It is also connected with time, for it was not
there before our believing and accepting baptism.
Since Christ's sonship to the Father is natural sonship of
the same essence, He is called "The Only Begotten Son."
That is the Only Son of His essence, nature and divinity.
It was thus said, "For God so loved the world that He gave His
Only Begotten Son." (John 3:16).
The same expression - The Only Begotten Son - was repeated
in (John 3:18) and in (John 1:18), "No one has seen God at any
time. The Only Begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the
Father, He has declared Him," and also in (1 John 4:9), "In this
the love of God was manifested towards us, that God has sent
His Only Begotten Son into the world, that we might live
through Him."
In being the Only Son, His sonship is certainly different from
ours.
Therefore, this matchless sonship is received by us with
belief and worship.
In the story of the man born blind, for example, when the Lord
found the man who was cast out by the Jews, He said to him,
"Do you believe in the Son of God?" and the man answered,
"Who is He, Lord, that I may believe in Him?" and having
known Him, the man said, "Lord, I believe!" and worshipped
Him (John 9:35-38). If the Lord was just son of God like
others, there would be no need for belief and worship.
Furthermore, believing in this sonship was the aim of the
gospel.
St. John almost, at the end of the gospel, says "And truly Jesus
did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which
are not written in this book; but these are written that you may
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of GOD, and that
believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:30, 31).
When St. Peter confessed this belief, saying, "You are the
Christ, the Son of the living God," the Lord considered his
confession the rock on which the church was to be built (Matt
16:16, 18).
The Lord Christ, being alone the natural Son of the Father,
was called the Son as in many verses demonstrating His
Divinity.
The mere words "The Son" are taken to refer to the Lord
Christ.
Some examples are:
+ "For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them,
even so the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father
judges no one, but has committed all judgement to the Son, that
all should honour the Son just as they honour the Father."
(John 5:21-23).
+ "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
indeed." (John 8:36).
+ "He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who
does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God
abides on him." (John 3:36)
+ "Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of
fire. But to the Son He says, 'Your Throne, O God, is forever
and ever...'" (Heb 1:7, 8).
There are many other examples which imply the same meaning.
Being the Son, He is worshipped by all God's angels.
About the greatness of the Lord Christ, the apostle said, "But
when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says,
'Let all the angels of God worship Him'". (Heb 1:6).
The Lord Christ was referred to as the Son of God on
occasions of miracles.
+ When the centurion and those with him, who were guarding
Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened,
they feared greatly, saying, "Truly this was the Son of God!"
(Matt 27:54).
+ Nathanael, when the Lord told him that he saw him under the
fig tree, believed and said, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God!
You are the King of Israel!" (John 1:49).
+ Those who were in the boat and saw him walking on the sea,
came and worshipped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of
God." (Matt 14:33).
+ When the Lord Christ said to Martha before raising her
brother, "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in
Me, though he may die, he shall live." Martha answered, "Yes,
Lord, I believe that you are the Christ, the Son of God, who is
to come into the world." (John 11:27).
The testimony of John the Baptist at the time of the Lord's
baptism with the accompanying wonders. St. John said, "And I
have seen and testified that this is the Son of God" (John 1:34).
Therfore, it is evident that the Lord's sonship to the Father
is not an ordinary sonship like that of all believers.
Question:
I heard someone say that Adam is greater than Christ; for
if Christ was born of a woman having no intercourse with a
man, Adam was not born of a man nor of a woman? What
is your opinion? Who is greater then?
Answer:
There is no ground at all for comparison between Adam
and the Lord Christ. However, we shall state the following
points:
1. The Lord Christ was born in a miraculous way indeed. No
one ever has been or will ever be born in such a way. Adam, on
the other hand, has nothing to do with birth; for he was created
from the dust of the ground which is a lower case. As he was
born of the dust of the ground he was called Adam, whereas the
Lord Christ is born not created.
2. The Lord Christ is the Word of God (John 1:1), but Adam is
just a servant of God.
3. The Lord Christ is distinguished from Adam by holiness and
perfection.
Adam sinned and drew with him all the world to sin, but the
Lord Christ is the only One who never sinned and is so called
Holy (Luke 1:35). He is the only One who defied His
generation, saying, "Which of you convicts Me of sin?"
(John 8:46).
4. Adam - because of his sin - was driven out of Paradise (the
Garden). But the Lord Christ came to save Adam and his
offspring and bring them again to Paradise. Is it reasonable then
that he who was driven out of Paradise be greater than Him
who brought him back to it?
5. Adam died and turned into dust after being eaten by worms
and no one knows where he was buried. But the Lord Christ
saw no corruption in His body. No one ever said that His body
was eaten by worms, for He ascended to heaven and sat on the
right hand of the Father.
6. Adam did not rise from the dead up till now and still waits
the general resurrection, whereas the Lord Christ did rise in
great glory and He will come at the end of ages for judgement,
to judge the quick and the dead.
7. We never heard that Adam had a message to the world nor
even had a history except that he was created, he sinned, he was
driven out of Paradise and died and one of his sons was the first
murderer in the world. But the Lord Christ had a great
message; that of Salvation. He carried the sins of the whole
world and died to redeem them. He rectified the errors of His
generation and guided the people of His time, whereas Adam
never did anything like this.
8. The Lord Christ was the Master and Teacher; He left the
greatest doctrines to His generation and to all generations. All
who heard Him were astonished at His nderstanding (Luke
2:47). But our father Adam left us nothing, not even a word or
a piece of advice!
9. The Lord Christ worked miracles which no one ever worked,
such as raising the dead, creating and wonderful healing
miracles like that of healing the man born blind (John 9). We
never heard that our father Adam worked a single miracle! Can
we then compare him to the Lord Christ of Whom St. John the
Beloved said that He had done many other miracles if written
one by one, even the world itself could not contain the books
that would be written (John 21:25).
10. The Lord Christ possessed the attributes of leadership, so
He was followed by thousands; whereas Adam did not lead
anyone, not even his wife but was rather led by her when she
gave him of the prohibited fruit and he ate, contravening the
commandment.
11. All the aforementioned is related to the human aspect, but
with respect to the divinity of the Lord Christ, we cannot
compare a person created to Him Who, "All things were made
through Him and without Him nothing was made that was
made." (John 1:3). This single point needs a whole book on
Christ's Divinity.
12. It is true that Adam is the father of all of us, but to say that
he is greater than the Lord Christ is unreasonable and
unacceptable. Many of Adam's offspring were greater than him!
And this has nothing to do with the respect due to him being a
father.
IN PAIN?
Question:
God inflicted punishment on Adam, "In the sweat of your
face you shall eat bread", "Cursed is the ground for your
sake, in toil you shall eat of it." (Gen 3:19,17) and He
punished Eve, "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your
conception; in pain you shaft bring forth children." (Gen 3:16).
Then the Lord Christ came and saved us with His blood. Why
then - after such salvation - there is a punishment still: Man toils
to eat bread and woman in pain brings forth children?
Answer:
In fact the punishment of sin was death and the Lord
Christ came to save us from death by dying on our behalf.
God's commandment to our father Adam was: of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day
that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen 2:17).
Eve understood this well and mentioned it to the serpent,
saying, "...of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the
Garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch
it, lest you die'". (Gen 3:3).
This is the teaching of the Holy Bible, for the apostle says, "For
the wages of sin is death." (Rom 6:23). And about this death,
he said also, "And you...who were dead in trespasses and sins."
(Eph 2:1). "Even when we were dead in trespasses, made us
alive together with Christ." (Eph 2:5; Col 2:13).
Since the wages of sin is death, the only way leading to
salvation is redemption, by which one dies on behalf of another.
This was the essential idea implied in the sacrifices of the Old
Testament and the essence of the crucifixion and death of Christ
for us. That is why we say that the Lord Christ bore our sins on
the cross and died for them.
As for toil and pains of conception, they are temporal
punishments.
They are not the original punishment, but just to remind us that
we sinned and thus redemption be valuable in our eyes.
Therefore God kept these punishments for our benefit to remind
us. But some might not suffer these punishments - such as
children for example- but they remember them when they grow
up.
Question:
The Lord God said to our father Adam, "But of the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the
day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen 2:17).
Why then did not Adam and Eve die on the same day they
ate of the tree?
Answer:
It seems that the question concentrates on the death of the
body alone, whereas there are other kinds of deaths which
our forefathers died on that same day:
1. There is moral death, by which our forefathers lost the divine
image they had in the likeness of God (Gen 1:26, 27). After
Adam had sinned, God said to him, "Dust you are and to dust
you shall return." (Gen 3:19). Thus, Adam became dust
after having been in God's image. This moral death appears
also in Adam's being sent out of the Garden of Eden (Gen
3:23). As a consequence of this moral death, Adam lost the
purity and innocence he had before eating of the tree and he got
the knowledge of evil and became aware that he was naked
(Gen 3:21).
2. There is also spiritual death, which is separation from
God.
Adam became afraid from God and began to hide from His face
and stand before Him as guilty and sinful. Sin is indeed death as
the father said about his lost son, "For this my son was dead."
(Luke 5:24). The apostle also described the widow who lives
in pleasure as dead while she lives (1 Tim 5:6). When Adam fell
in sin, he deserved the description given afterwards to the Angel
of the Church in Sardis, "You have a name that you are alive
but you are dead." (Rev 3:1). It was not the death of the body
but spiritual death as that by which the widow who lives in
pleasure was described.
3. Adam and Eve were also under sentence of eternal death.
That was the reason for being prevented by God from eating from the tree of life (Gen 3:22).
When he died, he went to Hades and waited for the salvation of Christ.
4. As for the death of the body, it began to work in Adam
and his nature became mortal.
His nature became mortal from the moment he ate from the tree
as we say in the Holy Mass, "The death that entered into the
world by the envy of Satan."
However, this death delayed for the following reasons:
+ If Adam had died at that same moment, all of humanity would
have perished and have no existence. We would have not been
born, nor he who asked this question. But God had blessed
Adam and Eve and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill
the earth and subdue it." (Gen 1:28).
+ The blessing of multiple offspring must have come true
because God is faithful even if we are faithless.
+ The coming of this offspring would give a chance for the
coming of the Virgin from the offspring of Adam and Eve and
the coming of the Lord Christ born from Her by whom
salvation will be given and in whom all the nations of the earth
shall be blessed (Gen 3:15, 22:18).
Postponing death was then necessary that the Lord Christ
may come and effect salvation.
However, this postponement does not mean that the
sentence of death was not executed fully and at that same
time as aforementioned.
Question:
Since the wages of sin is death and the Lord Christ died on
our behalf and saved us, why then do we die?
Answer:
The Lord Christ saved us from spiritual and moral death.
With regard to spiritual death which is separation from God, the
apostle tells us, "We were reconciled to God through the death
of His Son." (Rom 5:10).
As for moral death, the Lord delivered us from it restoring us to
our first rank. He gave us again the divine image and as the
apostle says about baptism, "For as many of you as were
baptised into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal 3:27).
We restored our moral position as God's children (1 John 3:1)
and temples of His Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6:19).
He saved us from eternal death.
It is thus written in the Holy Bible, "For God so loved the world
that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whoever believes in
Him should not perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16).
Hence, the death of Christ for us gave us eternal life and by His
death He saved us from eternal death. This is the basis of our
salvation.
As for bodily death, it is no more death in fact. By bodily death
we mean separation of the spirit from the body. Thus we say to
the Lord in the Litany of the Departed, "It is not death of Your
servants but rather transmission." It is transmission to Paradise
and to communion with the Lord Christ. Therefore St. Paul
the Apostle desired this death, saying, "... having a desire to
depart and be with Christ, which is far better."
(Philem. 1:23).
As St. Paul called it departure, so also Simeon the Elder called
it. He prayed to God, saying, "Lord, now You are letting Your
servant depart in peace, according to Your word; for my eyes
have seen Your salvation." (Luke 2:29, 30).
Each of these two saints : Paul and Simeon the Elder desired
this (death), for each saw in it release from the prison of the
flesh and St. Paul considered it far better than this life.
Hence, bodily death is not considered punishment.
It is just a golden bridge leading us to the happy eternity.
Moreover, this so called death does great favour to us; for
without it we shall remain in this corruptible nature of the flesh,
whereas through it we shall attain a more sublime nature.
It is the way to put off corruption and put on incorruption.
God, the lover of mankind, does not want us to remain in this
nature which became corrupt with sin, this corruptible nature
which is subject to hunger, thirst, fatigue and illness and which
can do wrong. He, in his love, wills to transfer us from such
nature to a better condition of which the apostle said in (1 Cor
15:49), "As we have borne the Image of the man of dust, we
shall also bear the image of the heavenly."
He then explains in more detail, "For this corruptible must put
on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality." (1
Cor 15:53).
The apostle says also, "The body is sown in corruption, it is
raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in
glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a
natural body, it is raised a spiritual body." (1 Cor 15:42-44).
Death, then, is the natural way that leads us to the glories
of the Resurrection.
If we continue in the present nature - without death - we would
sustain great loss. Thus, it is not right to consider death as
punishment, but rather as change into a better nature.
Suppose that God abolished this bodily death as a result of
salvation, what can be expected as a consequence?
Do you think that remaining in this material body of dust is the
optimum status for man?
Remember that this includes what accompanies the old age,
whether weakness or sickness. Moreover the complaint of
those around, as the poet said what means that a person hopes
to live though long life may be harmful to him. He will lose his
cheerfulness and finds pain after comfort. His days might betray
him and he will find nothing pleasant.
The optimum condition for man is the bright spiritual body
which rises in power, in glory and in incorruption and this is
what God wanted for us by death.
The question might have been serious if there was no
resurrection after death in such glory.
It is the resurrection that will deliver us from the bondage of
corruption, for which the whole creation groans and labours
with birth pangs eagerly waiting for this redemption of our body
(Rom 8:21-23).
Question:
Someone said to me, since the Blood of the Lord Christ is
for all people and he has forgiven all, even the atheist and
wicked, we should then be confident of the sufficiency of
His Blood no matter what might be our condition. Our
attitude towards the Lord Christ is not important, but His
attitude towards us! What is your opinion of these words?
Answer:
It is true that the Blood of Christ is for all people and we should
be confident of the sufficiency of His Blood: for He gave us
redemption sufficient for the forgiveness of the sins of all people
in all generations, but the words "Our attitude towards the
Lord Christ is not important" are completely wrong and
against the teaching of the Lord Himself.
First, a person must believe in the Lord Christ and His Blood
and must accept Christ and His redemption; for, no doubt, he
who does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:16). Do not
say then that our attitude towards Christ is not important,
because if we do not believe in the Lord Christ and the efficacy
of His Blood, we cannot attain redemption or forgiveness.
Though the Blood of Christ is for all people and the salvation of
Christ is for all, yet, none but those who believe in him will
attain this salvation. This fact is indicated by the Holy Bible,
"Whoever believes in Him should not perish." (John 3:16).
He did not say "all the world" but "whoever believes in Him."
Therefore the words "He has forgiven all, even the atheist and
wicked" cannot be accepted as long as the atheist remains
atheist and the wicked remains wicked.
There is no forgiveness for the atheist unless they forsake
atheism and believe in the Lord Christ.
This is an attitude which they should have towards Christ. They
should believe and accept the Lord Christ bearing their sins and
saving them. Without accepting Christ, they will not attain
forgiveness as it is stated in the Holy Bible, "But as many as
received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of
God." (John 1:12).
The Lord Christ's attitude towards you is clear, what about your
attitude towards him?
He wants to save you, but He will not do this without you.
He is standing at the door knocking, but you must open the
door.
He says to you, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If
anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come into
him and dine with him and he with Me." (Rev 3:20).
So, if you do not open - this shows your attitude towards Him -
you will not attain salvation. How easy it is for Him to leave
you to your obstinacy until you cry out, "My beloved had
turned away and was gone I sought him, but I could not
find him." (Song 5:6).
Do not say then that our attitude is not important, but His!
If the matter depends on the Lord Christ wholly all people
would be saved.
"He desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge
of truth." (1 Tim 2:4).
However, there should be a human response, otherwise the
Lord will say, as He said before to Jerusalem, "How often I
wanted but you were not willing! See! your house is left to
you desolate." (Matt 23:37, 38).
How can it be that one's attitude be not important? See what
the Lord Christ says, "But whoever denies Me before men,
him I will also deny before My Father Who is in heaven."
(Matt 10:33). This is due to one's attitude.
Accepting the Lord Christ, believing in Him and in His
redemption are essential matters and principal attitude that a
person should take instead of being passive towards Christ
What else?
The Lord says, "He who believes and is baptised will be
saved." (Mark 16:16).
It is not sufficient only to believe so that you may attain the
deserts of the Lord Christ's Blood, but you should also get
baptised. You should be, "Buried with Him through baptism."
(Rom 6:3), to die with Him and arise with Him. That is why
Ananias said to Saul of Tarsus - after he accepted the Lord and
believed in Him - "Brother Saul ... why are you waiting? Arise
and be baptised and wash away your sins." (Acts 22:13, 16).
Can you say then "Why should I be baptised, what avails is the
attitude of Christ towards me?" By being baptised, you put on
Christ, as St. Paul said, "For as many of you as were baptised
into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal 3:27).
Among other serious things regarding your attitude is the
Holy Communion for example:
The Lord says, "Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of Man
and drink His Blood, you have no life in you...He who eats My
Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in Me and I in him." (John
6:53, 56).
Would you say then "I will not eat His Flesh nor drink His
Blood. What is important is His attitude towards me!"
Do you think that life with God is a passive attitude on
your part?
Do you want God to do everything and you remain passive, as
if you were led unto doing good or were not participating with
God in work?
What then would be the difference between the righteous and
the wicked? The Lord Christ says, "Whoever does the will of
My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother."
(Matt 12:50).
Hence, you must decide your attitude towards Him by
doing His will.
Or do you want to be among God's people without doing His
will and are satisfied with His attitude towards you? See what
the Holy Bible says, "Every tree which does not bear good fruit
is cut down and thrown into the fire." (Matt 3:10). Now are
you bearing fruit, or you are satisfied with the attitude of Him
who willed and implanted you in His vineyard?
His attitude is to implant you in His vineyard and your attitude
is to bear fruit.
He ever requires this from us, saying, "Abide in My love. If you
keep My commandments, you will abide in My love." (John
15:9, 10).
You should take an attitude towards the Lord Christ, you
should love Him as He loved you so that love may not be from
one part only, the part of Christ who loved you and sacrificed
His Blood for you.
If you do love Him, do not sin against Him and if you had lived
before in sin, you should decide your attitude now by repenting.
Repentance is essential as an attitude on your part so that
you may benefit from the Blood of the Lord Christ.
The Lord Himself says, "Unless you repent, you will all likewise
perish," (Luke 13:3).
Would you not then repent, but say "What avails is Christ's attitude
towards me?"
The foregoing words represent the Lord Christ's attitude towards
those who do not repent: they will perish.
His attitude towards you is that He wants to wipe out your sins with
His Blood, provided that you repent, otherwise you will not benefit
from the Lord Christ's Blood.
Does the sinner have a share in the Blood of Christ?
Yes, provided that he repents. His attitude is thus important.
Question:
Is it possible that Christ dies though He is God? Can God
die? Was the death of Christ a weakness? Who was
managing the world during His death?
Answer:
God cannot die. The divinity cannot undergo death.
Thus, we say in the Trisagion, "Holy is God, Holy is the
Powerful, Holy is the Living and Immortal."
However, the Lord Christ is not only Godhead, but He is united
with a human body.
He took on Himself a body of our human nature and that is why
He was called "Son of Man". His human body is united with a
human spirit which is mortal like ours, but it is united with the
divine nature without separation.
When He died on the cross, He died in the body; in the
human body.
Thus, we say in the ninth hour prayer, "You who tasted death in
the body at the ninth hour "
The death of Christ was not out of weakness, nor was it
against His divinity.
It was not against His divinity because the Godhead is living -
by His nature - and is immortal.
Moreover, He willed that His human body dies as a pleasing
sacrifice and also for the redemption of the world.
His death was not also out of weakness for the following
reasons:
1. His death was not weakness, but rather love and sacrifice as
the Holy Bible says, "No one has greater love than this, to lay
down one's life for one's friends." (John 15:13).
2. The Lord Christ offered Himself to death by His own will.
He laid down His life to redeem humanity from the judgement
of death. This is evident in His great words, "I lay down My
life that I may take it again. "No one takes it from Me, but I lay
it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have
power to take it again. This command I have received from My
Father." (John 10:17, 18).
The weakness of an ordinary person in his death lies in two
matters:
a) An ordinary person dies against his will and he has no power
to escape from death, unlike the Lord Christ who laid down His
life without anyone taking it from Him.
b) When an ordinary person dies, he cannot rise unless God
raises him. But the Lord Christ has risen by Himself and said
about His life, "I have power to take it up again." These words
can only be said by one who is powerful not weak.
3. Among the signs of the Lord's power in His death are the
following:
a) In His crucifixion and death, "At that moment the curtain of
the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom and the earth
quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened;
and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised
" So when the centurion and those with him, who were
guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had
happened, they feared greatly, saying, "Truly this was the Son
of God!"(Matt 27:51-54).
b) In His death He worked also; for He opened Paradise and let
in Adam, the other righteous people and the thief.
c) Through His death He abolished death (2 Tim 1:10), (Heb
2:14). Thus death became a mere golden bridge bringing
people to a better life. Therefore St. Paul the Apostle said, "O
Death, where is your sting?" (1 Cor 15:55).
Who then administered the universe during His death?
It was His Godhead who administered the universe; His
Godhead that never dies and was never affected by the death of
the body. The Godhead is present everywhere and is also in
heaven (John 3:13).
Question:
How did the Lord die though we say that His divinity was
not separated from His humanity even for a moment or a
twinkle of an eye?
Answer:
The death of the Lord Christ means the separation of His
spirit from His body, not the separation of His divinity
from His humanity.
Death belongs to the body - to humanity alone. It is a
separation between the two elements of humanity, i.e. the spirit
and the body. This does not mean that divinity was separated
from humanity.
The beautiful Syrian Fraction prayed in the Holy Mass explains
this fact in clear words. It says:
"His spirit was separated from His body, but His divinity
has never been separated from His spirit nor from His
body."
The human spirit was separated from the human body, while the
Godhead was not separated from any of them but remained
united with them as before death. The only difference is that
before death the Godhead was united with the spirit and the
body of Christ together, whereas after death, the Godhead was
united with them while each of them was apart from the other,
i.e., the Godhead became united with the human spirit alone and
with the human body alone.
A proof of this fact - i.e. the Godhead was united with the
Lord's human spirit during His death - is that the Lord's
spirit, being united with the Godhead, was able to open Paradise
that had been closed since Adam's sin and could go to Hades
and release the righteous people of the old times who departed
in hope letting all of them into Paradise with the thief who was
on the Lord's right hand on the cross and whom the Lord
promised, "Today you will be with Me in Paradise." (Luke
23:43).
The proof of the Godhead being united with the Lord's
body during His death is that the body remained completely
undecayed and He could rise on the third day and come out of
the closed tomb in mystery and power; the power of the
Resurrection.
What happened then in the Resurrection?
In the Resurrection the Lord Christ's human spirit united with
the Godhead, was united with the body that was united with the
Godhead also. The divinity never was separate from humanity
neither before nor during death nor after it.
Question:
Is it true that the body of the Lord Christ, i.e., the Church,
is the same body on the altar and the same body that
ascended into heaven and sat on the Father's right hand,
both being One? Is this mentioned in the sayings of any of
the father saints?
Answer:
1. The Lord's body that is on the altar is the body born by the
Holy Virgin Mary, the body that was crucified, buried and risen,
that ascended into heaven and sat on the right hand of the
Father.
As for the Lord's body, meaning the Church, it refers to the
whole congregation of believers and it is not reasonable to
say that they all were born of the Holy Virgin.
Is it possible that the millions of Christians who live now, the
millions who departed and the millions who will be born in
future, all of them are born of the Holy Virgin as the body who
sat on the Father's right hand and moreover they are that same
body?
2. We worship the Lord's body that is on the altar and say, "We
worship Your Holy Body, O Lord." We say also, "His divinity
was not separated from His humanity not even for a moment or
a twinkling of an eye." We say the same to the body that
ascended and sat on the right hand of the Father.
It is different from the body of the Lord meaning the Church;
for we do not worship the Church nor say about it - as a body -
that its divinity was not separated from its humanity!!
3. The Lord Christ's body that is on the altar is the body that
redeemed us and died for us then ascended into heaven in glory.
Can we say then it is the church that redeemed us, died for us
and ascended into heaven in glory?
4. We partake of the Lord's Body and Blood on the altar, do we
partake of the Church (if we agree that the Church and the
Lord's Body are One)? God forbid...
5. The Lord Christ's Body, meaning the Church, is not yet
complete. There are
members that have not yet joined it, i.e., those who are not yet
born and those who will accept faith in future.
But the Lord Christ's Body that is on the altar and in heaven is
perfect without deficiency and no other members will join it.
6. The Lord Christ's Body, meaning the Church, is ourselves
while His Body that is on the altar and in heaven is Christ
Himself. If both are One, are we then Christ?
Are we sitting now on the Father's right hand? Are we in
heaven? And when we partake do we partake of the Church or
of Christ?
7. The Lord Christ's Body, meaning the Church, includes all the
believers who have not yet completed their struggle and who
are still struggling against the evil powers and not yet crowned.
As for the Lord's body that is on the altar and sitting on the
right hand of the Father, it has no members who are still
struggling the evil power to conquer and be crowned. It has
overcome and is glorified and helps us to walk in the procession
of His victory.
8. The Lord Christ's body on the altar is a real body in the literal
meaning of the word "body". But the Church is the Lord's
Body in the spiritual meaning as it is His bride in the spiritual
meaning also
9. If the Church is the same Body of the Lord Christ that is on
the altar and on the Father's right, we would be lead to the
heresy of "the one existence" in which many philosophers and
heretics fell.
10. No one of the fathers adopted this wrong opinion and if it is
attributed by any Christian writer to any saint, this writer is
certainly wrong in conveying the words or in understanding the
intent of the saint and should make sure of the text and its
source.
It is impossible that any of the saints speak words contradicting
faith exposing himself to criticism as we have seen while
analysing this thought.
Dear reader, you should examine carefully all that you read and
don't believe what some may attribute to saints which saints did
not say.
Question:
A Sabbatherian Adventist priest visited us and said, "It is
written in the Holy Bible, "Heaven and earth will pass
away, but My words will not pass away" and the Law
commands us to keep the Sabbath holy. Why then do we
not keep it?"
Answer:
The Law commanded in the Old Testament keeping the
Sabbath, but it also commanded to offer animal sacrifices for
every sin and trespass (Lev 4), do this Adventist priest and his
followers offer animal sacrifices in obedience to the Law?
Does he offer these sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem? Or
he breaks the Law in this point. Does he keep the fasting of the
fourth month, the fifth month, the seventh month and the tenth
month as the Bible says in (Zech 8:19)? Does he celebrate the
festival of booths, the festival of trumpets, the festival of the
weeks and the festival of the unleavened bread as the Law
commands in (Lev 23)? Why does not he say about these
festivals "not one letter, not one stroke of a letter will pass from
the Law until all is accomplished." (Matt 5:18)?
Does he and his family celebrate the Passover every year and
bring a lamb and keep it from the tenth to the fourteenth day,
then they eat it roasted over the fire with unleavened bread and
bitter herbs with their loins girded, sandals on their feet, staff in
their hand and eat it hurriedly then for seven days they eat
unleavened bread and remove leaven from their houses
according to the Law (Ex 12:6-9). Is this Adventist priest
descending from Aaron as the Law requires?
Does he keep the commandments of the Law as stipulated in
the Old Testament? Does he observe all rules of uncleanliness
and purification and abstain from foods prohibited by the Law?
Or is it only the Sabbath that concerns him whereas "For
whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one
point, he is guilty of all." (Jas 2:10).
Would that this Adventist brother come out of the letter to the
spirit and oversteps the symbol to the thing symbolised; for
some commandments are given to us in the Old Testament in
order that we understand it in a new spiritual way in the New
Testament. Would that he listens to the words of the apostle, "
if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world,
why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to
regulations; "Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle " (Col
2:20, 21).
Such commandments are only "a shadow of what is to come"
including also the commandment of the Sabbath. So, the
apostle says,"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or
regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths ". (Col 2:16).
So, the commandment of the Sabbath - in its literal meaning -
ended and let no one condemn you for it as the apostle said
about the Sabbath and other regulations which are, "a shadow
of things to come,." (Col 2:17).
And so long as the Holy Bible considered the Sabbath one of
the regulations which are a shadow of what is to come, which
means that it was a mere symbol and changed by the appearance
of the thing symbolised ie. Sunday, thus we are not requested
to keep it literally according to this express commandment of
the New Testament.
However, God's words do not pass away; the Sabbath, in
its spiritual meaning, is still kept. What then is its spiritual
meaning?
The word "Sabbath" means rest and the commandment of
keeping this weekly rest for the Lord is still existing; for we
take rest in the real Lord's Day which is Sunday, on which the
Lord took rest actually. What does this mean? How did the
Lord take rest on Sunday?
The Lord took rest after offering His blood on Friday for our
salvation by paying the debt of sin in full on the cross. He
released all the world from the debt of sin, but death remained.
The Lord had to release us from death as well so as it does not
continue as a ghost terrifying us and He released us from it on
Sunday by His resurrection and victory over death. Thus
Sunday became the real rest of the Lord on which He released
us from death and from the wages of death.
Would that we take the spirit not the letter of the Law.
It is written, the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Cor 3:6)
The spirit of the Law is the rest on the Lord's day and the great
day of the Lord was Sunday on which He got rid of death which
was the most dangerous enemy of man.
For more detail, see my book "The Ten Commandments - Part
1 - Fourth Commandment"
Question:
Since the Lord Christ has said, "He who believes and is
baptised will be saved." (Mark 16:16), why then are children
baptised before accepting faith?
Answer:
We baptise children because baptism is necessary for their
salvation.
The Lord Christ said to Nicodemus, "Most assuredly, I say to
you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit." (John 3:5).
We baptise children so that they become members of the church
and benefit from Its spiritualities.
They benefit from the church Sacraments, they come to the
church and take part in celebrating the Holy Mass and have
communion.
Why do we deprive children of such spiritual atmosphere and
benefits? Is it because they are young? The Lord Christ says,
"Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for
of such is the kingdom of heaven " (Matt 19:14).
Some may object saying that a child cannot accept faith and
faith is necessary for salvation. We reply: Faith is necessary
for the grown ups who need to be convinced by reasoning.
The grown up need preaching and ministry of the word to be
convinced and accept faith, whereas children believe whatever
we say to them. They have no objection to faith: for they have
not attained yet the age of doubt and argument. On the other
hand, the grown ups should declare their faith before baptism
and should learn the rules of faith as the church used to do for
the catechumens before their receiving baptism.
Children are baptised according to the faith of their
parents.
In the Holy Bible, there are many examples of children who
were baptised after the faith of their parents and joined the
church as members (among the believers) on the basis of their
parents' faith also. Among those are:
1. Salvation of the firstborn by the blood of the Passover
lamb.
The symbol is very clear in this great historical event. The
Passover is a symbol of the Lord Christ as St. Paul said, "For
indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us." (1 Cor 5:7)
and the Passover blood is a symbol of the blood of Christ by
which we attained salvation as the Lord said, "When I see the
blood, I will pass over you." (Ex 12:13).
Here we inquire: Had the children who were saved by the
Passover blood believed in the blood first?
Of course not, but they were saved because of the faith of their
parents who sprinkled the doors with the blood trusting the
Lord's words and trusting that the blood will save their children
from perdition and it happened.
Was it necessary to ask every child saved whether he had
believed in the Passover blood first or not?
Perhaps some were still babes knowing nothing.
2. The Children who were saved from slavery of Pharaoh
by crossing the Red Sea.
The symbol of salvation is very clear here. The crossing of the
Red Sea was considered baptism by St. Paul the Apostle (1 Cor
10:2). Most of these children crossed the Sea on the shoulders
of their parents not knowing what was going on.
But their parents believed in the Lord's promise of salvation to
Moses and they crossed the Sea in trust. Their faith saved their
children with them.
3. The Children who were circumcised on the eighth day:
Circumcision was a symbol of baptism, through which a child
becomes a member of God's people and unless a child is
baptised he perishes. What did a child understand from all this?
What was his belief on his eighth day from birth? Should we
have asked such a child about his belief in the circumcision law
as given by the Lord to our father Abraham (Gen 17). Was not
he circumcised according to the faith of his parents and this was
accounted righteousness for him and he joined God's people by
it?
4. The children who were baptised among their families.
It is written about Lydia, the purple cloth dealer, that "she and
her household were baptised." (Acts 16:15). The children were
not excluded. It is said also about the jailer who believed
through the preaching of Paul and Silas, "Immediately he and
all his family were baptized." (Acts 16:33). Was there not any
child among all those? The same is said about Crispus the
official of the Synagogue (Acts 18:8). St. Paul the Apostle
says also that he had baptised "the household of Stephanas."
(1 Cor 1:16) without excluding the children.
In General, no verse in the Holy Bible prohibits baptising
children.
However, when children grow up, their faith will be tested. If
they were steadfast they will continue in their faith, if not they
will not benefit as in the case of grown ups who were baptised
but were not steadfast, no difference.
Question:
Do we not believe that a person is renewed in baptism
(Rom 6:4)? Why then does one sin after baptism in spite of
being renewed?
Answer:
In baptism, one obtains renewal, not infallibility.
No one on earth is infallible. Notice David the prophet in the
Old Testament: how the Spirit of the Lord came upon him (1
Sam 16:13) but this did not prevent him from sinning afterwards
(2 Sam 24:10). Samson also, " the Spirit of the LORD began to
move upon him." (Judg 13:25) " And the Spirit of the LORD
came mightily upon him." (Judg 14:6), however, he sinned and
broke his vow (Judg 16:19, 20).
Thus, renewal in baptism does not mean that a person does not
sin thereafter.
The principle is that one's nature becomes inclined to
righteousness and sin becomes incidental.
This means that a person's spiritual capabilities become
extensive and he becomes worthy to have the Holy Spirit dwell
in him through the Holy Chrism (Myron). When he sins, his
conscience blames him quickly and he becomes ready to return
to God.
Not to sin at all will only be realised in eternity where we
shall put on the crown of righteousness. St. Paul the
Apostle said, "Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of
righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to
me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have
loved His appearing." (2 Tim 4:8) This means that our nature
will be crowned with righteousness in the other life and will
have righteousness as a nature so as not to sin afterwards. (See
my book, "Life of Repentance and Purity" the Chapter on
"Purity").
Here, on earth, the righteous fall seven times and rise again
(Prov 24:16).
They are still considered righteous because righteousness is the
principle, whereas falling is incidental. One falls and gets
purified through repentance.
Question:
If blessing belongs to God, can blessing be taken from a
human? Can a person bless another person? What is the
biblical evidence of this?
Answer:
Yes, a blessing can be taken from a human and in this case it
will be a blessing from God Himself. There are many examples
for this in the Holy Bible such as:
E The blessing given by Isaac to Jacob.
Isaac blessed his son Jacob (Gen 27) and Jacob became blessed
from God and became favoured than Esau. He took the rights
of the firstborn and priesthood and from his offspring Christ
came and all the families of the earth are blessed in him and in
his offspring (Gen 28:14). Esau wept for losing this right of the
firstborn (Gen 27:38).
It is written also, "By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau
concerning things to come." (Heb 11:20).
Jacob, likewise, blessed his sons.
His blessing came true with respect to each one of his sons as if
every word from him was coming from the mouth of God
Himself. And when Jacob blessed Ephraim and Manasseh
putting his right hand on Ephraim the younger and his left on
Manasseh the elder, Ephraim became greater than Manasseh
(Gen 48:13-20). "So he blessed them that day, saying, 'By you
Israel will invoke blessings, saying God make you like Ephraim
and like Manasseh', So he put Ephraim before Manasseh."
And the blessing came true. Jacob blessed also Joseph his son
(Gen 48:15, 49:22-26).
E Preceding these, our father Noah blessed his sons and
cursed Canaan.
The sons of our father Noah whom he blessed became blessed
and on the other hand Canaan whom Noah cursed (Gen 9:26,
27) became cursed even from the mouth of the Lord Christ in
His talk with the Canaanite Woman (Matt 15:22, 26).
From all this, many blessings came: The blessing of the parents:
E Whoever honours his parents is blessed,
How much rather if those parents are holy people. An example
of the blessing of the parents is that in (Gen 31:55), "And early
in the morning Laban arose, and kissed his sons and daughters
and blessed them."
E The blessing of the righteous.
The Holy Bible mentions this clearly as in: (Prov 11:11), "By
the blessing of the upright a city is exalted."
(Prov 28:20) “A faithful man will abound with blessings."
The men of God also blessed people as when Simon the elderly
blessed the holy Virgin and Joseph the Carpenter (Luke 2:34).
E The righteous person does not only bless others but he
himself becomes a blessing.
The Lord said to our father Abraham, "I will make you a great
nation; I will bless you And make your name great; And you
shall be a blessing." (Gen 12:2). And to the house of Judah the
Lord said, "I will save you, and you shall be a blessing." (Zech
8:13).
Likewise, Elijah was a blessing to the house of the widow of
Zarephath and Joseph the righteous to the house of Potiphar
and to Egypt.
E There is also the blessing of priesthood:
There is the blessing of Moses the prophet & priest (Psa 99:6)
to the people as it is written, "Then Moses looked over all the
work, and indeed they had done it; as the LORD had
commanded, just so they had done it. And Moses blessed
them." (Ex 39:43). The Lord even explained the way by which
Aaron's sons should bless people, He said to Moses, " Speak to
Aaron and his sons, saying, 'This is the way you shall bless the
children of Israel. Say to them: "The LORD bless you and
keep you; The LORD make His face shine upon you, And be
gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you,
And give you peace". (Num 6:22-26).
Another example of the blessing of priesthood is when
Melchizedek the priest of God Most High blessed Abraham the
Patriarch (Gen 14:19,Heb 7:1). St. Paul the Apostle explained
that the inferior is blessed by the superior (Heb 7:7).
E There is also the blessing of the prophets as men of
God.
We read about King Saul that he went out to seek the blessing
of Samuel the Prophet (1 Sam 13:10).
Likewise, some leaders sent messengers to David seeking his
blessing (1 Chr 18:10).
Solomon the Wise as well - having divine inspiration blessed all
the people (1 Kin 8:14), "Then the king turned around and
blessed all the assembly of Israel". (2 Chr 6:3), "Then
Solomon stood before the altar of the Lord in the presence of
the all assembly of Israel and spread out his hands." (2 Chr
6:12).
And Jehu the king blessed Jehonadab son of Rechab (2 Kin
10:15).
E Another blessing is the blessing of the needy to those
who give them charity.
It is the blessing which a benevolent obtains from a person
whom he offered help or saved from perdition. Job the
Righteous said in this respect, "The blessing of a perishing man
came upon me." (Job 29:13). It means that he took the blessing
of the person whom he saved.
E There is a blessing which stands for prayer by anybody.
The apostle says, "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do
not curse them." (Rom 12:4). And the Lord Christ says in the
Sermon on the Mount, "Pray (bless) for those who persecute
you." (Matt 5:44).
St. Peter as well says, "not returning evil for evil or reviling
for reviling, but on the contrary blessing, knowing that you
were called to this, that you may inherit a blessing." (1 Pet
3:9).
So, blessing can be given by one person to another to sum up all
the above, we mention the following blessings given by humans:
1. Blessing of our forefathers.
2. Blessing of the parents.
3. Blessing of the righteous.
4. Blessing of the clergy.
5. Blessing of the prophets and anointed persons.
6. Blessing of the needy to those who give them charity.
7. Blessing by anybody as a prayer.
The blessing of those might be a prayer to which God responds
and blesses. They are vessels in which blessing of God is
conveyed. God entrusted them with His stores to
give from them to others...
Question:
Is there any similarity between the Holy Trinity of
Christianity and the pagan trinity? Or what is the
difference? And was the cause of spreading Christianity in
Egypt the similarity between the Trinity of Christianity and
the pagan trinity as manifested in the story of Osoris, Isis
and Horus?
Answer:
If we say that the cause of spreading Christianity quickly in
Egypt is the similarity between its dogmas and the dogmas of
the pharaonic Egypt, what then is the cause of the spreading of
Christianity in other countries of the world?
Was it also a matter of similarity of dogmas? And if there
was similarity, why was Christianity persecuted by
paganism?
Why did the pagans kill St. Mark who preached the gospel in
Egypt? Why had there been harsh conflict between paganism
and Christianity along four centuries which ended with the
extermination of paganism as its worshippers abandoned it and
the idols were destroyed... !
No doubt Christianity revealed the falsehood and wrong
concepts of paganism and not the similarity! Otherwise there
would have been no need for a new religion to replace
paganism.
As regards the dogma of the Trinity, it is clear that paganism
does not believe in it.
Paganism believes in plurality of gods on a large scale not in
trinity.
Pharaonic Egypt believed in god "Raa" who created god "Sho" and
goddess "Neftoot." These two married and gave birth to god "Gab"
the god of earth and goddess "Nout" goddess of heaven.
These in turn married and gave birth to Osoriso, lsis, Sett and
Naftis. "Osoris" & "Isis" married and begot god Horus. There
were also many other gods worshipped by the Egyptians.
Where then is the trinity amidst all this multitude of gods?
Can we choose three of those gods and call them trinity?
In the story of Osoris and Isis for example, we mentioned ten
Egyptian gods. Even in this story when Isis saved her murdered
husband Osoris and restored him to life, she was helped by
Tohoot, god of wisdom, Anobis, god of mummification and by
her sister Naftis. It is not then confined to a trinity i.e. to three
gods and the old Egyptian dogmas have no such dogma known
as trinity.
However, we say:
Christianity does not only believe in trinity but in Trinity
and Oneness (monotheism).
This monotheism is not acceptable to the old religions
which believe in plurality.
The Christian Creed begins with "Truly we believe in One
God", and after in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit, we say, "One God. Amen". And St. John the Evangelist
says in his first epistle, "For there are three that bear witness in
heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these
three are one." (1 John 5:7).
The Words "God is one" are stated in many places of the Holy
Bible:
It is mentioned in (Gal 3:20), in (Jas 2:19), in (Eph 4:5), in (1
Tim 2:5), in (John 5:44), in (Rom 3:30), in (Matt 19:17) and in
(Mark 12:29, 32). It also represented the first Commandment
(Ex 20:3), how clear was the text of that commandment "The
LORD our God, the LORD is one!" (Deut 6:4).
This same phrase "One God" was mentioned many times in
Isaiah on the mouth of God Himself as in (Is 43:10, 11), (Is
45:6, 18, 21), (Is 46:9).
Christianity proclaims that the three persons (Hypostases) are
One God.
This is stated in (1John 5:7) and in the words of the Lord Christ
" baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Spirit." (Matt 28:19). He said "in the name"
not "in the names".
Perhaps one may ask how 1+1+1 = 1, we reply that l x l x l = l.
The Trinity represents the One God with His wisdom and His
Spirit, as we say of a person that he and his mind and spirit are
one being and that the fire with its light and heat are one thing.
Osoris, Isis and Horus on the other hand are not one but
three gods.
This is the first difference between this story and the Holy
Trinity of Christianity.
The second difference lies in the story of a marriage between a
man god, Osoris and a woman goddess, Isis, begetting a son
god, Horus.
There is no women nor marriage in the Christianity, God
forbids!
If we say that every father, mother & son from a trinity, it
would be in every place, in every country and in every family.
However, this has nothing to do with the Christian Trinity.
The Son in Christianity is not the offspring of a sexual
propagation.
God forbids that this be in Christianity, for God is Spirit (John
4:24) and He is above sexual propagation. The Son in
Christianity is God's uttered wisdom or God's wise utterance.
The Son's filiation to the Father in the Trinity is the same as we
say the mind begets a thought, yet the mind and the thought is
one thing without sexual propagation.
A thought comes out of the mind while still in it and not
separate from it, whereas in sexual propagation, the son has an
independent entity separate from his father and mother who
each has a separate independent entity as well. That is the
difference between this and the Christian Trinity.
The Persons of the Christian Trinity are not separate from
each other.
The Son says "I am in the Father and the Father is in Me."
(John 14:11). "I and My Father are One." (John 10:30).
Horus cannot say I and Osoris are one! He is in me and I am in
him.
Furthermore the Persons of the Christian Trinity are equal
in being eternal not differing in time.
God has His wisdom and Spirit since eternity.
But in the story of Osoris and Isis the son Horus was not in
existence before being born, he came to existence afterwards.
There may also be some difference in age between Osoris and
Isis and they also came to existence only when being born by
Gab and Nout.
God in the Holy Trinity in Christianity is from eternity, with His
Wisdom and His Spirit. There was no time when one of these
Person had no existence.
For all the aforementioned reasons, there can be no resemblance
between the Holy Trinity of Christianity and the numerous gods
of paganism with their variety in sex (a male god and a female
goddess) and marriage of gods and begetting children.
Question:
Does the Incarnation of the Lord mean that He is limited
within certain boundaries though He is limitless?
Answer:
Incarnation does not mean limitation, because God is not
bounded within a certain place. When He was in the body in a
certain place, He was in the Godhead everywhere. It is the
same as we say that God was speaking with Moses on the
Mountain but He was not only on the Mountain but was at the
same time everywhere managing the whole world with its
continents. Likewise when God was speaking with Abraham
and when He appeared to other prophets, He was at the same
time in every other place.
When we say that God is on His throne, we do not mean that
He is only on the throne but He is also glorified here and
present everywhere. His throne is in heaven, His throne is also
in every place where He is glorified. He is in heaven and
heaven is not vast enough for Him.
When He spoke to Nicodemus in Jerusalem, He said, "No one
has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven,
that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven." (John 3:13). That is,
He was in heaven while speaking to Nicodemus in Jerusalem.
He was in the body visible in some place. At the same time
in the Godhead He was invisible in other places.
As Godhead He is in every place, but the people see Him in the
body in a certain place. This does not contradict with His being
in the Godhead in all earth and heaven as the Godhead is
unlimited.
Question:
Did the Lord Christ come for the Jews only, the lost sheep
of the house of Israel? Can His religion be thus confined to
the Jews, not extended to the whole world? And was
Judaism also confined to Jews?
Answer:
Religion leads people to God and teaches them about God,
about His commandments, the way of worshipping Him and
their relationship with Him.
Therefore, any religion should be to the whole world
because God is the God of all people and His way is for all
people. This is applicable to both Christianity and
Judaism.
In Judaism God was not for the Jews alone, but for the whole
world. However, the Gentiles did not believe in Him because
they were involved in the worship of idols and other gods.
Whoever believed in God, from among the Gentiles, God
accepted and did not reject.
A strong evidence of this is the story of Nineveh, a city of
Gentiles not Jews to which God sent Jonah the Prophet.
When Nineveh repented and believed through the call of Jonah,
God accepted their repentance and faith and said to Jonah, "And
should I not pity Nineveh, that great city?" (Jonah 4:11).
Another example is Rahab the Gentile from Jericho and also
Ruth the Gentile from Moab. Both of them were accepted by
God and were mentioned among the grandmothers of Christ
(Matt 1).
The queen of Sheba accepted faith and was married to Solomon
the Wise and according to the Ethiopian tradition she begot
Menilek from Solomon. There is also the Ethiopian woman
whom Moses the Prophet married (Num 12:1). The sailors of
the ship which Jonah the prophet rode also accepted faith (Jon
1:16).
There are many other examples in the Old Testament for the
conversion of the Gentiles.
As for the New Testament, it is evident that Christianity is
for the whole world.
The message of Christ is salvation, for the whole world as the
Holy Bible says, "For God so loved the world that He gave His
only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not
perish but have everlasting life." (John 3:16).
When John the Baptist saw the Lord Christ, he said, "Behold!
The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!" (John
1:29). The same was repeated by St. John the Evangelist in (1
John 2:2).
To understand the message of the Lord Christ, it is enough to
refer to what He said to His holy disciples, "Go into all the
world and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15)
and, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations.
Baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Spirit." (Matt 28:19) and also, "You shall be witnesses
to Me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the
end of the earth." (Acts 1:8).
The Lord even chose Paul the Apostle to carry His name to the
Gentiles, "I will send you far from here to the Gentiles." (Acts
22:21). The Lord said to him also, "as you have testified for
Me in Jerusalem, so you must also bear witness at Rome."
(Acts 23:11).
About preaching the gospel, the Lord said, "And this gospel
of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness
to all the nations." (Matt 24:14).
The Lord praised also the faith of the Gentile centurion, saying,
"I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel." (Matt
8:10) and praised the faith of the Canaanite woman, saying to
her, "great is your faith." (Matt 15:28).
The Lord gave as an example of good work the good Samaritan
who was better than the priest and the Levite (Luke 10:30-37)
and emphasised the fact that the Gentiles are accepted, when He
said, "Many widows were in Israel in the days of Elijah ... but
to none of them was Elijah sent except to Zarephath ... to a
woman who was a widow." (Luke 4:25, 26) and likewise with
regard to the cleaning of Naaman the Syrian by Elisha the
Prophet (Luke 4:27).
The Lord permitted the conversion of Cornelius the
Gentile.
The Holy Spirit was poured on Cornelius and those with him so
they spoke with tongues (Acts 10:46) and the Lord permitted
Philip to baptise the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27-38).
The father apostles as well in the Council of Jerusalem talked
about accepting the Gentiles into faith and explained the way
they should be treated (Acts 15). Of course they did not take
any decision against God's will.
The whole Book of the Acts of the Apostles tell about the
extended preaching to the Gentiles.
The Acts tell us how the apostles spread faith in Asia Minor, in
Cyprus, Greece & Italy and reached Spain and other non Jewish
countries. Thus, Christianity spread throughout the whole
world till it reached us as well as others.
Preaching to the Jews was just a preliminary work, a mere
starting point since they have the Law, the symbols and the
sayings of the prophets.
But Christianity never said that faith stopped at this
starting point not extending farther.
The Lord Christ, preached first amidst the lost sheep of Israel,
who had the fathers & the prophets and the Law, but they
refused Him. So, it is written, "but as many as received Him,
to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those
who believe in His name." (John 1:12). The phrase, "as many
as received Him" does no refer only to Jews. It was only in the
first training missionary that the Lord Christ sent His disciples
to the Jews alone, not to the Gentiles or Samaritans, because
they were not yet able to bear this at the start of their service.
The Gentiles rejected and despised them and the
Samaritans did not deal with them.
The Samaritans once rejected Christ Himself and did not receive
Him (Luke 9:53).
Such rejection and enmity on the part of the Samaritans and
Gentiles was not fit for the apostles being still beginners in
service so as not to find the work hard and fail in performing it.
However, the Lord Christ prepared the way before them to
serve Samaria.
He preached to the Samaritan woman and the Samaritan people
and they accepted Him. Thus, He said to His disciples, "I sent
you to reap that for which you have not labored." (John 4:38).
Then He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem till
they have received power from the highest and said to them,
"But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come
upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem and
in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth." (Acts
1:8).
Notice here the gradual programs that carried their preaching to
the end of the earth. However, it is evident that the acceptance
of the Gentiles started since the birth of Christ as manifested in
the wise men from the East who believed in him and presented
their presents to Him and the Lord accepted them.
Question:
What is the theological meaning of the words, "He
ascended to heaven and sat on the right of the Father?"
Does God have right and left as we humans have?
Answer:
By Christ's ascension to heaven is meant His ascension in the
body, because the Godhead does not ascend or descend, for He
is present in heaven and earth and in between filling all. What
the disciples saw was the ascension in the body (Acts 1:9).
As for sitting on the Father's right, God has no right nor
left.
The words right and left are said only of limited beings, but God
is unlimited. Besides there is no space around Him for
anyone to sit in; for He is filling all and present in all places.
Furthermore, if the Son sat beside Him, they would be beside
each other while the Son said, "I am in the Father and the
Father in Me." (John 14:11).
The word "right" in fact, refers to power, greatness and
righteousness.
We say in (Ps 118:15-17):
" The right hand of the LORD does valiantly. The right hand of
the LORD is exalted; The right hand of the LORD does
valiantly. I shall not die, but live."
Likewise, is the case when the righteous will stand on the right
of the Lord and the wicked on His left on the Day of Judgement
(Matt 25). So, Christ being on the Father's right means in His
greatness and righteousness. Therefore, the Lord Christ said to
the high priest, "Hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting
at the right hand of the Power." (Matt 26:64).
The word "sitting" here means settled ... settled in the Power.
Hence, the case of making Himself of no reputation (Philem
2:7) ended by the Ascension. Also the spitting, striking and
scourging ... etc, ended and He settled in the greatness and
when he comes in the second coming He will come in His glory
with the holy angels with Him (Matt 25:31), on the clouds of
heaven as He ascended (Acts 1:11).
Question:
What is the meaning of the words "partakers of the divine
nature" (2 Pet 1:4) and "the communion of the Holy Spirit"
(2 Cor 13:14)? Do we partake of God's divine nature? Did
the human nature unite with the divine nature in the
disciples when the Holy Spirit descended on them on the
Day of Pentecost?
Answer:
Who partakes of or unites with God in His nature, becomes
God! This is against sound faith. Only those who believe in
deifying man (in nature not mere title) say this and it is part of
the heresy "unity of existence" by which man thinks of himself
more highly than he ought to think (Rom 12:3).
The right interpretation of the words "partakers of the divine
nature" is the following:
We partake of the divine nature in work, not in essence.
It means that we do not be partakers of the divine nature in the
attributes belonging to God alone such as eternity and
limitlessness. It is communion in work for the edification of the
kingdom whether through our own salvation or winning the
others for salvation.
The same may apply to "the communion of the Holy Spirit"
(2 Cor 13:14).
We can never succeed in any work unless God works with us:
for, "Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who
build it." (Ps 127:1). And in the Travellers Litany we say,
"Take part in the work with Your servants."
If God's Spirit takes part in the work with us, we take from Him
power and grace and our works be successful and in accordance
with God's will, thus we become in "communion with the Holy
Spirit" in work.
On the Day of Pentecost, the gifts of the Holy Spirit poured
on the disciples.
This realised the prophecy of Joel the prophet, "I will pour out
of My Spirit on all flesh: your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy, your young men shall see visions, your old men shall
dream dreams." (Acts 2:17, Joe 2:28). It was also a realisation
of the Lord's promise to His disciples, "But you shall receive
power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you and you shall
be witnesses to Me." (Acts 1:8). Speaking in tongues was
among the gifts God granted them (Acts 2:6). This gift of
speaking languages helped spread faith.
The unity of the divine nature and the human nature
happened only in the Incarnation of the Lord Christ alone.
Can it be believed, then, that all the disciples became like Christ
on the Day of Pentecost?
Here we face a question: What distinguishes Christ from others?
The divinity of Christ is attacked in two ways:
a) Either lowering Christ to the level of ordinary humans as the
Arians did; or
b) Raising humans to the level of Christ as those who believe in
the philosophy of deification of man proclaim on the ground
that the nature of humans united with the nature of God!
If we say that man united with the divine nature, it means
that he became God and became infallible. In this case he
does not sin, he is not mere human.
But the action of God's Spirit in man is one thing and the unity
between God's nature and man's nature is something different.
We do not unite with God's nature. Let's be humble and behave
as humans as our father Abraham said about himself that he is
dust and ashes (Gen 18:7) and as Job the Righteous also said
(Job 42:6).
Question:
What is your opinion of saying that Christ's miracles have
been worked by impression?
Answer:
Impression is an influence on one's heart and thoughts to be
convinced of something,
but:
1. Can there be any relation between impression and
raising of the dead?
A person may impress a living person and influence his heart
and thoughts, but cannot have any influence on the dead
whereas the Lord Christ raised the dead such as the daughter of
Jairus (Mark 5:41, 42), the son of the Widow of Nain (Luke
7:11-17) and Lazarus (John 11:17-44) and all of these are of
course beyond impression.
The son of Nain was raised by Christ while carried in a bier on
the way and Lazarus was raised after four days in the tomb in
front of the consolers. Did the impression extend to the
consolers and to those who escorted the dead? Or did the
impression enter into the tomb or the bier of the dead to
influence him?
2. No relation is there between impression and the insane or
possessed.
How can one impress an insane who has no control over his
mind and feelings? or impress a possessed who is controlled by
the devils?
The Lord Christ healed many insane such as the demon -
possessed, blind and mute (Matt 12:22) and the insane of the
country of the Gadarenes who was seized by the demons and
was always bound with chains and shackles and was driven by
many demons (Legion) (Luke 8:29-32), can such a person be
influenced by an outer impression?
3. No relation is there between impression and casting out
of unclean spirits.
An unclean spirit cannot be impressed, we have an amazing
example the man with the unclean spirit who was crying out but
the Lord Christ rebuked him, saying, " Be quiet, and come out
of him!" And when the unclean spirit had convulsed him and
cried out with a loud voice, he came out of him. Then they
were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves,
saying, "What is this? What new doctrine is this? For with
authority He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey
Him." (Mark 1:25-27).
What impression is here? This miracle was in the Synagogue in
Capernaum in front of all the people there and they felt the
power and authority of Christ. The same happened when the
Lord healed the mute demon-possessed man. He cast out the
demon and the man spoke, so the multitude marvelled, saying,
"It was never seen like this in Israel." (Matt 9:32,33).
In another miracle of healing, the Lord Christ rebuked the
unclean spirit, saying, "You deaf and dumb spirit, I command
you, come out of him and enter him no more." (Mark 9:25, 27)
and the man was cured from that very hour (Matt 17:18).
4. No relation also is there between impression and nature:
sea, wind and trees.
Even if it is possible to have impression on rational beings, it is
completely impossible to have impression on non living and non
rational beings.
For example the fig tree, which represents hypocrisy, which the
Lord Christ cursed, saying, "Let no one eat fruit from you ever
again." (Mark 11:14) and immediately the tree withered away
(Matt 21:19). Did it wither by impression? And when the great
tempest arose on the sea and the boat was covered with the
waves, the Lord Christ "arose and rebuked the wind and said
to the sea, 'Peace, be still!' and the- wind ceased and there
120
was a great calm." (Mark 4:39). Is it by impression or through
authority over nature? Let the greatest psychologists in the
world calm a stormy sea through impression.
Besides the nature miracles, there are the miracles of
fishing.
The first miracle was with Peter the Apostle before being
invited. He had spent the whole night without catching any fish,
but on the word of Christ the fish increased and filled the two
boats till they began to sink because of the great number of fish
(Luke 5:1-7).
The second miracle was after the Resurrection (John 21:10-14).
Of course the fish did not come suddenly into the net due to an
impression but upon the word of Christ!!
5. No impression is there in healing a person from afar.
The Lord Christ healed the daughter of the Canaanite woman at
the request of her mother. That daughter in her home had not
been under any impression. The Lord-glory be to Him- said to
the Canaanite woman, "Go your way, the demon has gone out
of your daughter." And when she had come to her house, she
found the demon gone out and her daughter lying on the bed
(Mark 7:29-30). In the same way the Lord said to the king's
nobleman, "Go your way, your son lives." (John 4:50) and the
son was healed from that hour though he was at home
not exposed to an impression. Likewise the centurion's servant
was healed through the word of Christ from far away (Matt
8:13).
6. Creating works as well cannot be performed by
impression.
Feeding the four thousand men besides women and children by
seven loaves and a few little fish (Matt 15:32-38) cannot be by
impression. Moreover, seven large baskets were left full of the
fragments which means that a new substance was created.
And the feeding of the five thousand men, besides women and
children by five loaves and two fish cannot have been by
impression! Even if they had the impression that they were
filled, how would there remain twelve baskets full (Matt
14:20)? From where had such a quantity come unless they were
created by a miracle not by impression?
The same happened in the miracle of giving sight to the
man born blind.
The Lord Christ created eyes to him, a matter which cannot
have been performed by impression especially that the way
Christ used for this was capable to cause the opposite! The
Lord put clay on the eyes of the blind man and this may cause
blindness to one having sight! Then He ordered him to go and
wash in the pool of Siloam (John 9:6, 7). Such washing was
easy to remove clay not to create an eye with tissues and
nerves!! The clay cannot be a means of giving impression of
sight to the man!
In the same way the water was turned into wine by a
miracle.
The Lord created a substance that was not before, because
water has not the compounds of wine. He did this without any
process whatsoever; He just said, "Fill the water pots with
water." (John 2:7) then said, "Draw some out now ” Thus, a
new substance was created by the Lord's mere will. There was
no impression because the guests who drank it knew nothing
about what had happened, it was done by the servants not by
one of the guests. Where is the impression then?
7. Healing of infirmities cannot be effected by impression.
A blind cannot have sight by impression or a lame have a leg by
impression: nor a dumb, a mute or a deaf can be healed by
impression.
The Lord Christ worked many such miracles. For the blind, He
healed Bartimaeus (Mark 10:52) and another one with him
(Matt 20:34). He healed the blind man of Bethsaida (Mark
8:22-26), the blind and mute man (Matt 12:22) and two blind
men (Matt 9:27-31).
He healed the deaf and the mute (Mark 7:31, 37), (Matt 9:32-
33), (Luke 19:42) and many other examples such as healing the
ear of Malchus the servant of the high priest which was cut off
by someone (Luke 22:50, 51).
8. Healing of the leper cannot be effected by impression.
The leper had to stay away from the community and when he is
healed the priest examines him to make sure that he got well so
he can be allowed to join the community after offering a
sacrifice. However, the Lord Christ healed the leper by a touch
of his hand and immediately they were cleansed (Mark 1:41)
(Matt 8:2,3). He healed ten leper men at one time (Luke 17:11-
19) and they showed themselves to the priests as usual. Were
the priests also under impression?
Many other incurable diseases were healed by Christ.
9. No impression can be effected in case of so many miracles
and so many onlookers.
Perhaps one person may come under impression and be
influenced, but when hundreds of people with various diseases
and different psychological and mental abilities are healed, the
matter becomes different as in the miracles worked by Christ.
St. Luke the Evangelist says, "When the sun was setting, all
those who had any that were sick with various diseases brought
them to Him; and He laid His hands on every one of them and
healed them." (Luke 4:40, 41).
St. Matthew the Evangelist says about the Lord that He was
"healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among
the people." (Matt 4:23). And St. Mark the Evangelist says,
"they brought to Him all who were sick and those who were
demon-possessed. And the whole city was gathered together at
the door. Then He healed many who were sick with various
diseases and cast out many demons." (Mark 1:32-34).
Were all those and the onlookers as well "under impression"?
10. The miracles that happened in the life of Christ Himself
could not have been due to impression.
Such miracles as His Resurrection, His appearance to eleven
then to all His disciples, His transfiguration, His virgin birth...
etc., all such miracles could not have been due to impression.
Question:
Did Christ pray before working the miracle so that God
might do it and respond to His prayer?
Answer:
If we examine the miracles worked by Christ, we shall find the
opposite.
He healed diseases just by a command from Him not by
prayer.
E To the paralytic He said, "Arise, take up your bed and
go to your house." (Matt 9:6-8) and he arose and departed to
his house.
E To the man at Bethesda who had an infirmity thirty-
eight years, He said the same words, "Rise, take up your bed
and walk" and immediately the man was made well, took up his
bed and walked (John 5:8, 9).
E To the man with the withered hand He said, "Stretch out
your hand, and he stretched it out and it was restored as whole
as the other." (Mark 3:5).
E When Simon's wife's mother was sick with a high fever,
He rebuked the fever and it left her immediately and she arose
and served them (Luke 4:38) (Mark 1:31).
By command also He had power over unclean spirits and
over nature.
He ordered the unclean spirits to come out as in (Mark 9:25,
27), when He said, "You deaf and dumb spirit, I command you,
come out of him." And when He rebuked the unclean spirit and
the spirit came out the people were amazed and said, "with
authority He commands even the unclean spirits and they obey
Him." (Mark 1:27). What prayer did he say at that time? He
even rebuked He wind and the waves and there was a great
calm by His command (Mark 4:39).
He raised the dead by His command.
He raised the son of the widow of Nain while in the coffin,
saying to him, "Young man, I say to you, arise" and the dead
young man sat up and began to speak (Luke 7:14, 15). In the
same way He raised the daughter of Jairus, one of the rulers of
the Synagogue, commanding her, "Little girl, I say to you,
arise”, and immediately the girl arose and walked (Mark 5:41,
Lu 8:54, 55). No mention was made of prayer in both cases.
He healed some of the sick by laying His hands on them.
"He laid His hands on every one of them and healed them."
(Luke 4:40). When healing the deaf man, He put His fingers in
the man's ears and said, "Ephphatha i.e. be opened" and
immediately his ears were opened and he was healed (Mark
7:35). He put His hands on the blind man of Betheseda and the
man restored his sight (Mark 8:25).
And He laid His hands on the woman who had a spirit of
infirmity for eighteen years that made her bent over and she was
healed immediately (Luke 13:13). He just touched the ear of
Malchus the servant of the high priest and it was healed (Luke
22:51). He touched the eyes of the two blind man and
immediately their eyes received sight and they followed him
(Matt 20:34). In all these miracles it is not mentioned that He
prayed.
By a mere touch from Him, the sick was healed without any
prayer.
The woman who had a flow of blood for twelve years and spent
all that she had and was no better, when she just touched His
garment, "Immediately the fountain of her blood was dried up
.... she was healed." (Mark 5:29).
St. Mark the Evangelist put it so wonderfully, saying,
"Wherever he entered, into villages, cities, or the country, they
laid the sick in the market places and begged Him that they
might just touch the border of His garment. And as many as
touched Him were made well." (Mark 6:56).
A mere touch, a mere word, without any prayer from the
Lord Christ nor from the sick person healed the sick.
When the leper implored Him, saying, "If You are willing, You
can make me clean." The Lord was moved with compassion,
put out His hand and touched him, saying, "I am willing, be
cleaned" and immediately the leprosy left him and he was
cleaned (Mark 1:41) (Matt 8:2, 3). There was no prayer at all
but His mere willing.
By His mere willing water turned into wine and a new
substance was created
He said to the servants, "Fill the water pots with water." Then
He said, "Draw some out now" and it was good wine (John 2:7,
8). This happened because He just willed it, without any
prayer.
Furthermore, is there any prayer in the miracles of His
reading the thoughts of others and telling about unknown
things.
When healing the paralytic, He read the thoughts of the scribes
who were reasoning within their hearts against Him and replied
to them (Mark 2:6-11). When the sinful woman washed His
feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair, Simon the
Pharisee spoke in his heart against the Lord, but the Lord knew
Simon's thoughts and answered him (Luke 7:39-47). Many
times also He answered to the thoughts of His disciples.
Without prayer also he knew the unknown as when He told
Peter about the piece of money in the fish which would come
first in his hook (Matt 17:24-27) and as He knew that Nathanael
had been put under the fig tree (John 1:48, 49).
The only miracle for which He prayed was the raising of
Lazarus from the dead (John 11:41, 42).
Perhaps the cause was to conceal His divinity from the devil
because there were only a few days before crucifixion. And
perhaps one miracle by prayer from among so many miracles
without prayers was meant to teach us to pray. It may be also
an answer to His enemies who accused Him of doing His
miracles by the power of the devils. However, even in the
miracle of raising Lazarus, He commanded him, crying with a
loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth!" (John 11:43).
In the miracle of feeding the multitude, it is stated that He
looked up to heaven, blessed and broke the loaves (Mark
6:41; Mt 15:36).
It was not mentioned in both miracles that He prayed. As for
looking up and blessing food before eating, it may be to teach
us to do the same.
Question:
Why did the Lord Christ call Himself the Son of Man? Is it
a denial of His divinity? Why did He not say that He is the
Son of God?
Answer:
The Lord Christ called Himself the Son of God and He
called Himself also the Son of Man.
He called Himself the Son of God in His talk with the man born
blind, so the man believed in Him and worshipped Him (John
9:35-38). Sometimes, He called Himself the Son in such a way
that proves His divinity as when He said, ".. that all should
honour the Son just as they honour the Father" (John 5:21-23)
and, " no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who
the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills
to reveal Him." (Luke 10:22) and He said about Himself, "If
the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed." (John 8:36).
The Lord Christ accepted to be called the Son of God and
made this the basis of faith blessing Peter for this
confession.
He accepted this title from Nathanael (John 1:49) and from
those who saw Him walking on the water (Matt 14:33). He
blessed St. Peter when he said, "You are the Christ, the Son of
the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are
you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed
this to you, but My Father who is in heaven." (Matt 16:16, 17).
There are many testimonies in the Holy Bible that Christ is
the Son of God.
The gospel of St. Mark starts with the words, "The beginning
of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." (Mark 1:1).
And the angel, when announcing the Virgin of the holy birth,
said to her, "therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born
will be called the Son of God." (Luke 1:35). The Father
Himself testified for Him at the time of His baptism (Matt 3:17)
and on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark 9:7); (2 Pe 1:17,
18).
In the story of the wicked tenants, the Father said, "I will send
My beloved Son." (Luke 20:13) and said in the prophecy, "Out
of Egypt I have called My Son." (Matt 2:15). St. Paul the
Apostle preached the same (Acts 9:20) and St. John the
Apostle (l Jo 4:15) and the other apostles as well.
So, He was not only called the Son of Man, but also the Son
of God, the Son and the Only Begotten Son.
This is explained in detail in the answer to the question about
the difference between our being God's children and Christ
being the Son of God.
The Lord Christ used the name Son of Man on occasions
demonstrating His divinity.
1. As Son of Man He has the power to forgive sins.
This is clear in His talk with the scribes in the miracle of healing
the paralytic. He said to them, "But that you may know that the
Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins"; then He said
to the paralytic, "Arise, take up your bed, and go to your
house." (Matt 9:2-6).
2. As Son of Man He is present in heaven and on earth at
the same time.
He said to Nicodemus, "No one has ascended to heaven but He
who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in
heaven." (John 3:13). Thus He showed that He is in heaven
while talking to Nicodemus on earth, which proves His divinity.
3. He said that the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath.
When the Pharisees blamed Him because His disciples plucked
heads of grain on the Sabbath when they were hungry, saying
to Him, "Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do
on the Sabbath" He explained the matter, saying, "For the Son
of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." (Matt 12:8). And of
course God is the Lord of the Sabbath.
4. He said that the angels were ascending and descending
on the Son of Man.
When Nathanael was amazed because the Lord knew the
unknown i.e. His being under the fig tree and said to Him,
"Rabbi, You are the Son of God." The Lord did not deny that
He is the Son of God, but said to him, "You will see greater
things than these ... you shall see heaven open, and the angels
of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man." (John
1:48-51). So, the term "Son of Man" here does not mean an
ordinary man but a person having the divine dignity.
5. He said that the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of
Power and will come on the clouds of heaven.
When He was being tried and the high priest said to Him, "I put
You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ,
the Son of God!" Jesus said to him, "It is as you said.
Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of
Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the
clouds of heaven." (Matt 26:63-65). The high priest tore his
clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy! What further need
do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His
blasphemy!
The same testimony was made by St. Stephen; for at the time
of his being martyred, he said, "Look, I see the heavens opened
and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." (Acts
7:56) .
6. He said that He - Son of Man - will judge the world.
Though it is well known that God is, "the Judge of all the
world." (Gen 18:25), the Lord Christ said about His second
coming, "For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His
Father with His angels and then He will reward each
according to His works." (Matt 16:27). Notice also that He
said about the angels "His angels" whereas they are God's
angels.
There is also an implied theological meaning in the words "the
glory of His Father" i.e.:
7. He said that He is the Son of God having the glory of His
Father at the same time of being the Son of Man.
The Son of Man will come in the glory of God His Father i.e.
He is Son of Man and Son of God at the same time having the
same glory of His Father. How wonderful it is to say these
words about Him as Son of Man. So, this title does not
prejudice His divinity.
8. As Son of Man He will judge the world and will be
addressed as "Lord".
He said, "When the Son of Man comes in His glory and all the
holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His
glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him... He will set
the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the
King will say to those on His right hand, "Come, you blessed of
My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you... saying,
'Lord, when ...' Then the righteous will answer Him, saying,
'when did we see You hungry and feed You...'" (Matt 25:31-37).
The word "Lord" prove His divinity and the words "My Father"
prove that being Son of Man He is also Son of God.
He says also, "Watch therefore, for you do not know what hour
your Lord is coming" (Matt 24:42). Who is that Lord? In
(Matt 25:13) He says, "Watch therefore, for you know neither
the day nor the hour in which the Son of Man is coming." So,
He used the words "your Lord" and "Son of Man" in the same
meaning.
9. As Son of Man He calls the angels His angels and the
elect His elect and the kingdom His kingdom.
He says about the signs of the end of ages, "Immediately after
the tribulation of those days... Then the sign of the Son of Man
will appear in heaven ... and they will see the Son of Man
coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet
and they will gather together His lect..." (Matt 24:29-31). And
He says about the end of the ages, "the Son of Man will send
out His angels and they will gather out of His kingdom all
things that offend and those who practice lawlessness and will
cast them into the furnace of fire." (Matt 13:40, 41). Of course
it is evident that the angels are God's angels (John 1:51) and the
kingdom is God's kingdom (Mark 9:1) and the elect are God's
elect.
10. He speaks about believing in Him as Son of Man with
the same words He spoke about believing in Him as the
Only Begotten Son of God.
He says, "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness,
even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes
in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so
loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting
life." (John 3:14-16).
Is it necessary that people believe in an ordinary son of Man so
as to have everlasting life? It is evident here that what is said
about the Son of Man is the same concerning the only begotten
Son of God.
11. Daniel's prophecy about Him as Son of Man refers to
His divinity.
Daniel said, "I was watching in the night visions and behold,
One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days and they brought Him before
Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a
kingdom, that all peoples, nations and languages should serve
Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not
pass away and His kingdom the one which shall not be
destroyed." (Dan 7:13, 14). Who but God is served by all
peoples, nations and languages and have everlasting dominion
and kingdom?
12. He said about Himself in the Revelation that He is the
Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last.
St. John the Visionary said and in the midst of the seven lamp
stands, "One like the Son of Man,... He laid His right hand on
me, saying to me, 'Do not be afraid; I am the First and the
Last. I am He who lives and was dead and behold, I am alive
forevermore. Amen.'" (Rev 1:13-18). And at the end of the
Revelation He said, "And behold, I am coming quickly and My
reward is with Me, to give every one according to his work. I
am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the
First and the Last." (Rev 22:12, 13).
All these are titles of God Himself (Is 48:12, 44:6).
Since all these verses prove His divinity, why then did He call
Himself the Son of Man concentrating on this title?
He called Himself Son of Man because He was to carry out
redemption on behalf of man.
He came for this purpose, to save the world through bearing the
sins of all humanity.
He explained this when He said, "For the Son of Man has come
to save that which was lost." (Matt 18:11).
The death sentence was issued against man, so, who should die
was man. Hence Christ came to die, being Son of Man, i.e. the
Son of that man in particular who was sentenced to death.
Therefore He called Himself Son of Man. He is the Son of Man
and in this attribute He should suffer, be crucified and die to
redeem us.
That is why He said, "The Son of Man is about to be betrayed
into the hands of man and they will kill him and the third day
He will be raised up." (Matt 17:22,23;26:45) and, "the Son of
Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and
Chief priests and scribes and be killed and after three days rise
again." (Mark 8:31).
Indeed, His message as Son of Man was this: "The Son of
Man has come to save that which was lost." (Matt 18:11).
Question:
What is your opinion concerning spiritualism? What is the
rule of religion with respect to it? Can anyone call spirits,
ask them and receive their answers and believe what they
say?
Answer:
The first point is: How far can a person call a spirit?
This question entails two other questions:
1. Do humans have authority to move spirits as they wish from
their place?
2. Do spirits have freedom to move at any call?
We know that the spirits of the righteous go to Paradise as the
Lord said to the thief on His right hand, "Today, you will be
with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23:43). Do we then have such a
power as to bring a righteous spirit from Paradise though these
spirits are in a higher and better state than ours? How can we
move the spirits of the saints and stop their contemplations just
to satisfy our curiosity asking them questions perhaps on
trivialities and occupying them with worldly matters after
having departed from our World?
We inquire also: Do these spirits move by God's permission?
It is impossible that the spirits of the righteous move from
Paradise without God's permission. God may send the spirits of
some saints to render some service to the people on earth as He
sends the angels for the same purpose (Heb 1:14). But for us to
call these spirits to see them it is another thing we have no
authority to do, especially that God hates calling up the dead
and considers this abominations as well as magic and conjuring
(Deut 18:9-12).
The spirits of the righteous are commanded in God's hands.
The Lord Christ said this about His human spirit (Luke 23:46)
and St. Stephan said it while being martyred, "Lord Jesus,
receive my spirit." (Acts 7:59).
How then can any person call these spirits in his own way
though he might be unbeliever? What authority can a person
have in this regard?
Do this calling of the spirits conform withthe rest which the
righteous have in Paradise?
Our father Abraham did not permit Lazarus to return to
the world not even to do good.
When the rich man asked father Abraham to send Lazarus to
advise his brothers to avoid the same end, our father Abraham
refused, saying, "They have Moses and the prophets." (Luke
16:29). Can then spirits come to us at the call of humans
without permission from God who hates this just to answer the
questions of the people and satisfy their curiosity? Can this be
something usual practised by many who claim that they called
hundreds and thousands of spirits and recorded their
confessions?
As regards the evil spirits, they are imprisoned - as we know -
in Hades without any rest.
So, we inquire: How can these sinful spirits come out of
their prison i.e. Hades.
How can they come out of Hades to meet their friends,
acquaintances or relatives and speak with them as if on a picnic
or enjoying their time? They do not deserve this nor
can do it, they or those calling them, because it is not within
their power and they are thinking more highly than they ought
to think (Rom 12:30).
A human spirit cannot move freely as it wishes.
It is stated in the Scriptures about death, "Then the dust will
return to the earth as it was and the spirit will return to God
who gave it." (Eccl 12:7). So, since the spirit returns to God, it
may not have any power to disobey Him or not return to Him!
"No one has power over the spirit to retain the spirit." (Eccl
8:8) and also, "You take away their breath, they die and return
to their dust." (Ps 104:29). And since their breath is taken
away from them, then they have no power over themselves. St.
Peter the Apostle says about the spirits in Hades, "the spirits in
the prison." (1 Pet 3:19), who then have power to bring a spirit
out of prison to talk with it?
Furthermore, there is no text in the Holy Bible showing
that spirits move freely as they wish not as God wills.
The Bible says that Lazarus died and the angels carried him to
Abraham's bosom (Luke 16:22), whereas the rich man died, was
buried and talked from Hades (Luke 16:23). If he was able to
have contact with his relatives, he would not pray Abraham to
send Lazarus to them.
How can the spiritists be sure that they are human spirits?
Truly said that these spirits need to identify themselves. How
can you make sure that they are human spirits? Is it because
they tell information and secrets? The devil also knows the past
and can imitate voices and forms. And if the devil can
transform himself into an angel of light, can he not assume the
form of man?
What about the methods used by the spiritist?
Do the methods reveal the human power or God's power? Can
we describe such methods as spiritual work though they are
against God's commandment (Deut 18:9-12).
This may be a brief answer to the question, but I may return to
other points on the same topic while answering other questions.
Question:
I heard from some people that the devil may be saved!
They claimed that some fathers said this. Is this thought
right?
Answer:
The devil cannot be saved. There are even explicit texts in
the Holy Bible supporting our view. One of the most
important of these is in the Revelation, "And the devil, who
deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone
where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be
tormented day and night forever and ever." (Rev 20:10).
The text is clear that the devil will perish forever in the lake of
fire and brimstone. So, any proclamation that the devil will be
saved is a heresy against the biblical doctrine to which should
apply the words of St. Paul the Apostle, "But even if we, or
an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than
what we have preached to you, let him be accursed" (Gal
1:8,9).
As regards the sayings of the fathers in this respect, it is
impossible that a father of sound faith proclaims teaching
against the Bible.
However, one of the accusations against the scholar Origen was
that he proclaimed the salvation of the devil. But Origen's
friends tried to defend him concerning this point by providing
quotations from his works against this heresy.
For more elucidation we say that the devil is resistant to
God and His kingdom.
Since the beginning, now and in future he is resistant.
Since his fall he led astray a group of angels and made them fall.
Then he led astray our forefathers and the whole humanity until:
"There is none who does good, No, not one." (Ps 14:3).
Suffice that he dared to ask the Lord Christ Himself to fall
down and worship him (Matt 4:9). His resistance made an
angel cry out, saying, "The Lord rebuke you. Satan! The Lord
... rebuke you." (Zech 3:2; Jg 9).
Even after being bound one thousand years, the devil did
not learn the lesson nor changed his conduct, but continued
in his wickedness.
St. John the Beloved says in the Revelation, "Then I saw an
angel coming down from heaven ... and a great chain in his
hand. He laid hold of the dragon, that serpent of old, who is
the Devil and Satan and bound him for a thousand years; and
he cast him into the bottomless pit." (Rev 20:1-3).
However, after being released from his prison, he went out to
deceive the nations (Rev 20:7, 8).
The devil will try, very violently, on the last days, to do
away with God's Kingdom, but God will interfere.
The Lord Christ, speaking about the end of ages, says "and
unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved, but
for the elect's sake those days will be shortened." (Matt 24:22),
For false christs and false prophets will arise and show great
signs and wonders, so as to deceive, if possible, even the elect."
(Matt 24:24).
The wonders that are worked by those who are led astray
are in fact worked by the devil.
St. Paul the Apostle - speaking about the man of sin, the son of
perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is
called God and who will be the cause of the last great apostasy -
says, "The coming of the lawless one is according to the
working of Satan, with all power, signs and lying wonders and
with all unrighteous deception among those who perish." (2
Thess 2:9).
God will send the archangel Michael to fight the devil and
his evil angels and overcome them.
St. John the Visionary says and war broke out in heaven:
Michael and his angels fought against the dragon: and the
dragon and his angels fought, but they did not prevail, nor was a
place found for them in heaven any longer. So the great dragon
was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan,
who deceives the whole world, he was cast to the earth and his
angels were cast out with him. Then I heard a loud voice saying
in heaven, "Now salvation and strength and the kingdom of our
God and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of
our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night,
has been cast down." (Rev 12:7-10).
This is the famous icon that shows the archangel Michael
with the sword of justice in his hand trodding on the devil.
Yet, even after such a defeat, the devil continued fighting (Rev
12:13) till God cast him into the lake of fire and brimstone
where he was tormented with his assistants forever and ever
(Rev 20: 10).
The perdition of the devil and the impossibility of his salvation
is proved by the words of the Lord Christ to those on His left
hand on the Day of Judgement: "Depart from Me, you cursed,
into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his
angels." (Matt 25:41).
If God has prepared such everlasting fire for the devil and
his angels, how then would he be saved? In all the
preceding texts we notice the perdition of the devil, his
torment and the everlasting perdition.
Certainly the devils know their end.
That is why St. James the Apostle says that they tremble (Jas
2:19). And the demons cast out by the Lord in the country of
Gergesenes cried out, "What have we to do with You, Jesus,
You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the
time?" (Matt 8:29).
No religion has a different view concerning the torment of
the devils.
It is a matter of course supported by the texts of the Holy Bible.
And if it is possible - supposing the impossible - that the devil
be saved, there would have been in the Holy Bible even one
sentence or reference to such an amazing event.
Moreover, if the devil is saved, none else would perish.
It is because no one has ever done more evil than the devil. But
non perdition of everyone is against the teachings of the Bible.
Question:
Who are those whom the Church does not pray for after
their death? Why? And can the church pray for the
person who commits suicide, being with mental and
psychological disorder?
Answer:
The church may not pray for a person who died in sin without
having repented and if they prayed for him wrongly he will not
benefit from the prayer.
We know that the wages of sin is death as the Holy Bible says
(Rom 6:23). So, if the sinner does not repent for his sin he will
be subject to the words of the Lord Christ, "Unless you repent
you will all likewise perish." (Luke 13:3).
The words of St. John the Apostle support the view that no
prayer should be raised for one who dies in sin, St. John says,
"There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray
about that." (1 John 5:16).
Examples of those who die in sin and the Church does not
pray for them:
+ Suppose a thief climbed up a water pipe of some house to steal
but he fell dead; the church does not pray for such a person
because he died while sinning.
+ A smuggler of drugs is seized by the policemen and they shot at
one another, the smuggler and others died in the fight: the
church does not pray for him.
+ A person died while being drunken, or a dancer died in an
uninnocent pastime evening, or a person died while quarrelling
with others in gambling: Those and the alike are not prayed for
by the church.
+ A person who dies in apostasy or while proclaiming a heresy or
hesitancy without repenting.
+ Who commits suicide is not prayed for by the Church.
Why does the church not pray for the person who commits
suicide?
Who commits suicide is a murderer and he does not own his life
to put an end to it. By murdering himself he had committed a
crime and did not repent for it.
Who commits suicide has lost faith in the other life thinking that
death will end his troubles. He does not believe that death
opens before him another life in which he is received as
murderer and will go to Hades and will suffer torments harder
than his troubles on earth. If he has such a belief he would fear
death instead of seeking it as a solution.
Who commits suicide has lost hope which is one of three
greatest virtues ie. Faith, Hope & Love (1 Cor 13:13). Losing
hope is another sin added to murdering and Judas fell in it.
Who commits suicide has lost forbearance and patience till the
end.
Who commits suicide has died lacking the virtues of consulting
others and obedience, because any believer who is honest in his
confession, obedient to his father confessor cannot perish. True
indeed are the words of the Wiseman.
If the church prays for a person who commits suicide, it will be
considered as if encouraging suicide.
The only exception for not praying for the person
committing suicide is the case in which his madness is
established.
If the person who commits suicide has complete mental
disorder, he will not be responsible for his behaviour. Likewise,
if he has no will nor freedom, because responsibility requires
that one be wise, free and willing.
The church may not console the family of the person who
committed suicide.
If the church consoles his family, it will be a kind of hypocrisy.
We may only say that we hope if that person was at the time of
his committing suicide was insane and irresponsible and ask
God to have compassion for his state of mind. But no
absolution nor prayer of the departed should be prayed for him.
We leave the matter concerning the person who committed
suicide in God's hands who is the Most Merciful.
We should trust that when God judges anyone, He takes into
consideration all his circumstances; whether the mental,
psychological or nervous. God judges according to His
limitless wisdom and knowledge. This is beyond our
responsibility as Church.
Not only committing suicide has psychological factors but
all other sins as well.
Every sin has psychological factors leading to it, but God
knows everything. Every sin, like that of committing suicide,
proves that its doer is not soundly thinking. Therefore, we pray
God for fooleries of His people and the Holy Bible calls the
sinner fool, even the atheist who may be a philosopher. It is
written about all those, "The fool has said in his heart: There is
no God." (Ps 14:1).
We may ask forgiveness for any sin that might have been
repented for.
For example, we may pray for the person who commits suicide
but does not die immediately, such as a person who stabs
himself but dies after one day or some hours. Such a person
may have repented for this sin before his death. Someone else
may burn himself for example, but is saved and dies a few days
afterwards affected by his burns that could not be healed by
medicine; such a person may also be prayed for. Similar cases
may be prayed for likewise.
Question:
The Lord Christ said to the paralytic, "your sins are
forgiven you." (Mark 2:5) and to the sinful woman He said
the same (Luke 7:48). Both obtained forgiveness without
baptism nor confession, in the same moment, what is the
necessity of these two sacraments then?
Answer:
The Holy Bible says, "Without shedding of blood there is no
remission." (Heb 9:22). So, the sins of the paralytic and the
sinful woman were only forgiven on the cross, not in the same
moment and likewise every forgiveness granted before the
crucifixion. It is only a promise of forgiveness, not
attainment of forgiveness.
The same can be said with regard to those who offered
sacrifices in the Old Testament with repentance for forgiveness
of their sins. They waited in Hades with all the righteous of the
Old Testament until Christ was crucified and saved them. It is
written about them, "not having received the promises, but
having seen them afar off were assured of them, embraced
them." (Heb 11:13).
Thus, the paralytic and the sinful woman did not obtain
forgiveness before the crucifixion, but they deserved it and took
a document of the promise.
There is one question: Have they died before or after the
crucifixion?
If they have died before the crucifixion, they had to wait in
Hades till Christ was crucified. And whoever died before the
crucifixion was not required to be baptised the New Testament
baptism which is based on the deserts of the blood of Christ; for
baptism is also death and resurrection with Christ as the apostle
said, " we were buried with Him through baptism into
death." (Rom 6:4). Before the crucifixion Christ had not been
buried nor His blood shed and therefore no need for baptism.
But if those two (ie. the paralytic and the sinful woman) had
lived till the foundation of the church, they would have been
required to believe in Christ's redemption, crucifixion and
resurrection and to be baptised since they came to know this
sacrament. They would be subject to the words of the Lord,
"He who believes and is baptised will be saved." (Mark 16:16)
and to the words of St. Peter the Apostle, "Repent and let
every one of you be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ for the
remission of sins." (Acts 2:38). They had also to walk in a
sound spiritual life and the words, "your sins are forgiven you"
would be for their old sins only and every new sin would require
repentance, confession and holy communion according to the
Holy Bible.
Question:
Is it against the Lord Christ's divinity that He prayed and
got tired sometimes? How can we interpret His praying,
His fatigue and similar things?
Answer:
Those addressing these questions concentrate on Christ's
divinity and forget His humanity!
He is not only God, but He also took on Him a human nature
like ours; a complete human nature. Hence it is written that He
shared with us everything except sin (Heb 2:17) and unless He
had taken our nature, He would not have been able to satisfy
the divine justice on our behalf.
He prayed as Man not as God.
He presented to us the ideal Man. If He had not prayed He
would not have been an example, so He prayed.
With His prayer He taught us to pray and how to pray.
He gave us a practical idea about the importance and the value
of prayers in our life. In some of His prayers, as in
Gethsemane, He even taught us how to struggle in prayers Luke
22:44).
If Christ had not prayed, this would have been an
accusation against Him.
The scribes and Pharisees would have considered Him far from
spirituality and would have excused not to follow Him saying
that He was not attached to God!
With the same human nature He felt tired, hungry and
suffering.
If He had not felt tired, hungry, thirsty or suffering, if He had
not slept, it would not have been possible to say that He is the
Son of Man and that He took what was ours, took the same
nature sentenced to death so that He might in it die on our
behalf and redeem man.
As God He was not tired because the Godhead is beyond
fatigue.
It was the human nature which united with His Godhead and
were not separated for one moment or a twinkling of an eye
that felt tired because it accepts fatigue. The Lord Christ, so
that His incarnation be an established fact able to carry out
redemption, did not permit His divinity to prevent His humanity
from being tired.
He did all this to pay off for our sins and atone for the sins of
the people (Heb 2:1 7). We thank Him for bearing fatigue
and pain for us.
With His fatigue He sanctified fatigue and every one is now
rewarded according to his labor (1 Cor 3:8).
This series which I am bringing out for you, dear reader, under
the title So many years with the problems of people, contains
those questions which I have been able to select for you from
among the thousands which I have been asked, since the setting
up of the Episcopate of Religious Institutions and Church
Teaching in 1962, until today.
Its first part deals with questions concerning the Holy
Bible, such as verses which appear difficult to understand, or
which some people misinterpret, or which require explanation
and clarification. In that part I have answered some forty
questions which are repeatedly asked by many people.
The second part is concerned with questions of theology
and doctrine which preoccupy people's minds. I have as far
as possible taken care to preserve a style that would be easy for
all to understand, and in that part I have replied to some thirty-
five questions which might be of interest to all.
This third part concerns all kinds of spiritual questions,
along with questions which circulate in society which require
answering, such as a question about drinking wine, and another
about organ transplants, and a third about how to solve
problems, which I have answered in some detail.
This part comprises some forty-four questions in the majority of
which I have taken special care to give an answer that is to the
point. There is a fourth part which is at present being printed,
and which I hope will be published soon, God willing, possibly
only a couple of weeks after this book has reached your hands!
With the help of your prayers, I shall continue to publish what
answers I can to those questions which I consider to be most
common and most important.
May all be well for you and may the Lord be with you.
February 1990
Pope Shenouda III
Question?
Is every bad thought which goes round in my mind to be
considered a sin? Where do these bad thoughts come from,
and how can I stop them from coming?.
Answer:
Not every bad thought which goes round in your mind is to
be considered a sin, for there is a difference between being
under attack by thoughts and falling into sin through
thoughts:
Being under attack by thoughts is when a bad thought harasses
you, but you do not give in to it, but rather try with all your
heart and might to banish it, even though it might remain for
some time. When such a thought persists against your own
wishes, it is not considered a sin. On the contrary, your
resisting it could be credited to you as righteousness.
But falling into sin through one's thoughts is when you give in
to bad thoughts and begin to take pleasure in them wishing to
keep them, and perhaps even create new forms of them...
Falling into sin through one's thoughts may begin from a
sinful desire in your heart or something stored away in
your inmost mind. Or it may begin with an attack by the
enemy from without, which you resist at first, but then
surrender to, so that you fall and then get more and more
entangled.
Or you may become lost in a thought for some moments and
pleased with it, but when you come to your senses and wake up
you regret and resist it, and so it flees from you.
'I'he more you resist the thought, the more power you gain
over it, so that it flees from you, or does not dare to assail
you. On the other hand, the more you surrender to it, the
more power it gains over you, and the more it is
emboldened to attack you.
The rudder to steer the fight is under your control not under the
control of your thoughts. Thoughts can really give you quite a
shock and cause you grave concern and, depending on your
situation, they may even wage war against you. The Lord Jesus
Christ said, however, "the ruler of this world is coming, and he
has nothing in Me." (John 14:30). But what about you? When
Satan attacks you, will he find he has a hold on you?!
The thought will search your heart first of all, to see
whether there is anything in it which is akin to itself, since
'like attracts like', or whether it can find a point of
correspondence to latch on to.
If your heart is very honest from within, it will not betray its
master with these thoughts, nor let them gain entrance. It will
have nothing to do with them, nor accept them, so that the
thoughts end up fleeing away from your mind and the devils
become afraid of it...
However if the heart is not careful about such thoughts and is
lenient with them then they get the courage to assail that heart.
There are bad thoughts which enter a clean heart because
of its lax or too easy-going attitudes.
There are bad thoughts which come out of a bad heart
owing to its lack of purity.
That is to say there are bad thoughts which come from
outside and others which come from inside.
An example of bad thoughts which come from outside, is that of
the serpent's attack on Eve. Eve had a pure heart, but because
she wasn't firm enough with the serpent, the ideas entered her
heart and turned into desire and then into action.
Referring to those wicked thoughts which come from inside,
our Lord said: " an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart
brings forth evil." (Luke 6:45).
The thoughts may come from the heart, from hidden
desires, or they may come from the inner mind, from
images, ideas and information stored within.
From this mass that has accumulated within, thoughts come at
any provocation and for any reason. So take care that
what accumulates in you is pure.
However, the ideas which come from the mind are less
powerful.
They are less powerful than the thoughts which come from the
heart, because those that come from the heart are mixed with
emotion or desire, and are therefore more powerful.
Thus it is easy for a person to banish the ideas which come from
the mind. If he seeks to retain them or is willing to
accommodate them, and doesn't resist them, they may move to
his heart and become influenced by its emotional reactions and
thus grow more powerful...
For this reason, a person should guard his heart as well as
his mind, and should keep a dividing line between his head
and heart.
"Keep your heart with all diligence, For out of it spring the
issues of life." (Prov. 4:23). If the war of thoughts comes upon
you, and you have a pure heart and are fervent in the Spirit,
then it will be a weak fight, and one from which you can escape.
But if it comes upon you while you are in a spiritually lukewarm
state, or if your love for the Lord has grown cold, " because
lawlessness will abound " (Matt. 24:12), then the fight will be a
violent one and difficult to escape from. So, " pray that your
flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath... (Matt. 24:20).
Guard your mind so that nothing which could disturb its
purity may enter. And guard your senses too, because they
are the gates that lead to thought...
Guard your looks, your hearing, your touching and the rest of
your senses. As you may not be able to prevent your mind from
thinking about and being influenced by what you see and what
you hear, it is better to be on your guard.
If something unsuitable reaches your ears, comes to your
eyes, or enters your thoughts, do not let it go deep within
you, but let it pass straight through.
Things which simply pass straight through do not have a very
powerful effect, but if they go deep, they will settle in the
innermost mind and extend their roots to the heart and may
reach the stage of causing upsets.
Being able to forget is one of God's blessings to mankind,
by which passing thoughts and transitory sensory
perceptions can be wiped away.
But the ideas which you allow to enter deeply into you, settle in
your inmost mind, and get to the conscious and subconscious,
thus becoming difficult to forget. They might then form a
reason for a war of thoughts and give rise to ideas, suspicions
and dreams and become the source of desires and upsets, and
the starting point of long stories...
We may need, however, to return to the subject of thoughts
again.
Question?
Does Christianity believe in the existence of envy?
Answer:
Envy, as a feeling, exists. We know, for example, that Cain
envied his brother Abel, that Joseph the Righteous was envied
by his brothers, and that the Lord Jesus Christ was handed over
to death by the Jewish priests owing to their envy of Him.
At the end of the prayer of thanksgiving we say:
"Preserve us from all envy and every trial and act of Satan".
Envy exists, but an 'envious eye' is not something we
believe in!
Some people believe that there are individuals who are envious
by nature, such that if they should cast their envious eye
someone, some accident will befall that person, so they are
fearful of envy and of those who might be envious; whom they
believe have the power to do evil. Sometimes they conceal the
blessings which God bestows so generously on them for fear of
envy, and they make up stories of this kind of envy that amount
to little more than superstitious nonsense.
This kind of envy, we don't believe in, and we regard it as a
kind of intimidation and unhealthy suspicion.
Envy does not harm the person who is envied, but rather
the person who envies.
It doesn't harm the one who is envied, otherwise all those who
have ever excelled or held foremost positions would have been
exposed to envy and suffered loss, and likewise all who have
ever obtained notable rank or state awards of distinction would
have become the targets of envy and have been smitten by
disaster or misfortune.
What we see however, is the opposite, which is that the one
who envies lives a wretched and unhappy life as a result of his
envy and inner misery, as the poet said:
"Bear patiently the deceitfulness of the envious, for your
endurance will kill it; just as fire surely consumes itself if it finds
nothing to feed on."
Why do we pray, then, to be preserved from envy, since it
does no harm?
We do not pray out of fear of the so-called 'envious eye', but we
pray that God will frustrate any harmful plots or deceitful tricks
which the envious person might carry out against us because of
their evil hearts.
When Joseph's brothers envied him, they threw him into a well,
then sold him as a slave and were about to kill him. Cain killed
his brother Abel out of envy and when the chief priests of the
Jews were jealous of Christ, they conspired against Him and
handed Him over to be crucified.
Question?
Many people have asked me this question: If we have poor
relations; a father, mother or sister etc., should we give to
them out of our tithes?.
Answer:
Yes, of course one should give to the needy relatives from one's
tithes. St. Paul the Apostle said " if anyone does not provide
for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has
denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." (1 Tim.
5:8).
However, it is not right to give all the tithes to relatives and
neglect the other poor people who are not related to you, and
that is for two reasons:
1. Lest what you give for your relatives should be a social duty
which you are obliged to perform whether you pay tithes or not,
or you pay it more on account of ties of blood than out of'
compassion or sympathy for those in need, or with the purpose of
carrying out the commandment.
2. Sometimes there may be poor people who are more in need
than your relatives, and it would not be right for you to neglect
them.
If you have needy relatives they can be given some of your
tithes.
Question?
I wasn't able to pay any tithes at all last year, because of
the pressure of economic burdens on me and my financial
needs. What should I do? Can I be excused from paying
the tithes?
Answer:
You are supposed to pay tithes irrespective of your financial
situation. Here I would like to put before you some important
observations which are:
1. Whoever pays his tithes when he himself is in need, will
have a greater reward from God. Because by doing so he is
putting others before himself, unlike the person who pays but is
comfortably off and can well afford it, who does not feel that he
is forgoing any of his necessities in order to supply the needs of
another.
We observe that the Lord Jesus Christ praised the poor widow
who paid the two small copper coins, and said that she had put
more than all the others into the temple treasury because: "for
all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God,
but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she
had."(Luke 21:4) "she put in all that she had " (Mark
12:44).
You too should become accustomed to giving, even though
you are in need, whether you give of your money, time or
health. The second remark I would like to make is:
2. When you give, even though you are in need yourself,
God blesses whatever you have.
How often the needy person says: 'If all my money and all my
salary aren't enough for me, whatever would happen if I also
paid a tithe, a tenth of my income?! would the nine tenths be
enough for me?!' But at this point I would like to say to you:
The nine-tenths with a blessing, is more than the whole lot
without blessing!
Whenever you give, God blesses the little which remains, and
makes it much more than all the money without the blessing of
the tithes. He compensates you with more; and what else? The
effectiveness of that money will be blessed. This comes in
contrast to the many people who have wealth in abundance and
yet feel as if they do not have enough because their wealth has
no blessing.
The third observation which I would like to make is that:
3. God does not need our tithes, but He trains us and
blesses us through them.
He trains us to give, and to love others, and to renounce money.
He also trains us to have faith: faith in God's blessing of the
small portion...
God is able to cater for all the needs of the entire world,
without our paying anything. He is the One who satisfies all,
from out of His good gifts, but He wants us to share in the act
of charity, so that we may partake of the blessing of this act.
4. I know your financial circumstances. But put God to the
test.
The general rule is: "You shall not tempt the Lord your God. "
(Matt. 4:7), But the tithes are the one exception, and about this
our Sovereign Lord said: "Bring all the tithes... Prove Me now in
this, says the Lord of hosts ' If I will not open for you
the windows of heaven And pour out for you such blessing That
there will not be room enough to receive it (Mal. 3:10).
Thus test and see how God will bless your property, and see
how you will not go needy, but on the contrary God will
provide you with more and more.
Do not, however, pay the tithes merely with the objective of
getting more and more...
For this is not the right spiritual attitude for giving. Just pay
them even if you are going through a time of increased need
yourself. For when God sees the sincerity of your heart when it
comes to giving, along with your love for others, then He will
open the floodgates of heaven as He has promised.
Hence, pay them and say: 'Who am I, Lord, that You allow me
to share in the needs of Your children! ' "Everything comes
from You... it comes from Your hand, and all of it belongs to
You." (1 Chr. 29:14-19) 'So bless what little is left, 0 Lord, and
let us want for nothing.'
Another point I would like to raise is:
5. The tithes which you do not pay are considered to be
your wrongful possession.
It is money which is wrongfully yours because you have
wronged its rightful owners - the poor who deserve it. It is not
your money for you to keep. It is the Lord's property ,and you
have stolen from Him, thus God considers it as unlawful
possession.
See what the Divine Inspiration says in the Book of the prophet
Malachi: "says the Lord of hosts... Will a man rob God? Yet
you have robbed Me! But you say, 'In what way have we
robbed You?' In tithes and offerings.".' (Mal. 3:7-8). Thus the
Lord says:
"Make friends for yourselves by unrighteous mammon.
(Luke 16:9).
What does this phrase mean then? it means:
6. With the money of the tithes which you have kept back for
yourselves which has become an unlawful possession since you
wronged the poor by not giving it to them... with this money
make friends for yourselves who will pray for you, and to
whose prayers God will respond. Just as you saved them from
their money problems when you paid the tithes, God will also
rescue you from your financial problems...
A final word remains which I would like to say to you
which is:
7. The tithes which you did not pay last year you still owe!
You are supposed to pay them, even if it is by instalment.
Question?
I would like you to give me some advice on what to do
about being nosey and over-curious about other people's
affairs, because I suffer from this habit and want to be rid
of it. I want to know how to stop being like this and how to
avoid making this mistake.
Answer:
Being nosey, or prying, is a desire to know other people's
secrets and personal affairs, whether it is through reading about
them, or hearing or speaking about them, directly or indirectly.
Prying is something wrong, both from the spiritual and
from the social point of view.
People are supposed to respect other people's secret and private
affairs even within the family circle. For example, the father or
mother does not have the right to open the son's letters. The
husband or wife has no right to fish around in the pockets or
drawers or papers of the spouse.
No one has a right to listen to words which are not meant for
him to hear. We could call this 'infidelity of the ears'.' Nor is it
anyone's right to look in secret at what he ought not to see. All
this is a kind of spying on others which does not befit a spiritual
person...
Prying or intruding into others' affairs, however, may be
done openly, and not necessarily furtively.
An example of this would be a person who wears someone else
out with questions about a matter that is personal to that other
person, and about which he does not want to talk! Yet the
nosey person goes on attacking him with questions, perhaps in
great detail, in order to try and get everything out of him...
The nosey person may say, by way of excuse, that he has a
close relationship with that other person, or that he wants
to be reassured that that other person is all right.
But being in a close relationship with someone still has limits
which one ought not to trespass against. Similarly the desire to
be reassured about someone has its bounds. Finding out
information does not come about through force or pressure.
There is a vast difference between a person who wants to be
reassured about someone, and a person who wants just to
know, and to know everything!
Therefore, my advice to you is, not to ask, or if you notice a
reluctance to answer in someone whom you have asked a
question, or if you find him unwilling to elaborate further or go
into all details of a particular matter, do not press him with any
more questions.
One of the characteristics of the nosey or prying person is
his insistence.
His friends and acquaintances often try to avoid him and avoid
his many questions and his curiosity to know their business.
This might annoy him, and he might complain about it, and they
get embarrassed about revealing to him his nosiness, and their
reluctance to answer his questions.
The most embarrassing of situations is when the nosey
person meets a shy one.
The shy and timid person is not able to stop him and may be
unable to change the course of the conversation to avoid the
intrusive questions. Thus he is cornered and becomes
embarrassed. The nosey person sees this embarrassment but
does not care, because he wants to know, and what is more, he
even wants to know the reasons for this embarrassment!
The prying individual may not be content with just
knowing the inmost affairs of the person who is before him,
but may even force him to reveal the secrets of someone
else!
Not only does he ask that person about his affairs, but he also
asks him about other people's. What that person said to them,
and what they replied, what they did, what they felt in such and
such a situation, how they behaved, and what their opinions
were, what their relationship with the other person was, and
about their families, their friends and private affairs ... !?
In fact, this may also lead to confessions in an embarrassing
manner...
The senses of the nosey person always appear to be
restless...
His gaze is never steady, but always brazen, never trustworthy,
and he is noticeably on the alert. The same goes for his hearing,
and his feet. He is never still, but always shifting about, going
here and there, as he asks questions or listens, or worms his
way into conversations which he has no claim to, and all in a
most unseemly manner.
He may intrude in relationships which he has no right to
know about, such as extremely private family relationships,
such as those between husband and wife or between friends, be
they men or women, or it may be secrets connected with work
which ought not to be revealed. He may personally gain
nothing whatsoever from all this, and he may well be unable to
keep secret that which he has found out...
As far as you are concerned, when it comes to prying, my
advice to you is:
1. Get into the habit of respecting other people's personal
affairs, and be content that all individuals have the right to have
their own private secrets which they do not have to tell even to
their dearest friends, just as you yourself have your own secrets.
2. Always ask yourself: what business is this of mine? Do I
have any right to interfere in it? Say this to yourself, and you
will be spared the embarrassment of someone else pointing it
out to you.
3. Set limits to how close you get in your relationships with
others.
4. If, on asking someone about a matter that is personal to him
or to someone else, you should find him unwilling to answer, or
if you sense an evasion or attempt to drop the subject, then
don't press him further.
5. Do not try to read another person's letters, or rummage
through his books or papers, and if any of them should happen
to fall into your hands, then show proper respect by not trying
to have a look at something which is none of your business.
6. Be honest and upright in all that you see, hear or touch.
7. Take care about your friends and acquaintances, so that. you
do not lose them through prying into their personal affairs.
Question?
I vowed that I would keep on fasting until the war ended,
and that was years ago. Is this vow legitimate or not?
Also, what is your opinion about someone who, for
example, vows to have his child baptised in Jerusalem, or in
one of the ancient monasteries in Upper Egypt? And again,
what is your view on a young man who makes a vow of
celibacy?.
Answer:
The Bible in fact says: "Better not to vow than to vow and not
pay. " (Eccl. 5:5).
A vow is an expression of an agreement between a human being
and God, so there is no going back on it.
The vow, however, must be healthy from the spiritual point
of view, though, because it is not good to form an
agreement with God in which there is something at fault.
On one occasion the Jews vowed to remain fasting until they
had killed the apostle Paul (Acts 23:12). Their vow was wrong
and unlawful...
So not every vow is according to God's will, some vows
might not be lawful.
Jephthah the Gileadite vowed that if he was victorious, he
would sacrifice as a burnt offering whatever thing first
came out from the door of his house to meet him on his
return. (Judg. 11:30) And even though he was met by his
young daughter, he fulfilled his vow and sacrificed her as a
burnt offering to the Lord! To be sure, God would not have
approved of this action at all, for the vow was for something
not permissible. The Lord never commanded in His holy law
that human beings should be offered as burnt sacrifices!
Concerning the parents vowing to have their child baptised at
some far off place, they might actually be endangering the fate
of their child. Suppose circumstances should, for example,
prevent their reaching that place, or if the child should die
before being baptised, how could they carry the responsibility of
his eternal life? Also, the child's being deprived of partaking of
the holy sacraments, until such time as circumstances made it
possible for him to be baptised (according to his parents'
wishes), would mean that he was being deprived of heavenly
grace and blessings which could otherwise be at work within
him. And the parents in this case would bear the responsibility
for this before God.
So this kind of vow is completely wrong, especially since the
effect of baptism does not change from one place to
another, but is the same.
Receiving the blessing of a particular place, however, or of a
particular saint, considering the risk involved, must be a matter
confined to being purely one's personal wish. It should not ever
be elevated to the level of becoming a vow.
It is the risk involved which makes us judge this case from the
theological point of view by taking into consideration the
possibility of this vow being broken, for our lives are in the
hands of God, and a child can die even though he is perfectly
healthy.
If the child's health was in danger, then the vow would
have to be broken, thus the sin of breaking a vow would be
committed, which is less serious than the death of a child
unbaptised, and by breaking the vow, we would have
chosen the lesser of two evils.
In both cases, the Church's disapproval is incurred by those who
made the vow, i.e. the parents.
Generally speaking, these things should be made a matter of
personal wishes rather than vows. People should pray about
them and say: '0 Lord, we would very much like to have our
child baptised in the holy place of such and such'. But they
shouldn't vow. And at the same time, even if it is only a
personal wish, they should not be slow in carrying it out, for
the Bible says: " When you make a vow to God, do not delay to
pay it. " (Eccl. 5:4)..
When it comes to the vow of celibacy, or the vow of
monasticism, I do not advise these to be made by young
people, or by those who have only recently become
acquainted with the spiritual life...
It is not forbidden, because there is nothing wrong with it in
itself, but there is a risk that the idea might be just the result of a
temporary enthusiasm, or a passing influence. Or if the one
who has made such a vow should suddenly be afflicted by
severe spiritual attacks from the point of view of his body, he
may regret having made the vow, and want to go back on it, or
yearn to get married, or end up living in sin.
Instead of making a vow of celibacy, present your wish as a
desire, and make it a matter of prayer to God.
Say to Him: 'I should like, 0 Lord, to be celibate, or become a
monk. Please grant me this desire, If it is according to Your
will.
As for those who are grown up and spiritually mature, who
have tested themselves for a long time, and whom heavenly
grace has helped along the path to victory, then there is nothing
to prevent them from consecrating themselves to God. Even
so, I would advise them not to delay too much in case the
opponent stirs up uncalled for attacks against them.
As far as the vow of fasting until the end of war is
concerned, this is not something practical.
Whoever said that wars on earth would come to an end?! They
are ever present and, according to the Bible, will remain so until
the end of the world. (Matt. 24) If, however, the vow concerns
a specific war in a definite place, and if the one making the vow
is mature, and capable of fasting, then there is no objection in
this case.
When it comes to fasting, though, and the vows of celibacy
and monasticism, it is necessary to ask advice from one's
spiritual father.
It would not be right for a person to pursue these matters
according to his own ideas, without having received guidance.
If he were not to ask advice from his spiritual father in such
important cases as these, then what would he ask him about?!
As a general rule, a person making a vow should not
pronounce it quickly.
It requires reflection, thought, advice and prayer, however,
before making the vow...
Question?
What was the first sin which the world came to know ?
Answer:
The first sin which the world recognised was that of pride...
It was the first sin into which Satan fell when he said: "I will
exalt my throne above the stars of God... I will be like the Most
High. " (Is. 14:13-14).
This was the first sin which mankind was attacked by, when the
devil said to Eve: "you will be like God, knowing good and
evil. " (Gen. 3:5).
When the Lord was incarnated, He fought this sin through His
humility, by taking the form of a slave and becoming like a
human being in His appearance, and by being born in a stable,
and permitting the d`evil to test Him.
Question?
If circumstances hinder me from my actually committing a
sin (which I had been intending to commit), can it still be
counted against me as a sin, even though I have not done
it?.
Answer:
You might imagine, my friend, that the only form of sin is
the sinful act! In fact the action is only the final stage of the
sin, for sin begins first in the heart, with the love of evil and
the heart's responding to it, then it enters into the stage of being
carried out. If it is carried out, then it will have reached
completion. But if it is not carried through, then the person can
still be found guilty for the sin in his heart, for his desire, his
intention and his thoughts.
What was Satan's sin if it wasn't the sin of the heart, when the
Divine Inspiration said to him: "You said in your heart, 'I will
ascend to heaven; I will exalt my throne above the stars of
God... I will be like the Most High." (Is. 14:13-14). Merely
saying that in his heart was enough to make him fall from the
height of his rank
Question?
If the Church become involved in the sphere of social
service, would it not have entered the area of the State's
activity, and thereby 'lose its spiritual action' (as I read that
one of the Fathers once described it)? would it not have
gone beyond the realm with which Jesus Christ was
concerned, seeing that He said: "My kingdom is not of this
world"? would it not also be contradicting the teaching of
the gospel?
Answer:
The Lord Jesus Christ was active in both these areas alike.
He was concerned with the spirit and with the body as well.
The Bible says: " Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their
synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing
all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the
people.(Matt. 4:23).
He preached on the mount in the desert, in people's homes, and
on the shore of the lake: this is the missionary activity. The
Bible also says: " When the sun was setting, all those who had
any that were sick with various diseases brought them to Him;
and He laid His hands on every one of them and healed them.
demons also came out of many, crying out..." (Luke 4:40-41).
Thus healing the sick was not something beyond the bounds of
Christ's work, and did not conflict with His saying: "My
kingdom is not of this world".
If the Church then shows concern for healing the sick and
founding hospitals and health services, it will not have gone
beyond its spiritual mission, for the Church's mission is not
only preaching, as we call it, but also to alleviate people's
pains.
Our Lord gave us the parable of the Good Samaritan who, on
finding someone who had been attacked, at the side of the road,
bandaged that person's wounds and took him away on his
donkey until he came to an inn where, at his own expense, he
had the victim put up until he recovered. (Luke 10:30-37).
In this parable, the Lord directed His rebuke towards the priest
and the Levite, who both showed no concern for the injured
man and his plight. Jesus considered the action of the Good
Samaritan to have been one of love and compassion.
Should the Church hold itself back from acts of love and
compassion and give as an excuse that these are really the
work of the State? No, not at all. Acts of kindness are
required from every human being. The State is to do them
and the Church too, and also each individual.
We should not consider these things to be just social service,
but rather look on them as acts of love which are, after all,
among the first fruits of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22), and upon
which depend the whole law and the Prophets, according to
Christ (Matt. 22:40).
The Lord Jesus Christ was just as interested in feeding
people as He was in preaching.
The miracle of the five loaves and the two fishes is mentioned in
all four gospels. How beautiful were the words of Christ to His
disciples when He said to them: "You give them something to
eat. " (Luke 9:13).
In this commandment, then, was an order to the Church to feed
the hungry. Although Jesus Christ was preaching to the crowds
that day, He was not content just to preach, as if He regarded
that alone as His kingdom, or His only concern.
When His disciples asked Him to send the crowds away to the
neighbouring villages, so that they could buy food for
themselves, the Lord answered them firmly, saying that He
would not send them away hungry, lest they "... faint on the
way. " (Mark 8:3).
It is a lesson to the Church not to be content just with preaching
and words, but to feed the hungry too, not to imagine that in
doing so we go beyond the mission of the kingdom, or to go
outside the sphere of the religion or spiritual activity.
See what the apostle James says; " Pure and undefiled
religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans
and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted
from the world." (James 1:27)
If the church establishes orphanages, and concerns itself with
helping the widows and the poor in their distress, will it be
deviating from its original mission?! Would this not rather be
the "religion" that God our Father accepts as pure and
faultless?! This is the teaching of the Bible, not the teaching of
man.
Trying to keep oneself unpolluted by the world is not enough, if
one shuts oneself off inside from caring about the poor or the
orphan. A priestly father cannot see a needy family and neglect
to care for it, by making an excuse that it is the responsibility of
the State to care for it! The State itself does not say so...
See how St. James the Apostle rebukes us saying: " If a brother
or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you
says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you
do not give them the things which are needed for the body,
what does it profit?" (James 2:15-16).
Thus we see how the Church has concerned itself with these
things right from the apostolic age, just as when the seven
deacons were being consecrated because they found that some
of the " their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. "
(Acts 6:1).
In order that the apostles could devote themselves to the
ministry of the Word, they appointed seven deacons, laying
their hands upon them, so that they could undertake this
service. Rather than say that the Church's work was not
concerned with the administering of the provisions, they
actually created a group within the Church to perform this
function. No one ever ventured to say that this work was not
God's work, but Caesar's!
The Book of Acts not only says that: "With great power the
apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord
Jesus... ". but also mentions directly afterwards that; " Nor was
there anyone among them who lacked; for all who were
possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the
proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the
apostles' feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had
need." (Acts 4:33-35). This teaching is the sound and pure
gospel word.
The Church cannot hold back from helping the poor and
orphans, widows, the sick and the hungry, as if out of some
kind of deference to the State, as if it were afraid of
offending it by encroaching on its preserves. This would
not be to show courtesy to the State, but rather a lack of
cooperation with it.
It would also show a failure to obey the commandments of the
gospel, and would be a departure from the commandment of
love, which the Bible states is the greatest of virtues (1 Cor.
13). To do this would clearly be to fight against the Church and
its mission, and would be an attempt to create a wedge between
itself and the State at the present time, for the Church is the
most loyal institution in the State and the State encourages the
charitable works which the Church undertakes.
Let us record here that the Lord Jesus made these actions
of love, which could also be referred to as social work, one
of the bases of judgement on the Last Day.
He will say to those who stand on His left on the Day of
Judgement: "Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting
fire prepared for the devil and his angels: 'for I was hungry
and you gave Me no food; I was thirsty and you gave Me no
drink; 'I was a stranger and you did not take Me in, naked and
you did not clothe Me, sick and in prison and you did not visit
Me.' (Matt. 25:41-43).
Will they say to Him: 'We are sorry, but that was Caesar's
business, not the work of God, and You told us to give to
Caesar what was his and to God what was God's'?! or will they
say to Him: 'Why are you so concerned about them, Lord, since
Your kingdom is not of this world'?! Will they actually go to
the fire prepared for them, for having neglected the work of
love which society nowadays calls 'social service'?!
If this service is the duty of every person, how much more,
then, should the Church give a good example! For the
Church, after all, consists of Christ's disciples following in
the footsteps of their Master and Teacher who first showed
the way.
This service which we give to the poor, we are really giving to
Christ himself, for He said: "Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch
as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it
to Me. " (Matt. 25:40).
In Paul's letter to the Romans, he speaks about the Church's
ministry to the poor, and the cooperation of the churches of
Macedonia, Achaia and Jerusalem in this regard, and he said: "
But now I am going to Jerusalem to minister to the saints. For
it pleased those from Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain
contribution for the poor among the saints who are in
Jerusalem. It pleased them indeed, and they are their debtors.
For if the Gentiles have been partakers of their spiritual things,
their duty is also to minister to them in material things." (Rom.
15:25-27).
And he also said: " distributing to the needs of the saints, given
to hospitality. " (Rom. 12:13)
Serving the poor and needy is not only social work, besides
being an act of love, but is also a way of protecting the poor
person from doing wrong.
It is this spiritual aspect of this service which is the essence of
the Church's activity.
Poverty may drive the poor person to steal, to lie or to cheat, or
to complain and blaspheme against God and against the Church,
and thereby let his faith weaken. But when the Church gives to
the poor person, it is making him aware of God's love
for him, and making him feel that God has sent someone to
provide for him, a matter which strengthens his faith.
For this reason, the social work which the Church
undertakes has a spiritual character which distinguishes it.
The spirituality of the commandment enters into it and is
mingled with the word of teaching.
The majority of churches refer to the poor as the 'brothers of
Christ' because that is what Christ called them (Matt. 25:40),
and they treat them as such when it comes to giving to them.
The Church finds a blessing in this service and carries it out in a
spirit of a mother church with a father priest looking after their
children.
The Church has engaged in these services and organised them
since earliest times, and still does so today, and will continue to
do so, if God wills.
Only the communist countries have limited the Church in
its service, which they have done by confining it to
performing the role of prayer only, whilst retaining
everything in the hands of the State, because the state does
not want there to be any link between the believers and
God.
Communist thinking does not agree with the needy person
receiving from God's house, for if he does so he will remember
God and the men of God, and will retain his faith.
They do not want a believer to thank God for His grace and His
offerings to him. They want any thanks to be given to the state
alone, thus God disappears and does not compete with the
state.
We meant here to warn against such thoughts lest they should
be included unintentionally in any writings or cited or admired
by any person not being aware of their danger.
We thank God that we are in a country where God is seen as
being the origin of every blessing and every gift. We therefore
encourage the people to have a close relationship with God.
The Church never participates in the work of the State, and
never gets involved in politics, for politics is the State's activity.
Pastoral work, however, has a character all of its own, and the
Church undertakes its pastoral work and concerns itself with its
children. It does not think of religion as merely beliefs and
ideas, or just sermons and preaching, for religion is above all,
love. Love is that we show concern for providing our children
with whatever good things we can.
Question?
What do you think of hymns being set to popular tunes?.
Answer:
Those who set the words of hymns to popular tunes are
only concerning themselves with the abstract idea of setting
words to music, while ignoring the effect of the music on
the soul.
Music can plant certain feelings in the soul. A piece of
instrumental music, i.e. one without words, is able to make a
person feel happy or sad. It can stimulate or excite him, or
arouse some desire in him. We ought not to forget the
powerful effect that music can have on the soul.
A hymn is a spiritual song and its music should be spiritual
and its melody sacred.
It is not right for us to mix it with some other tune which might
arouse different feelings apart from the holy and spiritual ones
which the hymn is intended to arouse.
It is also likely that the singer will be reminded of the popular
song and its words, and his mind or heart will wander or get
mixed up with his emotions. We must remember, brothers and
sisters, the words of the apostle: " For what fellowship has
righteousness with lawlessness? " (2 Cor. 6:14).
Question?
How can I resist thoughts which from time to time weigh
heavily upon me and which try to force me to surrender to
them?
Answer:
Occupy your leisure with some other stronger thought to
take the place of such thoughts...
Do not wait until such thoughts have completely worn you out,
before trying to resist them, for it is better - if you are able - not
to give them any opportunity at all to reach you in the first
place. But how does one do that?
Always occupy your mind with what is useful, so that if the
devil wants to mount an attack upon your thoughts, he will find
your mind occupied and not taking any notice of his ideas, so he
will pass you by. Thought becomes extremely difficult once
Satan has come to a person and found his mind wide open and
ready to accept his ideas!
If a nasty thought comes to you, replace it with some other
idea, for your mind cannot think of two subjects at the same
time to the same depth. It is therefore necessary that the new
thought, with which you want to cancel out the attacking
thought, must be deep enough to banish the other. It could be,
for example, thinking of a tricky problem, a difficulty, or
question of faith, or some topic that interests you, or
remembering something you have forgotten.
Superficial thinking will not banish the thoughts that are
attacking you. The only thing that can do this is thinking other
types of thoughts which can enter deeply into your mind or
heart, such as thinking about an important family problem or
some abstruse question that is difficult to solve, or about a
subject that is dear to your heart which you enjoy dwelling on.
Another solution is to banish the thought by reading.
But again it has to be reading of a sufficiently deep nature to
occupy the mind fully, because light reading provides the scope
for the mind to wander, so it roams freely and is still distracted
by what is attacking it.
Therefore, suppose a person is attacked by the thought of lust.
Ordinary spiritual reading would not be as useful for him as
would, for example, reading about solving problems in the
Bible, or about doctrinal differences or refutations of them, or
about some new subject which he hasn't studied before, or a
scientific problem which requires concentration.
Unwanted thoughts can also be banished by prayers and
prostrations.
For while the individual feels ashamed of, or embarrassed about
thinking his wrongful thoughts when addressing God, he at the
same time draws help from the prayer, provided, of course, that
his prayer is made with fervour and feeling, and resists any
tendency to wander from the point. Prayer accompanied by
prostrations is even more powerful...
Attacking thoughts can also be driven away by engaging
oneself in manual work.
It is because this activity likewise occupies one's thoughts and
diverts them from being under attack, just as much as an activity
that requires attention and concentration.
Work also occupies a person and relieves him of the war being
waged against his thoughts, in contrast to having nothing to do,
which gives scope for an attack on his mind. This is why the
Fathers said that if a person works, only one devil attacks him,
but if he does not, then he will be attacked by several. Notice
how God gave our forefather Adam work to do while he was in
the Garden of Eden, even though he did not need to work to
provide for himself.
If the offending thought is not banished by all this, then the
best thing is for the person to break out of his isolation and
speak to someone else.
For it will be difficult for him to talk on one subject while his
thought are on another. In fact any kind of amusement,
whether it is pursued alone or in the company of others, can
also help to drive away relentless thoughts.
The important thing is that you don't let yourself remain
alone with those thoughts, or allow them to be your only
concern.
Deflecting one's thoughts, or replacing them, or diverting the
mind from them by some kind of activity or entertainment,
conversation, reading, writing or prayer, can all weaken the
attack upon one's thoughts, banish it, or make you forget it.
You also have to recognise the cause of the thought and
deal with it.
For instance, a thought of anger or revenge may occur to you
on account of a certain subject inside you, which needs to be
dealt with and dispensed with. This is because as long as the
reasons for anger remain within you, then thoughts of it will
continue to attack you, however much you try to banish them.
If' the thoughts have come from reading something in particular,
or from listening to other people, or from some stumbling of the
senses, or from a problem that is bothering you, try to protect
yourself against all this, or find a solution for it, and thereby
stem the original cause of the ideas.
If the thought of pride or false glory overcomes you, and there
is a reason for that, you must fight this pride in your heart in a
spiritual way. If you triumph over it, then those thoughts will
leave you...
This is the method for you to follow in order to deal
spiritually with thoughts of any kind of sin that you are
attacked by.
In all of this you need to act quickly, and not be soft on yourself
when it comes to such thoughts.
If you drive away the thought quickly, it will grow weak before
you. But if you give it a chance, it will grow strong and you
will grow weak trying to resist it. Then it may even combine
itself with other ideas and branch out further, just as it may also
move from the mind to the heart, and turn itself into desire or
craving.
Be on guard against the way that excessive curiosity can
deceive and mislead you.
A person may hang on to an idea or thought, with the excuse
that he wants to know what it will result in, and in which
direction it is leading, out of a kind of inquisitiveness!! You
yourself actually know very well the likely outcome of a good
many ideas, and if you don't, then you can at least deduce it
from the way they have begun! So what use is it to be so
curious, if it is only going to lead you astray?
There is another way, which is to counter the thought:
St. Evagrius laid down a method of renouncing thoughts with
verses from the Bible. For every sin that attacks a person, there is
a verse which can be put before it to reject it and calm it down. in
the temptation on the Mount, the Lord rejected Satan's taunts with
verses from the Scriptures.
There are thoughts, however, which require a swift repulsion,
without any debate or discussion.
For to discuss them may invite such thoughts to become more
permanent, and prolong their stay, besides causing them to branch
out.
Thus if thoughts, which you ought to block quickly, should come to
you, do not be sluggish or delay in doing so, nor wait to see where
they might lead, and don't negotiate with them or have anything to
do with them. For the more you hold on to such thoughts, the
stronger they will get, and the more they will overpower you,
whereas when they first come, they are still weak and you can more
easily banish them.
Banishing thoughts calls for wisdom, discernment and
assistance.
Some people are experienced at identifying and combating
unwanted thoughts and, as St. Paul noted, we are not ignorant of
the wiles of Satan. If anyone doesn't have experience in this, he
should ask a spiritual guide. Generally speaking, divine assistance
that comes with prayer and humbling oneself, helps to eliminate
such thoughts.
The Lord is able to banish Satan and all his wicked thoughts.
Question?
What did the Lord mean in the gospel by His words: "Love
your enemies?. " (Matt. 5:44). How can that be done?.
Answer:
Loving one's friend is something ordinary and found even
among pagans and unbelievers. Loving one's enemy however is
the highest and noblest moral virtue which the Lord desires of
us. He wants us to hate evil, but not those who do it. We are
to hate the sin, but not the sinner. Sinners are only the victims
of misunderstanding, or of the Devil. We must love them and
pray for them, so that they will stop acting like that.
How we are to do that is by following these points:
1. Not bearing hatred in our hearts towards anyone, however
much wrong he has done us. For no hatred can dwell in the
heart which houses love.
2. Not rejoicing at all, at any misfortune that should strike one
who has done us harm, for the Bible itself tells us that: "Love
does not rejoice in iniquity... " (1 Cor. 13:6). We should rather
feel sorry that some harm has befallen our enemy.
3. We should counter evil with love and goodness, and by doing
so, change the feelings of the one who wants to do us wrong.
As St. John Chrysostom said: "There is a way of being rid of
your enemy, and that is to turn him into a friend."
4. Confronting hostility with hostility only serves to inflame it,
while keeping silent in the face of hostility, will simply cause it
to stay as it is. But confronting hostility with love, heals it and
makes it disappear.
5. Therefore, do not speak evil against your enemy, in case the
hostility of him heart increases. But instead, do the opposite. If
you find in his anything good, praise him for it, for this will help
to change his feelings towards you.
6. If' your enemy falls into difficulties, go to help him, for the
Bible says: " If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty,
give him a drink; " (Rom. 12:20).
7. The Bible also says: "Do not be overcome by evil, but
overcome evil with good. " (Rom. 12:21). If you confront
hostility with hostility, evil will have overcome you... Whereas if
You confront it with love, then you will have overcome evil
with good.
Question?
Some people say that there shouldn't be any punishment in
Christianity, in view of the fact that we are now living in
the age of grace, and that if punishment does exist, it will be
in heaven, and not on earth. Is this true?.
Is punishment incompatible with God's love and grace, as it
was shown on the cross?
Answer:
Divine grace cannot be in conflict with divine justice.
God's grace is not at the expense of His justice, nor is it
diminished by it!.
We should not just imagine God as being loving in the New
Testament, and vengeful in the Old. God is the same yesterday,
today and for ever... He was loving in the Old Testament, yet
punished sin, and He is loving in the New Testament, where He
also punishes.
David said about the God who punished in the Old Testament:
"He has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor punished
us according to our iniquities. For as the heavens are high
above the earth, So great is His mercy toward those who fear
Him; As far as the east is from the west, So far has He
removed our transgressions from us". (Ps. 103:10-12)
In the New Testament, the love of God was made manifest
on the cross, totally blended with His justice, "abounding
in love and faithfulness. " (Ps. 86:5).
God's justice and His punishing appear in the Bible, in many
parables in the New Testament. and have appeared throughout
history.
Probably one of the most striking examples of His
punishment to men is the story of Ananias and Sapphira.
They received their punishment from God through the mouth of
the apostle Peter. Ananias dropped down dead, because he had
lied against the Holy Spirit, and when his wife, Sapphira, joined
in that lie, Peter said to her: " How is it that you have agreed
together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those
who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will
carry you out." Then immediately she fell down at his feet and
breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her
dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. So
great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard
these things. " (Acts 5:9-10).
The punishment of Ananias and Sapphira took place on
earth. It wasn't confined to the afterlife.
The same goes for the punishment of Elymas the Sorceror, for
he opposed Saul and Barnabas, so that Saul was filled with the
Holy Spirit and said to him: " you enemy of all righteousness,...
And now, indeed, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you
shall be blind, not seeing the sun for a time." And immediately
a dark mist fell on him, and he went around seeking someone
to lead him by the hand.. " (Acts 13:10-12).
One of the punishments which is famous in Christianity is
that of ostracism.
St. Paul rebuked the people of Corinth for not punishing the
sinner in their midst, saying to them: " I have written to you not
to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually
immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a
drunkard, or an extortioner; not even to eat with such a person.
" (1 Cor. 5:11). And he also said to them: " put away from
yourselves the evil person " (1 Cor. 5:13).
The apostle who spoke most about love, St. John, also spoke
about this punishment of ostracism, saying: " If anyone comes
to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into
your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his
evil deeds.." (2 John 1:10-11).
One of the hardest punishments of the New Testament was
that of the sinner of Corinth. For St. Paul said: " For I
indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already
judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this
deed. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are
gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our
Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the
destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day
of the Lord Jesus.." (1 Cor. 5:3-5).
So, here is another instance of punishment taking place on earth.
One of the famous punishments also in Christianity was
that with which God punished King Herod for being
proud.
When the King approved of the people's saying to him: " The
voice of a god and not of a man!" Then immediately an angel
of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God.
And he was eaten by worms and died.. (Acts 12:22-23).
There are many punishments described in the Book of
Revelation, such as the punishments which will strike the earth
when the seven angels sound their trumpets. John says that
after the fourth angel's trumpet: " And I looked, and I heard an
angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud
voice, "Woe, woe, woe to the inhabitants of the earth, because
of the remaining blasts of the trumpet of the three angels who
are about to sound!" (Rev. 8:13). And there are a lot more
punishments described in this Book too!
The Lord Jesus Christ mentioned punishment at the
beginning of his Sermon on the Mount,
He said: " But I say to you that whoever is angry with his
brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.
And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of
the council. " (Matt. 5:22) So here is a form of punishment
which was to be carried out on earth, which was different from
the punishment of " But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in
danger of hell fire " (Matt. 5:22).
Then there is the punishment of excommunication, or
eternal condemnation.
According to St. Paul: " But even if we, or an angel from
heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have
preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before,
so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you
than what you have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:8-9)
I should like to add, though, that punishment can be a sign
of love. The Bible says: " For whom the LORD loves He
chastens. " (Heb. 12:6). Thus punishment is not incompatible
with love, and does not contradict the work of heavenly grace,
for punishment has often been the reason for souls to come to
their senses, to wake up and safeguard their eternal life. This is
real love, for if the sinner were to be left on earth without love,
he would probably end up in a state of indifference and not
caring, and thus perish, which would not accord with God's
love for sinners.
The Church rules are full of punishments for sinners.
These rules have been laid down by the Spirit of God, through
the Apostolic Fathers and the holy councils, and the great
saintly Fathers. They include lots of penalties, and come within
the framework of the belief of the Orthodox Christian.
But they do not differ from the spirit of the Bible, as I have said.
The lowest level of the well-known punishments is that of
reprimand.
St. Paul said to his disciple Titus: " exhort, and rebuke with all
authority. " (Titus 2:15). And in fact he also said: " Those who
are sinning rebuke in the presence of all... " (1 Tim. 5:20) As
for anyone who dislikes this punishment, the Bible has this to
say to him: " Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke
a wise man, and he will love you. " (Prov. 9:8).
The work of divine grace is not to pamper or to spoil, but to
strengthen, to correct, to refine and to lead the soul to
God's love.
Punishment can be of benefit in doing this, whereas to spoil the
soul by being soft on it, might well ruin it.
The Lord's love which was manifested on the cross, also leads
us to the cross.
Question?
St. Paul said: "To the Jews I became like a Jew... to those
who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win
those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as
without law (not being without law toward God, but under
law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without
law;" (1 Cor. 9:20-21). What do these words mean?
Answer:
The apostle was talking about preaching and seeing that the
message of the gospel was conveyed. He is saying: the Jew
believes in the Law and the Prophets. In order to convince him
of the message of Christ, I speak to him as a Jew, about the
Law and the Prophets, and any matters contained in them which
pertain to Christ. But when it comes to the Greek, and those
like them who do not have a law, who do not believe in the Bible
or the Prophets, unless I speak to them in their own way. In
terms that they will understand, and attract them to the faith by
philosophy, I will not win them for Christ.
Likewise, if I were to speak to them about the Prophets, I
would not be able to win them for Christ either.
However, the phrase: "To the Jews I became like a Jew",
doesn't mean behaving like a Jew, for St. Paul fought
against Judaization with all his might.
Some Jews who embraced Christianity wanted to introduce into
it some of the Jewish beliefs and practices, such as circumcision,
keeping the Sabbath and the festivals, and the lunar calendar,
and all that was associated with them in terms of eating and
drinking that which was lawful or unlawful, along with the rest
of the Jewish rules concerning purity and unclearness. This
movement was known by the name of Judaization.
St. Paul in his attacks against the Jews said: " So let no one
judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new
moon or sabbaths, which are a shadow of things to come, but
the substance is of Christ. " (Col. 2:16-17).
The words 'in food or in drink' here does not mean fasting,
but refers to the purity or impurity of food, according to the
foods that were allowed or forbidden in Judaism, but which did
not apply any more under Christianity.
St. Paul preached among the Jews, just as he did among the
Gentiles. In his sermon in Rome, he spoke first to the Jews.
When they rejected him and became divided, he then went to
the Gentiles. (Acts 28:17-29).
In order to win the Jews, he spoke in the Temple and in the
Jewish synagogues, and tried to convince them of what was said
in the Law and the Prophets about Christ.
Question?
How to deal with Problems?.
Answer:
Every human being in the world faces problems in his life. The
way in which people deal with such problems, react to them, or
let themselves be affected by them, varies. This depends on the
personality and the mental attitude of each individual, and also
on his experience... There are some types of people who are just
crushed by their problems, while others triumph over them.
There are also right ways and wrong ways of approaching them.
I shall try to consider both kinds:
1. Running away from problems:
The way of escape was that followed by our ancestors Adam
and Eve, when they fell into sin. The Bible says: "they hid from
the Lord God among the trees of the garden. " (Gen. 3:8).
This running away, however, did not solve the problem, they
still had to face it.
Another way in which people react to their problems is
with:
2. Unhappiness and tears:
A child's way of facing a difficulty is to cry.
This childish behaviour, though, remains in some people
even after they are grown up, and this is frequently the case
with women, who then show a tendency to confront any
difficulty with unhappiness and crying, without attempting to
find any kind of practical solution.
This was the case with St. Hannah when God had closed her
womb, so that when her rival Peninnah taunted her, Hannah
" did not eat " (1 Sam. 1:7).
Yet her depression, tears and refusal to eat did not solve her
problem until in the end she took refuge in God.
What happened to St. Hannah also happened to an
important king like Ahab.
When Naboth the Jezreelite refused to give him the
vineyard, the Bible says: "Ahab went home, sullen and
displeased " (1 Kin. 21:4). However, that depression did not
solve Ahab's problem, but rather led to a solution in which his
wife, Queen Jezebel, intervened to provide him with a practical
way of dealing with it - being wrong one - as we shall see...
Many wives resort to unhappiness and tearfulness in trying to
solve their problems.
For instance, a husband might go home to find his wife in floods
of tears, perhaps for some trivial reason, so he tries to solve the
problem, but then she goes on to cry for some other reason, and
then for a third. Hence crying becomes her fixed line of action
in dealing with anything that opposes her desires. To
accompany the tears there are her complaints, and depression,
and making a crisis out of everything. All of this tends to make
the husband despair of this domestic situation, and want to
escape from the house with all its gloom. Thus the woman
causes harm to him, and also to herself, and all without
achieving any positive result!
3. Pressure and insistence:
A person might have a desire which he wishes to fulfil by any
method, but finds opposition to it from his father or mother or
boss, so he keeps on insisting on having what he wants, and
putting pressure on them in a way that he thinks will lead to
their consent in the end.
Delilah used this kind of insistence with Samson, until he
revealed his secret to her! She kept asking him to reveal his
secret, and each time he eluded her by not telling her the truth.
But she persevered in putting pressure on him and then chided
him saying: " How can you say, 'I love you,' when your heart is
not with me? You have mocked me these three times, and have
not told me where your great strength lies." And it came to
pass, when she pestered him daily with her words and pressed
him, so that his soul was vexed to death, that he told her all his
heart, ... " (Judg. 16:15-17).
This kind of nagging or insistence might lead to someone
giving their consent reluctantly, and without really wanting
to.
The surprising thing is, though, that the person who has the
desire rejoices at this consent, without caring whether the
person who has given this assent really approves of it in ' his
heart, or whether he resents having to give it. The Israelites
urged God to appoint a king for them, though He was not in
favour of this desire, and considered it a rejection of Himself (1
Sam. 8:7). Nevertheless, He yielded to their insistence and
gave them a king, against His own wishes. That king was Saul,
'and the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul'(1 Sam. 16:14).
Potiphar's wife tried to force the righteous Joseph to make love
to her, but he fled from her (Gen. 39:10), and as a result of her
attempted seduction, Joseph had to suffer banishment and years
in prison. It also resulted, however in this woman having a bad
reputation for generations. Thus is a case where insistence
brought a very unhappy result!
The Jews pressed Pilate to crucify Christ.
Although he tried in every way to escape ,from their urging,
they just put even more pressure on him. He told them that he
found no fault in Jesus, that he found Jesus to be a righteous
man, and saw no reason to crucify Him. Pilate also asked them
if they really wanted him to crucify their king?!
To which they replied: "We have no king but Caesar". When
Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a
tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before
the multitude, saying, "I am innocent of the blood of this just
Person You see to it!" To which the Jews replied:
"His blood be on us and on our children. " (Matt. 27:24-25)
So the result of their insistence was that the governor gave
in to them and ordered Christ to be crucified! Do you imagine
that they gained anything from their insistence?!
Some people resort to violence as a way out of their
difficulties.
4. Violence:
The prophet David got into a problem with Nabal of Carmel,
when the latter refused to give David's troops any food. Thus
David decided to solve the problem by force. He girded on his
sword and ordered his men to do the same. Then he threatened
that by morning not one male who belonged to Nabal would be
left alive. (1 Sam. 25:13 & 22).
Was David's method right?! No, not at all. Abigail, Nabal's
wife, rebuked him for it, for having decided to shed blood and
take revenge for himself. And David thanked her for giving him
wise advice. (1 Sam. 25:33).
One of the results of David's use of force, was that the Lord
didn't permit him to build the Temple, saying to him: " But God
said to me, 'You shall not build a house for My name,
because you have been a man of war and have shed blood." (1
Chr. 28:3).
When Moses used violence to solve a problem between an
Egyptian and a Hebrew, by killing the Egyptian (Ex. 2:12), God
did not use him for some time, but made him spend forty years
tending sheep until he had learned to be gentle, and until it
could be said of him that: " Now the man Moses was very
humble, more than all men who were on the face of the earth "
(Num. 12:3) It was only after Moses had developed this final
character trait that God used him to look after His people.
Peter was wrong when he raised his sword and cut off the ear
of the High Priest's servant. When confronted with the problem
of his Master's arrest, Peter thought of solving it by violence,
but the Lord rebuked him saying: "Put your sword back in its
place... for all who take the sword will perish by the sword "
(Matt. 26:52).
A father can also fall into the mistake of being violent when he
exercises his authority with force at home, and beats his wife or
children and causes them harm. This could be true of the priest
too, who uses the authority he possesses to excommunicate or
ban, in the wrong situation.
5. Trickery and Cunning:
Rebekah used this method so that her favourite son, Jacob.
could receive the blessing of his father Isaac.
She clothed Jacob in a goatskin so that his body would seem
hairy, like that of his brother Esau (Gen. 27). Isaac, not
noticing the trick, bestowed his blessing on Jacob. But do you
think Jacob benefited when he deceived his father in this way?-
No, he didn't, rather the opposite, for he lived as a fugitive, in
fear of his brother Esau, and later became himself a victim of
deception, when his uncle, Laban, married him to Leah, instead
of Rachel (Gen. 29:25), and also changed his wages ten times
(Gen. 31:41).
Jacob was also deceived by his sons, when they informed him
that Joseph had been killed by a wild beast. (Gen. 37:33) And in
the end, Jacob summed up his life story saying: "My years have
been few and evil... " (Gen. 47:9).
Jezebel used a method of cunning in order to acquire the
vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite. She contrived to get a
malicious charge against Naboth and it was announced that he
had blasphemed against God, and then brought false witnesses
to testify to it. So Naboth was taken outside the city and
stoned, and thus Ahab inherited Naboth's vineyard. It appeared
that the trick had brought a solution to the problem, but God
sent His word to Elijah the Prophet, to say to Ahab: " Have you
murdered and also taken possession?" ' And you shall speak to
him, saying, 'Thus says the LORD: "In the place where dogs
licked the blood of Naboth, dogs shall lick your blood, even
yours. ' " (1 Kin. 21:17-19). This also turned out to be the fate
of Ahab's wife, Jezebel. (2 Kin. 9:36).
Cunning - like violence - may lead to a swift result, and
appear to be a solution to a particular problem, but it isn't
from God.
God may permit the defeat of such evil plots, just as he brought
Ahithophel's advice to nothing, so that it was not able to harm
David (2 Sam. 17..23). Thus David was saved, but Ahithophel
hung himself out of grief that his advice had failed.
6. Does committing a crime solve the problem?
Some people resort to committing a crime in order to solve
their problems, or to attain their goals. This was what Cain, the
first killer on earth, did. What was the result? The result was
that he lived the rest of his life in fear and terror, as a wanderer
and fugitive on earth, afraid that anyone who found him would
kill him (Gen. 4:14).
Absalom also resorted to crime when he set fire to Joab's field
so that he could meet the king (2 Sam. 14:30).
7. The weapon of betrayal:
Some people resort to "the weapon of betrayal" in order to
achieve their objectives. Absalom betrayed his father, David, in
order to try and take over the rulership, but his treachery only
led to his own death (2 Sam. 18:15). Likewise, when Judas
resorted to betrayal, he did not gain from doing so, but ended
up hanging himself (Matt. 27:5).
Even though betrayal has brought a certain satisfaction to some
people, or has achieved their goal - most often something really
mean or base - they have nevertheless all failed, and ended up
despising themselves.
While a person might be able to bear the contempt of others
towards him, he is rarely able to bear his self-disgust! When the
reality of his inner self is revealed to the traitor, he despises it
and it becomes unbearable.
Yet in spite of all this, the weapon of betrayal still exists. How
easy it is for the traitor to achieve his goal by deceiving his
loved ones, or his benefactors, or by betraying a friend if he
feels he is a rival... even so, it leads to nothing.
8. Trying to solve problems by nervousness:
Suppose a highly-strung person comes across a problem, and
wonders how to solve it. He might try to confront the matter
with shouting, causing a fuss, by getting angry or uptight, by
swearing, making threats or promises, by using a sharp, loud
voice and harsh tones. But none of this can solve his problem.
Getting into a state of nervous agitation is a dissatisfactory
means.
It indicates a lack of strategy, a failure to convince or discuss
with others, and an attempt to cover up this failure with an
outer show of force, which bears witness to an inner incapacity.
Or it could be a way of trying to strike fear into the other party,
or to get rid of him by this method. It is not, however, a
spiritual method, nor is it a socially respectable one, and the
difficulty is still there just the same...
It may bring on the person who is like this, various health
disorders, such as high blood pressure, nervous tension or
stomach ulcers, or diabetes etc., as well as other psychological
problems, and can cause many complications in social
relationships, as the person attempts to rectify the harmful
results of his anger and its effect on other people, but finds no
solution.
9. Resorting to drugs and such like:
Another type of person, when facing a problem which he can't
seem to solve, may resort to drugs, to the various sorts of
tranquillisers, sedatives and sleeping pills, such as Valium,
Librium etc. To this category of persons we can also add those
who imagine that they can solve their difficulties by alcohol and
getting drunk, by smoking or taking barbiturates or illegal
drugs.
A person cannot solve his problems by these kinds of drugs, or
smoking. He is only trying to distract himself, which isn't a
solution to his problem, but rather an escape from it. The
problem is still there...
Resorting to such drugs is an admission of defeat in facing the
difficulty, a failure to bear it, and a failure to solve it. And since
it doesn't produce a positive result, the person taking drugs
finds the problem just the same, as the effects of the drugs wear
off. He may then try to increase his dose, which
likewise brings no result, thus he ends up nervously exhausted
and in despair until, that is, he attempts to reach a beneficial
practical solution.
Some people may try to solve their problems another way,
which is:
10. Breaking off friendships and having arguments:
When such a person's social relationships fail, he resorts to
breaking off his friendships and starting arguments, to hostility
and causing division. This is what happened to Jeroboam when
he failed to reach an understanding with Rehoboam. The ten
tribes split up and made themselves into independent kingdoms
(1 Kin. 12). This division lasted for many centuries, and was
not a solution to the problem but rather made the matter worse.
The same thing happened between the Jews and the people of
Samaria, and also between the Jews and Gentiles... and Jesus
Christ came to heal this unsolved problem, and repair
relationships between the two people.
But what about you? Do you resort to this course?
11. Confronting the difficulty with lies:
What a lot of people, when facing a problem, try to solve it by
lying, or making things up which are not true. They imagine
that lying will cover up the problem! when the matter is
exposed, they cover up the lie with another, and so on and so
forth.. Lying creates an atmosphere of distrust, and the problem
gets more complicated.
Another distorted way of approaching problems is by:
12. Being obstinate and rigid-minded:
Such a person, on meeting a difficulty, insists on having his
opinion, his point of view, regardless of the awful and
disastrous consequences that might follow, and this may change
the situation to one of a stubborn impasse and make it even
more involved.
All this arises from inner pride, and over-reliance on self.
Obstinacy never achieves a good result, because it is an attempt
to force the other party, and if that party does not give in, then
a clash is inevitable.
The way to deal with this is to try and reach a mutual
understanding, and to give up any erroneous fixed attitude.
There is, however, a way which is the complete opposite of
obstinacy, and equally wrong, which is that of:
13. Fear and submission:
Some people, when they are hard pressed and feel an inner
inadequacy, submit to their particular situation, and passively
take whatever happens to them. But this is not a solution to the
problem, but just a surrender to it.
If all these methods of facing problems are wrong, what
then are the right ways?
The Right ways to Deal with Problems are;
A. Firstly, try to solve the problem by wisdom and
intelligence:
Not by 'nerves', or obstinacy or making yourself nervously ill.
Do it by wisdom and, as the Bible says, with: "meekness of
wisdom. " (James 3:13) It says in Ecclesiastes: " The wise man's
eyes are in his head, But the fool walks in darkness. " (Eccl.
2:14).
In case some people might protest at this by saying that not
everyone is wise, and not everyone has this gift, the reply to
that is:
B. Seek advice and get the opinion of those who are wise and
have experience:
Where the individual is not content with his own opinion,
knowledge or experience, he can supplement it with the opinion of
his elders.
Another successful method of solving problems is:
C. Prayer and Fasting:
What the individual is incapable of solving, is very easy for
God to solve. And prayer and fasting are two ways of bringing
God into one's difficulties.
The Bible is full of stories about God solving problems, and the
success of the means of fasting and prayer. Queen Esther and her
people resorted to this, and so did the people of Ninevah. Likewise
David, the prophet, took refuge in his psalms and fasts, and so did
Nehemiah, who said: " when I heard these words, that I sat down
and wept, and mourned for many days; I was fasting and praying
before the God of heaven." (Neh. 1:4).
To be truthful, though, we ought to put prayer as the foremost of
our means, before wisdom and seeking advice, or a combination of
the two together. For the Bible teaches us first of all to pray, just
as it tells us to be wise and seek advice.
But there is still another important matter which is:
D. The need to be patient and give the problem time to be
solved:
This means patience until God arranges the solution of the problem, at
the time which He considers appropriate. For anyone who does not
wait patiently, will end up in a state of constant anxiety and nervous
exhaustion. Furthermore, in all these things, for a problem to be
solved, yet another factor is required, which is:
E. Calmness:
This is necessary because no-one can solve his problems when he
is upset.
Calm, peaceful nerves give scope for correct thinking, while an upset
state exhausts the soul and paralyses thought, so that the person does
not know what to do.
Then it remains to solve the problem by effective and positive
action, it can't be done just by wishful thinking.
Question?
Which is better: to act swiftly, which indicates resolution,
decisiveness, and the ability to make a decision, or to take
one's time and deliberate calmly, with all that this conveys
in the way of composure, stability and patience?
Answer:
There are cases when it is right and necessary to act swiftly,
and others, calling for deliberation and patience, where to
act quickly would be harmful...
Take punishment, for example: when this is carried out too
quickly, no scope is provided for investigation, for justice, or
for close examination, or for finding out the extent of the
offence or the position of responsibility. Thus acting quickly in
the case of punishment is a mistake, for the matter needs
reflection.
On the other hand, being slow and delaying to carry out
punishment affords the offender a respite, so that he continues
to do wrong, which has worse consequences, in that it
encourages others to imitate him, under the impression that
there is no form of control or restraint. In such a case, it
becomes necessary to carry out a punishment more quickly.
In either case, then, wisdom and an assessment of the
circumstances is essential.
It also appears that a thorough investigation is necessary, and
that even when swift action in punishment is required, it needs
to be accompanied by sufficient justice, and the person to be
punished has to be given a chance to explain his situation and
answer to his charge.
There are other cases, however, which should be dealt with
quickly, such as repentance.
When the prodigal son woke up to his predicament, he said: "'I
will arise and go to my father ... " (Luke 15:18) and he got up
straightaway and returned to his father. When it comes to
repentance, there should be no delay or procrastination. By the
time the five foolish maidens returned, they were too late, and
found the door closed against them, and their opportunity was
lost.
There are situations involving others which, if one is too
slow, on the pretext of being deliberate and making a
careful examination, will be over and done with by the time
one arrives.
Take a sick person, for example, if you catch him in time, and
treat him promptly, he might be cured. If you delay ' though, on
the excuse that you need to carry out more investigations,
his condition might end up as hopeless. You have to do the
necessary tests, but do them quickly.
So many times there have been wrongdoers whom we have
been too slow to check, with the result that their offence has
become a common habit, and spread. And so many situations
have reached such serious consequences as someone
renouncing his faith, all because we have been too slow to deal
with them.
Certain family problems and certain financial problems call
for swift action.
There have been situations which have ended up in divorce,
which could have been prevented, if steps had been taken to
deal with them right at the beginning, before letting them
develop into conflicts and become more complicated, and
letting them then get to a state of impasse or hatred, and then
the law courts and a hearing...
Carrying out obligations often calls for swift action.
Suppose you are a person who is slow in expressing his
condolences or his congratulations, or in visiting the sick, or
responding on any important occasions, this procrastination
might lead to a change in the other person's feelings towards
you, so that he imagines that you do not care about him, and so
it has an effect on both sides of your relationship.
If you are also slow in making up with him, you might
afterwards find yourself no longer on his list of friends!
This does not mean, however, that swift action is best in
every situation, and for everybody...
It is a necessary condition, when it comes to carrying out
something quickly, that it shouldn't be done in an unprepared or
improvisatory manner, or as a reaction. Nor should there be
any likelihood of error, or need for re-examination afterwards.
For if this were the case, there would be a reason to slow down
and not act so quickly.
More important than the factor of speed, is that of skill and
usefulness, for if speed is combined with skilful
performance, then that is ideal.
What is meant by speed is not recklessness or impetuosity. It is
not loss of balance, or behaving without thinking or without
prior study, which would not only be wrong, but would also
cause extensive damage.
From this, then, the importance of reflection and calmness
in producing the right decision, becomes obvious.
Taking consideration over, or reflecting upon a matter, is not an
inability to issue a decision, or an inability to make up one's
mind in settling affairs, but rather an effort to blend everything
with a wise course of behaviour. Calm thinking is more
wholesome, and calm behaviour a more successful approach to
dealing with something. Calm measures are more lasting and
less prone to be shaken...
The surgeon's scalpel, for all its swiftness, is not always the
ideal solution.
Between swift action and slowness, there exists, however, a
better medium.
Swift action will be criticised, unless it has been backed up by
prior study and investigation. And taking one's time about
something, doesn't mean just putting things off... it too must be
the outcome of deliberation...
Patience is a virtue if it leads to a healthy result, but if I don't
use it in the proper place, someone else's more appropriate
qualities will gain the advantage!
Acting slowly is not always to be associated with a gentle or
peaceable nature, it may sometimes be related to
negligence, indifference or stupidity.
Be wise, then, in how you behave, and do not follow either
extremes. Taking the middle course has saved many people,
and the best way, as they say, is often an intermediate position
between two opposite extremes, between overdoing it and
underdoing it.
Give each activity its proper time, and deal with each issue in a
way that will bring it to success, with swift action, or calm
deliberation as is necessary.
Question?
Is it better for us to correct people in public or in private if
they have fallen into a doctrinal or theological error? And
similarly, is it better for a punishment to be carried out in
private or in public if someone has done something that
requires punishment?
Answer:
The sin that is done in public, punish in public. And the
theological error which is broadcast openly in public,
should be publicly refuted.
And conversely, those mistakes which are made in private, or
theological errors which a person might fall into without anyone
else knowing about it, can all be dealt with or punished in
private, because they have not spread in society.
But what is the wisdom in all this? Why punish in public, and
why correct in public?
This is because something that happens in public has an
effect on others, or might cause them to stumble... So we
must take those other people into account.
For punishment in public does not confine the wrong to the
offender alone, but makes it go beyond him to have an effect on
others, who might have imitated that person's action, or who
might not have regarded it as serious, or who might have
treated it lightly, if it had been allowed to pass unpunished or
uncensored. St. Paul said to his disciple Timothy the Bishop
concerning this:
" Those who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all, that the
rest also may fear." (1 Tim. 5:20).
If, for example, it happened that some people caused a
disturbance or an outcry in church, they ought to be
reprimanded in front of everyone, as the apostle says, because
of the stumbling block it might present to others so that they
might not be tempted to do likewise and so that the
congregation should learn from it. This matter is different from
the personal error which no-one knows about, which our Lord
was referring to when He said:
" Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his
fault between you and him alone. " (Matt. 18:15).
As far as a common error is concerned, by which I mean a fault
that is widespread, that should also be punished before
everybody. Many are the examples of this kind of public
punishment with which God corrected His people, or which the
prophets and apostles issued to offenders.
And according to the same logic, we can speak about wrong
teaching, for to keep silent about teaching that is
unorthodox, or inaccurate, especially if it spreads, may
cause some people to believe it, since they have not found
any way of refuting it.
It might also cause people to become confused with regard to
the Church, and start wondering how it, the church, can be
quiet about an incorrect teaching that is gaining ground,
whether it is through books, magazines or newspapers!
They would then consider the Church has failed in performing
its educational function. History presents us with an endless
succession of images concerning the stand taken by the Church
with regard to theological errors.
The Church used to set up local councils and ecumenical
councils to combat theological errors, and this was done in
public before everybody.
Whenever doctrinal and theological errors venture forth and
take on an openly public form, without showing any
consideration for any control or censorship from the Church,
then they have to be refuted publicly, as a way of saving those
who have become caught up in these ideas, and also to restrain
on the originators of those thoughts, by preventing them from
making further mistakes, which is what would happen if they
found that the Church took no notice of, or was silent about,
the errors that were being spread.
The Church also receives many complaints against any
unorthodox or strange ideas that spread, and those making
the complaints expect to receive an answer.
The Church ought not to remain silent while it sees the potential
stumbling block there, in front of her, and ought not simply to
take no notice when faced with the people's complaints,
especially if they happen again and again and increase in
number. For the Church will then find itself facing a duty which
it has to perform...
We, as individuals, may have to relinquish our personal right to
retaliate or reply, if some people hurt us as individuals, but
when it comes to performing our duty to teach, or to protect
the faith, then we certainly cannot give in and let any abuse pass
by unchallenged.
St. Paul publicly reprimanded St. Peter, when the latter
was in the wrong, and what is more, he opposed him face to
face (Gal. 2:11).
This was in spite of the fact that Peter, one of the pillars of the
Church, who had been given the right hand of fellowship (Gal.
2:9), was a more senior apostle than Paul. And Peter was also
one of those to whom Paul had presented his gospel (by which I
mean the preaching which he delivered to the Gentiles) (Gal.
2:2). But when Paul saw Peter and those with him doing
wrong, " And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite
with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their
hypocrisy. " (Gal. 2:13), Paul said: " when I saw that they were
not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to
Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner
of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to
live as Jews? "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of
the Gentiles,..."(Gal. 2:14-15).
in matters of belief, the Church does not turn the other cheek,
as the Bible tells us to do, that is, it won't sacrifice the correct
teaching for the sake of being polite.
When it comes to things that happen in private, or out of the
public eye, then the Church does not disclose these but lets
them remain unpublished - and there are a good many of such
cases.
Question?
What is the difference between criticism and
condemnation? And am I, by virtue of my job as a critic,
committing a sin by criticising?
Answer:
The basic difference between criticism and condemnation is
that criticism is objective, whereas condemnation is
something directed towards more personal aspects.
Healthy criticism is a form of analysis, and a process of careful
evaluation which highlights good as well as bad points, and
gives the subject its full dues, making excuses for any
weaknesses if there is scope to do so.
Condemnation which only mentions the bad points,
however, is a kind of attack, and anyone doing this is not
being just.
Likewise there are various types, and various degrees of
criticism, such as calm, serious criticism which has a rational
style, and there is biting, spiteful criticism and wounding
criticism. Each critic has a different style, and differs in
87
choosing which words he uses. Look and see which kind you
are!
Be objective and fair, and do not be harsh in your criticism.
If your official job happens to be that of a critic, then there is
nothing wrong in that, sometimes a writer criticises a book and
his criticism is all praise for that book, if it deserves it.
Criticism also requires study and knowledge, and has its own
principles, and not everyone can ascend to, the rank of a true
critic, or can claim this quality for himself.
Readers benefit from the criticism of the scholarly and fair
minded critic, and so does the person whom he criticises,
and the critic then is contributing to the advancement of
literature and scholarship.
Question?
Can the Church Sacraments be sold, so that a price is fixed
eg. for baptism, or for the anointing of the sick?
Answer:
The sacraments cannot be sold, because they are derived
from the work of the Holy Spirit. And the gifts of the Holy
spirit are not to be purchased by money (Acts 8:20).
However, if on the occasion of a baptism a person wants to give
something to the Church, not as payment but as an offering, like
a sacrifice of praise, then a box can be found in the Church for
such contributions as these and a person can put in as much as
he likes, without anything being demanded from him. And the
Church probably cannot tell whether this person has given
anything or not, and if it did know that he had put something in
the donation box, then it couldn't tell whether it was a large or
small sum.
Generally speaking, we encourage baptism as something
necessary for salvation (Mark 16:16), so it would be
unthinkable for the Church to ask for something material
in exchange for it...
Furthermore, we strongly invite people to get their children
baptised, and criticise them if they are too slow in doing so. We
rejoice with them on the day of baptism, because it is on that
day that the one being baptised becomes a member of the
Church, a member of the body of Christ, and one of the children
of God.
If someone on this happy day wishes to make an offering to
God, then this is something that springs from that person's heart
and feelings.
There is no compulsion or forcing someone to do so, and no fee
is charged, God forbid!
We can say the same about the other similar sacraments too.
Take the anointing of the sick, for example, this is an act of
love, and is a prayer on behalf of the sick person.
It would be inconceivable for this to become an occasion for
raking in money! If it were to, it would lose whatever love and
concern it had, and the sick person would not feel the value of a
prayer that he had paid for, and which wouldn't be said unless it
had been paid for.
If only we would remember always what our Lord said to His
disciples: "Freely you have received, freely give. (Matt. 10:8)
What is paid to the Church sometimes on certain occasions, is
not a fee for the sacrament, but a voluntary offering to the
Lord. The sacraments are not for sale: no price can be put on
them.
I was once asked the question:
Question?
What do the words of the Sovereign Lord to Abimelech,
when the latter took Abraham's wife, Sarah, mean: " I also
withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let
you touch her." (Gen. 20:6) Was this something against the
human being's free will?
Answer:
God has given man freedom, but it is not absolute freedom.
If this freedom is diverted towards something evil, which
endangers the eternal life of that person, or someone else, then
God can intervene to put a limit to this evil, or to punish the
wrongdoer or stop him, and that is because God is the
Almighty.
If God were never to restrain on this freedom, but left it
alone to do absolutely any evil, it would simply sweep away
the poor and weak.
In fact God set a limit to the evil of Satan himself, as is clear in
the story of the righteous Job. (Job 1:12; 2:6) And in Psalm
125 it also says: " For the scepter of wickedness shall not rest
On the land allotted to the righteous " (Ps. 125:3) God also
intervened to set a limit to Pharaoh's cruelty. And how
beautiful are the words in Psalm 12: " For the oppression of the
poor, for the sighing of the needy, Now I will arise," says the
LORD; "I will set him in the safety for which he yearns.' " (Ps.
12:5).
God gives freedom even to sinners and if they go too far, in
such a way that threatens the righteous, then He will
intervene to save the righteous and also to establish justice.
There are countless examples of this in the Bible and
throughout history and they go to prove God's care and
concern.
In the story of Abimelech, though, God intervened out of His
grave concern for Sarah's chastity and for the feelings of
Abraham, and also to save Abimelech from committing an
enormous sin. This was because Abimelech had taken Sarah in
all good faith, since Abraham had told him that Sarah was his
sister, not his wife. (Gen. 20:11-12).
We do not call this, intervening to limit someone's freedom, but
rather intervening in order to save that person from sin. Don't
let us forget that Sarah was the wife of a prophet, and from her
descendants the Messiah would come!
Question?
Are sins equal or do they differ in degree? Will the people
in Hell all suffer the same punishment? Or are there
different degrees of punishment? And which verses of the
Bible support this?
Answer:
The Lord said that He would come and " give to every one
according to his work. " (Rev. 22:12) Obviously people's
actions differ, and so therefore will their punishment. Even on
earth, the Lord said in the Sermon on the Mount: " And
whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!'# shall be in danger of the
council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell
fire." (Matt. 5:22). From this it is clear that punishment differs
with the difference in degree of the offence. St. Augustine
also made this observation.
Concerning this difference in degree of sin, and the Church's
attitude towards it, St. John said: " There is sin leading to
death. I do not say that he should pray about that.
# An Aramic term of contempt
All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not leading to
death." ( 1 John 5:16-17) So, a sin that does not lead to death,
can be prayed for, so that the one who has committed it should
be given life. Sins which do not lead to death come under the
headings of unintentional sins, sins of ignorance and sins of
negligence.
Obviously there is a great difference between the
unintentional sin, and the sin which is carried out with full
intent and determination. Just as there is a big difference
between sins of ignorance and those committed in full
knowledge. God's justice requires that the punishment
should be in proportion to the crime.
Sins are actually alike in that they exclude one from the
Kingdom of Heaven, but even those who go to hell suffer
different degrees of torture, which is why the Lord said,
referring to all the cities which rejected Him and rejected the
faith and rejected His disciples: " Assuredly, I say to you, it will
be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the
day of judgment than for that city!" (Matt. 10:15)
The words 'more tolerable... than' prove the difference in
punishment based on the difference in offence.
The difference in sin can be clearly observed from the practical
point of view. The person who commits adultery in his mind,
for instance, is not like the person who commits the act of
adultery, for the latter, by doing so, has defiled his own body
and that of someone else too. And the person who commits the
act of adultery, is not the same as someone who commits a
violent rape, which is that much, more offensive. And a
different case again would be that of someone who commits
adultery with a relative whom the law has forbidden him to
marry. (Lev. 20)
A person who wishes to do something violent, but doesn't do it,
and just keeps it in his mind, is not the same as someone who
actually carries out his violence in physical or verbal form, who
actually does harm to another person and, by his action, causes
others to stumble. The one who only thinks about stealing, is
different from the one who actually steals by force.
At this point, though, sin becomes multiple or compound,
which means that it consists of a number of sins together.
The punishment for a multiple sin is greater because it does not
rank as a single sin, but as a collection of sins. Someone who
insults a person will have committed the sin of insulting, but
someone who insults his father or mother, will have added to
his sin of insulting, another sin which is that of breaking the
commandment to honour your parents. Thus his sin is a
compound one, and accordingly his punishment will be harsher.
The Bible says in the law of Moses: "If anyone curses his father
or mother, he must be put to death and his blood will be on his
own head." (Lev. 20:9).
Likewise, someone who hit someone else, to whom he was not
related, used to be subject, after being judged, to the rule, "an
eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth." (Lev. 24:19-20). But
someone who hit his father or mother used to be stoned and
an even harsher stoning was given for sins committed
against anything sacred.
If someone sins on a holy day, such as a day of fasting, for
example, or a day of taking communion, is held to have
committed a worse sin, therefore the punishment was more
severe for the sins of the sons of Eli the Priest (1 Sam. 2).
Question?
Is it permissible that an organ of one human being's body
(whether it is from a live or dead body) be transplanted
into that of another? And would organ transplant
constitute meddling around with bodies, and not showing
due respect for them? Is it also permissible for a person to
give a part of his own body since he does not own it?
Answer:
Christianity does not prohibit organ transplantion, either
from a living or a dead body.
The Holy Bible does not expressly instruct on, or forbid, organ
transplant, either in the New or in the Old Testament, because
that subject was not around at that time. But the spirit of the
Bible calls for giving and self-sacrifice, for saving others and for
showing as much concern as possible for other people's lives.
So from the teaching of the Bible, organ transplant is
permissible, whether from a live body or from a dead one,
in order to benefit another human being.
Christianity does not regard that as meddling around with a
body that has been given to a person by God, or as doing it
harm, or as trying to engineer a new human form, or as
violating its dignity.
The body is only destroyed by sin, by harmful habits, by
neglecting health rules, suicide or such like.
But to lose a limb through doing a noble deed, such as
defending one's country... or to give an organ in order to
save a human being in an operation, is a kind of sacrifice,
and a giving of oneself for others, which raises the dignity
of the human being, and which is in no way contrary to
religion.
This is what the martyrs did whether they were martyrs for their
homeland or for religion. They submitted their lives to death,
and exposed their bodies to being torn apart and mutilated. We
honour the martyrs whose limbs were cut to pieces, and whose
bodies were disfigured, and we regard their loss of limbs as
something that increases their honour, both in the eyes of God
and of men. We do not call that a disfiguration of their bodies,
but something that adds to their dignity.
To a certain degree, sacrificing organs in order to save people's
lives, or donating them after death for the benefit of medicine
or-science in general, resembles this.
Thus to give an organ of the human body, voluntarily, does
not violate the dignity of the body, because the body's
dignity is not in its form, but in its being sacrificed for the
good of others.
The gospel calls us to sacrifice ourselves, when Jesus said: "
Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life
for his friends." (John 15:13).
If the Gospel calls for the laying down one's whole life for
the sake of others, then there is all the more reason to
sacrifice a single organ of the human body.
Our concern that our bodies should be instruments in the
service of the spirit, and be fit to accompany it on life's journey,
does not mean that we should be driven by selfishness to
preserve these bodies at all costs!! No, on the contrary, for in
donating a part of the body, the spirit will rise higher.
It says in the Bible that love "is not self-seeking. " (1 Cor.
13:5). And St. Paul also said to the Galatians: " I bear you
witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your own
eyes and given them to me." (Gal. 4:15). That kind of
operation, however, was not possible twenty centuries ago. We
hope that science will help to make it possible for such things to
be carried out, and that love will help to put them into effect, in
the future...
So we can ask what is better;for a human being to live with
two kidneys, or for him to give one of them to someone else,
and for them both to live? As by this sacrifice and love a
person is helping someone else's life, by rescuing him from
death and from the agony of illness.
The same can be said, to a certain extent, about blood
transfusion, or transplanting any part of the body to another
human being. In the case of a single human being, we might
notice that various organs or parts of his body might be given
either to him, or by him, in certain operations, for instance -
transplanting an artery, a skin, nerve or tissue graft... without
anyone raising any objection or disputing the concept.
As far as a dead person is concerned, removing one of his
organs will not hurt him, but may well save somebody else's
life!
I wonder if a person who doesn't wish to donate any of his
organs for the benefit of another person, can stop the worms
from eating his dead body?! Do you suppose he can prevent the
decay or the decomposition of his body after his death?! And
where does all that has been said about the respecting of the
human body and not meddling around with it or engineer
changes in it, come into all this disintegration?!
In the Bible man was told right from the beginning: " you shall
eat bread Till you return to the ground, For out of it you were
taken; For dust you are, And to dust you shall return " (Gen.
3:19). And it also says: " the dust will return to the earth as it
was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it." (Eccl.
12:7).
Since the body will return to the earth after death, then it is
not disrespectful towards any organ of the body to be
grafted onto or transplanted into another body, and so
continue to have life!
We need have no fear on behalf of the body when it is dead,
whatever might happen to its organs, since we all believe in
the resurrection of the body after death.
I support the idea of creating an organ bank too and
religion is in no way opposed to this concept.
Religion instructs us to do good and what a wonderful thing it
is for a person to do good in his life by generously donating an
organ, or part of his body that he can live without, or likewise
after his death, by promising some of his organs (either through
a written instruction such as a will, or by word of mouth) to
save others, or for the benefit of science! And that other person
who benefited from the transplant might in turn like to repay
this favour by instructing that his organs be used after his death
to save others.
This is how the cycle of goodness revolves, at the hands of
the living and the dead alike, and each will receive a reward
from God according to the good he has done to others.
As far as the idea that our bodies are not ours to give away to
others is concerned, we can reply to that by saying, that neither
are our souls our property, yet we sacrifice them for the sake of
others, out of love, or in accordance with the command of
religion and it is a virtue for us to do so.
Therefore, we have all the more reason to sacrifice an organ or
part of the body.
We can say that our souls are not ours to do away with,
through suicide for example, or to ruin by taking drugs.
But to use the body and soul in connection with doing good and
benefiting others, is something which religion blesses and which
God instructs.
Question?
Sometimes when I stand to pray I don't know what to say,
or I say a few words and come to a halt. How should I
pray, and what should I say?
Answer:
There are many elements to prayer which, if you are aware
of them, can help you to lengthen your time in God's
presence.
Many people just content themselves with the element of
asking, so that they confuse prayer with requesting, with the
result that if they have nothing to ask for they do not pray!
Even on the level of asking, though, prayer can be
broadened, so that we 'ask' on behalf of others. You can
make requests to God for the Church, and for the society in
which you live, for all those whom you know who are in
need, for each one according to his needs, whether he is sick
or in a difficult situation, or travelling or studying.
There is also the element of thanksgiving in prayer. Thank
God for all His goodness to you, and to those you know and
love, do it in detail. The Church has set down for us the Prayer
of Thanksgiving, at the beginning of each section of the prayers
of the hours.
There is also in prayer, the element of confession, in which
you confess to God your sins and shortcomings, and ask His
pardon and forgiveness, just as you ask Him for strength or
healing... but do all of this with humility and surrender.
In prayer there is also the elements of praise, glorification
and contemplation on the beautiful qualities of God. Take
for example the phrase, 'Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God of
Hosts. Heaven and earth are full of Your glory', this does not
spring from penitence, but from contemplating the attributes of
God.
There is some advice I can give you if you feel that you don't
know how to pray, which is:
You already have prayers that have been written down,
and which you have perhaps learned by heart. The Lord
gave us an example of this in the Lord's Prayer, 'Our
Father...'. There are also the Psalms and the Agpeya (The name
given to the book of prayer settings for the various hours of the
day, which is used in the Coptic Orthodox Church), the hymns
of praise and the Psalmody.
You can pray from them however you like, they are a teacher to
teach you to pray, and to instruct you in the best manner in
which to address God, and what to say, how to say it, and how
to open your heart to meditate in prayer.
Question?
Why shouldn't we ask the Lord to give us supernatural
gifts, such as speaking in tongues and healing the sick and
performing miracles? Doesn't the apostle Paul say: " desire
spiritual gifts"? (1 Cor. 14: 1) and " earnestly desire the best
gifts " (1 Cor. 12:31).
Answer:
The fruits of the Spirit, are more important for you and more
beneficial than the gifts of the Spirit.
St. Paul also said about the fruits of the Spirit: " the fruit of the
Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no
law." (Gal. 5:22-23).
These fruits are of advantage to your eternal life, which is
why the apostle calls them 'the most excellent way', when
he says: " earnestly desire the best gifts. And yet I show you a
more excellent way." (1 Cor. 12:31).
He explains how love is the first of the fruits of the Spirit,
superior to speaking in the tongues of men or of angels, better
106
than all knowledge or all mysteries, better than prophecy and
better than faith which can move mountains. (1 Cor. 13:1-3).
He said that prophecies will cease, tongues will be stilled, and
knowledge will pass away, but that love will remain, and that it
is greater than faith and hope.
As for miracles, they do not necessarily redeem the soul.
Many of those who have done miracles have perished, and
likewise miracles have been attributed to Satan and his
followers.
Look at what the Lord said in His Sermon on the Mount: "
Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not
prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and
done many wonders in Your name?' "And then I will declare to
them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice
lawlessness!'(Matt. 7:22)
This is quite a surprise! So these people turned out to be
evildoers, and they perished, and the Lord refused to recognise
them, in spite of the fact that they had driven out demons and
prophesied, and attributed it all to the Lord's name!!
When the disciples rejoiced at the miracles they had been
enabled to perform, the Lord told them not to do so.
The disciples "returned with joy and said, 'Lord, even the
demons submit to us in Your name. " But Jesus said to them:
" do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but
rather rejoice because your names are written in heaven."
(Luke 10:20)
And when He was tempted by the Devil on the mountain,
the Lord refused to perform miracles.
He refused to change stones into bread, and refused to throw
Himself down from the high place to prove that the angels
would bear Him up...- because the Lord didn't wish to perform
miracles for pleasure, or for worldly glory. 'So when the Jews
asked Him for a sign, He used to say to them: " An evil and
adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be
given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." (Matt. 12:39).
Thus Jesus led them to think about His cross, death and
resurrection, rather than the spectacle of miracles or signs.
Wanting gifts, and wanting to perform miracles could be a
war by which Satan attacks you and deceives you by
gratifying your pride, and then leading you astray.
The Bible says about the Antichrist, the person who deceives,
that he is a man of sin, a man doomed to destruction, that he
will oppose and exalt himself over everything that is called God,
and set himself up in God's temple proclaiming himself to be
God, that he will make many go astray, and lead them to
apostasy... And it says that: "The coming of the lawless one will
be.. displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and
wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are
perishing. " (2 Thess. 2:3-10)
How easy it is for Satan to lead people astray by miracles,
or to lead them to be proud, by deceiving them with false
signs.
If Satan sees you as someone who likes visions and dreams, he
can appear to you in false visions and dreams... And if he sees
you as someone who is keen on casting out demons, he can
come out of a person and go back in, and thus play around with
you and deceive you into thinking that you are gifted in this
kind of work. The Devil is capable of appearing in the form of
an angel of light, as the Bible tells us. So if he sees you as
someone who likes wonders and marvels, he can fight you from
this aspect. You can find examples of' this in the book
"Paradise of the Monks".
The war of pride, however, can arise even with real
miracles.
Look at St. Paul, a giant of a figure in the Church, and see how
he says: " And lest I should be exalted above measure by the
abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to
me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above
measure.(2 Cor. 12:7). God must have considered that
affliction was beneficial to Paul, and so did not agree to the
Apostle's prayer to remove it from him.
So if even St. Paul himself was wary of these miracles, lest
they. should make him think too highly of himself,
shouldn't you be wary too?!
"Do not be haughtybut fear." (Rom. 11:20), as Paul says,
though he goes on in fact to give you further advice which
applies to all people in regard to spiritual gifts:
" not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but
to think soberly, as God has dealt to each one a measure of
faith.(Rom. 12:3).
Why do you think more highly of yourself than you ought?
Why do you ask for the performance of miracles, something
which not even one of the saints, asked for? Why don't you
concern yourself with the fruits of the Spirit rather than the
gifts?
Is it not sometimes a war of pride that deceives you into
asking for gifts? Verse "desire spiritual gifts. " (1 Cor. 14:1)
however, does not mean that you have to ask for them.
It means, rather, that you should make your heart worthy to be
given them. God cannot give you miraculous powers unless
you are humble, because only the humble person is properly
cautious about miracles.
Humility does not demand, miracles but receives them with
a feeling of not having deserved them, while accepting that
the Lord in His wisdom must have performed them because
He deemed it beneficial to His creation in some way.
John the Baptist was the greatest man ever born of woman, yet
he wasn't famous for performing miracles, nor did he ask to
perform them. `
Question?
What is the highest virtue of all?.
Answer:
The virtue which encompasses all virtues is that of love
since on love depend all the Law and the Prophets.
But the basis of all the virtues, the basis on which every good
work is built, is the virtue of humility, because every virtue that
is not based on humility can lead to self-righteousness and false
glory, by which the individual can perish.
Even love itself, which is the greatest virtue, can cause man to
perish, if it is not built on humility. In this case it couldn't
actually be called 'love', in the exact meaning of the word.
Question?
Whenever I read books of the lives of the saints my soul
starts to yearn to become like them, though unfortunately I
am unable to do as they did. What would you advise?.
Answer:
Many of those who have written about the examples of the
saints have mentioned practices which the saints attained -
perhaps only after decades of struggle - without having
mentioned the exercises which they practised, or the gradual
steps which they followed until they reached that level.
Do you want, just by reading, and just in one sudden leap, to
perform what it took the saints years and years to attain?!
Put excellence before you, by all means, but remember that you
need two things to reach it:
a) a step by step approach.
b) spiritual guidance.
And you also need to look at a third point which is, how
that particular virtue is suitable for you personally in your kind
of life, which might be quite different from the kind of life of'
the saint whom you are reading about.
For example, silence and constant prayer are suited to the life
of' seclusion, but are difficult to practise when one has to mix in
the company of other people. If a person were to try, to carry
them out in such circumstances, he would certainly fall into
practical difficulties, and perhaps clash with others.
Similarly, very strict or total fasting, is something more suitable
for those who live a solitary life, than for those who have to
make greater physical efforts, or those who are young and still
growing.
Generally speaking, in your spiritual practices you are supposed
to be under the guidance of a wise and experienced father, not
following your own whims, because those who have no guide,
fall like the leaves of the trees.
Your guide will protect you from going to extremes, and from
getting too fanatical, or being excessive, and from making
sudden leaps which don't have a secure basis.
So do not be sad, then, if you cannot do now what the saints
used to do. Perhaps you will later on, but you will only get
there one step at a time, by gradual development.
We also notice how every saint had his own particular virtue
which he possessed, but are you wanting to possess all the
virtues of all the saints put together - something which would be
very rare indeed?! Keep a sense of proportion!
Question?
I am a young woman aged 23, who does not know how to
read and write, though I know how to sew and embroider.
Is it possible for me to become a nun or is monasticism only
open to those who have been to school and can read and
write?.
Answer:
Anyone can enter the monastic life, whether educated or not. It
depends on renouncing the world, dedicating oneself to worship
and prayer, training in the life of holiness and purity of heart,
along with losing one's life in terms of this world... But what is
important, as far as you are concerned, is how you pray, and
how you spend your time.
Perhaps you don't have the capacity yet for constant prayer and
deep prayers of the heart, that occupy your whole time.
The Agpeya prayer book, along with the prayers of the saints,
can help you to fill your time with prayer. But how can you
learn the Psalms and the prayers of the prayer book without
knowing how to read or write?
The only thing you could do would be to get someone to
teach you all these psalms and prayers, so that you could
memorise them, just as the teachers of the Church hymns
are responsible to pass them on to others. But this
would have to be before joining a monastic order.
We can also say the same about the hymns of praise which the
nuns recite in church after the midnight prayer. This requires a
reading and writing knowledge of the Coptic language, not only
Arabic.
A certain amount of time in the monastic life is spent in reading
the Bible and spiritual books, the lives of the saints and other
useful books.
Reading is not only something to occupy your time, but is so
that you can gain from the spiritual thoughts, feelings,
meditations and love for goodness which certain writings can
inspire in the heart.
You will miss out on all this if you do not know how to read
and write, and I don't just mean that you will lose
something by not being familiar with them as knowledge,
but you will not be able to enjoy the benefits of their effect
on your spiritual life.
Your not knowing how to read or write might perhaps create
within you inferiority complex, especially if you compare
yourself to the other nuns who do have this spiritual potential.
But does all this mean that you should abandon the idea of
entering the religious life for these reasons, or could we
look for a remedy? The answer might be for you to put an
end to your illiteracy, as now there are schools established
for this purpose.
Or the remedy might be for you to learn the Psalms and prayers
and parts of the Agpeya, plus the tunes of the Psalmody, and
begin memorising them straightaway, just as the specialist
teachers in the Church memorise them.
You can also train yourself to pray from the heart, or to pray
continuously or repeat short prayers or special prayers, so that
you will not lose the essential element of prayer, which is the
basis of the monastic life.
Try to compensate for your inability to read, by some other
means, such as by endeavouring to apply yourself to the
element of prayer by memorising and training yourself to
do it.
If a person is serious about his spiritual life, and in his
orientation towards the religious life, even if he is illiterate,
he can gain a great deal from the readings in the Church
which are taken from the Books of the Bible and the
Synaxarium (the history of saints celebrated by the Coptic
Church), along with listening to what his fellows in the monastic
order recite.
The Bible can be recorded on cassette tapes to be listened to.
Although this is rather a hard way to learn, it leads to good
results, in that it is better than being deprived for ever of
reading the Bible, or listening to it whenever one wants.
All this applies if one is steadfast about joining this order and his
purpose is wholly dedicated to that. The life of one seeking to
join monasticism needs to be holy in God's eyes, pleasing to the
other monks or nuns in the monastery and meet the approval of
the director in charge.
The monastic life is not just learning and knowledge. There are
those who make up for a lack of knowledge, with purity of the
heart, just as some of the saints did.
If, however, there is ignorance of the spiritual life, in addition to
an inability to read and to write, then it would be better to
abandon the idea of embarking on monasticism.
Question?
What does "Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the
earth"(Matt. 5:5) mean? .
Answer:
The meek person is someone who is quiet, kind and simple,
who does not quarrel or shout - you never hear his voice raised
in the street. He keeps well away from arguments conflicts and
lengthy disputes. He is peaceable, doesn't insist on his own
way, is considerate and kind hearted, he gets on well with
people and has a sensitive nature and a friendly smile.
These qualities make him popular and loved by all. And
because of this - in addition to inheriting the kingdom of God -
he inherits the earth, since those who dwell on earth love him,
and he lives with them in peace and tranquillity.
St. Augustine, however, interpreted the phrase, 'will inherit the
earth', to mean 'the land of the living', according to what it says
in Psalm 27 (v. 13): "I will see the goodness of the Lord in the
Land of the living. " This 'land of the living' is what St. John
the Visionary spoke about when he said: "Now I saw a new
heaven and a new earth. " (Rev. 21:1), and it symbolises the
land which overflows with milk and honey.
Question?
How should a young person occupy his free time especially
during the summer holidays?.
Answer:
Having free time, or spare time, and not knowing what to do in
it, is a problem that needs to be dealt with, because anyone who
is conscious of having nothing to do, is someone who, on one
hand doesn't know the value of time, and on the other, doesn't
know the way to occupy that time in a useful way.
There are two ways of occupying spare time: either for the
benefit of the person himself, who has that free time, or in the
service of those around him and for their benefit.
Occupying the time for the benefit of the person himself could
be by reading or study, in order to increase his knowledge or
education, and extend his mental faculties, always providing
that he chooses the kind of reading that will benefit him in this
way.
An individual might benefit from taking up various interests, or
practising certain hobbies, according to his talents, or spending
his spare time acquiring new and useful skills, or learning
something practical, either at home or at an institution, or from
friends or advisers.
A young person might take part in any sporting activity to
strengthen his body as long as this does not consume all his
time.
But what a nice thing it is for someone to occupy his spare time
in spiritual service, or in social work for the benefit of others!
In serving others, he also benefits at the same time.
Besides this there are tasks which the Church can provide to fill
young people's free time, in a programme designed for their
benefit. This could be by taking an interest in visual or oral aids
to instruction, setting up meetings for discussion, organising
parties and lectures, and various means of entertainment, which
convey a spiritual benefit at the same time.
Interest must be shown, and efforts made to set up clubs and
libraries of religious books, to develop constructive ways of
using young people's spare time and energies in a way that
benefits them, and helps their talents to develop, while sharing
in carrying out projects for the Church and participating in its
activities.
Question?
What is the meaning of the verse: " 'For to everyone who
has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but
from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken
away. " (Matt. 25:29) What does it mean that one does not
have yet it will be taken from him?
Answer:
It means that to anyone who has faith, and a love for doing
good work, or to anyone who does good, God will give a
blessing, in order to increase that person's faith or good
works, or both.
But anyone who does not have faith, and whose actions are
carried out without faith, will have those actions taken away
from him, and they will have no value because they were not
done in faith.
The same goes for a person who doesn't do good works, and
whose faith is without works, to which one could apply the
words: "Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
(James 2:17) This 'dead' faith will be taken away from that
person. This faith which is just in name, or just something
intellectual, or formal, will be taken away from him.
Question?
I want to have a strong personality. What are the elements
of strength of character by which I can become strong?
Answer:
The apostle St. John said: " I have written to you, fathers,
Because you have known Him who is from the beginning. I
have written to you, young men, Because you are strong, and
the word of God abides in you, And you have overcome the
wicked one." (1 John 2:14).
So, the strong person is one who has overcome evil, because
the word of God lives in him. A leader great enough to defeat
an enemy's army and conquer cities, can be defeated by his lust,
and thus is not necessarily truly strong. This is why the wise
man says, 'He who conquers himself is better than he who
conquers a city'.
This is the spiritual strength by which a person can defeat his
passions and lusts, and can also lead others spiritually.
There is another kind of strength of character which arises from
certain qualities in the personality, such as intelligence, wisdom,
being well-organised, and able to win people's hearts, having a
good memory, being energetic and full of vitality. A person's
real strength springs from within him, from his victory over
himself, from his influence on others, from his strong
relationship with God, from his talents, and good behaviour. It
might also come from his success, or from his ability to do
productive work in various different fields.
Strength is not a false outer appearance of power, nor is it an
authority that springs from rank or official position or from
wealth.
Question?
Is it right for a person to gouge his eye out, or cut off his
hand, if it causes him to sin, as the Bible prescribes? (Matt.
5:29-30).
Answer:
The Lord meant to stress the need to keep well away from
anything that might cause one to stumble, as he said: " for it is
more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than
for your whole body to be cast into hell." (Matt. 5:30).
This commandment, however, ought not to be taken
literally, but for its spiritual meaning. It would be very
difficult if it were literal!
Some of the saints, though, carried out this commandment
literally, such as Simon AI-Kharaz, and some women saints who
are mentioned in the book 'Bustan AI-Ruhban' [Paradise of The
Monks].
But it would be impossible, and impracticable for this
commandment to be carried out literally, as a general rule,
otherwise the majority of people in the world would be one-
eyed or one-handed, because our eyes and hands cause us to sin
or stumble so often, especially at a certain age, and in particular
circumstances and situations.
Many of the saints, however, interpreted one's 'eye' in this
context to mean the person who is most dear to oneself, and
one's 'hand' they interpreted to mean the person who is most
helpful to one. So that if either one of them should cause you
to sin, you must cut yourself off from their close association.
We also observe that in some of its canon laws the Church has
forbidden the cutting off of parts of the human body, if one is
afraid that they might cause one to sin; for example, there is the
law which bans castration of oneself.
In any case, literally cutting off the hand or gouging out the
eye, does not automatically prevent one from stumbling or
sinning, because sin often arises from within the heart.
If the heart is pure, a person can see and will not stumble.
So it is better to take this command in its spiritual sense,
rather than literally.
Another case where this needs to be stressed concerns what
our Lord said in Mark's gospel: "It is better for you to enter
life maimed, ... lame, ... with one eye , ... than to be cast into hell".
(Mark. 9:43-47).
Naturally we shouldn't take these words literally, because a
person cannot be 'maimed, lame, or 'one-eyed' in
heaven?!
We can't imagine a righteous man in heaven with any kind of
deficiency, just as this could not be the reward given to the
righteous for their goodness, and for not stumbling, at whatever
price... !
The Bible teaches us that "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives
life. " (2 Cor. 3:6)
Therefore we cannot take all the commandments in the Bible
literally. The Lord wanted to show us by this commandment
the danger of stumbling into sin, and the need to avoid it, even
if it should lead to losing something very precious to oneself.
Question?
What is to be understood by 'simplicity' in Christianity.
Answer:
Simplicity is, not being complicated, and in Christianity it
also means, not being naive.
The Christian can be simple, i.e. straightforward and modest in
character, and yet wise at the same time. Christian simplicity is
a wise simplicity. Christian wisdom is an uncomplicated
wisdom, by which I mean, uninvolved, not abstruse like some
philosophies. This is why the Lord said: "be wise as serpents
and harmless as doves. " (Matt. 10:16).
Question?
What is the doctrine of Christianity regarding
wine? Is it allowed or forbidden? Or when is it
allowed or forbidden?
Answer:
In answering this question, I would like to put before you three
points which are:
1. Christianity does not prohibit the substance as a substance,
but rather prohibits the abuse of the substance.
2. Orthodox Christianity distinguishes between wine and
intoxicating liquor or spirits, and bans the latter.
3. There are situations when Christianity does condemn wine.
Let us take the first point:
1. Christianity does not ban the substance:
The substance in itself is not forbidden, otherwise God
would not have created it. But to what extent should we apply
this rule to wine?
The most dangerous thing about wine is its alcoholic
content, and Christianity does not ban alcohol as a
substance.
Alcohol is used in medicine, in cleaning materials, in perfumes,
and is put into the constituents of many medicines, besides
having other beneficial uses. Therefore it is not prohibited in
itself, and we cannot ban it. But when alcohol is abused it is
prohibited.
The ban is on the misuse of the substance and not on the
substance itself.
Let us take drugs as an example:
We forbid their abuse, because drugs ruin a person's life, health
and dignity, and wastes his money, and drives him to commit
crime. Drugs, as substances, though, are not banned in
themselves, for they are needed to anaesthetise during surgical
operations; but this is to use the properties of drugs for a good
purpose, in a healthy way, and one that doesn't lead to
addiction. In fact, used in this way, the drug enters the
subconscious, far away from the will, or desire, or yearnings of
the patient whom the doctor is anaesthetising.
Even poisons are not 'bad' in themselves as some are used
medicinally as part of treatment.
According to one of our poets:
"One poison can be antidote for another,
and what might otherwise poison, may well cure the incurable."
From this starting point, and according to this reasoning, we
can go on to talk about wine: we do not prohibit wine in itself
as a substance, but only its abuse, as I have said above, I shall
now go on to explain exactly what this abuse is.
Wine was used in the past in treating illness before the
science of pharmacy developed.
We notice this in the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:34),
and in the advice given by Paul to his disciple Timothy, when he
said: " No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for your
stomach's sake and your frequent infirmities.(1 Tim. 5:23).
And some elderly people whose bodies had lost a lot of their
natural warmth, used to be given a little wine - as part of a cure
- to help restore the warmth that their bodies required.
In a similar way, people in certain countries which are bitterly
cold, take some wine to keep themselves warm, which is the
opposite to our hot country, where many people's bodies are
badly affected by the excessive heat.
2. Wine and intoxicants:
The Holy Bible draws a clear distinction between wine and
intoxicating spirits.
Among the many verses which show this, I could mention:
1. "Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink, you, nor your sons
with you, when you go into the tabernacle of meeting, lest
you die. " (Lev. 10:9)
2. And he said to the mother of that giant, Samson, when she
was carrying him: " Now therefore, please be careful not to
drink wine or similar drink, and not to eat anything
unclean." (Judg. 13:4). And he also said to her husband,
Samson's father: "Your wife... may not eat anything that
comes from the vine, nor may she drink wine or similar
drink, nor eat anything unclean. All that I commanded her
let her observe."(Judg. 13:14).
3. And it was said of John the Baptist: "He shall drink
neither wine nor strong drink.. " (Luke 1:15).
Thus in each case there was a clear distinction between wine
and stronger forms of drink.
But what is the basic difference between them? And how can
we distinguish between them?
The essential difference is the amount of alcohol that each
contains, and by this we can distinguish between two types
of wine: that produced by fermentation, and that produced
by distillation.
Wine that is produced by natural fermentation may contain no
more than 5 or 6% alcohol, and this is what we use in Church
during the Eucharist, and it comes under the heading of 'wine'.
We mean by this the kind of wine which is not intoxicating, and
the person only takes a very few drops from it, a part of a small
spoonful mixed with water during the service.
Liquor or spirits prepared by distillation, however, may contain
sometimes as much as 50% alcohol, or thereabouts. It is 'this
which comes under the heading of 'intoxicating drinks', and we
prohibit them because the Bible does so, as I have shown above.
3. The Abuse of Wine:
This is something forbidden, and here are some cases and
examples of such wrong use:
a) If it is harmful to a person's health and strength of mind and
personality.
b) If it leads to drunkenness, or loss of physical control, to bad
behaviour, or into areas of immorality.
c) If it is addictive, making a person drink more and more until
it becomes a habit difficult to break, or an addiction, which
dominates him, so that he reaches a stage where he drinks for
no reason and without needing to.
d) If it leads to harmful social consequences and frequently it
does.
e) When it constitutes a stumbling block to others. (Rom.
14:12)
f) If one uses it on holy occasions, or in holy places (apart from
in the Eucharist of course) and then comes to serve God, having
drunk alcohol. The Holy Bible forbids drinking wine for all the
reasons mentioned above. There are world-wide Christian
associations for the prohibition of intoxicants.
One of the reasons for banning these intoxicants is because
of the harm which they can do to a person's health.
The Bible says: "Do not not mix with winebibbers.. for
drunkards.. become poor. " (Prov. 23:20)
And regarding their prohibition on account of their power
to cause drunkenness and physical instability and lead to
depravity.
The apostle Paul says: "Do not be drunk with wine, in which is
dissipation. " (Eph. 5:18). Here Paul mentions two harmful
consequences of drinking alcohol: drunkenness and debauchery.
The Bible also says: "Wine is a mocker, Strong drink is a
brawler, And whoever is led astray by it is not wise." (Prov.
20:1)
A distinction is made here between wine and beer. The phrase
'whoever is led astray by them', however, means someone who
drinks too much to remain sober, for even though the degree of
alcohol in the particular wine or alcoholic drink might not be
very great, it obviously mounts up when a large quantity is
consumed, which would then lead to drunkenness. The Bible
condemns anyone who makes his friend drunk with too much
alcohol. (Hab. 2:15)
The Bible forbids drunkards from entering the kingdom of
heaven (1 Cor. 6:10), and forbids any association with
drunkar (1 Cor. 5:11)
When it comes to banning wine for its harmful effects, the
Bible says: " Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has
contentions? Who has complaints? Who has wounds without
cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who linger long at the
wine, Those who go in search of mixed wine." (Prov. 23:29-30)
Here we see how the Bible heaps doom and destruction on
those who are addicted to wine.
The Bible says also: " Do not look on the wine when it is red,
When it sparkles in the cup, When it swirls around smoothly;
At the last it bites like a serpent, And stings like a viper. "
(Prov. 23:31-32) And about the harm caused by wine it says:
"Wine [is] a mocker, Strong drink [is] a brawler" (Prov. 20:1)
There are many other verses concerning the prevention of
addiction and over-indulgence, such as what Peter says
about those who follow the road to evil:
"You have spent enough time in the past.. living in debauchery,
lust, drunkenness..." (1 Pet. 4:3) (See also 1 Tim. 3:8, Titus 1:7
and 2:3).
And concerning the banning of wine on holy occasions:
The Lord said to Aaron: " Do not drink wine or intoxicating
drink, you, nor your sons with you, when you go into the
tabernacle of meeting, lest you die. " (Lev. 10:9) The Bible also
says: "No priest is to drink wine when he enters the inner
court." (Ezek. 44:22)
The prophet Daniel speaking about his period of fasting said: " I
ate no pleasant food, no meat or wine came into my mouth "
(Dan. 10:3). And it says that when Daniel was in
Nebuchadnezzar's Palace he: " would not defile himself with the
portion of the king's delicacies " (Dan. 1:8)
It was forbidden for a Nazirite to drink wine. In fact he
wasn't even allowed to drink grape juice. (Num. 6:3)
Kings also were not allowed to drink wine.
The Bible says regarding this:
" It is not for kings, O Lemuel, It is not for kings to drink wine,
Nor for princes intoxicating drink;" (Prov. 31:4).
Question?
If everything comes about according to the will of God, and
nothing on the face of the earth happens without His command
alone, then why doesn't He prevent evil before it happens?
Answer:
Before coming to the reply, let us make note of various errors
in your question.
It is not correct to say that nothing happens on earth except by
God's will, for various wrongs, evils, crimes and injustices take
place all too frequently in the world, and how could all these be
'according to the will of God'? That would not be right at all.
Could all the killing, the adultery,'-the theft, fraud and lying that
goes on in the world, ever be in accordance with God's will?!
No, of course not. And does God like all these things to
happen?! No, not at all.
Therefore your words 'everything comes about according to
the will of God', are theologically incorrect, because
everything would have to include the bad as well as the
good. When bad things take place, it can never be in
138
accordance with God's will, for God never desires what is
bad.
God only ever wants what is good. He wants all to be saved,
and all to accept the knowledge of the Truth. All the good that
happens on earth to people, or by them comes about in
accordance with the will of God, but not the evil. So what,
then, is the position of evil in relation to God's will?
It was God who gave mankind free will. It is God who permits
human beings to do as they wish, whether good or bad,
otherwise they would be nothing but robots.
The good that man does, he does in accordance with God's
will, while the bad things that he does, is tolerated by God,
but does not meet with His approval. There is a difference
between what God wills and what God permits. His will is
only ever for what is good. But He tolerates what is not
good, because it is the inevitable consequence of that
freedom of choice which He has given to some of His
creatures.
139
Question?
I caused some people to stumble, and they fell badly into sin
because of me. I then repented, but they have not yet done
so. I still see the fruits of my original fall in the lives of those
other people. Is my repentance sufficient for me to be
forgiven?.
Answer:
This is a difficult question, and one that can have a far-reaching
effect. Essentially it is this:
A person who repented, but those who have sinned because of
him did not repent, does that person still bear the responsibility
of their sin?
This question shows us how far and how deeply, and to what
extent, sin can personally affect someone. A person may have
abandoned his sin, but it can still have an effect on others, an
effect which that person can see before him at all times. He will
be saddened and will suffer as a result of this, and feel the
extent of his responsibility for it. So what can he do?
He could conceivably do his utmost to try and get those
others, whom he caused to fall, to repent. But what if they
do not?
He can act for himself, but what can he do about the others?
Obviously such a person will live a sad and painful life for a
long time. Any joy that his repentance might have brought him,
would not be able to make up for the pain that he feels on
seeing the ruinous effects of his sin on others, especially if they
have really turned out for the bad, or perished.
It is possible that the words, 'life for life.' loom before him,
so that he cries out to God, saying: "Deliver me from the
guilt of bloodshed, O God, The God of my salvation " (Ps.
51:14).
He may try to do whatever he can on behalf of the others,
though he may not be able to do anything. Furthermore, his
resuming contact with the others, may well be dangerous to
him, and it may be best for him to keep well away from them
lest he should be ruined as well.
Perhaps those whom he has caused to fall have themselves
caused many others to fall too, so that the circle has widened.
Besides the direct results of the sin, there are also indirect
results. Is it not true that we cannot calculate the extent of our
sins, and the degree of their influence?
The first piece of advice I would give the questioner is to be
really and truly contrite, and humble himself before God,
praying for the souls of the others, that God may send them
help to be saved.
Let him also set for himself days of fasting demanding from the
Church prayers in the Holy Mass and making prostrations, on
their behalf. And let him cry copious tears for their sakes, and
remind himself of what the Lord said: " Woe to the world
because of offenses! For offenses must come, but woe to that
man by whom the offense comes!" (Matt. 18:7) Let him ask for
repentance for all those people, and let him act on their behalf,
even if it is somehow indirectly, and send them guides or Father
Confessors.
And he who has repented will not perish because of them.
Our example of this is St. Mary the Copt.
In the early part of her life, before she repented, she caused
many thousands to stumble, and some may have perished
because of her. But with her sincere and true repentance, she
became a great saint, and she was forgiven for her past sins.
We must not forget, either, that those who fall into sin have
willingly and knowingly entered into it, and consequently
the full responsibility for their fall does not entirely rest on
the person who caused them to stumble.
In fact they responded to the stumbling block and accepted it.
Nevertheless, the one who urged them into sin, could say to
himself: They are really weak, and have fallen, but it was I who
provided the inducement for their weakness, and I didn't show
consideration or pity for their lack of willpower. I should have
protected them, and strengthened them, and not been the reason
for them to fall. if it hadn't been for me, they might never have
fallen.
This person is like a car driver who has run somebody over, and
has caused that person to be permanently disabled, who, even
though he has said that he is sorry for what he has done, and
God has forgiven him, whenever he sees or thinks about the one
whom he has crippled, feels very unhappy.
This sadness, however, would obviously help make his
repentance even more acceptable.
Question?
The nearer I get to God, the more trials, problems and
difficulties I seem to have, so that I get fed up and weary
with life. I can't seem to find a way out of this except by
keeping away from God, so that I get a more comfortable
and peaceful life, like all the other people who keep at a
distance from God! Why does God let this happen to me?
Answer:
Whenever you follow the road to God, and grow in your
spiritual life, the devils become jealous of you, and try to
make you go far away from his path, which they do, for
example, by causing the kind of troubles that are
happening to you.
So if you keep away from God, and abandon the spiritual road,
you will have fulfilled Satan's wish, and he will have overcome
you in the battle.
Listen to the words of St. Paul: " Do not be overcome by
evil, but overcome evil with good " (Rom. 12:21).
So when troubles start, be patient, and try to do even more
good things, for then Satan will despair of you, and will see that
the troubles he has given you have had the opposite effect, and
so he will leave you to look for something else.
Trust that God's grace will stand beside you, will support you,
and give you the victory. This way Satan will despair of you,
instead of you despairing of God's mercies.
God's patience and lack of intervention to save you, at the
beginning of your troubles, has simply been to test your heart
and see how committed it is to God!.
And, do not imagine that those who live far away from God
live in comfort.
Their consciences within bother them, and they have no peace
of mind. And in the afterlife, they will live in constant turmoil,
while on earth their sin also causes many troubles for them. If
they do seem to have peace and comfort, it is not true peace or
comfort.
Trust that any exertion made for the Lord will be
rewarded, both on earth and in heaven, since " each one
will receive his own reward according to his own labor " (1
Cor. 3:8).
The story of the rich man and poor Lazarus, gives us a clear
picture of this subject. And the Lord Jesus Christ told us: " In
the world you will have tribulation " (John 16:33), but He also
assured us that even the hairs on our heads have been counted.
He promised us many consolations and comforts, and that He
would lead us in His procession of victory.
So make sure that you understand well that your troubles do
not come from God, but from Satan who is envious of you.
Our father the apostle James said: " Let no one say when he is
tempted, "I am tempted by God"; " (James 1:13)
So, do you want to abandon God, who has never caused
you any trouble, and join forces with Satan, who does cause
you troubles? Do you want to be like someone who
becomes an enemy to his friends, and befriends his
enemies?!
Be patient, then, and receive the blessing and the crown for
having endured troubles, and have faith that God will give you
rest, because He said: " Come to Me, all you who labor and are
heavy laden, and I will give you rest. " (Matt. 11:28). And say
to yourself: What are my troubles compared to those endured
by the saints and martyrs on the Lord's behalf?!
Question?
The Bible says: " Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your
Father in heaven is perfect " (Matt. 5:48) What does it mean
to be 'perfect', and how can a human being attain it?
When can we say of a person that he is 'perfect'?.
Answer:
Absolute perfection belongs to God alone, no human being can
ever attain it, because we will all be found wanting, when
weighed in the balance.
So the perfection which a human being can attain is a
relative perfection.
The state of perfection he can reach will be in relation to his
abilities, his possibilities, and the extent of heavenly grace
bestowed upon him.
The Lord God, speaking of the righteous Job said: " that man
was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and
shunned evil." and " there is none like him on the earth " (Job
1:1 & 8). Job's 'perfection', was only relative not absolute
perfection.
In the same sense, Noah was said to have been a righteous and
God-fearing man: " Noah was a just man, perfect in his
generations. Noah walked with God. " (Gen. 6:9).
Jacob too was perfect, even though he had various weaknesses.
(Gen. 25:27). But God judges each human being in relation to
each one's possibilities, according to the era in which he lives,
his level and the work of the Spirit within him.
The quality of being perfect might be in relation to a particular
commandment, such as when the Lord Jesus said to the rich
young man: "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions
and give to the poor. " (Matt. 19:21)
It is our duty to strive for perfection, but we can never say
that we have reached it. In any case, the road to perfection
consists of stages, so that as soon as a person reaches one of
them he finds another higher, further stage awaiting him,
and he becomes like someone pursuing the horizon.
Look at St. Paul, the apostle who ascended to the third heaven,
and who laboured harder than all the other apostles, who said:
"Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but
I press on... But one thing I do, forgetting those things which
are behind and reaching forward to those things which are
ahead. " (Phil. 3:12-14)
If the great St Paul did not consider that he had become perfect,
but that he needed to strive and strain to reach it, what can we
say about ourselves?
Even so, Paul said directly after this: " Therefore let us, as
many as are mature, have this mind; " (Phil. 3:15), where he is
referring to all those who might have thought that they were
'perfect', or whom other people might have considered to have
attained that stage.
A pupil in primary school may reach the highest grade in mathematics,
and they might say that he has become perfect, at that level.
But as he gets older, he then moves up from the level of
'perfection' in the primary school, to the level of ,perfection' in
his junior school, and then to the highest level in his high
school, and so on until university. But each standard of
'perfection' is relative, and even so, he would never consider
himself to have become 'perfect' in mathematics for there are always
higher and higher levels to reach.
Question?
What is your view on people who have confessed, but whose
sins have not been forgiven, like Pharaoh, who confessed
his sin to Moses (Ex. 9:27), and Achan son of Carmi, who
confessed to Joshua (Josh. 7:20), and King Saul who
confessed to Samuel the prophet (1 Sam. 15:24-26)?.
Answer:
The sacrament of confession in the Church is also called the
sacrament of repentance. A person must show himself
repentant before coming to confess his sins. Confession
without being sorry for your sins is of no value. And one who
confesses cannot obtain forgiveness unless he is repentant.
Those whom you mentioned confessed, but were not
repentant. Pharaoh cried out: "I have sinned", but his heart
was still hard within. He was not motivated by remorse, but by
fear of the plagues, for as soon as each plague was lifted, he
revealed himself in his true nature.
Achan the Son of Carmi didn't go to Joshua confessing and
repentant, but God revealed his sin against his will, so he
was forced to admit his fault. The whole nation was defeated,
but Achan did not confess. The Lord said: "Israel has sinned..
they have even taken some of the accursed things, and have
both stolen and deceived " (Josh. 7:11), yet Achan did not own
up. Then began the casting of lots and the threats, but still he
would not admit it. Even when the finger was pointed on his
own tribe and on his own clan and on his own household,
Achan did not confess. So in the end the Lord exposed him by
name, and he was forced to own up. Was he then, in spite of all
this, repentant?
King Saul was not repentant, even when he said: "I have
sinned". His only object was to get Samuel to go back with
him. He did not act out of regret at what he had done, but for
the sake of keeping his honour, so that he could lift up his face
before the people!! This is why he said: " yet honor me now,
please, before the elders of my people and before Israel. " (1
Sam. 15:30).
Question?
Does God require more in terms of yers, fasting,
devotion, etc., from the father monks than from laypeople?.
Answer:
Yes, undoubtedly. More is required of the monks because
they are in a situation of complete dedication to the Lord,
in contrast to laypeople who have other commitments
which distract them. Even so, all are required to strive for
holiness and perfection.
The Lord Jesus said: " be perfect, just as your Father in heaven
is perfect." (Matt. 5:48) This commandment was intended for
all people, long before the monastic orders arose.
The degrees of perfection and holiness which each person
can attain, however, differ from one individual to another.
When it comes to prayers, the seven prayers are required of
every Orthodox believer, and David the prophet, even though
he had many responsibilities as king, used to pray them, as he
says in his psalm: " Seven times a day I praise You, Because of
Your righteous judgments." (Ps. 119:164) Likewise the night
prayers are required of all, and David prayed them too. (Ps.
119:148).
The rituals of the monks, though, involve constant,
uninterrupted prayers.
This is something which laypeople cannot do because of their need
to spend time in work and with their families and in various
activities and services. Nevertheless, the commandment is to,
"pray without ceasing," (1 Thes. 5:17), and, "men always ought to
pray and not lose heart. " (Luke 18:1), and this was addressed to
all people, long before monasticism.
Every individual ought to persevere in prayer as much as they can.
When it comes to fasting, all Orthodox believers, except for babies,
children, pregnant and nursing women, old people and those who
are unwell, are all required to observe all the fasts of the Coptic
Church.
The monks, on the other hand, have their own special ritual which
involves certain degrees of abstinence. Some of them might
abstain wholly from food for days and do not eat any tasty kinds of
food. And there are monasteries where no flesh foods are eaten
at all.
The asceticism of the monks also with regard to their garments
again differs from that of laypeople who live in a society with all its
particular demands.
Question?
Is it correct that the Lord Jesus Christ did not complete His
mission, but will complete it on the day of His rising up to
life?.
Answer:
The work of Christ, as far as His divinity is concerned, is
everlasting, eternal, and to this apply the words: " My Father
has been working until now, and I have been working. " (John
5:17).
As for the time of His incarnation the Lord Jesus completed the
work for which He had come, which was to redeem the world
and to save us all from the penalty of sin, for: "the Son of Man
came to seek and to save what was lost. " (John 19:30).
Concerning this mission He said on the cross: "It is finished"
(John 19:30)
Christ's work as a mediator on our behalf, however, is
something constant for all time, as the apostle said (1 John 2:1).
There is another kind of work which Christ will perform at the
end of time, when He comes in His second coming, which is, to
judge the living and the dead, and to give to each person
according to his deeds. (Matt. 24:25; Rev. 22).
Even in eternity His work will not stop...
We can never say about any period of time that 'Christ's mission
has not been completed', that would be an inaccurate statement,
and would suggest that He had failed in some way. But we can
say that he had many missions: the first was in the very
beginning, " through Him, and without Him nothing was made
that was made." (John 1:3), followed by various kinds of work,
each one of which was completed fully, such as His work
during the period of His incarnation on earth before the
crucifixion, in teaching, guiding, making disciples, spreading the
faith, and preparing the way for the concept of the cross to be
accepted. It was about this that He said to the Father: "I have
glorified You on the earth. I have finished the work which You
have given Me to do " (John 17:4)
After His ascension into heaven, there was another kind of
work which He did, which was to send the Holy Spirit. And
this happened on the day of Pentecost. (Acts 2)
As for your words, 'when He rises up to life'. the answer to this
is that the Lord Jesus Christ has already risen. He rose on the
third day after His crucifixion, and all the apostles witnessed it.
Besides, in His divine nature the Lord has always been alive and
will never die.
Question?
What should I do when Satan attacks me with thoughts of
self righteousness?.
Answer:
There are two basic methods of fighting thoughts of self-
righteousness, and they are for a person to remember his sins,
and to recall the highest stages reached by the saints.
Recalling his sins will make a person humble, contrite and
ashamed, because even a single sin can cause him to perish.
Likewise, bringing to mind the highest stages which the saints
attained in each form of virtue, will make a person realise how
insignificant he is if he should compare himself to that level.
We must also attribute to God's grace, any virtue or
goodness that we might have done, and must remember
that self-righteousness will make God's grace forsake us
and leave us to fall.. which would soon make us aware of our
weakness and return to a humble position.
So you have to remember to be afraid of falling, whenever you
submit to thoughts of self-righteousness because, 'Pride goes
before a fall'.
Question?
Who am I? Why have I come here? And why should I live
and die?.
Answer:
This subject may be answered in a whole book, but I will try to
answer you briefly.
1. Who am I?
*. You are a human being, created in the image and likeness of
God (Gen. 1:26), and you must try and preserve this divine
image.
*. You are a living being with a rational spirit, whose life does
not end with death, but will continue. You have a conscience to
distinguish between good and evil, and are enlightened by the
Spirit of God dwelling within you. (1 Cor. 3:16).
*. You are distinct from other earthly creatures by having an
intelligent mind, with all that it contains in the way of
understanding and perception.
*. With your mind and will you are responsible for your deeds,
firstly before God, secondly before your own conscience, and
thirdly before the society in which you live.
*. Whether you receive a reward, or a punishment, in the
afterlife, after the judgement before God, will depend on how
responsible you have been during your lifetime.
2. Why have I come here?
It is out of His goodness that God has given you the gift of
being alive.
Out of His generosity and unselfishness He has given you the
opportunity to be, to enjoy life here on earth, and to have a
chance to live in eternal happiness, if you wish to, and if you act
in such a way as to deserve it.
3. Why am I alive?
You are alive in order to carry out a mission, towards yourself
and towards others, in order to enjoy and experience God, here
on earth, and to, "Taste and see that the Lord is good. " (Ps.
34:8).
And also your willpower is put to the test during your lifetime,
to see to what extent it is drawn to good or evil. Your life is a
period of testing to see if you are deserving of the kingdom of
heaven, and to define what degree of life you are to enjoy in
eternity. You have to recognise and carry out your mission,
and be a blessing for the generation in which you live. The
extent to which your mission is powerful and productive will
determine the extent to which your life on earth and in heaven is
exalted.
And why should I die?
You should die so that you will be able to pass on to a better
life, which was refered to as: " Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man... " (1 Cor. 2:9). You
can then also move into the most wonderful companionship of
all, that of God, His angels and His saints. Therefore death is
not passing away to destruction, but passing on to another life.
If your life on earth were just to go on and on, you would
remain attached to material things and united to the earthly
body, which would not be good for you. It is better, though,
for you to move on from the life of material things and the
body, to the life of the spirit and of eternity, and to be with
Christ, "which is far better." (Phil. 1:23). This is why the saints
so yearned to be released from this earthly body. Those who
fear death are those who are not prepared for it, and who do
not trust that they will pass on to a better life... or who have
earthly desires which they don't want to give up!!
Man dies, because death is better for the world. It would be
unconceivable if people were to live without ever dying, and if
generation were to follow generation on and on, the earth
would not have enough space, the elderly would be
overburdened by the increasing weight of old age, and would
need people to serve them, care for them and help shoulder
their burdens. Thus each generation has to die in order to give
the next generation the chance to live on earth and to take its
rightful place in the scheme of things.
Question?
What prayers should be said when performing
prostrations?
Answer:
They could be prayers of humbling oneself before God and
confessing one's sins before Him, along with asking for mercy.
For each prostration, the individual can confess a sin and accuse
himself before God with the words: 'Have mercy on me, 0 God,
for I have done such and such'.
They could be prayers of thanksgiving in which the person
brings to mind God's mercies to him or to his loved ones, and in
each prostration he can recall some of God's good gifts.
They could be prayers of petition, in which the one praying
mentions something that he would like to have personally, or he
wishes that God grants to the Church or to someone else. In
fact prostrations can be accompanied by any such suitable kind
of prayer.
I am continuing, dear Reader, with publishing for you a
collection of questions which I have received, either in the
weekly meetings on Wednesdays (formerly Fridays), or which
students at the Theological College (the Seminary) have
addressed to me during my lectures.
This, the fourth part of the series Many Years with the
Problems of People, which you now have in your hands, is
concerned with theological, doctrinal and ritual questions.
It contains the replies to some 60 questions divided up as
follows:
a) 37 questions on faith and theology
b) 12 or so questions on ritual theology
c) 10 questions about the Virgin Mary provoked by
various statements of the Plymouth Brethren.
The first part of this whole series consists of questions
concerning the Holy Bible 40 questions in all), while the
second centres on theological and doctrinal questions (35
questions), the third part addresses spiritual and general
6 questions (44 questions), and in this fourth part I answer the
following 60 questions. So far then, if we count the whole series altogether I am
replying to some 179 questions.
I have tried to make the answers as short and to the point as
possible and to support them with texts from the verses of the
Bible.
I look forward to meeting you again in the fifth part, if God
wills.
Pope Shenouda III
Question
Are there spirits who work in this world? And if so, what
are they like?
Answer:
Spirits were created in two types; the spirits of angels and the
spirits of human beings. The angels are also of two types: holy
angels, and evil angels or demons. There is no doubt that both
types, good and bad, are at work in the world. It was said of
the angels: "Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve
those who will inherit salvation? " (Heb. 1:14) and "The angel
of the Lord encamps around those who fear Him, and delivers
them. " (Ps. 34:7)
The work of the demon spirits is to corrupt mankind spiritually,
but only if people surrender their wills to them, or to throw
some or take possession of them. This is why the Lord gave
His disciples and saints the gifts of casting out demons. (Matt.
10:1, 8; Mark 16:17)
As far as the spirits of mankind are concerned, the wicked end
up imprisoned in hell, while some of the righteous become
entrusted by God to provide help for their brothers on earth,
and these spirits may even appear to those people as Virgin
Mary and St. George do.
Question
Can the spirits recognise each other while they are in the
place of waiting?
Answer:
Yes, of course. There is no doubt that they can. And we have
the clear example of this in the story of the rich man and the
poor Lazarus, where the Bible says that after they had both
died, the rich man:
"looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his
side. So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me'."
(Luke 16:23).
We notice here that the rich man knew which was Lazarus and
which was Abraham, and we also see that Abraham knew that
one of them had received his blessings on earth, while the other
had suffered troubles.
Therefore it is clear from this that a spirit's capacity to
recognise extends to those whom the person has seen before
as well as to those whom he has not.
For the rich man not only recognised Lazarus whom he had
seen with his own eyes in the world, while he was alive, but he
also recognised Abraham whom he had never met or ever set
eyes on. In the same way our forefather Abraham recognised
both of them.
The knowledge of the spirits become very extensive after
they have become separated from the body.
Thus we find our master St Paul saying: "Now we see but a
poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face.
Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully
known". (1Cor. 13:12).
Question
What is the meaning of the verse, "No-one has ever seen
God"? (John 1:18) Has not God appeared to many of the
prophets and spoken to them?
Answer:
What is meant by 'God' in this phrase is the god head, His
essential divinity, because this god head is invisible. And in
regard to this divinity since God is Spirit, He cannot be seen by
our earthly eyes which can only perceive material things.
This is why God always appeared in the form of a human being
or in the shape of an angel when it was intended for human
beings to see Him. And finally He appeared in the body when
we saw Him in His Son Jesus Christ who said: "Anyone who
has seen Me has seen the Father. " (John 14:9)
Thus after John the Baptist said "No-one has ever seen God",
he went on to say: "The Only Begotten Son, who is in the
Father's bosom, has made Him known. " (John 1:18), which
means that He declared the Father.
All those who try to depict or have ever tried to portray the
Father in a visible form, have got it wrong, and this very verse
proves them wrong, for example those who portray the Father
in icons of the baptism of Christ, when God said: "This is My
Son, whom I love; with Him I am well pleased."" (Matt. 3:17),
when no-one actually saw the Father.
All the while that we are in this physical body, there is a mist
like a veil preventing us from seeing God, we can only see "a
poor reflection as in a mirror. " as St Paul put it (1 Cor.
13:12). But when we put off this earthly body, we will be
clothed in a shining, spiritual body that can see what no eye has
ever seen. And it is then that we shall see God.
Question
How can a spirit see another spirit? And does a spirit have
a shape?
Answer:
There is a kind of spiritual perception by which the spirit can
see beyond the limits of the body and its form, and by which it
can also see God, as a spirit without form, in a vision that
cannot be expressed as the Bible tells us: "Blessed are the pure
in heart, for they will see God. " (Matt. 5:8) and as Job said:
"now my eyes have seen You." (Job. 42:5).
St Anthony saw the soul of Anba Amun being conducted to
heaven by angels, and told this to his disciples. But what did he
actually see?!
The rich man saw Abraham and Lazarus, but what exactly did
he see, and in what form did he see them? Was it in the same
way as St Anthony saw the soul of Anba Amun, and in the same
form? I wonder whether the spirit can take on the shape of a
body, without it being material or substantial!
We know that the angels of the Lord encamp around those that
fear Him and deliver them, but we don't see the angels with the
physical, bodily eye because they are spirits, and we can only
see them by our own spirits. In his revelation, St John the
Beloved, when he was "in the Spirit", "on the Lord's Day"
(Rev. 1:10), saw an angel directing him, and also saw other
angels. But what did he actually see? Was it a spiritual vision
beyond the level of form? Or did the angels also have a
discernible shape?
There are angels who have taken on certain forms and been
visible.
There were, for example, the angels of the Resurrection: on one
occasion two angels appeared who were like, "two men in
clothes that gleamed like lightning. " (Luke 24:4), and on
another occasion the angel of the Lord appeared and, "His
appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as
snow. " (Matt. 28:3)
In the face of all this, St Augustine stood in wonder thinking
over an important question, 'Does a spirit have a form? Or can
it take on a form?', and he replied quite frankly, 'I do not know'.
Nevertheless we hear that the Cherubim and Seraphim have six
wings, that with two of them they cover their faces, with
another two their feet and with the remaining two they fly. Are
all these just symbolical or metaphorical? Or do they actually
have this shape, by which they can be distinguished, albeit in
non-material form?
In regard to the eyes of the earthly body, the spirit
obviously cannot be seen at all unless it takes on the kind of
shape which the angels usually take on. But spirits see
spirits, and often see them in definite form. I must add,
though, that this is my personal view.
But we still have no answer to the question put by St
Augustine.
As far as we know, at the Resurrection, bodies will rise and
be united with spirits, and obviously these bodies will have
shapes, and the same ones as they had before, but they will
be 'spiritual' and 'imperishable' (1 Cor. 15) and will have no
defects...
Are we to understand from this that the spirit has the same
shape as the body? Or is it without a shape but then assumes
the shape of the body?
There are things which the Bible does not explain, but
which have been left for individual interpretation and
conclusion.
I think it is most probable that spirits have shapes by which they
can recognise one another and be distinguished from each other.
Even with these forms, though, they would still, in their
spirituality, be far removed from physical, material forms.
Question
Since Adam and Eve fell while they were in Paradise, is it
possible that any of us would fall in the next world?
Answer:
No, of course not, for the nature in which we will rise after
death, will be better in every respect than the nature which
Adam and Eve had.
As far as the body is concerned, we will rise in a non-physical
body, a spiritual, luminous, glorious body, a strong and
indestructible one that resembles the glorious body in which
Christ Himself rose (Phil. 3:21), according to St Paul, who also
said: "Just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so
shall we bear the likeness of the Man from heaven. " (1 Cor.
15:42-49).
This body will not sin, because sin is a kind of corruption: "It is
sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. " (1 Cor.
15:42). There will be no sin in the next world, for we are told
about the heavenly Jerusalem that "Nothing impure will ever
enter it. " (Rev. 21:27).
Here on earth we possess a will which can incline itself
either to good or to evil. But in the kingdom of God, the
will would only ever incline itself towards the good. This is
because our wills will be sanctified when we put on the
crown of righteousness.
St Paul said, concerning this crown: "Now here is in store for
me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous
Judge, will award to me on that day -and not only to me, but
also to all who have longed for His appearing. " (2 Tim. 4:8)
But what is this crown of righteousness?
It is the crown that gives us righteousness as a nature and
makes us not sin any more.
As an example of this we have those holy angels whose wills
successfully stood their tests, and who did not fall into
corruption with Satan. For this they were crowned with
righteousness and their wills were made sinless.
At present we can misuse the freedom granted to us by God.
We can now desire with this freedom to do what is wrong, and
to actually do it. But in eternity, the only desire we will have
will be for God alone, and thus it will be impossible for us to
sin. What is more, the very knowledge of evil will also fade
from our minds entirely and we will enjoy perfect simplicity and
total purity. We will be 'like God's angels in heaven'.
Now we have a knowledge of good and evil, but then we will
know only the good.
We will only have knowledge of what is good, and we will love
it and live it and our memories will be completely purified from
all previous knowledge concerning what is evil. Thus we will
be crowned with righteousness.
Question
Who are the seraphim and what do they do?
Answer:
The word 'seraphim' is plural, the singular is 'seraph', and this
word is used for a particular kind of angel, all of whom have six
wings, with two of which they cover their faces, with another
two their feet and with the remaining two they fly.
The particular passage in which the Bible refers to the seraphim
is to be found in Isaiah, when the prophet saw these angels
around the throne of God, praising Him and saying; "Holy,
holy, holy is the LORD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His
glory! " (Is. 6:3).
The work of the seraphim is to praise, even so, when they heard
Isaiah cry, "Woe to me!... I am ruined! For I am a man of
unclean lips", one of the seraphim flew down "with a live coal
in his hand, which he had taken with tongs from the altar".
And he touched Isaiah on the mouth and said: " Behold, this
has touched your lips; Your iniquity is taken away, And your
sin purged " (Is. 6:7).
There is no mention anywhere in the Bible that any of the
seraphim has ever fallen.
The literal meaning of the word ' seraphim' is 'the burning ones'
or 'the ones who blaze with fire'. And it is clear from their name
that they symbolise the divine love and love that never fails.
Question?
Since the Bible says we are "justified freely by His grace "
(Rom. 3:24), then salvation must be free. So why do we
associate it with baptism which is an act that has to be
performed?
Answer:
The expression "justified freely" means that we do not have to
pay a price for this justification. This is because "the wages of
sin is death. " (Rom. 6:23), as it says in the same epistle to the
Romans, and the Lord Christ paid this price for us with His
death, by shedding His blood on the cross.
We, therefore, obtain justification without having to pay
the price ourselves, hence it is free.
Baptism, however, is not the price, but the means to this
justification.
For example, our Protestant brothers and sisters say that we are
saved through faith. But faith is the means, and not the price.
The price is nothing other than the blood of Christ; as the Bible
says: "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. "
(Heb. 9:22) and the Lord Christ joined these two means; faith
and baptism, together, when He said: "He who believes and is
baptized will be saved; " (Mark 16:16)
It is not we who linked salvation with baptism, but the Lord
Christ Himself and also the Holy apostles like St Peter who,
when speaking about Noah's Ark, said "in it only a few people,
eight in all, were saved through water, and this water
symbolises baptism that now saves you also. " (1 Pet. 3:20-21)
And St Paul also said: "He saved us, not by works of
righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy
He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and
renewing of the Holy Spirit ."(Titus 3:5)
Perhaps you might object, saying: So if I am not baptised I
will perish, and yet Christ died for my sake?
Christ certainly died for you, but you will need to follow the
course which the Lord Himself laid down for your salvation.
For this will be the means by which you gain that salvation
which Christ has offered to you free.
In spite of the blood of Christ, is it possible to be saved, for
example, without repentance?
Christ's blood alone is sufficient for salvation, but there are also
His words: "I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all
likewise perish. " (Luke 13:3 and 5) Repentance isn't a price
that has to be paid for salvation, but rather an essential means
by which one can receive the justification which was won by the
blood of Christ.
Baptism is also an essential and requisite part of being justified
freely through Christ's blood. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself
said: " Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water
and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. " (John
3:5)
And faith, too, is another vital and necessary means whereby
one can obtain that free justification which was won by Christ's
blood.
Thus we have to differentiate between the price and the
means.
The cost of justification was the blood of Christ alone. And
the necessary and vital means whereby we can attain it are
faith, baptism and repentance.
St Peter linked these three means together on the Day of
Pentecost after the Jews believed and were cut to the heart.
When they asked him what they should do, St Peter answered
them: " Repent, and let every one of you be baptised in the
name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall
receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2:38) So here we have
the three means: faith in the name of Jesus Christ, repentance
and baptism.
All these are means, but the one and only price paid for
justification was the blood of Christ, and He alone paid
that on our behalf.
We obtain this justification for free since we haven't paid
anything for it. By which I mean that we haven't had to give
our blood for it.
We gain it through faith, baptism and repentance, the three
means to justification combined. They are simply the means
while the only price paid for justification was Christ's blood.
It is then that we can enter into good works, which are the fruit
of faith and repentance, and the result of the activity in us of
the Holy Spirit which we have received through the sacrament
of the holy chrism and the renewal and sonship which we were
given at baptism.
Speaking of this righteousness, St John said:
" If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone
who practices righteousness is born of Him." (1 John 2:29).
The Lord Jesus Christ paid a price for your justification, and
that was His blood. And He gave you this for free so that you
wouldn't have to pay for it ever again. All you need to do is to
follow the course to obtain it which our Lord Himself defined.
In order to explain this to you a bit further, I could say for
instance: Let us suppose that you have a cheque for a very large
amount of money, which you have perhaps acquired freely, as a
result of an inheritance, but which you haven' yet been to the
bank to collect as money. Obviously you still don't possess this
sum, even though it is credited to you, because you haven't yet
been through the procedures for realising it.
I will say it just once more: the price paid for justification was
the blood of Christ-that and nothing else! And we obtain that
justification freely, by way of faith, baptism and repentance.
Question
Some people say that Judaism is a worldly, materialistic
religion. What is your view on this assertion, and if it is
true, has Christianity rectified the materialism of Judaism?
Answer:
Since Judaism is a heavenly religion, we can't describe it as being
materialistic. And since the doctrines of Judaism were inspired by
God in the Bible, that is in the Torah, we cannot describe God's
commandments as being materialistic, otherwise we would be
making an accusation against God Himself, and not only against
God but against the great prophet Moses, who was the first to give
mankind a divine written law. Could we ever accuse Moses of
leading the people towards materialism?
The exalted nature of the teachings of Judaism could provide scope
for many books, and we might be able to produce something of this
later on. We also ought not to forget that much of what is said in
the Books of the Old Testament Cannot be correctly understood
without a knowledge of its symbols.
Someof those who criticise Jewish teachings, have not yet
understood them properly.
To describe the Judaism as it is practised by the Jews as being
materialistic is one thing, but to describe the Jewish religion in
those same terms is something else entirely which could have
serious consequences. For the Jews, after all, are human beings,
they can make mistakes and go astray like anyone else. But the
Jewish religion is from God: anything that does it an injustice is
doing an injustice towards God who created it and also towards the
mighty Moses through whom it came to man from God. It would
also be to wrong the Torah which is an integral part of Judaism,
and which God revealed as guidance and a light for His people. It
wouldn't make sense if God were to send a prophet with a religion
that would lead the people to materialism, would it?
The commandment to pay tithes in Judaism is totally opposed
to materialism.
Judaism instructs that a tenth of all one's possessions should be
paid to the Lord, a tenth of everything, "whether grain from the
soil or fruit from the trees, " and a tenth "of the herd and flock. "
(Lev. 2 7:30,32) " You shall truly tithe all the increase of your
grain that the field produces year by year." (Deut. 14:22) And
they also had to give their wheat. (Deut. 12:17)
In addition to the tithes, Judaism also enjoined the payment of
the first fruits.
And what was meant by that, was the first of any form of produce,
whether it was human offspring or a crop from the earth,
or produce from the trees or from the flocks of sheep or cattle.
The Lord said: " Consecrate to Me all the firstborn, whatever
opens the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and
beast; it is Mine. " (Ex. 13:2)
So the first of anything born from livestock, from the flocks and
herds belonged to the Lord, and the firstborn males from among the
people were to be presented to serve the Lord, until the Levite tribe
replaced these firstborn males.
The Jewish law also said "The first of the first fruits of your land
you shall bring into the house of the LORD your God. You shall
not boil a young goat in its mother's milk." (Ex. 23:19), and "
bring a sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest to the priest."
(Lev.23:10). It also told the people to bring to the priests the first
fruits of their grain, new wine and oil, and the first wool from the
shearing of their sheep (Deut. 18:4). The people were also asked to
present a cake from the first of their ground meal, as an offering
from the threshing floor. (Num. 15:20). This day of the first fruits
was held as a holy festival.
As far as fruit trees were concerned, for the first three years their
fruit was to be considered forbidden, and the fourth year's fruit was
all to be given to the Lord (Lev. 19:24). Its owner could only eat of
its produce the following year.
Would this remarkable offering be characteristic of a
materialistic religion?
There were also the vows and free will offerings which people
gave. (Deut. 12:17).
One of the humanitarian aspects of the Jewish holy law is to be found
in the Lord's instruction: " When you reap the harvest of your land,
you shall not wholly reap the corners of your field when you reap,
nor shall you gather any gleaning from your harvest. You shall leave
them for the poor and for the stranger: I am the LORD your God. "
(Lev. 23:22). So the poor would be able to gather something to
sustain them from behind the harvester.
Another of the humanitarian points of the Jewish law which shows
that it was anti-materialistic was the freeing of slaves.
In the time of Moses and before, there was slavery, but the Jewish law
commanded that they release in the seventh year any slave whom they
had bought with their own money, who had served them for six years.
(Deut. 15:12)
Another anti-materialistic feature of Judaism was the presentation
of sacrifices and burnt offerings.
These were all aimed to please the Lord and to obtain forgiveness, and
to atone for one's sin. These are all described in detail in the Book of
Leviticus.
In some of the sacrifices, like the burnt offerings and the various sin
offerings, the person presenting them was not allowed to take anything
from them at all. One could not call this a materialistic concept for in
fact it was a very spiritual one, involving being sorry for one's sins
and offering repentance for them and sacrificing something material in
order to atone for them - and all these things that were offered had
their spiritual symbols.
Yet another anti-materialistic aspect of Judaism were the many
religious celebrations, both weekly and yearly, which were holy
days, that is,. days regarded as holy to the Lord, upon which the
people did not work.
The Ten Commandments included the command to keep the Sabbath
holy: " the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD your God. In it
you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor
your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your ox, nor your
donkey, nor any of your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your
gates, that your male servant and your female servant may rest as
well as you. And remember that you were a slave in the land of
Egypt,... " (Deut. 5:14)
Besides this there were more than twenty days of sacred holidays and
festivals on which no activity was allowed unless it was spiritual, as
we are told in Leviticus (chapter 23).
If Judaism were materialistic, it wouldn't have designated some 73
days a year as holy days, that is exactly a fifth of a year - on which no
work was to be done.
As far as their rules of prayer, hymns and holy readings were
concerned:
There were seven daily prayers (Ps. 119:164), apart from the night
prayers and the approaching of the House of God, which was done
with singing and psalms, referred to as the Songs or Psalms of
Ascents. The Torah was divided into a regular system of readings in
the synagogues, so that all the people could hear it.
The spirituality contained in the teachings of Judaism, however, is
a long subject which we do not have time to go into here.
EEE
Question
Can a Christian who dies in a state of sin enter the
kingdom of heaven? I don't see how he can. So what is the
use of praying for someone who has died when we don't
know whether he has died in a state of sin or repentance?
Answer:
We don't have to pray for someone who has died whilst sinning.
Prayer will not benefit him, and our master St John said:
"There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should pray
about that." (1 John 5:16).
If a thief climbs up the walls of a house in order to burgle it, and
falls down and dies in the process, the Church would not pray
for him. And if drug smugglers get into a fight with the police
and get killed during this fight, the Church does not pray for
them either. And if a person who has an intelligent mind and
commits suicide, the Church does not pray for him.
Therefore, if the Church can be sure that the person has
died whilst in the act of committing a sin, it doesn't pray
for him.
But in other cases, it would certainly pray for someone who
had died, so that he could at least depart from the world
having been absolved by the Church, so that he is no longer
bound in any way. That person is then left to the mercy of
the One who searches men's hearts and the One who knows
all secrets.
It is as if the Church is saying to God: this person has been
released from our side by the authority to loose and bind which
You gave to us (Matt. 18:18; John 20:23), and so we leave him
now to Your mercy and to Your knowledge which is beyond
ours.
The Church also prays on behalf of the one who is passing
on, for him to be forgiven any sins which he may have
committed which weren't of the degree that leads to death,
according to the instruction of the apostle.
As an example of this St. John said: " If anyone sees his brother
sinning a sin which does not lead to death, he will ask, and He
will give him life for those who commit sin not leading to
death. There is sin leading to death. I do not say that he should
pray about that. All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin not
leading to death. " (1 John 5:16-17)
So what are these sins that do not lead to death?
They are uncompleted sins, sins that have not been fully
carried out. They may be sins of ignorance, sins committed
unintentionally, or sins that are latent, or sins of negligence,
for example.
We pray in the Trisagion saying:
[Forgive, absolve and pardon us, O God, for the wrongs we
have done intentionally, those we have done knowingly, and
those we have done unknowingly, the secret and the open.]
But unintentional sins, sins of ignorance and unseen sins are
nevertheless still sins (because they violate God's
commandments and require forgiveness and prayer).
In the Old Testament, we see that even in the case of sins
committed unintentionally without knowing, as soon as one
became aware, one had to offer a sacrifice so that they might be
forgiven. (Lev. 4:2,13,22-23).
The Church prays that the Lord would forgive any of these
sins of ignorance or of negligence, or any sins committed
unintentionally and unknowingly, which those who have
passed over might have committed.
The Reciter says in the psalm: "Who can understand his errors?
Cleanse me from secret faults. " (Ps. 19:12) It is for these
hidden faults which the person is not aware of having, that the
Church asks forgiveness on his behalf.
Let us suppose that a person has died suddenly without having
had a chance to confess, or that he has forgotten to confess
some sins, and therefore hasn't received an absolution for them.
The Church can give him absolution and asks forgiveness for
him, in the Prayer for the Departed.
The Church, therefore, prays for the sake of the departed
out of a kind of compassion, because no-one is without sin,
even if his life on earth lasts only one day (and this is a
phrase which comes in part of the Prayer for the Departed).
David said: "If You, O Lord, kept a record of sins, O Lord who
could stand? But with You there is forgiveness... " (Ps. 129:3-
4) And he also said: " Do not enter into judgment with Your
servant, For in Your sight no one living is righteous. " (Ps.
143:2) So if this is the situation, that there is no servant without
a fault, and no master who is not forgiving, we pray for those
who have passed away [Being human beings who put on the
body and lived in the world].
We pray for everyone in this state, since only God is good.
We ask for forgiveness and then leave the matter to God,
always knowing that any human being might perhaps have
repented even if it was at the hour of his death.
But for those who have died in the act of committing a
deliberate sin, without having repented, we do not pray, since
our prayers in these circumstances would be going against
God's goodness and justice.
Question
I have heard that eternity is an attribute of God alone, and
that there isn't any eternal life for the wicked. For if there
were an eternal life for evil, for the wicked and for the
Devil, it would mean that Satan would then become a god,
and people could then claim that two gods existed: a God of
Good and a god of Evil! What is the opinion of the Church
on this matter?
Answer:
It is the attribute of infinity, not just eternity (or having an
existence after death), which belongs to God alone.
God is infinite, which means that He had no beginning. No
other being has this quality, for all other beings have been
created. Consequently they had a beginning at some point, and
had no existence before that beginning. They are, therefore,
necessarily finite, because at some point they did not exist. And
since they were created they cannot be infinite.
Eternity in the form of eternal life, however, is something which
God has given to some of His creatures.
God created human beings with an immortal soul, both the
righteous and the wicked are alike in this respect.
This potential for immortality doesn't mean that human beings
are gods, they are still human beings, in spite of the fact that
God has bestowed on them eternal life. If eternal life were one
of God's attributes alone, it would be impossible for a human
being to live on after death and enjoy eternal life, because a
human being cannot turn himself into a god.
Existence in an afterlife is for both the righteous and the
wicked, but they will differ in their fate, as the Bible tells us
concerning the Day of Judgement: "Then they (ie. the wicked)
will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal
life. " (Matt. 26:46)
If we did not believe in this eternal existence for the wicked, we
would on one hand be contradicting the Bible, and on the other
we would be becoming like the Seventh Day Adventists who
believe that the punishment of the wicked is non existence and
annihilation.
This painful eternity is also for Satan and his angels.
The Bible says that on the Day of Judgement the Lord, "will say
to those on His left, " 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the
everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels " (Matt.
25:41)
And the Book of Revelation says about Satan's punishment..
"The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and
brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they
will be tormented day and night forever and ever. " (Rev.
20:10)
The phrases 'for-ever and ever' and 'eternal fire' mean that Satan
and the wicked will live for-ever, but in torment.
Those who belong to the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Seventh
Day Adventists, however, deny this.
[ 11 ] DID GOD NEED CHRIST IN ORDER TO CREATE AND TO SAVE MANKIND?
Question
I heard a critic suggesting that, when He was creating the
world, God needed Christ, so that the creation could take
place, and that it says: "Through Him (ie. Jesus Christ,
being the Word) All things were made through Him, and
without Him nothing was made that was made." (John 1:3).
Did God need Jesus Christ when it came to saving the
world? And if this is so, does it not mean that God is not
omnipotent?
Answer:
If God had needed anyone else to do these things, He could
hardly be considered Almighty!!
But He is far beyond needing anyone else.
In the creation, everything was created at God's word, through
the Word or Logos, who is God's mental power speaking for
Him, or the speech of God expressing His Wisdom. All this
was so, long before the incarnation, and before the creation of
Adam and Eve and the entire world.
Since God was able to create everything through His own intellect
or wisdom, or by His, word, He could not have needed to create
anyone else in order to help Him.
The phrase 'God created the world' or 'the intellect of God created
the world' or 'God created the world through His intellect', all point
to one and the same meaning. God and His mind are one being,
and the same goes for salvation.
It is God who has saved the world, without needing anyone
else's help to do so.
If someone other than God had saved the world, salvation would
not be boundless enough to redeem all people in every age from all
their sins.
The real problem, though, for the person who makes this
criticism is the incarnation.
The incarnation is a long subject, which we don't have time for
here. In any case, it is not a matter for criticism.
That critic whom you mentioned, is trying to make out that God
needed someone else to help in His plans, and that needing
someone else would suggest that God was not Almighty. The
answer to this, however, is that God never needed anyone else,
either when it came to the creation, or the salvation of mankind. It
is God who created everything, and He who redeemed all.
Question
Were all the Apostles supported by the Holy Spirit? And
on this basis did the Lord Christ have the same relationship
with the Holy Spirit as the apostles had?
Answer:
The apostles had a relationship with the Holy Spirit because the
Holy Spirit - according to the Creed - was the One who 'spoke
through the prophets'.
But the relationship that the Lord Christ had with the Holy
Spirit was hypostatic and quite distinct from that of the apostles
or anyone else with the Spirit. This is because Christ's
relationship with the Holy Spirit is eternal, and is based on
equality.
Christ's relationship with the Holy Spirit existed before the
creation of the world, before all ages, before time and from
infinity, while none of the apostles had this same kind of
relationship.
Christ abides in the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit abides in
Him, and both are ever-present in their mutual essence. They
are of the same nature. This is the point on which Christ
differed from all others in His relationship with the Holy Spirit.
Then again it was Christ who sent the Holy Spirit to the holy
disciples, so that it came upon them on the day of Pentecost,
and gave them the gift of speaking in tongues. None of the
apostles could ever have said that he had sent the Holy Spirit.
Question
I recently received some leaflets containing various spiritual
words and religious teaching, which were mostly to do with
redemption and salvation. How can I tell if these leaflets
are genuinely Orthodox, especially in view of the fact that
some of them say that they have been published by this or
that 'Orthodox ' association or society?
Answer:
Just having the word 'Orthodox' attached to that society or
association is not enough.
Many people conceal their own teachings behind the word
'orthodox'. Some people claim that they and their work are
Orthodox, but because these people have been reading too
many books that are not on Orthodox Christianity. And
because these people attend non-Orthodox meetings and
societies, and have formed close friendships with the non-
Orthodox ideas which do not at all accord with the belief and
faith of the Church. These ideas have entered their minds and
shaped their opinions. Yet even so, they go ahead and publish
these ideas.
So how can you tell the difference? Actually you can tell by the
language, for what is genuinely Orthodox writing shows itself
clearly in the language. According to what I have seen, of some
of these pamphlets, I could say to you that in general:
Leaflets that are not truly Orthodox very often avoid
mentioning the Church, the Sacraments and the
priesthood, in whatever teaching they are trying to explain.
So for instance when writing about the forgiveness of sins, or
repentance, or salvation or eternity, these kinds of publications
just concentrate on the relationship between the individual and
God, without bringing into it the activity of Church, the
sacraments and the priesthood.
Frequently what they are saying unfolds in the following
sequence of argument, for example they stress the importance
of eternity, your need for salvation, that God loves you and that
He alone can save you, therefore you must take refuge in God,
open your heart to Him and receive Him as your Saviour etc.
All this they expound without any mention of confession,
receiving the Holy Communion, or the role of the Church.
Another observation which can be made is that these
pamphlets for the most part talk to the readers as if those
readers were doomed to destruction, as if they had not yet
received redemption, and they talk to them about the blood
of Christ, as if those readers had not so far gained its
effectiveness in their lives.
And the final irony is that these unorthodox groups distribute
their leaflets at the doors of churches while those within these
churches have already experienced atonement for their sins
through Christ's blood, on the day that they were baptised.
Question
Are there any verses in the Bible that clearly state Christ's
divinity? I would appreciate it if you could mention some of
them.
Answer:
Yes, of course. There are many verses, among which we could
cite:
E The words of St Paul concerning the Jews: "Theirs are the
patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ,
who is God over all, for ever praised! Amen ". (Rom. 9:5)
E The beginning of John's gospel states it plainly too, when it
says: " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God. " (John 1:1) And in the same
chapter, John attributes the creation of everything to Christ, saying
" All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing
was made that was made." (John 1:3). E
E And Paul says, concerning the divinity of the Lord and His
incarnation: "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is
great: He appeared in a body. " (1 Tim. 3:16).
E On this act of redemption which Christ performed, as God,
Paul says to the people of Ephesus: " Therefore take heed to
yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has
made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He
purchased with His own blood. " (Acts 20:28) Obviously it
wouldn't have been possible for God to have 'bought' the Church by
His blood, if He had not taken on a bodily form, and shed His
blood on the cross.
St Thomas acknowledged Christ's divine nature when he put his
finger into Christ's wounds after the Resurrection, and said to Him:
"My Lord and My God!" (John 20:28)
The Lord Christ accepted from Thomas this believing in His
divinity and scolded him for his doubts: "Because you have seen
Me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and
yet have believed" (John 20:29).
Even the Lord's name was announced by an angel, as the Bible tells
us: " and they shall call His name Immanuel," which is translated,
"God with us."" (Matt. 1:23)
This was fulfilment of the word of the prophet Isaiah that the Lord
Himself would give us a sign: "The Virgin shall conceive and bear
a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. " (Is. 7:14). God
himself became a sign to the people through His birth by the Virgin
Mary.
There are in fact many verses which attribute God's qualities to
Christ.
Question
Scientists are interested in the question of whether there is
life on the other planets. What would Christ's attitude to
this subject be? And if science later confirms the existence
of another form of life, would this have an effect on
religion?
Answer:
Religion has left this subject without raising any arguments
either for or against it. It makes no difference either way
whether it is proved that there is life on the other planets or
there isn't. If there is, it will have no effect on religion at
all.
The Bible was not intended to be a book on the solar system, or
a book of science, but the good news about salvation. It relates
the story of salvation and all the history, commandments and
theology connected with it.
As far as the stars are concerned, whatever might be on them
has no connection with our salvation, it is enough that they give
light to us at night, like a blessing from God to us. God likened
His righteous saints to the stars, saying that they will shine like
the lights in heaven.
Even if life were found on the other planets or the stars, there is
nothing in the Bible that would be opposed to this, and vice
versa.
Question
In the Seventh Day Adventists' book, 'God Speaks', there
are questions on faith and belief, and each question is
answered with a verse supporting it from the Bible.
Also, some leaflets which have come my way, have put
forward certain teachings which the Church rejects, but
which are backed up by verses from the gospels all the
same. And because of this they claim that the teaching is
the Gospel and Bible truth.
Why should we not believe what they say, since they
confirm their doctrine with verses from the Bible?
Answer:
One verse from the Bible isn't sufficient and cannot be held
to convey the total Biblical truth on a particular matter.
This can only be gathered from collecting together all the
verses which pertain to that subject.
I shall give you some examples to prove this point:
1. Let us suppose that a person asks you about being born of
God, and how can man be born of God, and you put before him the
following verse: " If you know that He is righteous, you know that
everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him. " (1 John
2:29).
Is it possible by this verse alone to convey the whole Biblical
teaching on this point, just by giving this brief statement that man is
born of God through doing good works, without any mention of
faith or baptism?
No, of course not. And all Christian denominations would say the
same.
Alternatively, we could convey rather more of the Biblical truth on
the subject of being born of God, by putting beside this verse the
other verses which are also concerned with it, such as:
"I tell you the truth, no-one can enter the kingdom of God unless
he is born of water and the Spirit. " (John 3:5)
"He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the
Holy Spirit. " (Titus 3:5)
"He chose to give us birth through the word of truth. "(James
1:18)
2. Let's suppose someone asked you what was the religion
that was acceptable to God. Would you only put before him
these words of James: " Pure and undefiled religion before God
and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their
trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world ".(James
1:27).
Can this be regarded as the whole biblical truth on this matter,
when no mention is made in this verse of the need for faith? The
other denominations wouldn't accept this! So let us provide for
your questioner those other verses which together convey the full
meaning of this point, which can then, when taken together, be
regarded as biblical truth.
3 Again, let's imagine that a person asks you how a sinner
can pass from death to eternal life. Would you reply to him simply
be giving these words of John: "We know that we have passed from
death to life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love
his brother abides in death." (1 John 3:14).
Is this all that the Bible has to say on this matter, leaving out any
mention of atonement, redemption and the blood of Christ, or of
repentance and baptism?
No-one should accept this verse just by itself. We have to put
beside it those other verses which concern this subject, such as:
"God.. made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in
transgressions. " (Eph. 2:5)
"When you were dead in your sins.. God made you alive with
Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having cancelled the written
code, with its regulations that was against us; he took it away,
nailing it to the cross. " (Col. 2:13-14).
4. The same goes for the question of salvation, if you were to
ask: 'How can I be saved?' The verse which says: " Take heed to
yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this
you will save both yourself and those who hear you. " (1 Tim.
4:16), might be put before you.
But is what it says in this verse alone enough for salvation, without
faith and without baptism? And we could say the same for the
verse: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe
in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be
saved. " Rom. 10:9)
Why not add these following verses:
"Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved. " (Mark 16:16)
".. in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a
few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water
symbolises baptism that now saves you also (1 Pet. 3:20-21)
By doing this, the whole biblical truth will be conveyed.
This question is one that constantly bewilders me, and I
haven't yet found an answer to it:
Why don't those who call for the gospel teaching and who claim to
defend biblical truth, state these verses which bring out the full
meaning, in addition to those other ones? Aren't they all from the
gospel and the Bible after all, I ask?!
Question
I read in a book about Pentecost, that on the day of
Pentecost, 'there was an invisible union between divine
nature and human nature' and that, 'the divine nature was
none other than the mystical body of Christ which
preceded Christ and which He indicated was to be taken
and eaten in order that we could be united with Him and
abide in Him'.
What is your opinion on this supposed union with the
divine nature? And what do you think of the following
phrases, which I also read in that book: 'we are, therefore,
like a burning bush', and 'the purpose of the divine
incarnation was completed on the day of Pentecost', and
'the Church possesses all that was Christ's'?
Answer:
The Lord Christ is the only one who has a unity of the divine
nature and the human nature. If this same union of the divine
nature with the human were to happen to all believers, then
what difference would there be between any human being and
Christ?
There are two ways of attacking Christ's divinity: one is by
belittling the importance of Christ and reducing Him to the level
of ordinary human beings, as the Arians did, and the other is by
raising people to the same level as Christ, which is referred to as
defying the human being, in the kind of way that you have
described in your question.
In both cases the outcome is the same: that Christ and human
beings are placed on the same footing.
The Church cannot possess all that was Christ's, because the
word 'all' would have to mean His divinity too. Christ gave the
Church His love, but He did not, and does not, give His glory to
another.
Theological terms always need to be used very precisely.
And what is this about a human being changed into a 'burning
bush'? If that were to happen then the prophets would have to
stand humbly before him to listen to the voice of God, just as
Moses did (Ex. 3)! Human beings were not changed on the day
of Pentecost into gods, and the divine incarnation which was
Christ's alone, did not happen to them either.
As far as the phrase 'the divine nature was none other than the
mystical body of Christ', is concerned, these are either the
words of Eutyches, in which the dimension of Christ's humanity
is lost, or they are supposed to mean that the divine nature was
the same as the human, in which case there could be no divinity!
So what is this mystical body of Christ? Is it supposed to mean
the Church?
The Church cannot be the divine nature. Nor can the Church be
the body of Christ, which He instructed to be taken and eaten in
the Eucharist. In the divine Mass we do not eat the Church!
There is a confusion here between the body which Christ took
from the Virgin Mary, and the Church when it is referred to as
the 'body' of Christ.
Is this body, the body which in the sacrament of the Eucharist
the Lord instructed us to take and eat? If this were so, this
body could not be the divine nature, otherwise we would be
going back to the ideas of Eutyches! We say in the Liturgy,
"This is the life-giving body which Your Only Son received
from our lady and Queen of us all the pure St Mary.. and He
made it one with His divinity."
Here too, an important question stands out, which is: were the
words spoken on the day of Pentecost about the third person of
the Holy Trinity (ie. the Holy Spirit), or the second, namely the
Son, who was incarnated for our sake, and who said: "Take,
eat, this is My body"? And what has the sacrament of the
Eucharist got to do with the day of Pentecost on which the
Holy Spirit descended like tongues of fire?
In your question there still remain some points which need to be
explained:
a) Was what happened on the day of Pentecost, a descent
or a union? The Bible speaks unequivocally about the descent
of the Holy Spirit. And the Lord Jesus Christ said: "you will
receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you. " (Acts 1:8)
b) Was the burning bush a symbol of the divine incarnation,
or was it a symbol of the day of Pentecost? And was the
nature, purpose and results of what happened in the divine
incarnation, what the disciples experienced on the day of
Pentecost, such that one could say that the purpose behind the
divine incarnation had reached its peak on the day of Pentecost?
c) And did the third Person of the Holy Trinity become
incarnated in mankind on the day of Pentecost, by descending
upon those present, or uniting with them, according to what
you have read?
Question
I heard someone say that the Holy Spirit was the angel
Gabriel. Is this true? And some people say that it is the
spirit of a prophet. Could this be true?
Answer:
The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, not the spirit of an angel or
prophet. For if it were that of an angel or prophet, it would be
restricted, whereas the Holy Spirit, according to what the
gospel tells us is unbounded.
If the Holy Spirit descends upon all believers, as the Bible says:
" Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy
Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not
your own?" (1 Cor. 6.19), would it be reasonable to suppose
that an angel or prophet could descend on all believing humans
in their hundreds and thousands?
In the Bible it also says, concerning the martyrs: " "But when
they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you
should speak. For it will be given to you in that hour what you
should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your
Father who speaks in you. " (Matt. 10:19-20)
Would it have been possible for an angel or prophet to speak
through the mouths of the thousands of martyrs at the beginning
of the Christian era, who bore witness to Christ in so many
different and far-flung places at the same time?
Referring to the Holy Spirit, the Lord Christ said: "the Father
... will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you
forever; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive,
because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him,
for He dwells with you and will be in you." (John 14:16-17)
Obviously these words could not have been referring to a
prophet, because a prophet could not be with men for ever, and
also because people would have been able to see him and
recognise him. Likewise it could not be meant to apply to an
angel, because an angel could not stay with all believers for ever
and ever, because he is not boundless.
The Bible goes on to say: "But you know Him, for He dwells
with you and will be in you." (John 14:17) So who could this
'angel' or 'prophet' be who stays with all people and is in them
for ever?
The Lord Jesus Christ was the Good Teacher, who brought the
true teaching to mankind, and opened men's hearts and minds
to the highest principles of all, so that they were amazed at His
teaching.
As far as Adam was concerned, the Bible does not record that
there was any teaching or spiritual guidance for his generation,
or even for his kinsfolk, for Adam gave in to his wife's mistaken
direction. Christ has always been the head.
It was Christ who redeemed Adam and his sons, and freed them
from the penalty of sin, who died for them and their
descendants, and who bought them with His blood.
So Christ was the Redeemer, and Adam and his sons, the
redeemed.
All this is seen from the human point of view, but from the
theological standpoint the matter is too extensive to be written
about in a brief answer to a question like this, which is just one
of many being answered.
Question
The word secret, mystery or sacrament occurs a number of
times in the Bible, as when for example the apostle Paul
says: "Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body" (1 Tim. 3:16), and "the mystery of the
gospel. " (Eph. 6:19) and "the secret Power of lawlessness. "
(2 Thess. 2:7) and so on. Why are there Seven Sacraments?
Answer:
The word "sacrament" or mystery when used in the
Church is not used just in the way that the dictionary
defines it, but is a technical term with a specific meaning of
its own.
Each of the Church's mysteries or sacraments consists of a
mysterious divine blessing which you cannot see, but which you
receive in secret from the Holy Spirit through the prayers which
a legitimate priest offers up in a special ritual, along
61
With the presence of a specific substance, which is the material of
the sacrament or mystery.
It is not a mystery or sacrament in the sense of being something
recognisable, such as when the Bible says: "the mystery of the
seven stars" (Rev. 1:20)
A sacrament is conditional upon four elements which are:
sacramental grace, a priest, prayers and ritual and the
substance of the sacrament.
In baptism, for example, there exists something mysterious that is
unseen, which is the new birth through water and the Spirit (John
3:5). Or you might say that in baptism you are being "clothed..
with Christ. " (Gal. 3:27), or that you "wash your sins away"
(Acts 22:16) or that you are buried with Christ and die with Him
(Rom. 6).
These heavenly blessings are a mysterious action which the Holy
Spirit performs in the human being, through the priest's special
prayers, and a special ritual which involves the one being baptised,
being submerged in water three times. So here, then, the substance
of the mystery is the water.
The mysterious blessing in the Chrism (the Myron) is the descent
of the Holy Spirit, and in the sacrament of confession it is the
wiping away of sins by the blood of Christ, and in the Eucharist it is
the transformation of bread and wine into the body and blood of the
Lord, while in marriage it is the joining together of the two into one
etc.
None of these blessings can be seen by the human eye,
therefore they are a mystery.
They are things that cannot be distinguished by intellectual
knowledge, like mysteries pertaining to ultimately knowable facts,
data, learning or information, but are spiritual elements to do with
faith which go beyond what can be expressed in words.
The Church has defined these mysterious blessings to be seven in
number, and has prescribed special prayers for them and the rituals
which they require.
There are, of course, other prayers and rituals which are not to do
with the sacraments, such as the prayer for the departed, which isn't
a sacrament but just simply a prayer, a request, in which the
Church asks for compassion for the souls of those passing on.
And here "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven.
" (Matt. 13:11), which are boundless, we now see as but "a poor
reflection as in a mirror" (1 Cor. 13:12), but God will bring them
to our knowledge in due time. These are not, however, part of the
mysterious gifts which the believer receives on earth, and which the
Church is engaged in giving to him by virtue of the authority
granted to it by God.
So there is no need for anyone to confuse one kind of mystery with
another.
Mysteries to do with things that are knowable, are quite
different from mysteries in the sense of the sacraments which
pertain to heavenly grace.
Question
Are the Church's Seven Sacraments necessary for all
people?
Answer:
Baptism is necessary for everyone because, " He who believes
and is baptised will be saved " (Mark 16:16), and without it no-
one can enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:5).
The bestowing of the Holy Spirit in the sacrament of the holy
anointing is necessary for all. And the Church has been doing
this for all believers since the time of the apostles (Acts 8).
Similarly, the sacrament of repentance is necessary for all
people, because nobody is without sin.
Also the Eucharist is an essential sacrament for everyone, since
the Lord says: "unless you can eat the flesh of the Son of Man
and drink His blood, you have no life in you. " (John 6:53)
The sacrament of the priesthood also has a bearing on all
people. It does not only apply to those who are ordained as
priests, but is relevant to all believers in that they receive the
blessings of all the seven sacraments by way of the priest, whom
we call the 'servant of the mysteries'.
We could talk about the sacrament of marriage for example,
though it is clear that some people do not need this sacrament
themselves, since they live without partners. Nevertheless, even
those who are celibate are the fruit of the union of man and
woman.
So the sacrament of marriage and that of priesthood, although
not practised by all people, are notwithstanding of benefit to all,
and they are essential to the Church as a whole.
The sacrament of anointing the sick is necessary for the sick
only, and if a person never receives it, perhaps because he has
never needed it, this obviously will not affect his salvation.
Question
Sometimes we attend a long Mass and sometimes a shorter
version, and it seems that baptism can take an hour or just
a few minutes. Is the sacrament still being performed
properly even though the ceremony is shorter?
Answer:
As far as baptism is concerned, it consists of two parts. The
first of which is the blessing of the baptismal water, which is a
long ceremony, and can take an hour to perform. The second
part, is the actual baptism of the child or adult, which may take
only a few minutes.
What happens is that the priest might pray over the water very
early on, before the arrival of those in the baptism party, so
because they have not attended this part of the ritual they might
think that the baptism has just taken a few minutes to perform,
whereas if they had been present from the very beginning, it
would have taken more than an hour. Therefore what you
imagined to be shorter version of the ceremony was in fact a
part of the full-length baptism ritual.
As far as the Mass is concerned, though, there are prayers
which are fundamental to the consecration of the Host, such as
the signing with the cross, Christ's covenant with us, the
invocation of the Holy Spirit, the division and distribution, and
the final confession. But the intercessions, for instance, and the
commemoration of the saints, the sermon and the various
readings are not connected with the actual consecration of the
sacrament, but are nevertheless recited as part of the liturgy of
the Mass, which is after all the holiest of the services in the
Church.
In the time of the martyrs, during the persecution of the Church,
the Mass was abridged without any damage being done to the
sacrament. Also one can shorten it by abbreviating or
eliminating some of the chants, for the music isn't part of the
consecration of the sacrament but serves to deepen the spirit of
prayer. So don't be apprehensive or suspicious about the
validity of the shorter Mass, because the sacrament is still being
fully carried out.
Question
When do the bread and wine change into the body and
blood of the Lord in the Sacrament of the Eucharist?
I have read one of the Fathers who said that the
transformation of the bread and wine takes place in the
Eucharist when the sign of the cross is first made over them
at the offering of the Host, and that this is what has
happened since early times.
Answer:
The transubstantiation of the holy mysteries takes place
when the Holy Spirit descends, and not before.
And the descent of the Holy Spirit takes place just before the
Intercessions and the commemoration of the saints. So the
priest prays in secret saying: "Let Your Holy Spirit descend
upon us and upon these sacrifices placed here. Purify them and
transform them and make them to appear holy to your saints ".
Then he makes the sign of the cross over the bread three times and
calls aloud: 'He makes this bread His holy body'. Then he makes
the sign of the cross three times over the chalice and, calls aloud: '..
and this cup too, He makes the honoured blood of the New
Testament...' and the people say 'Amen' after both of these.
This proves that no transformation takes place during the offering
of the Host.
For if the mysteries were transformed before this point, the
priest would not call for the Holy Spirit to descend to change
them.
We also observe that after the descent of the Holy Spirit to
transform the sacraments, the priest does not make the sign of
the cross, and does not look behind him.
Before that - after the offering of the Host and the signing of the
cross - the priest makes the sign of the cross over the people, and
the bread and wine. However, after its transubstantiation, when the
Holy Spirit has descended, he does not make the sign of the cross
over the people any more, not even when he says, 'Peace be with
you all'. In fact he just bows his head without signing the cross.
Nor does he sign the cross over the chalice or the offertory
paten (tray), but makes the sign of the cross with each of the
sacraments in turn, after their transubstantiation, over the
other one.
This means that the blood is crossed by the body, and the body by
the blood, but the priest doesn't do it with his hand or finger at all.
He does not turn round to face the people at all when he blesses
them but instead focuses his concentration on the holy mysteries,
without turning away from them.
From this one can see that to say that the mysteries are transformed
directly after the offering of the Host during the first signing of the
cross, is inaccurate. If it were so, then it would mean that the
mysteries are sanctified and transformed, during the part of the
Mass that is attended by the catechumens for those are not allowed
to attend the whole Mass.
But we observe that in the early days of the Church, the
catechumens used to attend the offering of the Host and the reading
of the epistles and the gospel and the sermon, and would then
depart. And the deacon, before the raising of the holy veil
concealing the sacraments, meaning before the Holy Mass was
begun, would say: 'Let no-one who is unconfirmed or who is an
unbeliever stand here, but let only those believers stay who are
worthy to attend the divine Mass'. (See the canons of the apostles
and those of Apolides.)
Studying the history of the Church's ceremonies calls for a
knowledge of theology of the rituals involved and also their
spirituality.
Since history does not conflict with theology, we can see that it
cannot be said that in the past, the holy mysteries used to be
transformed from the bread and wine into the body and blood of the
Lord, before the descent of the Holy Spirit upon them and the
prayers of the priest invoking this descent.
Question
Is it proper for the Prayer of the "Unction of the Sick " to
he said in homes during a fast, even if there isn't someone
ill there?
For it has been noticed that the Church Fathers and many
individuals from among the congregation have been used
to doing this, is it right to continue this practice or should it
be abolished?
Answer:
The Prayer of the "Unction of the Sick " known by the
name "The Lamp Prayer" is essentially, and above all, a
prayer on behalf of the sick, and their anointing with oil,
but it also has many benefits.
1. It is an opportunity for meeting together in the home,
and of blessing the home by prayer, and of raising up incense.
It is a chance for the Father Priest to visit and read the
Absolution, and pray for all those in the home. All thes
benefits are in any case irrespective of the kind of prayer that is
said and its purpose.
2. The Prayer of the "Unction of the Sick" includes many
other prayers, such as the Lord's Prayer, the Thanksgiving, the
Trisagion and the Kyries, along with a number of other prayers
asking for God's mercy, all of which are beneficial.
3. The Prayer of the "Unction of the Sick " comprises all
the main intercessions which are offered to God with the raising
of the incense, including those for the sick and the departed for
the travellers and for those who are awaiting baptism and
confirmation, as well as prayers for the Church, for its meetings,
for those who offer its sacrifices, and the heads of state etc. So
everyone who attends this finds his situation is included in it
somewhere.
4. The Prayer of the "Unction of the Sick" also contains
prayers calling for individual repentance and asking for God's
mercies. And we ask Him to accept us just as He accepted the
woman who was a sinner, and Zacchaeus the tax collector, and
to pardon us just as He forgave the debtor. Anyone, even if he
is in perfect health, will undoubtedly benefit from these
humbling, contrite prayers, and will be led to repentance
through them, if he follows them with an open heart.
5. It also includes the reading of at least seven chapters
from the gospels, chosen for their particular wisdom. And
simply listening to the Bible being read aloud in the home a
number of times is something beneficial.
6. Let us not forget the holy rituals in these prayers, like the
incense and the candles, the oil and the hymn, all of which are of
great benefit, even to children who might not understand them
all , and they make everyone feel that the home has become a
part of the Church.
7. Because of this, we feel that it is right to continue this
custom of saying the Prayer of the "Unction of the Sick" in
people's homes, even if there is no-one there who is ill, for
anyone of us might have a hidden illness which we don't know
about, and there are always psychological and spiritual
imbalances which we might have but may not recognise.
Question
I heard that there are only three heavens, because the Holy
Bible says Everything is perfected in the number three.
Answer:
I would like to say to the one who sent in this phrase that there
is no verse in the Bible which says that! This is purely a worldly
expression! Perfection isn't confined to the number three.
Number seven, for example, is sometimes made a symbol for
perfection and so is ten etc.
The expression 'the third heaven' comes in the Bible as a name
for Paradise (2 Cor. 12:2,4). But reference to the heaven which
is the throne of God comes in John 3:13 and Matt. 5:34. On
the other hand, the 'highest heavens' mentioned in Psalm 148:4,
must obviously be higher than the third. This is the heaven to
which only the Lord Jesus Christ has ascended, and to which no
human being will ever rise. (John 3:13).
Question
Is it possible for Satan to enter a church, one which has
been consecrated? And if he can, how could this be so,
since the church is supposed to be full of angels, and also to
contain the Holy Spirit?
Answer:
We remember in the story of the righteous Job, that the Bible
said: "One day the angels came to present themselves before
the Lord, and Satan also came with them. The Lord said to
Satan, 'Where have You come from?' " (Job. 1:6-7). And
Satan plotted against Job.
So Satan was able to dare to stand in a holy place where
God Himself stood, in order to try and cause to one of
God's believers harm.
We read how Satan came to the Lord Christ on the mountain
and dared to tempt Him, using verses from the Bible, and what
is more, he also stood with the Lord Christ on the pinnacle of
the temple to put Him to the test there.
But of course that was all with the Lord's permission.
We hear in the Old Testament of sins that were committed in
holy places, in the days of Eli the priest, by his sons which
provoked God's anger. No doubt these were caused by Satan's
intervention.
Satan might enter a church to distract the thoughts of the
believers, to take their minds off of the prayers, out of envy that
they are worshipping God.
And although some believers might defeat him by the strength
of their prayers, others may be weakened. Whether a church
has been consecrated isn't really the issue, because it depends on
whether the individual believer has been consecrated, through
being anointed with oil at baptism. Nevertheless, Satan can still
enter his heart and thoughts to test him.
God may give Satan freedom to act, but it would be
freedom within a limited sphere, and he would be judged
for it.
So we say that Satan nowadays is fettered, and has been since
the Crucifixion. And if Satan is fettered it means that he isn't
totally free, otherwise he would have destroyed the world by
now!
There have been times when the Lord has said: 'Go away
Satan!', as happened at the temptation on the mountain, or
when He has set him limits which he cannot exceed, such as in
Job's temptation.
I am pretty sure that most of all Satan cannot bear the
moment when the Holy Spirit descends and the sacraments
are transformed during the divine Mass.
He cannot bear these holy moments, and God does not permit
him to act then. Also, at this point, the believers are usually in
an elevated spiritual state in which it is likely for them to
respond to distracting ideas from Satan who at that moment is
troubled by the deep heartfelt humility of the believers, and the
action of the Spirit upon the sacraments and the congregation.
Generally speaking, if Satan enters a church in order to do
something then he is in a weak position. And he cannot find
real scope to act there except within the people who are inside
the church, but whose hearts and minds are outside the Church!
Satan may try to cast doubts in people's minds, even on holy
occasions and during prayers, but since the people's hearts are
connected to God, any doubts that they might have remain
outside them, however heavy and forceful they might be, and
thus Satan has to depart unsuccessful.
Question
Why don't we eat fish on Wednesdays and Fridays but
during some other fasts, in view of the fact, so I have
heard, that in olden times they used to eat fish on
Wednesdays and Fridays?
Answer:
Some believers in the past used to eat fish on Wednesdays
and Fridays, and this was undoubtedly on account either a
mistaken understanding of the Church's teaching on their
part, or because it was a wrong habit which they had
inherited or had passed down to them from others who had
been mistaken.
Our kind of fasting in the Orthodox Church is eating vegan
foods. As everyone knows, we abstain from meat and all
foodstuff of animal origin during fasting days. Obviously fish
are included as flesh foods, so to eat fish is not in accordance
with our kind of fasting at all. So you mustn't be surprised at
the non-eating of fish on the fasting days of Wednesday and
Friday.
In fact you should really be surprised at eating fish during
a vegan fast!
The general rule is not to eat fish during the fasts.
However, since there are so many fasts in the Coptic Church,
around two hundred days in the year, which means more than
half a year in fasting, the eating of fish during certain fasts,
which are of the minor order, is permitted as a way of reducing
the lengthy period of the fast for the people.
But eating fish is not allowed during major fasts or on
Wednesdays and Fridays because these are counted among
the major fasts.
The most important of these major fasts is the period of the
forty holy days which the Lord fasted, and Pascha Week, the
week of His suffering. On Wednesdays we remember how He
was betrayed and plotted against, and on Fridays we recall His
crucifixion.
People can eat meat all the days of the week, except
Wednesdays and Fridays. So if they were to eat fish on those
days, the result would be the consumption of fish foods every
day of the week, since fish is included in this category! And it
wouldn't be right to make things that easy.
It wouldn't be very logical either, if we were to remember
Christ's betrayal and crucifixion by eating fish! We'd be letting
ourselves off rather lightly! This remembrance demands a
greater degree of renunciation and devotion than that.
On another occasion some asked whether fish could he eaten
on the Day of Our Lady, the festival of the Annunciation,
which is one of the Lord's festivals. The Day of Our Lady is
of course the 29th Baramhat (the seventh Coptic month), and
always comes during the lent. So the answer to this question is
that the lent takes precedence and shouldn't be broken under
any circumstances, even on account of the Annunciation,
because it is still part of the Lord's fast.
To break the fast on this occasion would show a lack of self-
control. How could anyone fast for more than a month of the
lent and then let himself be tempted by a piece of fish during the
fast on the Day of Annunciation? What would that say about
one's efforts towards trying to rise above the level of material
things and not indulge oneself in scrumptious foods?!
Question
When the Lord rose to heaven, did He break the law of the
earth's gravity?
Answer:
To answer this question let us recall two points which are:
1. That God set down the laws of Nature, in the first
place, so that Nature would submit to him, and not He to
them.
2. That material or physical things on earth submit to
the law of gravity, whereas the Lord Christ, when He
ascended, did not do so in a physical body or an earthly
one, which would have been subject to the laws of gravity.
The Lord's body of the Resurrection and the Ascension was a
glorious body, a spiritual and heavenly one. If we too are to
rise with such bodies, according to what it says in 1 Corinthians
15:43-50, it goes without saying that our Lord would have such
a body, and an even better one. And we are told that Christ,
"will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like His
glorious body. " (Phil. 3:21)
This glorious body, in which our Lord rose from the dead and
ascended, was therefore not subject to the earthly laws of
gravity. And this brings us face to face with an important
question:
Was there, then, nothing miraculous in His ascension?
Of course it was a miracle. But it wasn't contrary to the earth's
law of gravity.
The miracle was in the transformation of the physical body
into a spiritual, heavenly body that could rise up.
So the Ascension was not something contrary to Nature, but
rather an elevation of the natural state of Christ's body which
rose to heaven. It was a kind of manifestation of this nature.
And just as the Lord granted us to be in His form and likeness
when He created us (Gen. 1:26-27), so shall we also be in His
form and likeness at the Resurrection and Ascension.
This will all happen to us when we are glorified with Him
and rise with Him in glory.
When we rise in power and glory, those living on earth at the
time of the Resurrection will be changed: " in a flash, in the
twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will
sound, the dead will be raised incorruptible." (1 Cor. 15:52-
53) " Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up
together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
And thus we shall always be with the Lord." (1 Thess. 4:17)
Question
Why did Christ have to die on the cross and not some other
way?
Answer:
Death on the cross was considered shameful, so the Lord chose
the kind of death that was the most shameful and most horrible
at that time. This is why Paul says in Hebrews 12:2 that the
Lord, "endured the cross, scorning its shame. " So there was
humiliation on the cross, and because of this Paul said: "Let us
go forth to Him, outside the camp, bearing His reproach. "
(Heb. 13.13), for the cross was considered a disgrace.
In the Old Testament, the cross was considered a curse, and it
was said that whoever was hung upon a cross was accursed.
The Lord intended by His crucifixion to bear all the curses
which could fall on mankind, which the Law indicated (Deut.
28), so that He could give us a blessing, and so that there
should be no more curses in the future.
The cross was considered "foolishness" by the Jews (1 Cor.
1:18), so Christ chose this disgrace and changed the cross into a
sign of strength.
Crucifixion on the cross was also one of the most painful ways
to die, since it tore the tissues of the body in a most
excruciating way, besides draining the body of its fluids through
bleeding. So by His crucifixion Christ suffered the worst pains
that mankind could ever be crushed by.
Crucifixion was a manner of death in which the person who was
to die was literally raised above the earth, so Jesus could say
that after He had been 'raised' above the earth He would draw
all men to Himself. Just as the Lord Christ was raised on the
cross, so was He raised in glory in His ascension. By His
crucifixion He has also raised us with Him, from the level of
dust and earth.
In His death Christ stretched out His arms to all mankind, in a
gesture of His acceptance. of all people.
Question
I read this question in a book: Was what happened on the
cross the reconciliation of God's justice with His mercy?
Answer:
There has never been any conflict between God's justice
and His mercy, because there cannot be any contradiction
between the qualities of God. God is merciful in His justice
and just in His mercy.
The justice of God is full of mercy. The mercy of God is full of
justice. We can say that God's justice is a merciful justice and
that His mercy is a just mercy. We cannot separate at all God's
mercy from His justice.
When we speak on one occasion of justice, and on another
of mercy, we are not talking of two different things but of
varying aspects of the same thing.
Meimar al-Abd al-Maimluk (a special reading during the Good
Friday) imagined a dispute and an argument between God's
justice and mercy, which is a kind of theological debate, but it is
not correct from the theological point of view, and there have
been many objections to it. For naturally such a disagreement
never took place. The author of the Meimar, however, wanted
to point out the details of the subject in the form of a
discussion. This is a style that sometimes makes for interesting
reading, but it is not a theologically accurate one.
On the cross, however, as the psalm tells us, justice and
mercy join together, or mercy and truth join together (not
that they are reconciled!).
The word 'reconciliation' implies the existence of an opposition,
and heaven forbid that there should ever be or have been,
anything so at odds among the attributes of God!
Even the expression 'join together' means a joining together
before us, in our presence, and is conditioned by our concept of
this process, while from the theological standpoint, mercy and
justice have been joined together in harmony right from eternity.
It is as we have said, that God's mercy is full of justice and His
justice is full of mercy.
It was on the cross that we saw this union between justice
and mercy and it is indeed a permanent union. But we,
being human beings, only perceived it when it was brought
to our attention on the cross. That was when we saw this
beautiful image, which gave to our human minds an
understanding that mercy and justice were combined. E
Question
Is it possible to be re-baptised? Is baptism ever done
twice?
Don't we say in the Creed, "We believe in one baptism for
the forgiveness of sins"? And doesn't the Bible say that
there is "one baptism" ? (Eph. 4.5).
Answer:
Yes, the Bible says that there is "one baptism", but please let us
read a bit more of the verse, which tells us that there is "one
faith" and "one baptism".
For wherever one faith exists, one baptism is found too.
Therefore we don't re-baptise a person who has been baptised in
a church which shares our Orthodox faith.
Also, baptism must be performed by a properly qualified priest
who has full priestly authority to carry out the holy sacrament
of baptism, and who believes totally in the effective action of
this sacrament.
For example, the churches which do not believe in the
sacrament of the priesthood and which do not have priests and
do not believe that baptism is a sacrament, do not share our
belief in the effectiveness of baptism, so we can't really accept
their baptism.
The same applies to churches which believe in the sacrament of
baptism and its effectiveness and in the sacrament of the
priesthood, but are closed to us according to anathemas set by
the Fathers.
These anathemas must be removed first, then their church
sacraments would be acceptable to us.
Question
The Lord Jesus Christ said to the Samaritan woman: " the
hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor
in Jerusalem, worship the Father." (John 4:21) Does this
sentence carry a prophecy about there being a specific third
place, besides these two, where God is to he worshipped,
because I have heard from some people that this is so?
Answer:
The Jews thought it right that God should be worshipped in the
Temple in Jerusalem, because this was the only holy place in
which sacrifices were offered. They didn't believe that other
people could have different holy places, and they applied that
especially to the Samaritans because of the enmity which existed
between them and the Jews.
The Samaritans however had their own holy mountain.
When the Lord Christ spoke these words to the Samaritan
woman, he was not alluding to a third place, and was not
defining an alternative spot either, but was referring to the
spread of the faith to the Gentiles.
That is, He was not singling out Jerusalem alone or Samaria as
being places of worship, but was saying that faith was for all
peoples and nations, and that worship could be performed in
any sacred place on earth, but "the true worshippers will
worship the Father in spirit and truth." (John 4:23)
The Lord Christ was not substituting one nation for
another, but was in fact opening the door to all.
If He had meant that there was a third place, then it would have
meant that the concept of God's 'chosen people' was to remain
(and just apply to the Jews), but that it simply moved from one
place to another, and that there was to be no general diffusion
of the religion. This, of course, would have been at odds with
what He said to His holy disciples: " Go into all the world and
preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15), and " Go
therefore and make disciples of all the nations, " (Matt. 28:19),
also, "you shall be My witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea
and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. " (Acts 1:8)
Yet the Lord Christ did not declare that Jerusalem was not to
be considered holy, nor did He substitute some other place for
it. The people of the whole world till this day go to Jerusalem
and worship there.
The true worshippers of God are those who worship Him in
spirit and in truth. And this was what Jesus meant by His words
to the Samaritan woman, who considered that the hostility
between the Jews and the Samaritans, and their different places
of worship, were a barrier to her faith.
The place where worship is performed is not the most
important thing, but what is important is that the person
worships in spirit and truth, wherever he may be.
The true worshippers are those who worship God in spirit and
truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks.
"God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship in
spirit and truth." (John 4:23-24).
So where is this 'third' place then? There is no indication,
or definition or prophecy concerning it. It is rather an
explanation of the true meaning of worship, and of not
restricting it to a particular location.
Question
I read in a newspaper that someone was saying that Satan
had been freed from his prison in 1967, and that we were
approaching the last day. What do you think?
Answer:
Why did the author of that article choose the year 1967 rather
than another?
What basis is there in the Bible to support that? Upon what
calculation was it made?
Many people in the past have defined dates for what they
believed would be the end of the world, and probably the
Jehovah's Witnesses have been most prominent in doing this.
They said that Christ would come to rule in 1914, but the date
came, and Christ didn't! The Seventh Day Adventists and the
Plymouth Brethren have also foretold the end of the world, and
have challenged the word of the Bible in a startling way
According to what Jesus Christ Himself said to His holy
disciples:
" It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father
has put in His own authority." (Acts 1:7)
According to St Paul: "Do not think of yourself more highly
than you ought. " (Rom. 12:3) So why do some people take it
upon themselves to decide things that are way above their level,
and beyond their human understanding? These things are under
the authority of the Father alone. But let us look now at what
will happen when Satan is freed from his prison. The Bible
says:
" Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be
released from his prison and will go out to deceive the
nations which are in the four corners of the earth, " (Rev.
20.7-8)
So, had a thousand years passed when we got to 1967? And if
so, from when and how did they calculate it?
Is Satan, therefore, now that we are some twenty odd years past
that date (1967), able to lead the nations astray?
The Lord said: " And unless those days were shortened, no
flesh would be saved; but for the elect's sake those days will be
shortened For false christs and false prophets will rise and
show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the
elect." (Matt. 24:22-24) Has any of that happened yet? For if
Satan had been set free from his prison, he would be trying
with all his might to bring this about, knowing that he would
have an easy time. (Rev. 20:3)
The choice of 1967, then, was not a very satisfactory one
after all!
In fact for us in Egypt, 1967 was rather a good year, for it was
in that year that the foundations were laid of the main cathedral,
which was opened the following year. And on 2nd April 1968,
St Mary appeared in Zeitun, and a great spiritual revival took
place as a result of this appearance and its miracles. Could all
this have happened if Satan had been released from his prison?
On the world stage, during these past few years, after which the
supposed prophecy claimed that Satan had been freed, we have
seen President Gorbachov begin a policy of freedom of
conscience, and the revival of the Church in Russia. America
and Russia have agreed on the elimination of medium-range
nuclear weapons, and the nations of the world are now moving
towards abolishing chemical weapons and other destructive
weapons. Could all of this be happening if Satan had been
released from his prison?
When Satan was free in olden times, he was able to bring
down all the nations of the world to worship idols, so that
paganism and primitive forms of worship were widespread.
Only the Jews remained worshipping God, and later they too
fell into paganism.
When Moses was detained on the holy mountain talking with God,
and the tribe of Israel worshipped the golden calf, who was
worshipping God then? There were only two people, Moses and
Joshua.
Those days when Satan is released from his prison to lead the
nations astray will be terrifying, unless God limits them, for
otherwise no one would saved.
We could hardly be living in those days now, with churches filled
with worshippers and hundreds and thousands of people receiving
Holy Communion in every church each week!
When Satan is released, false prophets and false Messiahs will
abound, according to what Christ said, and they will, " will rise and
show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the
elect. " (Matt. 24:24) So where are these people and their miracles
today?
There are many signs which will herald the last days, none of
which have yet taken place.
What about the 'Antichrist', who according to St Paul will oppose
and exalt himself over everything that is called God or is
worshipped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing
himself that he is God." (2 Thess. 2:4) and " The coming of the
lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power,
signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception
among those who perish, ..."? (2 Thess. 2:9)
And what about the apostasy of the world, which is supposed to
follow the coming of the Antichrist and his miracles?
What about the prophecies of Enoch and Elijah?
What about the faith of the Jews? (Rom. 11:26) And what about
the words; "And they will fall by the edge of the sword, … until the
times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. " (Luke 21:24), and " until the
fullness of the Gentiles has come in." (Rom. 11:25)?
The final signs will be the destruction of Nature.
The Lord said: "Immediately after the tribulation of those days
the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the
stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be
shaken.". (Matt. 24:29)
So, theological matters really call for humility of heart.
We cannot claim to know everything. If we are asked about
subjects like the date of Satan's release from his prison, and the end
of time, which we cannot answer, we should simply say without
embarrassment that we do not know, and not try to claim that we
do know, or think of ourselves more highly than we should!
The Bible says that Satan will he bound for a thousand years,
and that when that period has passed, he will he freed from his
prison. How, then, could that thousand years have been
completed by the year 1967, by any calculation, whether
literally or symbolically?
This is a very serious point: if an idea occurs to us, we shouldn't
just present it to people as doctrine! "He who has ears to hear, let
him hear!"(Matt. 13:9) E
Question
Who are the Seventh Day Adventists?
Answer :
The Adventists are a dangerous heretical sect which shares with
the Jehovah's Witnesses many serious errors. Among the most
well-known of their heretical beliefs are:
1. They believe that Christ is the angel Michael.
2. They believe that Christ was born in original sin.
3. They call the Holy Spirit, 'the vice-regent of the Lord's host'.
4. They believe that Saturday is the Lord's day, instead of Sunday.
5. They don't believe in the immortality of the soul.
6. They believe that Jesus will come three times in all.
7. They believe in an earthly kingdom and that heaven will not be for mankind.
8. They believe in the extinction of the wicked and not their torture.
9. They don't believe in the priesthood or intercession, or most of the other sacraments of the Church.
10. They have many other wrong beliefs which I will point out later, if God wills.
In addition to this, they have a Protestant origin, which means
they deny the passing on of tradition, and the reverence of the
saints, and do not use candles, incense or an altar, and do not
share our Church's rituals, and refuse the Church canons,
councils, the Fathers and the priesthood.
I am hoping that by God's grace I will be able to bring out a
book about them for you, in which I can repudiate their beliefs,
and especially what their leader, Alan White, has said in their
books.
Question
Some people say that incense was used to get rid of the
smell of blood during the sacrifices in the Old Testament, so
that when the blood sacrifices were abolished in the New
Testament, the use of incense was consequently abolished.
Is this true?
Answer:
This is not true. The offering of incense was something on
its own, which the priest could do without performing a
sacrifice.
When God struck the tribe of Israel with the plague, Moses
ordered Aaron, the chief priest, to raise the incense and to stand
between the living and the dead. And on account of the
offering of incense, God accepted their intercession and put an
end to the plague. (Num. 16..48) On this occasion no sacrifice
was made, and there was no smell of blood to be disguised.
Incense was just used alone.
There was also a separate altar called 'the altar of incense' (Ex.
30. 1), which Aaron lit each morning and evening so that there
would always be incense before the Lord, and this had no
connection with the sacrifices.
The incense was considered a sacrifice on its own. Thus the
place where it was offered was called 'the altar of incense'.
We read of the priest Zechariah when the angel announced to
him that Elizabeth would give birth to John the Baptist that:
"when Zechariah's division was on duty and he was serving as
priest before God, he was chosen by lot, according to the
custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and
burn incense. " (Luke 1:8) and "an angel of the Lord appeared
to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense." (Luke
1:11)
So incense on its own could constitute a sacrifice, and there
didn't have to be a blood sacrifice which would need to have its
smell taken away by any incense.
We observe the same in the New Testament in the Book of
Revelation.
There is an angel who offers a lot of incense with the prayers of
the saints: " Then another angel, having a golden censer, came
and stood at the altar. He was given much incense, that he
should offer it with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden
altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the
incense, with the prayers of the saints, ascended before God
from the angel's hand.. " (Rev. 8:3-4) There were no blood
sacrifices involved. There was also the incense offered by the
twenty four elders (Rev. 5:8). This was something independent,
and was not accompanied by any animal sacrifice, and this
remained in existence in the New Testament.
The raising of incense was not a ceremony only connected with
animal sacrifice and conditioned by it, but was a spiritual
activity, like the prayers of the saints, having an effectiveness all
on its own.
102
Question
Why do we light candles in church when there are electric
lights?
Answer:
Candles are naturally for giving light. They were used in the
past because they gave a soft, subdued light, and because this
light inspired humility and awe to a greater extent than brighter,
more glaring lights. This explains why we find churches which
are lit by candles alone are more awe-inspiring.
They are used nowadays, although we have electric lights, in
those special situations when we feel that the people need to
concentrate specifically on the light.
They are used, for example, during the reading of the gospel,
because we are seeking enlightenment from it, for the Bible
says: "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.
" (Ps. 119:105), and also; " The commandment of the LORD is
pure, enlightening the eyes;" (Ps. 19:8).
Candles are also placed before the icons of the saints, as an
indication that a particular saint was a light to the world, and
that like a candle he or she faded away in order to give light to
others. And since the candle requires oil to burn, and oil
symbolises the Holy Spirit, so the light of the candle suggests
that the saint was not himself giving out light, but this was
effected by the grace of the Holy Spirit within him.
We also light candles as a reminder of the presence of the
angels, who are also lights and a fire that burns'. And there are
two candlesticks which are placed on the altar as a reference to
the two angels who are mentioned in the story of the
Resurrection.
We light candles at particular moments during the divine Mass,
especially during the prayers for sanctifying the sacraments, as a
reminder of the presence of God Himself, who is the "True
Light "who has come into the world to give light to all people.
His advent meant the coming of light to the world.
When the deacons hold the candles in their hands, they are
suggesting that the ministers of the church are bearing light to
the world for divine guidance. They are to be seen as the
torchbearers giving light just as the angels of God give light in
heaven.
Candles in general suggest light, and suggest the life of devotion
that God wants for mankind. The Bible likens goodness to
light, and evil to darkness. The righteous are called the
'children of light', and the wicked the 'sons of darkness'. The
Lord said: " Walk while you have the light, lest
darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not
know where he is going." (John 12:35)
Light also indicates the transfiguration of the righteous as
happened to Moses and Elijah on Mount Tabor and suggests
the luminous bodies in which we will be raised in eternity.
The deacons carrying the candles behind the priest, or around
him, remind us of the five wise maidens who carried their lamps
with enough oil, as a reminder that we should always be
prepared.
I wish that I could give you a whole book about the function of
candles and lamps in church, as a subject on its own, and not
just an answer to one question.
Question
What proof is there that the Lord rose and is seated at the
right hand of the Father, and where is this miracle
mentioned?
Answer:
This miracle first comes in the gospel of St Mark.
It says at the end of it: "After the Lord had spoken to them, He
was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of
God." (Mark 16:19)
It also comes in the Book of Acts, in more than one place.
For example, after the Lord's last meeting with His disciples,
when He said to them: " you shall receive power when the Holy
Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me... "
and " Now when He had spoken these things, while they
watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of
their sight " And following this, two angels said to them: " This
same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so
106
come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."(Acts
1:8,9 & 11)
It also comes in the vision of St. Stephen the deacon, when
he was being stoned: "Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked
up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at
the right hand of God. 'Look he said, 'I see heaven open and
the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God." (Acts 7:55-
56)
There are many references to be found in the Book of
Hebrews too. For example it says of Christ that: "After He had
provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of
the Majesty on high," (Heb. 1:3).
And when St Paul was speaking about the Lord as the high
priest, he said: "The point of what we are saying is this: We do
have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the
throne of Majesty in heaven" (Acts 8:1).
And at the end of this epistle he said: " looking unto Jesus, the
author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set
before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat
down at the right hand of the throne of God." (Heb. 12:2)
The prophecy for this comes in the Psalms, where David
was speaking in the Holy Spirit:
"The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make
Your enemies Your footstool. " (Ps. 110:1)
107
The Lord's sitting at the right hand of God is something which I
have dealt with elsewhere, in the first volume of this series.
108
Question
If someone has sinned, should he atone for it by doing a
good deed or by almsgiving?
Answer:
The Bible says: "the wages of sin is death " (Rom. 6:23).
There is no escape from this death sentence, except through
Christ's death on our behalf; for He is the only atonement
for our sins. (Rom. 3:24-5; 1 John 2:2, 4:10)
Only a person who believes in this blood and this atonement is
worthy to receive it (John 3:16), providing he is repentant, and
has received the grace of baptism (Acts 2:38; Luke 13:3,5).
A person is not saved by his acts alone (without faith), whatever
good deeds he might have done. The Bible says about the
redemption given by Christ, "Salvation is found in no-one else"
(Acts:4.12).
109
As far as the action of mercy or almsgiving is concerned, it is
that which moves the heart of God to pity, for the Lord Christ
said: " Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy "
(Matt. 5:7) But the action of mercy without repentance and
without faith, cannot save anyone. On account of mercy,
however, God's grace can kindle a person's heart and call him to
repentance, and if he repents he will be worthy of the blood of
Christ and his sins will be forgiven.
Question
The making of the Chrism, the Holy Myron used in
baptism and consecration, was sometimes carried out in the
sixth week of the Lent and sometimes in the Pascha
(passion week). Which of them is more suitable?
Answer:
In actual fact, it is better not to make the Holy Myron
during the Pascha days.
This is because the readings for preparing the unction are
different from those for Holy Week, and their times are different
too. Also the days of Passion Week are totally taken up with
remembering the sufferings of Christ. So how can we properly
divert our attention during this time to making the Holy Myron?
These are also days of sorrow, while the making of the Myron
requires more of a festival spirit, for which the piety of fasting,
rather than the sadness of the Passion, is more appropriate. The
original method dating from the time of St Athanasius was not
to make it during the Holy Pascha.
Question
For a long time the making of the Holy Myron used to be
carried out in one of the monasteries, and then it was
transferred to the Patriarchate, where it remained for some
time. Why was this? And why did it then go back to being
made in the monasteries?
Answer:
A monastery is a very appropriate place for making the Holy
Myron, firstly because it is a Holy place, and secondly, because
it is far away from the noise and bustle of the city. So why did
we take it to the Patriarchate in Cairo at all?
Well, that happened not because of a particular theological or
ecclesiastical reason, but rather because of the problem of
transport.
In the past, people had to reach the monasteries by camel,
because there weren't any asphalt roads, as there are nowadays,
on which their carts or vehicles could pass easily along the way
and reach the monastery as easily and quickly as we can today.
The way across the desert sand by camel was hard, and took a
long time. Just imagine what it must have been like for the rider
on his camel, with the precious Holy Oil and the pre-baptismal
or Ghalilaun shaking about in large glass containers with every
step of the camel, and in constant danger of getting broken, and
being spilt all over the place - and all this on a journey that
lasted a long time!
It actually happened on one occasion that a huge container of
oil was broken, but fortunately it was only one of Ghalilaun *
and not the holy chrism. The Pope at that time was very upset
by this and decided to make the Holy Oil in Cairo, and that is
where it continued to be made from the time of the 89th Pope
until recently.
Now circumstances have changed however, and the original
difficulties of transportation which called for that change in the
first place no longer exist, and there isn't the danger of large
glass containers being broken, or their contents being spilt,
because in fact plastic containers are now used to bottle the
Holy Oil.
Therefore the making of the Holy Oil returned to the
monasteries as before.
___________________________________________________
· for an explanation of this term see the following section
Question
We have heard that on Thursday 16 of April 1971, two
kinds of Holy oil were consecrated one being the Myron
and the other was Ghalilaun. What is the Ghalilaun?
What is it used for? How is it made, and what does it mean
to consecrate it?
Answer:
The word Ghalilaun which we use for this second kind of oil,
comes from two Greek words joined together which mean 'oil
of joy' or 'oil of happiness' or 'oil of rejoicing'.
This is the oil with which the person is anointed before his
baptism, in the ritual of repudiating Satan, and its function is to
ward off any bad spirits that might want to lead astray the one
being anointed, or which might try to obstruct his faith, or plant
blasphemous thoughts in his mind when he is an adult.
When the priest anoints the one being baptised with this type of
oil, he says: 'I anoint you with the oil of joy... which was planted
in the sweet olive tree before your baptism'.
In the past, the Church used to anoint those who were coming
new to the faith, with this oil, to prepare them for seeking
enlightenment and the sacrament of baptism. This is why it
used to be called the oil of anointing and preparation.
The composition of the Ghalilaun is made up of three elements:
a ) pure olive oil.
b ) a number of drops from the sacred olive oil and our present
stock contains the products of 23 batches of the holy
chrism.
c ) the ferment from the old Ghalilaun, which is formed in the
bowl of the Ghalilaun by the boiling of the drops of chrism
with the olive oil.
The special prayer which is said over the Ghalilaun to
consecrate it is recited after a prayer for the chrism, and both
His Holiness and the bishops take part in this. Then the Pope
makes the sign of the cross over the Ghalilaun just as he has
previously done over the holy chrism.
In the past, this oil - the oil of joy - was used to anoint kings
and priests. It was formerly used to anoint, according to what
the Lord commanded Moses, was composed of some of the
constituents of the chrism, as it says in Exodus 30, though of
course the chrism, now, is different, because spices, and grains
from the embalming that was on the body of Christ, have since
been added to it. These things were obviously not available in
the Old Testament times, and it is in this respect that the chrism
differs from the Ghalilaun.
Question
In some churches the plate containing the offertory bread is
placed inside the sanctuary on a shelf or chair, and
sometimes it is put on the altar after the Mass until the end
of the prayer of blessing. Is this right?
Answer:
The only kind of bread that is permitted to enter the sanctuary
is the Host which is the offering of bread which the priest prays
over in the Mass to consecrate it in order to transubstantiate it
for the believers to receive in the Communion.
If any other offering of bread should enter the sanctuary, that is
a clear mistake. Or to put it more precisely, it is an even greater
mistake if the plate of this unconsecrated bread is placed on the
altar. The laws of the Church have defined what may be placed
on the altar, since it is not an ordinary table !
The plate of the unconsecrated bread is to be placed outside the
sanctuary, in a suitable place, since the sign of the cross is to be
made over it outside the sanctuary. Then one is chosen to be
consecrated, outside the sanctuary before the offertory is being
presented.
Question
Some people take and eat the ordinary bread, which is to
be given after the Mass, when they arrive at church, and
eat it, or let their children actually eat it in the church
during the service. Is this permitted? Or should we only
take it on leaving the church after the end of the Mass?
Answer:
The correct thing to do is to take the bread as you depart from
the church after the end of the Mass, and after you have heard
the blessing and the dismissal.
Originally this custom arose because the people came to church
fasting, and attended the Mass fasting, and so on their
departure, the Church gave them the bread of blessing.
In olden times the churches used to hold an ' agape' or love
meal, in which the people used to have their breakfast together,
after they had left the church. There was a special or private
room for this, and the more wealthy believers would take turns
in providing such a meal, in the name of the Church. But this
custom gradually died out, except for being held on a few
special occasions. Finally, it was thought sufficient that the
believer should be given a piece of bread on leaving the church,
so that all could be said to have eaten from one meal - which
was the bread.
But to distribute this bread before people enter the church
doesn't make sense, and has no purpose from the pastoral point
of view. It also gives some of the children the opportunity to
eat it during the service, a thing which forbids them to take
Communion!
Question
Is it permitted for the deacons to break and distribute the
portions of the bread of blessing (ie. the bread given to
people after the Mass), to the people in the church, as
happens in our Church ?
And is it permitted for this to take place while the priest is
distributing the holy sacraments, in order to save time so
that the people can leave more quickly?
Answer:
Only the priest is supposed to give out the portions of the bread
of blessing (the Eulogia) to the congregation when they leave
the church after the end of the Mass and following the recitation
of the final blessing.
When the believers receive this Eulogia from the hand which
was only minutes before, touching he body of Christ, it has a
better effect on their hearts and they can feel conscious in taking
a blessing from the hand of the Father, from the hand of the
priest of God.
Also, when the priest distributes the Eulogia, it gives him a
chance to see who has attended the service, and who has not, so
that he can ask after them and perhaps pay them a visit.
Sometimes it provides him with an opportunity to say a few
words to various people, and for them to speak to him. These
moments could be used for any useful purpose, offering the
chance for him to congratulate, to give his condolences, to
encourage, to pray for someone, to arrange an appointment
with someone to pray about something, or arrange a visit.
It is also an opportunity for the people to receive the blessing of
the priest and to say hello to him before they leave the church.
The wholly consecrated deacon, however, is one of them, one
of the clergy after all, but generally speaking, it is rare
nowadays to find such deacons who are entitled to wear clerical
dress, and who have devoted themselves completely to the
ministry. Most of the deacons in the church are only less in
rank :-aghnastus (reader) or Epideacon (assisting deacon).
But as far as distributing this Eulogia during the sharing of the
holy sacraments is concerned, this is something definitely
unsuitable, for it would mean that attention was being diverted
from the divine mysteries to something else, when the only thing
that should be going on at that time is a hymn of praise.
The expression you mentioned, to 'save time' is an unacceptable
excuse because this is essentially a spiritual situation, which is
important, and demands attention. Time, however, can be
recouped in other ways. It isn't right for us to do wrong from
the spiritual point of view on the flimsy pretext of 'saving time'!
This is like someone who leaves church during the service, and
even during its holy moments, to 'save time'!!
Question
Is it right for a deacon, who is wearing his tunic to attend
the Mass, but not take Communion - on the excuse that he
has been serving outside the sanctuary?
Is it allowed for the church reciter, the one who leads the
deacons in singing, to serve and not take Communion?
Answer:
If a deacon does not take Communion, he is not supposed to
wear the tunic, because it is a special garment for serving at the
altar. So the deacon is not allowed to serve at the altar and not
take Communion.
From the point of view of taking Communion, there exists no
difference in the Church's rituals between a deacon who serves
outside the sanctuary or inside it. They are all deacons and are
supposed to be prepared to receive Communion, otherwise they
would be a bad example to the people.
The only reasons for not taking Communion are: not having
fasted, not having repented, or not being spiritually prepared, all
of which also prevent one from serving as a deacon. So
anything that disqualifies one from taking Communion also
disqualifies one from serving as a deacon.
The whole congregation is supposed to come to church in a
state of fasting, and spiritual preparation, because as the Reciter
says in the Psalm: "Holiness adorns Your house, O LORD .
"(Ps. 93:5)
In the past, all those who attended the Holy Mass, the Mass of
the Saints, had prepared themselves to partake so there is all the
more reason now for the deacons to attend and to wear their
tunics!
For a deacon to attend just to sing the chants and then leave,
this is something not permitted according to Church rules. If he
doesn't wish to receive Communion, or is not prepared to do so,
then the priest ought not to sign the cross over his tunic.
Question
I received the following question from America: If there is a
large number of people taking Communion, can a deacon
help the priest by taking the chalice?
Answer:
If there is another priest in the church, then he is the one who
should help with the Communion, and the deacon, in this
situation, is not allowed to take the chalice since there is no
pressing need for him to do so.
But if there is only one priest, then there exists a basic condition
in which the deacon could perform this task and is permitted to
do so, if in the circumstances the serving priest is unable to give
Communion to all the people. This condition stipulates that:
The deacon should be wholly consecrated in order to be
able to assist the priest, by virtue of his rank, and to be
completely devoted to the Church's ministry, and wear
clerical dress.
He must be someone who doesn't have an ordinary job, or wear
ordinary clothes outside the church, and he must be
recognisable to the people as someone who has consecrated
himself to the religious ministry. According to Church rules
any bishop, priest or wholly consecrated deacon who involves
himself in an outside job (that is, works outside the Church)
should be cut off.
If the wholly consecrated deacon takes the chalice in a situation
where there isn't another participating priest then he will not be
offending the people at all.
It is not permitted, however, for deacons of any lesser rank to
do so. This is because serving at the altar and receiving the
holy sacraments, is not something everyone can do, but is only
for those who have devoted themselves to the ministry, and
each one should only undertake the duties appropriate to his
rank.
Question
Is it right that a deacon who has departed is taken round
the church in a procession, after his body has been prayed
over, because when he was confirmed as a deacon, he had
the bishop's hand laid upon him?
Answer:
It is well known that the priests are taken in procession (after
they depart), around the altar which they have served, and to
which they have dedicated their lives. But as far as a deacon is
concerned, if he is a wholly consecrated deacon who has
dedicated himself to the ministry, who has no other job apart
from being a full deacon and who has been blessed by the
bishop laying his hand upon him and who is entitled to wear
clerical dress, then it is quite all right for his body to be taken in
procession around the church, in view of the fact that he has
devoted himself to its ministry.
But the lower ranks of deacon, from Chanter to Sub-deacon
who have not received the hand of ordination upon them are not
entitled to this procession, because they have not devoted
themselves entirely to serving the altar.
Question
Is it permitted for a sermon to be delivered during the
distribution of Communion, when the believers are actually
receiving the holy mysteries?
Answer:
No. It is something that is not allowed, because it would
mean a lack of respect for these sacred moments and would
cause a distraction from the sacraments.
While Communion is taking place, the only other appropriate
activity to be going on is the singing of chants or hymns of
praise. So the Church should apply itself, at that point, to
praising God for the blessings which He has poured out on us
so lavishly, in permitting us to partake of His holy body and
blood.
If we were to be distracted from the word of God by the words
of other people, then this would be neither permissible nor
appropriate, because we would be neglecting the great.
sacrament present on the altar, and would be giving our
thoughts and feelings to the subject of the sermon.
Let us not forget that people usually listen to the sermon when
they are sitting down, whereas during Communion it is not
suitable for people to be seated.
Question
Is it possible to get married on the Sunday preceding.lent?
Answer:
The Patriarchate issued an instruction some years ago to all
its churches to forbid marriages on the Sunday before Lent
and the reason for this is that it would be likely to cause a
breaking of the fast.
One could hardly expect the bridal couple to fast, either on the
morning of their marriage, from the point of view of taking no
food, or from the abstention from marital relations for 55 days
straight after the marriage (this being the period of the Great
Fast).
The Bible says: " Can the friends of the bridegroom mourn as
long as the bridegroom is with them? (Matt. 9:15)
If we were to allow couples to get married on the Sunday
before Lent, we would be implicitly permitting them to
break the fast, which would not be right.
This same situation would apply to any period of fasting,
which is why it is necessary for marriage to be prohibited at
such times.
Question
Why aren't women permitted to enter the sanctuary?
What difference is there between men and women in this
respect?
Answer:
Basically, the only people allowed to enter the sanctuary are
those who serve at the altar, and by them we mean the men
of the priesthood and the deacons and no-one else.
Those who are not priests or deacons are not permitted to go
into the area around the altar and it makes no difference
whether they are men or women.
In some ancient churches, we have seen that they have an
aperture in the veil of the sanctuary through which the believers
receive the holy mysteries while they stand well outside the
sanctuary area.
The reason that the sanctuary is raised up from floor level by
three steps is because it is a symbol of the three degrees of
priesthood by which those who minister at the altar ascend to
the sanctuary.
Since women in the Coptic Church are not part of the
clergy, they are not allowed to enter the sanctuary.
Thus there is no difference between men and women. One and
the same rule applies to them both about their not being allowed
to enter the sanctuary.
Question
Is it allowed for a woman while menstruating to receive
Communion, and if not, why not? Because after all, this is
something natural which she can't help.
And if she just sits down at home, is she allowed to worship
privately, to pray and read the Bible etc.?
Answer:
At home she can worship God however she likes at this time of
the month, but if she takes Communion in church, or outside it,
this is absolutely not allowed.
A person is not permitted to receive Communion if blood is
flowing from his body, and this applies to both sexes, and it
also applies to any secretion of a sexual nature: this is clear
from the Bible.
There are many Biblical texts and many Church regulations
which confirm this point and have made it clear for people to
understand.
But someone might plead that it isn't fair on women, since
nothing comparable applies to men. For when men have wet
dreams or if any discharge comes from their bodies, they can
still enter Church and no-one is likely to prevent them, and no
rules can be enforced against them. So why should this happen
to women?
Perhaps someone might ask that there are some men who aren't
deacons but who nevertheless enter the sanctuary and take
Communion. How is that so?
In actual fact, this was only ever permitted to the king who had
been crowned in the Orthodox manner, and had been anointed
with the holy oil in view of the fact that he was the Lord's
anointed.
As for other people entering, perhaps they have another reason
for doing so which could be one of the following:
Many of the men who do this have actually been admitted to
one of the lower degrees of deacon, but might not be wearing
their proper deacon's dress at the time that they enter the
sanctuary, as they should, and this is a mistake which the
Church is trying to remedy, by forbidding all deacons from
entering the sanctuary, even those decreed to be at one of the
lower levels, but who don't happen to be serving or wearing
their tunics on that day.
But there is also another mistake which I have observed which
has been necessitated really by a professional situation which is
that some men, such as builders, engineers or decorators might
need to enter the sanctuary during the course of their work, but
this obviously wouldn't be during a service. In a similar way, it
might be necessary at times for painters, television or radio men
to enter the sanctuary.
The answer is that the most the man is permitted to do is to
enter the church after having cleansed himself bodily, but he is
not allowed to receive Communion.
There is a basic difference though between the kind of discharge
coming from the man and the woman, which is that: the man's is
incidental and temporary, whereas the woman's continues for
several days. The following point, however, would make them
both equal and that is if the man's discharge were continuous, he
would also be forbidden to take the communion in exactly the
same way.
But there remains the point that it is not the woman's fault, that
it is something natural which she can't help.
No, it's nobody's fault: there is nothing wrong in it, and no-
one is being blamed but God just wants to always remind
us of the first sin of mankind.
If we are mindful of that first sin, we are more likely to value
the ransom paid out for us.
The wages of sin is death, and even though Christ died for us,
He still left us with a mark to remember this by, which is for
men, that "By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food"
and for women, that "with pain you will give birth to children.
" (Gen. 3:19,18)
In the case of pregnancy, the woman's menstruation stops, and
she is reminded of Eve's original sin by the pains of pregnancy,
birth and delivery, and outside the period of pregnancy she
recalls her sin at the time of menstruation and this makes her
realise how much her sins forbid her from receiving holy
blessings, not only those which are associated with Communion
and the Church.
Men, on the other hand, are reminded of their first sin because
they are supposed to labour throughout their lives on account of
earning their daily bread. The remembrance of this is the aim,
though the means might vary enormously.
It would be better for us to try and derive spiritual benefit from
thinking more deeply about the meaning of these things rather
than complaining about them.
Question
Why do we beatify our Lady, St. Mary? Is it because of
her motherhood virginity or faith?
I heard one of the Plymouth Brethren say that we should
not beatify the Virgin Mary, either as a mother or as a
virgin, since physical motherhood was not the kind of
motherhood that the Lord honoured! And that person also
said that God didn't attach particular importance from the
spiritual point of view, to natural family relationships or
physical kinship, and that the only reason for us to beatify
St. Mary would be for her faith. What is the Orthodox view
on these matters?
Answer:
We beatify St. Mary for all these things: for being the
mother of our Lord, for her virginity and faith, and for her
holy life. We beatify her for all these things together, but
especially because she was the mother of God. For she was
singled out from among all the women in the world for this
purpose.
We can say to her the words of the proverb: "Many daughters
have done well, But you excel them all. " (Prov. 31:29)
In fact St. Elizabeth said to Virgin Mary: "Blessed is she who
believed, for there will be a fulfillment of those things which
were told her from the Lord."(Luke 1:45) And what Mary
believed would be accomplished was that she would become the
Mother of God. Elizabeth did not restrict Mary's beatification
just to her having this faith, but had previously said: " But why
is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come
to me?" (Luke 1:43). And in praising St. Mary she added:
"Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you
will bear!" (Luke 1:43)
All these things focus on St Mary being the Mother of God, and
we cannot just take one phrase of Elizabeth's glorification of St
Mary and leave out all the other references which go to provide
a complete picture.
I would like to say that St Mary being a virgin and the
Mother of God were two qualities which she possessed
which were connected with the subject of salvation itself.
Salvation could not have come about without the incarnation
and the incarnation meant that the Lord was born of a woman,
from a human being, with the same nature that we possess, and
by this it became possible for Him to act on our behalf. This is
why the Lord Jesus Christ insisted on calling Himself the 'Son
of Man', because it was in this capacity that He redeemed
mankind. The only way that He could become a son of Man
was through being born of St Mary.
Thus St Mary's special title of 'Mother of God' is a title
that is connected with the redemption or the salvation,
because this would not have come about if it hadn't been
for the incarnation.
Does St Mary's virginity also have a connection with the subject
of salvation?
Yes, of course, because Christ could not have been born as a
result of normal human seed of man and woman, for this would
have made Him an ordinary human being!
He had to be born of a virgin by some unusual method, through
the Holy Spirit. He already had a Father, who was God, and
thus He was not born in the state of original sin. And because
He was holy, He was able to ransom sinners.
Why then should we not beatify the Virgin Mary for being
a Virgin and the Mother of God when these two attributes
were so necessary for our salvation?
In any case, would a person, whatever his Christian
denomination, gain anything from not beatifying the Virgin
Mary for being a virgin and the Mother of God? St. Paul
praised virginity and said that it was a preferable state to
marriage if the individual could manage it. (See 1 Cor. 7)
Therefore, when St. Mary said: "From now on all
generations will call me blessed" she did not mean that her
faith would be the cause of her beatification, but that it was
because, " For He who is mighty has done great things for
me, and holy is His name. " (Luke 1:48-49)
Naturally this glorification was the ability to give birth, even
though she was a virgin, to bear the Lord Himself. What glory
could be greater than this?
Any woman can have faith. But it is not every woman who can
bear a child whilst still a virgin and bear the child who was to be
the Lord Himself!
So if the beatification of St Mary is confined to her faith
alone, it would be to make her like other devout women,
without being different from them at all, which is the
familiar Protestant standpoint.
As far as God's not attaching particular spiritual
importance to family relationships of physical kinship is
concerned, that is not technically correct from what the
Bible teaches.
Sufficient proof of this is that God put honouring one's parents
as the top priority regarding the commandments pertaining to
relationships between people. (Deut. 5:16)
St. Paul also stressed this commandment to honour your father
and mother," which is the first commandment with promise:"
(Eph. 6:2)
In the Old Testament, death was the penalty for cursing one's
father or mother (Matt. 15:4), and in the New Testament, it
says: " if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially
for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse
than an unbeliever " (1 Tim. 5:8). And the Lord Jesus Christ
rebuked the Scribes and the Pharisees for not teaching the need
to respect one's parents, on the pretext that anything that they
might have given to their parents they were giving to God
instead. (Matt. 15:5)
Something which perhaps gives a good indication of
Christ's concern for His mother is that He singled her out
when He was on the cross, with two out of the seven
phrases that He said, and put her in the care of His beloved
disciple. (John 19:26-27)
There are countless examples of the Lord's concern for family
relationships.
To say that God attaches little spiritual importance to natural
family bonds and ties of kinship would be to demolish the family
and with it, the basis of society, which is something that would
not agree with the teaching of the Bible, either in the Old
Testament or the New. If someone does not respect his mother
and father, he would be hardly likely to show respect for anyone
else! They would be a disobedient and disrespectful son or
daughter. Under the law of Moses the person would have been
stoned and according to the New Testament he would not be
regarded as a believer.
Finally, Christ honoured Virgin Mary as a mother and as a
spiritual human being when He chose her for being the most
holy woman of all, to be a Mother to Him EEE
Question
One of the Plymouth Brethren said that the body of the
Virgin Mary was not different from that of any other
believer, and that her earthly body must have been
subjected to decay and decomposition. Also the writer
denies that Mary's body ascended. What is your view?
Answer:
The Virgin's body was distinct from any human's body,
and had its own special dignity, because it was the body in
which the Lord of Glory spent nine months, and which the
Holy Spirit sanctified with His coming upon it to place the
Lord within. (Luke 1:35)
Is it likely that God would then leave that special body to decay
and decompose, to be eaten by worms and rot without being
honoured or respected, when He is the one who has honoured
the bodies of so many of the saints?!
And would that body, which was the purest body that a human
being ever had, not receive a special honour after death from
the Lord?
Those who do not honour the Virgin Mary and who also do
not honour the rest of the saints are ignorant of what the
Lord said of His saints, that those who honoured them were
also honouring Him.
The body of the Virgin will not only be honoured after the
Resurrection, by being clothed in a glorious body, but has
already been honoured by the Lord after her death. The Lord in
a similar way, honoured the body of Moses before the
Resurrection, when He let it appear on the Mount of
Transfiguration. The question of the ascent of St. Mary's body
is one that history records, and which history cannot deny. It is
not just we who record it, but many other churches too.
Those who attack the Virgin gain nothing but actually lose
a blessing.
Question
I read that one of the Plymouth Brethren had made an
attack which was very insulting, upon the title given to the
Virgin Mary in the Agpia (the prayer book of the Coptic
Church), of the 'gateway to life' or the 'gateway to heaven'.
He based his argument on the fact that the Lord Christ is
the only gate that leads to life,, according to what the Lord
Christ said of Himself: "the gate for the sheep." (John 10:9-
10). How should one reply to this?
Answer:
Calling the Lord Christ a 'gate' has one meaning, and
calling St. Mary a 'gate' or 'gateway', has a different one.
The Lord Christ gave us many of His own titles which have
various meanings. For example He said: "you are the light of
the world " yet He also said of Himself: "I am the light of the
world " But He, of course, is the truest light of all, whilst the
light that we have, is derived from His. In the same way, the
146
Virgin being a 'gate' or 'gateway' does not prevent Christ's being
the 'gate' for the sheep.
The name 'gate' or 'gateway' has also been applied to the
Church, to prayer, to faith, to preaching the gospel and to
all spiritual means of reaching God.
None of this, however, has detracted anything from Christ or
His saving work. These titles, as we will see, are mentioned in
the Bible, so they accord with the biblical truth which they
defend.
The first church in the world to be consecrated was called
the 'gate of heaven'.
Jacob, the Patriarch, said of the place in which he saw a ladder
leading up to heaven from the earth: "How awesome is this
place! This is none other than the house of God; this is the
gate of heaven. " (Gen. 28:17), and he called that place 'Bethel'
which means 'house of God'.
Does the Church being the 'gate of heaven' prevent Christ from
also being a gate, ie. a way in, or a way leading to heaven?
The Church is a gate leading to Christ, and Christ is a gate
leading to salvation and to the Father. The name is the same
but the meaning is different.
The Virgin Mary, however, can also be regarded as a
gateway, because she connected Christ to us through the
body, and she was referred to as a 'gate' in the Book of
Ezekiel, where it says that the gate of the east has been
shut, and "It is to remain shut because the Lord, the God of
Israel, has entered through it. " (Ez. 44:3)
Prayer, too, has been called a gateway to heaven, because
heaven is opened by prayer.
The Virgin Mary is not merely a gateway to heaven, but is
in fact a kind of heaven herself.
Heaven is, after all, the dwelling place of God, and the Virgin
became a dwelling place for God when He grew within her
womb for nine months. Thus she became a 'heaven' for Him.
This is why the Church calls her the 'second heaven'. Because
the Church has become a house of God, it too can be likened to
heaven. Therefore we say in one of our prayers: When we
stand in your holy temple (ie. in church), we consider ourselves
to be standing in heaven.
The Bible mentions that there are gates which lead to heaven.
For example it says: " Blessed are those who do His
commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life,
and may enter through the gates into the city." (Rev. 22:14)
But does the existence of these gates prevent Christ from being
a gate too?
All spiritual means can be gateways, provided they connect
us to Christ, who is the only gate which leads to salvation
through His blood.
The Lord spoke of this matter when He said: "Because narrow
is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there
are few who find it." (Matt. 7:14)
Do the Lord's words about the narrow gate prevent Him
from being a gate too?
" The letter kills but the Spirit gives life. " (1 Cor. 3:6) We
must always remember to understand the words of the Lord,
and prayers of the Church, for their spiritual and not simply
their literal meaning, as "expressing spiritual truths in spiritual
words. " (2 Cor. 2:13)
Prayer and faith are both gates that can lead to God.
Saul and Barnabas came to Antioch and called together the
Church: " Now when they had come and gathered the church
together, they reported all that God had done with them, and
that He had opened the door of faith to the Gentiles. " (Acts
14:27) It was this 'door of faith' that was their means to
salvation, because it brought them into contact with Christ.
Preaching can also be a gateway leading to salvation,
because it leads to faith, and faith then leads to Christ.
It was probably this gate which the Lord had in mind when He
said to the angel of the church of Philadelphia "I know your
works. See, I have set before you an open door, and no one can
shut it; " (Rev. 3:8)
So if prayer, faith, preaching the gospel, the Church and the
Virgin Mary can all be gateways leading to Christ, then
"Blessed are those who... may go through the gates into the
city" which is of course, heaven. (Rev. 22:14)
The Virgin Mary was the gate through which Christ came
in order to save the world. Who was Christ?
1. Christ was the Messiah, and He was Life, according to what
He said of Himself: "I am the Resurrection and the life. " (John
11:25), and "I am the way, the truth and the life. " (John
14:6).
So we can see how St. Mary can be called a 'gateway to
life", by virtue of her being the very gate through which the
Messiah - who is life, came into the world.
2. Christ is also the Redeemer and 'our salvation'. We sing in
the psalm: "The Lord is my strength and my song; And He has
become my salvation. " (Ps. 118:14) So if Christ was and is a
'salvation' to the world, then there is nothing strange in our
calling the gateway through which He came, that is the Virgin
Mary the 'gate of salvation'!
Question
The Lord Christ said, "I am the true vine" (John 15:1), so
how can we say to the Virgin Mary in the prayers of the
Agpia, 'You are the true vine that carries the fruit of life'?
Are we to apply the same title to Mary as we do to Christ?
Answer:
When the Lord Jesus Christ says, "I am the true vine", it
has a different meaning from when we say that St Mary is a
'true vine'. The word 'vine' can also be applied to the
Church, to the people and to the individual human soul, as
the Bible itself makes clear.
The Bible gives the title of 'vine' to the Church and it says in the
psalm: " Return, we beseech You, O God of hosts; Look down
from heaven and see, And visit this vine " (Ps. 80:14), and we
use these words in the Church's hymns.
The Lord Himself gave this title to the Church when He
said: "In that day - 'Sing about a fruitful vineyard: I, the Lord,
watch over it; I water it continually. ' " (Is. 27:2) and also: "
And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge,
please, between Me and My vineyard. What more could have
been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why
then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it
bring forth wild grapes?" (Is. 5:3-4)
So we see here that the Lord gave the name of 'vine' even to
His people who had done wrong and borne bad fruit!
We also see Him referring to Israel as: " 'Your mother was like
a vine in your bloodline, Planted by the waters, Fruitful and
full of branches Because of many waters. But she was plucked
up in fury, She was cast down to the ground, And the east wind
dried her fruit. Her strong branches were broken and withered;
The fire consumed them." (Ezek. 19:10,12)
And in the Book of Joel He makes another reference to Israel
when He says: "He has laid waste My vines and ruined My fig-
trees. " (Joel 1:7)
When the Lord compared His people or the Church to a
vine He said: " There was a certain landowner who planted a
vineyard and set a hedge around it, dug a winepress in it and
built a tower. And he leased it to vinedressers and went into a
far country. " (Matt. 21:33)
Here the Lord likened the Church to a vine, and the
vinedressers to the Father, saying: "I am the true vine, and My
Father is the vinedresser. " (John 15:1) But of course when
the word vine is used of Christ it has a different meaning from
when it is used to refer to the Church.
The Bible even uses the word vine to refer to women, when
it says: "Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine In the very heart
of your house, Your children like olive plants All around your
table. " (Ps. 128:3)
So if the word 'vine' can be given to a woman or a wife, to the
people of God, even when they have gone astray, and can be
given to the Church as a whole, what is wrong with using it for
the Virgin Mary, whom we also call the 'second heaven'?
We see many cases where God's titles are actually used for
man and for nature.
The Lord said: "I am the light of the world" (John 8:12), and
said to His disciples: "You are the light of the world " thus
using the same name, though in both cases it means different
things, quite apart from the word 'light' when used to refer to
real, physical. "God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was
light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the
light from the darkness. " (Gen. 1:3)
And the word of God is also called a 'light': "Your word is a
lamp to my feet and a light to my path. " (Ps. 119:105)
Question
Is it right for us to refer to the Virgin Mary as 'the wall of
our salvation'?
One of the Plymouth Brethren has cast doubt about this
designation, which comes from the words of the prophet
Isaiah: "but you will call your walls Salvation " (Is. 60:18).
Did St Mary rise to the rank of being a 'salvation'?
Answer:
The Bible does not just consist of one verse but is a whole
book full of them.
Anyone who uses one verse to the exclusion of. the others
which relate to it, is not giving a true picture of what the Bible
is saying, nor is he giving the full meaning of Divine Inspiration.
The word "wall" in the Bible is used to mean protection.
Thus one of Nabal the Carmelite's servants said to Abigail: "
They were a wall to us both by night and day, all the time we
were with them keeping the sheep. " (1 Sam. 25:16), meaning
that they had protected and defended them.
It was in this sense that "the walls of Jerusalem" were looked to
for protection from one's enemies, and the phrase 'a city without
walls' came to mean one that was open to its enemies, without
any protection or defence.
But let us see whether God is the only one who has been
specially referred to as being a 'wall', or whether this word
has also been applied to human beings.
This title has in fact been used for certain people, perhaps the
best example we have is that of Jeremiah, of whom the word of
God said: " And I will make you to this people a fortified
bronze wall, " (Jer. 15:20)
If God Himself appointed this prophet to be a protector for the
people, to the extent that He called him a "wall" for them, and a
strong wall at that, then it is not contrary to faith for the Virgin
to be regarded as a wall, because she was in every way more
important than Jeremiah.
The Lord confirmed this purpose of His to Jeremiah himself
when He said to Him: " I have made you this day A fortified
city and an iron pillar, And bronze walls against the whole
land; Against the kings of Judah, Against its princes, Against
its priests, And against the people of the land. " (Jer. 1:18)
What an amazing thing it was, that Jeremiah be a wall to
all the land!
The bride in the Song of Songs is also referred to as a
'wall':
" I am a wall, And my breasts like towers; then I became in his
eyes as one who found peace." (Song 8:10) If we consider the
bride here to stand for the Church, then the Church can be
regarded as a wall for believers, to protect them from falling.
We have obtained salvation through the blood of Christ, and
what we have obtained and now have, requires prayers to
protect it and to be a wall surrounding it, so that we do not fall,
through lack of faith.
No prayers are more powerful than those of the Virgin Mary,
the Mother of God, the 'wall of our salvation'.
Question
I read a vehement criticism from one of the Plymouth
Brethren concerning reference to the Virgin Mary as a
'bride', in which it argued that the Church, and not the
Virgin, was the 'bride'. Please would you clarify this for us.
Answer:
It is true that the Church has been called the bride of
Christ, as John the Baptist put it, but all human souls have
also been called the 'brides' of the Lord.
From this whole number of brides the greatest bride was made,
and in the same situation and in the same sense, the Church has
been called the 'Virgin'. For example, see what St Paul says: "
For I am jealous for you with godly jealousy. For I have
betrothed you to one husband, that I may present you as a
chaste virgin to Christ. " (2 Cor. 11:2). Here the Church is the
Virgin, the bride of Christ, and at the same time the Bible
speaks of every living soul as a maiden in love, saying: "
Therefore the virgins love you" (Song 1:3)
Thus the fact that the Church is the bride of Christ does
not preclude each living soul from being a Virgin bride to
Christ, according to the Bible.
It was Christ Himself who gave us this teaching, when He said
that the kingdom of heaven was like the five wise virgins who
went out ready and prepared to meet the bridegroom, and so
were able to enter into the wedding feast with him.
Those wise virgins are a symbol for each bride of Christ.
The Bible does not say that only one chaste virgin was
betrothed to Christ, who waited for Him and entered into the
wedding feast to delight herself in Him as her husband, but it
uses the plural 'virgins' to stand for all human souls individually.
What is said of the Church here can apply to every person.
Every girl who dedicates herself to the Lord can call herself a
bride of Christ.
The same goes for every soul that loves Him, whether male or
female, they are also Christ's brides, and will wait to enter with
Him into the heavenly wedding feast. We cannot strike out any
soul from loving the Lord, and say that there can only be one
bride for Him which is the Church.
The Song of Songs gives us the best and clearest illustration
of this truth.
We cannot prevent anyone from meditating on the words of this
Song, nor say to them that it only symbolises the Church and
not individuals.
In actual fact, the Song of Songs contains expressions which
could not possibly be applied to the Church, but when used to
refer to human beings, and when seen in the context of personal
relationships, become entirely appropriate, such as the words of
the bride: "I slept but my heart is awake... my beloved had
turned away and was gone I sought him, but I could not find
him . " (Song 5:2,6) It would be difficult to describe the Church
as sleeping or refusing to open itself to the Lord, and the Lord
turning His back on her and leaving her, and then her searching
for Him and not finding Him, her calling for Him and His not
answering. These words are really only appropriate in the
context of personal human relationships, and in particular, for
people who are in a lowered or weak spiritual state.
The word 'bride' is familiar to us from the Song of Songs.
" How fair is your love, My sister, my spouse!.. Your lips, O my
spouse, Drip as the honeycomb;... A garden enclosed Is my
sister, my spouse, A spring shut up, A fountain sealed." (Song
4:10-12)
We observe how in these verses the word 'bride' is used
without any difference and to convey the same meaning.
The words of this Song could possibly refer in some places to
the Church, but in most cases it simply refers to the love
between human beings.
It is difficult for us to determine the exact meaning or
context of these words of the Bible.
It isn't easy for us just to draw a narrow circle around them and
say: " this particular passage only has one meaning," when if we
were to meditate upon it, we might find in it endless
possibilities.
As an example of this there are the seven letters to the seven
churches in the Book of Revelation, which are sometimes taken
to be letters to specific churches during the lifetime of St John,
and at other times are regarded as letters to any church at any
time, which might be passing through a similar experience, and
yet they can also be taken more personally, as letters addressed
to all individual believers.
The word of God is limitless, and David was right when he said:
" I have seen the consummation of all perfection, But Your
commandment is exceedingly broad." (Ps. 119:96)
If the word 'bride' can be applied to any human being then
why shouldn't it be even more appropriate to the Virgin?
Is there anything wrong with that, which should make a person
get zealously worked up to attack it? That writer you mention,
wastes his time writing about it, and other people's time in
having to refute it! And he also raises doubts in some people's
minds, when there are subjects from the Bible that are far more
essential, which need to be dealt with, either rejected or
defended, and especially when the whole Bible is accused of
being false or of distorting things!
Is this really so much of a problem that we need to ask
wether these words refer to a human being or to the
Church? Is not the human being in a sense, a Church also.
Doesn't the Bible say: " Do you not know that you are the
temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If
anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For
the temple of God is holy, which temple you are.. " (1 Cor.
3:16-17)
So a human being can be a small church, and from the totality
of these small churches the universal Church is made up. It is
the bride of Christ, and all these brides together form the largest
bride of all which is the Church, the body of Christ.
It is perfectly all right for us to address each and every pure
soul, and not only the Virgin Mary, with the words, 'You
have found favour, O bride'.
And what about St Mary highly favoured one!
Question
I read in a book by one of the Plymouth Brethren that the
Virgin Mary is a 'sister' to us! What is your opinion on this
phrase?
Answer:
The Brethren tend to use the word 'brother' to apply to
everybody, even the apostles and prophets, and while we are all
children of Adam and Eve, there are still differences between
us. Some are children, some are fathers and mothers, and the
Bible says: "Honour your father and your mother". (Ex. 20..12)
So we don't call our parents our brothers or sisters, even though
they, like us, are still children of Adam and Eve.
Just as physical sonship exists, so does spiritual.
See how St John the Beloved said: " My little children, these
things I write to you, so that you may not sin." (1 John 2:1)
Since we look to St John as a spiritual father to us, we can
hardly call him our 'brother'.
If St John as a father and apostle could say to us 'dear children',
what about the Virgin Mary then?
The Lord called her a mother to His disciple John, who was
himself a father to us, and so Mary has become through
this situation a mother to us all.
Would it then be courteous for anyone to call her a 'sister'?
If no-one could call their own real mother by the title of 'sister'
because the Bible instructs them to respect his mother then how
much more should they respect the Virgin and call her mother,
since she is the mother of all?
St Mary is not only a mother to us, but is also a mother to
the Lord Himself.
St Elizabeth, who was an old woman, old enough to be St.
Mary's mother, humbled herself before St. Mary and said to her:
"But why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord
should come to me?" (Luke 1:43) And it happened, when St
Elizabeth heard the greeting of St Mary, that the babe leaped in
her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. (Luke
1:41)
If St Mary was a mother to the Lord, and He submitted
obediently to her, as the Bible says (Luke 2:51), how can we
call her a 'sister'? After all there is something known as
priority
The Lord Christ called us His brothers, and said that He was the
first born among many brothers, and He addressed the two
Marys after the Resurrection, saying: " Do not be afraid. Go
and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see
Me " (Matt. 28:10), just as He also said: " For whoever does
the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and
mother. " (Matt. 12:50)
So according to this, are we entitled to call Christ our
'brother', or treat Him like a brother, or address Him like a
brother?
When speaking about St Mary, therefore, we must do so with
the proper respect due to her. After all the angel Gabriel spoke
to her with respect when he said: " Rejoice, highly favored
one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women! "
(Luke 1:28) And St Elizabeth addressed her with even more
reverence and humility when she said: "why am I so favoured,
that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"
So, when talking about St Mary we should do the same. Put
before you the words of the Bible:
" Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are
due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to
whom honor. " (Rom. 13:7)
That particular 'Brother' who regarded the Virgin Mary as a
sister of his - when she was and is in fact the mother of Christ -
is, if you think about it, actually putting himself in the position
of Christ's uncle! EEE
Question
Did the Virgin Mary know that Christ was the Son of God?
And if so, did she realise that before the birth after it or
because of Christ's miracles?
Answer:
St. Mary believed in Christ's divinity, and that He was God's
son, before His birth, right from the time of the Annunciation
when the angel said to her: " that Holy One who is to be born
will be called the Son of God.. " (Luke 1:35).
And St Elizabeth confirmed this fact when Virgin Mary visited
her after becoming pregnant, and she said to Mary: ""Blessed
are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!"
(Luke 1:43) This shows that it was not only St Mary's belief,
but Elizabeth's belief too. And this was evidence of Mary's
faith.
In addition to all this, the miracles which Christ performed and
the holy visions on the occasion of His birth, were things seen
by St Mary besides all this.
I can confidently say that the Virgin Mary was the first
person to believe in the divine nature of Christ.
Let us not forget that St. Mary had studied the Bible and knew
the prophecy of Isaiah where it says: "The virgin shall conceive
and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel." (Is. 7:14)
and also: " For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name
will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting
Father, Prince of Peace." (Is. 9:6)
St. Mary understood that these holy verses applied to her and
her son, and that all the wonderful things which were happening
before her eyes confirmed this. It was these things which she
was said to have treasured in her heart.
It was on account of this that Mary said: "henceforth all
generations will call me blessed. " (Luke 1:48)
As for the second person who believed, that was St. Joseph the
carpenter and that happened as a result of the angel's prophecy
to him.
The third person was, of course Elizabeth and the fourth was John
the Baptist, who suddenly leaped for joy in the womb of his mother
because he was still within her at the time when Mary came to visit
and when Jesus was a tiny seed inside her.EEE
Question
Who was James the brother of the Lord? Did the Lord
Christ have any real brothers who were also born to Virgin
Mary? If not, who were those brothers mentioned?
Answer:
James the brother of the Lord was James the son of Alphaeus
and was at the same time Jesus' cousin according to the flesh,
being the son of Jesus' maternal aunt who was Mary, the wife of
Clopas. (Clopas was also named Alphaeus).
Children of one's maternal aunt were at that time regarded
as one's brothers and sisters on the strength of this close tie
of kinship according to the Jewish custom when one spoke
of those born in the relationship.
For example, there is what the Bible says about the relationship
of Jacob to his uncle Laban: "When Jacob saw Rachel the
daughter of Laban his mother's brother, and the sheep of
Laban his mother's brother, that Jacob went near and rolled
the stone from the well's mouth, and watered the flock of Laban
his mother's brother. Then Jacob kissed Rachel, and lifted up
his voice and wept. And Jacob told Rachel that he was her
father's relative and that he was Rebekah's son. So she ran and
told her father." (Gen. 29:10-12)
We see here that even though Laban was Jacob's uncle,
Jacob was considered to be of Laban's 'own flesh and
blood'.
We find that Laban also refers to Jacob as being one of his
relatives when he invited him to look after his flocks: " Because
you are my relative, should you therefore serve me for
nothing? Tell me, what should your wages be. (Gen. 29:15)
The same thing happened regarding the relationship
between Abraham and Lot.
Abraham was Lot's paternal uncle, and so the Bible said
concerning the genealogy of the father of Abram and Haran
(Lot's father) "Terah took his son Abram and his grandson Lot
the son of Haran" (Gen.11:31). Nevertheless, when Lot left
Sodom during the war against Kedorlaomer, the Bible says: "
They also took Lot, Abram's brother's son who dwelt in Sodom,
and his goods, and departed Now when Abram heard that
his brother was taken captive, he armed his three hundred and
eighteen trained servants who were born in his own house, and
went in pursuit as far as Dan." (Gen 14:12-14)
So it was on account of these ancient customs that the sons of
Christ's maternal aunt, Mary the wife of Clopas, were called
Jesus' brothers and sons of Mary.
It was about this Mary, the wife of Clopas, that the Bible said: "
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus His mother, and His
mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary
Magdalene." (John 19:25). And this was the Mary mentioned
by Mark when he said: " There were also women looking on
from afar, among whom were Mary Magdalene, Mary the
mother of James the Less and of Joses, and Salome,. " (Mark
15:40)
This James, Joses and Salome were all children of Mary the
wife of Clopas, and it was they who were mentioned in
what the Jews were saying about Christ: " Is this not the
carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His
brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas?" (Matt. 13:55; Mark
6:3)
As for the Virgin Mary, she gave birth only to the Lord Christ,
and then lived as a virgin for the rest of her life, and so the
'brothers' of Christ mentioned above were not her children, but
those of her sister.
James the younger (the son of Alphaeus), was called the '
younger' to distinguish him from James the elder (the son
of Zebedee) the brother of John the Beloved.
Question
Since our Lady Mary was from the house of David, from
the tribe of Judah, why did the angel Gabriel say to her: "
Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son " (Luke
1:36), when Elizabeth, the wife of Zechariah the priest, was
from the tribe of Levi, and descended from the daughter of
Aaron? (Luke 1:5).
Answer:
Some people take the word 'relative' in a wide sense in the same
way that Paul used the word 'brothers' when speaking about the
Jews as a whole: "... my brothers, those of my own race, the
people of Israel. " (Rom. 9:3-4)
St. Severus, the Patriarch of Antioch, however, had a
different point of view.
He said that when the angel who appeared to Joseph in a dream
called him, "Joseph son of David. " (Matt. 1:20), it was to
remind him of God's previous promise, that the Messiah would
come from the descendants of David. It was with a similar
intent that the words "Elizabeth your relative", which were
addressed to Mary, were used to remind us of the link between
Elizabeth and the distant past.
In actual fact it was written in the Book of Exodus, before the
commandment which prohibited the taking of a wife from
another tribe had been given, that Aaron, the first high priest,
according to the Law, had "married Elisheba (whose name
meant Elizabeth) daughter of Amminadab and sister of
Nahshon. " (Ex. 6:23) and Nahshon was, "the leader of the
children of Judah. " (1 Chr. 2:10; Matt. 1:4)
Look at the unfolding of the wise design of God's holy plan, and
see how it was arranged that the wife of Zechariah was called
Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, and was a relative of
Mary, the Mother of God. We can trace it all back to Elisheba
(or Elizabeth), whom Aaron married, and through whom came
the union of the two tribes and by whom this Elizabeth became
a close relative of the Virgin Mary.