Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!
Christ is Risen from the dead, trampling down death by death
and upon those in the tombs bestowing life.
Well let's continue our discussion of 1 Corinthians 15,
which I told you is the oldest written account of
the Resurrection appearances of Christ.
We will touch on a few areas of discussion that I did not have time to address last time,
including some of the points made by St. John Chrysostom.
Let's remind ourselves of what St. Paul said.
He began this chapter right away by reminding the Corinthians of
what he had preached to them when he first met them.
"Moreover brethren, I declare to you the Gospel
which I preached to you, which also you received in which you stand,
by which you are also saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you,
unless you believed in vain". (1 Cor 15:1-2)
Now notice that he says there in verse 2,
"which you are saved if you hold fast to what I taught you."
What does he mean then by "saved"?
Because here he says clearly that they are saved.
We would never deny that they are saved, or that we are saved.
Definitely we are saved.
It's not incorrect to say that, because Christ died once and for all.
He rose from the dead and we are saved, we're baptized and we are saved.
But we are also being saved, and we also will be saved.
Now here Paul says that they are saved if they continue the apostolic faith.
Isn't that interesting?
Because when you say someone is saved, and he says they are saved,
that's an unconditional statement: "You are saved."
But then he adds immediately a condition:
"If you hold fast to that word which I preached to you."
What is the condition for their continued salvation?
That they maintain the apostolic oral tradition.
Isn't that interesting?
That's a pretty big "if." That's a condition.
So here there is no hint of the popular Protestant doctrine, "Once saved, always saved";
Those words are not found anywhere in the Bible— that is a tradition created by men.
That's not apostolic and it's certainly not biblical,
and here we have Paul telling us that their salvation depends on
their adherence to the apostolic tradition.
This is referring to an unwritten tradition, because
this is now the first time it is being written down,
and it is preserved here for us in 1 Corinthians 15.
So we can say categorically and unconditionally that we are saved by the death of Christ
because Christ died for all people for all times.
It was complete: Christ saved.
There is nothing more to be done by Christ, but there is plenty more to be done by us
to accept this gift of salvation and to continue to grow
in our relationship with Christ, our life in Christ which was created
when we were baptized, when we became a member of the Body of Christ— the Church.
So when he says, "in which you are saved if you hold fast,"
it means they are saved, but only if they continue to maintain the apostolic faith;
otherwise they have believed in vain, right?
Now remember, I told you that the word "delivered" here,
when Paul says, "I delivered to you," in the next sentence, "I delivered to you"
is the verbal form of the noun "tradition"; and this means that they received something
that they were to preserve, that they were to keep.
Paul said to them in verse 3 "for I delivered to you, first of all,"
or, "as of first importance," "that which I also received."
And I told you that Paul was catechized.
He's passing on to them the Apostolic Tradition.
So if you hand something over to someone, that means they received it
and they were to preserve it, to keep it.
That was their charge, as like it is our charge today to preserve Apostolic Tradition.
St. John Chrysostom makes the same point, even a better point, because he notes that
when Paul says to the Corinthians and reminds them that they received this tradition,
it means that they believed it, and they became witnesses themselves.
Here are Chrysostom's words from Homily 38 on 1 Corinthians:
"See how he calls them witnesses of the things spoken?
And he says, not which you "heard," but which you "received,"
demanding it of them as a kind of deposit, showing that not in word only, but also
by deeds and signs and wonders they received it,
and that they should hold it safe."
So here Chrysostom is saying that the Apostolic testimony,
being eyewitnesses to the Resurrection, was confirmed by the miracles
that the Corinthians witnessed, which Paul and other Apostles performed—
because they performed a great many miracles.
We also said last week that Paul reminded the Corinthians of
what they had been taught, what they had accepted
as a true apostolic tradition, and that the form in which this is stated
by Paul reads like an early Creed, because he lists it.
He says this is what I delivered to you, this is what I handed over to you,
this is what I "traditioned" to you: "That Christ died for our sins
according to the Scriptures, He was buried, that he rose on the third day
according to the Scriptures, that he was seen by Cephas and by the twelve,
by 500 all at once, then by James and by all the apostles."
And the way that he lists it sounds like an early Creed.
Now St. John Chrysostom notes the fact that Paul says that the risen Lord
appeared to Peter first, the person whom Paul refers to as Cephas,
which was the name "Peter", only in the Hebrew,
(in Greek it's "Petros" and we get the English name from that),
but in Hebrew the word for rock is "Cephas."
So what does Chrysostom have to say about this?
How does he explain that Christ appeared to Cephas first?
Chrysostom says the following: "Therefore he appears to Peter first,
for he that first confessed Him to be Christ was justly also counted worthy first to
behold His Resurrection, and not on this account alone does he
appear to him first, but also because he had denied Him,
more abundantly to comfort him and to signify that he is not despaired of.
Before the rest, He vouchsafed him even this sight
and to him first entrusted His sheep."
So first of all he says that He appeared to Peter first because Peter
was the first one to confess Him to be the Christ,
and this is recorded in Matthew 16, and also because he had denied Him and
he knew that Peter was very distraught over this and he wanted to comfort him.
This fits in with what we were saying before about
Chrysostom explaining why the Lord appeared
in certain ways to certain people at certain times, etc.
This is how he explains the variety of experiences.
He also said that He allowed him to see Him risen from the dead
and because of this also gave him first to be entrusted with his sheep.
Now notice that Chrysostom says that Peter was first entrusted with his sheep.
This is at the very last chapter of St. John's Gospel.
But he says, He first entrusted His sheep, not that He exclusively entrusted His sheep,
because the gifts that were given, and the authority that was given to Peter—
including for example to bind and loose sins— was given first to Peter because of
his great confession of Christ when he said, "You're the Messiah, the Son of God."
He was the first person to say that, and so Christ blessed him;
and he was, because of this, one the leading Apostles or the leading Apostle.
Christ also first entrusted to Peter the authority to bind and loose sins,
but that was later given to all of The Twelve.
Here also, Chrysostom is saying that Peter was entrusted with the care of the sheep,
which is in the last chapter of the Gospel of John,
and that this was also was given to all of the twelve.
Now, what else does St. Paul say?
In verse six, that the Lord was seen by "over 500 brethren at once,"
most of whom are still alive at the time that Paul was writing this,
but some have "fallen asleep."
We also mentioned last time that this expression is the traditional Christian way of
referring to death, that one has "fallen asleep";
Christ used this expression.
It was also used by St. Paul in more than one place in his epistles.
But I like what Chrysostom has to say ] about this little expression.
He notes that Paul does not say that some of those 500 have died, but that
they are "fallen asleep," and by this expression also, again,
Paul confirms the Resurrection.
I think that's a very nice touch, because he's saying that
to say that "one has fallen asleep" means that they will wake up.
They will rise again; and even this little detail,
and the manner in which Paul expresses, confirms the Resurrection.
Then in verse 7 Paul tells us that the Lord was seen by James
and by "all of the Apostles."
So this is the earliest written account of the resurrection appearances of Christ.
But there is something quite important that is missing from
Paul's recitation of this oral tradition, isn't there?
And Chrysostom notes this also.
He's very aware of the fact that there seems to be some disagreement here
between Paul's account and the Gospels.
And what is it?
Who were the first people to see the risen Christ?
According to the Gospels, it was the women, the myrrh-bearers.
Now, Paul only mentions Peter at first.
So why does Paul omit them, the women, from his creed?
You should be able to figure this out by now, because I have mentioned it quite a few times:
it was due to the status of women in Jewish society.
Because Paul says that these people he mentions first:
Peter, and then the twelve, and then the 500, and then James and all the Apostles, etc.—
these are all men. Or predominantly men.
(I would think there would be some women in there.)
Paul says that these are witnesses to the Resurrection,
and a woman could not be a witness under Jewish law.
Now you might think, "Well, Paul is recording history here.
He's telling us that Christ was first seen by this person and this person."
And after all Paul is a saint, right?
And Paul was not a misogynist— that's someone who hates women.
Paul instead had a lot of women who were very close coworkers of his.
Among them were Priscilla, who was always mentioned first in the book of Acts
before her husband Aquila, and Chrysostom says that
she was always mentioned first because she was the more important of the two.
She was a leader and a teacher in the early Church.
There was Phoebe, the deaconess of Cenchrae.
There was Junia, who was always listed in Romans 16 and specifically mentioned
as an Apostle, and Mary Magdalene who was definitely an apostle
and one of the leading apostles.
So, all of these women were very important in the early Church.
And Paul was not someone who thought lowly of women.
So why doesn't he mentioned them?
Because you cannot remove Paul from his time.
You can't expect Paul to think like a twenty-first century Westerner,
an American, an Australian, a German, a South African, wherever you live—
you can't expect Paul to think like you today.
Paul was a first century Jewish man.
So, on the one hand, he can say these beautiful words
inspired by the Holy Spirit, that "in Christ there is no male or female," etc.
But, on the other hand, he still conforms to
many of the norms of his culture, and we see this not only in the fact that
he omits the witness of the women— because it didn't count— but also in other ways.
For example, he writes to Philemon about Philemon's runaway slave Onisimus
and never chastises Philemon for having a slave.
Many people are very disappointed with this.
Somehow they expect Paul to rise above his culture and
make a statement on the evils of slavery.
But that's not the way people thought in those days.
It's quite unfair to criticize Paul for being a man of his time.
We do the same in a thousand ways.
We accept the norms of our culture and we don't see how it is an accepted norm,
but it may not be true.
Now, not so long ago in America 150 or 160 years ago,
at least half of the people in America believed that slavery was okay.
One hundred years ago it was routine for children to be
employed in America in factories, to have child labor.
Not so long ago people routinely beat their children.
All those things were accepted in the culture.
Today, we also have certain things we accept in our culture about which
a hundred years from now people will say, "How could they think that!?
How could they do that!?"
So it's quite unfair for us to judge Paul against the standards of our times,
because he, in many ways, did conform to the standards of his times.
So Paul does not list the women— the testimony of women was
not acceptable under Jewish law, so why should he bother?
And do you know where else we see this? It's quite interesting.
When the Gospels give us the genealogy of Christ, whose genealogy do they list?
Do you realize that Matthew's Gospel begins with the genealogy of Christ,
but whose genealogy is it?
It's the genealogy of Joseph! It ends with Joseph.
It says that he was "the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary
from whom was born the Christ," and then it goes on to tell you that
Joseph is not the father of Christ! So why give the genealogy of Joseph?
To us that doesn't make any sense, but to Matthew and any first century Jewish male
it made perfect sense, because you would never give the genealogy of a woman!
That was absolutely unthinkable!
It was so unthinkable as to be ridiculous, for reasons we can go into.
Perhaps some other time we'll discuss the genealogy.
But the fact is, they had a very different way of thinking about things.
And if we wish to understand the Bible, we have to understand it in its historical context.
So it is quite impossible that Paul did not know about the women witnesses,
or the empty tomb, or any of these, even though he doesn't mention it.
And there are other appearances Paul doesn't mention,
which he must have known about, such as the appearance on the road to Emmaus,
the appearance by the sea of Tiberius, etc.
Thus, neither do the Gospels list everything that happened,
nor does Paul mention everything that happened— because neither Paul's epistles nor
the Gospels were intended to be an absolutely comprehensive account of
everything that happened. Nobody wrote like that in those days.
So we have to accept them in the way in which they were intended
and not think or allow people to tell us that, "Oh there's a discrepancy there in the accounts."
Now Chrysostom mentions the fact, he notes the same thing—
that Christ actually appeared to the women first, but Paul doesn't mention them.
So what does he say?
"Thus since he had mentioned the proof from the Scriptures"…
By that he means the statements of Paul that Christ rose according to the Scriptures;
"he adds also that by the events producing as witnesses of the Resurrection,
after the Prophets, the apostles and other faithful men.
Yet surely the Gospel says the contrary, that He was seen of Mary first.
But among men, He was seen by him first who did most of all long to see him."
So, Chrysostom simply takes this exactly as I said: that here Paul is listing only the men.
He perhaps did not know that women weren't allowed to testify in court
under Jewish law, but he recognizes that this is a listing of men,
and the first man who was permitted to see the risen Christ was
the one who longed to see him the most: St. Peter.
The following is Chrysostom's observation in connection with this, when he talks about
the different appearances to different people at different times:
"He appears also to each at intervals and at one time to fewer at another to more,
hereby making them witnesses and teachers of each other."
And this goes along with what he had said previously,
in some of His comments I cited earlier about why Christ appears at different times
and different places to different people: that He gives them what they need.
Peter was mourning Christ so much so that He appeared to him first among the men.
Also about Mary, that the women see the angels but the men do not.
So each of the appearances is tailored to what the person needs.
Sometimes they recognize Him, sometimes they do not.
Now here Chrysostom says that He appears at different times
and different places to different people because He wants them to
witness to each other and to teach each other.
Isn't that interesting?
After all, we're talking here about the apostles!
So they are to be witnesses and teachers of each other.
I think that's a beautiful image.
It's something that we could also learn from.
If the apostles themselves were to be witnesses of the Resurrection,
to share with each other what they had experienced and to also teach each other,
shouldn't we also continue to do that?
We should be teaching each other in the Church and sharing with each other what we have learned.
Isn't that a nice concept?
In 1 Corinthians 15, verses 8 and 9, is Paul's testimony that
Christ was also seen by Paul, who was "one born out of due time."
And we said that this is Paul's way of saying that
he was not among the original apostles. He also was not one of The Twelve.
He never knew the earthly Christ and didn't follow His ministry,
and also that he was "the least of the apostles"
because he was "not worthy to be called an apostle"
since he had "persecuted the Church."
Chrysostom also talks about this and the way Paul expresses it,
and here are Chrysostom's thoughts: "This blessed man first
declares his own misery and then utters that lofty expression.
This then he does partly to abate the offensiveness of speaking about himself,
and partly that he might hereby recommend to their belief
what he had to say afterwards.
For he that truly states what things are discreditable to him
and conceals none of them, such as that he persecuted the Church
and that he laid waste the faith does hereby cause
the things that are honorable to him also to be above suspicion."
So first Paul talked about his faults, that he was the least of the apostles,
that he's not worthy, that he persecuted the Church,
thereby saying the truth about himself, and saying that
if he's going to say the truth about himself and the things he had done,
then they should also believe the truth of what he was saying about
his experience of the risen Christ on the road to Damascus.
Then Paul continues by saying, "But by the grace of God, I am what I am
and His grace towards me was not in vain but I labored more abundantly than they all
yet not I but the grace of God which was with me";
and in verse 11: "Therefore whether it was I or they,
so we preach and so you believed."
So Paul was not one of the original apostles but he includes his own experience of
the risen Christ, because he wants to be considered an apostle
and wants to affirm that his experience of the risen Christ is
in line with the other apostles that Christ rose from the dead.
His testimony is the same as theirs.
Maybe he wasn't one of the original, but he says, "Whether I or they, so we preach",
that is, that we preach the same thing and so you believed our testimony.
I think it's beautiful there that Paul says, "by the grace of God, I am what I am
and His grace towards me was not in vain."
This is something that we all ought to think about, because
God has also shown great grace towards us and we should be wondering whether
His grace towards us has been in vain or not.
Certainly sometimes it is, but hopefully not over the course of our lives.
But it certainly wasn't with Paul.
The grace that God showed him certainly wasn't in vain.
And Chrysostom comments about this. And here's what Chrysostom has to say:
"For if he labored more, the grace was also more.
But he enjoyed more grace because he displayed also more diligence,
and these things, when we hear, let us also make open show of our defects,
but of our excellencies let us say nothing.
Or if the opportunity force itself upon us, let us speak of them with reserve
and impute the whole to God's grace, which accordingly the apostle also does ever,
and ever putting a bad mark upon his former life,
but his after state imputing to grace, that he might signify the mercy of God
from every circumstance.
For His having saved him, such as he was, and when saved,
making him again such as he is.
Let none accordingly of those who are in sin despair
and let none of those in virtue be confident, but
let the one be exceedingly fearful and the other forward,
for neither shall any slothful man be able to abide in virtue,
nor one that is diligent be weak to escape from evil."
There are so many things mentioned in that beautiful statement of St. John Chrysostom.
First let's mention the first thing that he says; let's note this.
He says that because Paul worked harder, he also received more grace,
and the more grace he received the more diligence he showed.
Now what Chrysostom is expressing here is a very, very important concept
in Orthodox theology called synergy— that we cooperate with the grace of God,
and the more effort we put in the more God blesses us with His grace;
and it is a relationship that is constantly growing.
And how much we respond to God also affects how God responds to us,
and this is a very important concept.
Perhaps we'll have the opportunity to discuss it more in the future.
This is something which is extremely important.
It's presumed in much of Orthodox theology and certainly in our spirituality,
but how this works isn't usually spoken of directly.
It is a great mystery how it works, but we don't impute everything to our efforts
and we certainly don't say that our efforts count for nothing.
But somehow there is a relationship, a "co-working" (that's what the word "synergy" means)
between us and God.
So Chrysostom is referring to that here.
Paul received a great deal of grace but not just because of God only.
God gave him the grace but then also Paul used that grace,
he displayed more diligence, etc.
And also Chrysostom notes how Paul speaks.
He openly confesses his weaknesses, his past life,
but is reluctant to take credit for any of the good things he has done.
So there we see the humility of St. Paul, how everything bad
he attributes to his own mistakes, and yet everything good he attributes to God.
And lastly, in this quotation St. John Chrysostom reminds us that
even if we are in sin we shouldn't despair, and yet those of us who are virtuous
should not be confident and lazy, because the slothful man
will not be able to remain in virtue, nor a diligent man remain in sin.
A diligent man can "escape from evil"— that's what Chrysostom says.
Now let's read the next section of the text of 1 Corinthians 15
beginning with verse 12: "Now if Christ be preached,
that He rose from the dead, how say some among you that
there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead,
then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen,
then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.
Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God because we have testified of God that
He raised up Christ whom He did not raise if in fact the dead do not rise.
For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.
And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile,
and you are still in your sins.
Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable."
So let's begin with that first verse, "Now if Christ be preached, that
He rose from the dead, how say some among you that
there is no resurrection of the dead?"
This goes back to what I was saying before, and Chrysostom makes the same observation:
That it is very clear from this passage that the Corinthians believed that
Christ rose from the dead, and of course every time I say,
"rose from the dead," I mean in the body.
There is no such thing, and Chrysostom makes this point also,
of rising from the dead with His soul, or His spirit rises, or His spirit lives on
but not the body, because it's the body that dies.
So when we say that Christ rose from the dead, implicit within that is
the concept of the resurrection of the body— let's just make that perfectly clear.
Chrysostom also makes this point.
So it's clear that the Corinthians believed all of the apostolic witness that Christ rose,
but they did not believe that they themselves will rise.
They didn't believe in the general Resurrection.
And the reason for their disbelief was because of the prevailing conceptions
about the soul and body in Greco-Roman society.
This period of history is called the Hellenistic Age.
This means that even though the Romans were ruling the world
(this is the Roman Empire now), Greek thought ruled the thoughts of people.
Greek thought, Hellenism, had influenced the way people thought,
so the Romans adopted Greek thought, Greek philosophy,
Greek culture, the Greek gods, Greek architecture.
This is called "Hellenism.' The Hellenistic era
means society is not directly under Greek rule,
but it is so influenced by Greek thought that we call this the Hellenistic Age.
So during this period of time, Greek philosophy was very, very influential
in determining how people thought about things, what kind of presumptions operated in society.
And Greek philosophy served for them pretty much the same function
as science does for us today.
So for them an idea had to fit the concepts they had assumed as part of
their Hellenistic way of thought.
These concepts really came from Greek philosophy,
but they didn't necessarily identify it as "philosophy."
They just accepted these things as givens, as obvious.
"Of course it's a fact that the body can't rise!"
"There is no such thing— it's an obvious fact."
In the same way that we have trouble accepting an idea
if it doesn't seem to fit our norms of science or history,
if we can't find absolute proof, then we have trouble accepting it—
in those days they had the same problem.
Some day, our ideas of science will be found to be not scientific
and someday people will say, "Oh, I can't believe that
people thought this way back then, a 100 years ago or 200 years ago!"
They will have trouble understanding how we could
believe some of the things that we accept today.
But science changes; and in antiquity the reigning mode of thought
was Greek philosophy, especially Platonism,
and this very strongly influenced the Greeks' belief
that a body could not rise.
Now, Platonic philosophy was basically dualistic, and
Platonism just was the dominant way of conceiving about the natural world.
Dualism was the belief that the physical world was
an imperfect copy of the spiritual world, where everything was perfect.
The physical world, this life, was inferior to the spiritual world.
The body was inferior to the soul, because the body needs to be fed,
needs to be cleaned, it needs to rest, gets tired, it ages, it gets ill, it dies.
Meanwhile, the soul does not suffer from these kinds of ill effects.
Now, even though the Greeks believed that the body was inferior to the soul,
at the same time they were great admirers of physical fitness.
They had the Olympic games.
They had the beautiful statues as perfect physical specimens.
They admired the ability of the body to perform
and to be beautiful and healthy and all of these things.
Yet they recognize that the body is inferior to the soul because
it has certain needs: you get tired, you need to eat, you need to sleep—
all of these things.
The soul meanwhile doesn't suffer these kinds of limitations.
It is not encumbered, except by the body which houses the soul, or the mind.
So the mind can go places and do things even when the body is feeble, ill or old.
So the conception was that the body is like a prison for the soul, and when you die
it will be great, because your soul will be freed.
It is released from the constraints of the body and
it has nothing to hold it back.
So according to this view, which was the prevailing view of
the human person at the time, no one wanted a resurrection of the body!
They only wanted the soul.
They presumed that the soul lived on, but they certainly didn't want
the resurrection of the body, because then your soul would be trapped in the body again.
So this was what Paul was fighting against, and frankly
what all of the apostles had to contend with.
And so, earlier in this same book, 1 Corinthians, when Paul is talking about the crucifixion,
he says "We preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block for the Jews
and foolishness for the gentiles," or "the Greeks."
Why "foolishness"?
Because they couldn't believe in the resurrection of the body:
it was too foolish for them.
So when Paul went to Athens— and this story is told to us
in the book of Acts— he went to meet the Athenian council,
the rulers of the city of Athens.
They were meeting on the hill below the Acropolis, called the Areopagus.
Paul went and preached Christ to them and they were very open,
and they listened to him, and everything was going fine
until Paul mentions the Resurrection.
Then most of them started laughing at the Resurrection of Christ,
because it did not make sense. Why would you want that?
This is contrary to what they would think, that you would want a resurrected body.
Now, you didn't have to be a philosopher to operate with these kinds of presumptions.
Just as today, you don't have to be a historian or a scientist
to be influenced by that mode of thought.
Today we are always comparing beliefs and concepts to
what can be proven in science or by history, "Do we have any proof?"
We always think in terms of proof; proof of this, proof of that,
does it make sense scientifically.
So we measure everything against history and science.
But in those days they measured things against what people believed was absolute truth,
and that was not science but philosophy.
Everyone knew these concepts, they were general norms and
they were accepted in society as proven facts and almost no one questioned them.
They would think, "Well, everyone knows the soul is inferior to the body," and so on.
So these things were cultural norms. We also have our cultural norms.
They had their cultural norms and, at least in the Roman Empire, this was the norm.
Now let's move ahead a couple of centuries to the council of Nicea.
The Council of Nicea, the first Ecumenical Council,
affirmed the complete Divinity of Christ, that is that Christ was
perfect God and perfect man, fully human and fully divine, equal to the Father—
the Son was ὁμοούσιος (homooúsios); one in essence with the Father.
This was affirmed in the fourth century in 325 at the Council of Nicea.
The next question that was raised according to their minds, because
their minds were influenced by Greek philosophy, was
how the humanity and the divinity could be united in the one person of Christ,
since humanity and divinity are entirely different in their nature.
This was happening toward the end of the fourth century.
(There is a connection between this and the Resurrection, trust me.)
So at the end of the fourth century, the late 300s,
there was a bishop named Apollinaris, who said that—
in terms of the connection between the humanity and the divinity of Christ—
the Logos, that is the Son, the divinity of Christ,
had replaced the human mind or the human soul of Christ.
But this view was rejected, and the person with a very famous reply to that heresy
was St. Gregory the Theologian, whom the West calls Gregory of Nazianzus.
He said about this,
"What has not been assumed, has not been healed."
That is, if the Logos, the Son of God, did not take on human nature in its completeness,
the full human nature, if He was not incarnate as fully human with a human mind a human soul,
then our human minds and souls were not healed
by the Incarnation and the Resurrection of Christ. St. Gregory said,
"What has not been assumed, has not been healed."
He argued for the complete humanity of Christ, that Christ was fully human in every respect.
So what does this have to do with the Resurrection?
Well, it has to do with the Resurrection because to claim that only the soul of Christ rose
or the spirit of Christ and not the body— because this conflicts with our scientific
or historical sensibilities— we could apply the same point
that Gregory the Theologian had made.
Today, we have an entirely different problem from what Paul was addressing at Corinth,
and even what St. John Chrysostom was addressing when he was commenting on this chapter.
Because, you see, Paul is saying that
the Corinthians believe that Christ rose in the body.
They just didn't believe that they would rise.
But we don't have that problem.
And as a matter of fact, that was still the problem
at the time that Chrysostom was preaching and explaining this chapter,
so most of what Chrysostom says in his sermons (and he gave five sermons
on this one chapter in 1 Corinthians 15— five sermons),
was related very closely to what Paul was saying,
because Greek philosophy was operating in Chrysostom's time
and Chrysostom's culture.
Chrysostom was affirming the fact that Christ had a body, because there were many,
heresies that believed that Christ did not actually have a physical human body.
Today we don't have that problem.
Today, just about everybody believes that Christ existed as a human person,
but many people do not believe that He was God.
And today we also have the opposite problem of what the Corinthians had, because
the Corinthians believed that Christ rose in the body
but that they would not.
We have the opposite problem because many people,
including people who identify themselves as Christians, do not believe
that Christ rose from the dead in the body.
They say He rose in spirit; the apostles remembered Him,
maybe the soul rose but not the body, because
this conflicts with our ideas of science and history.
So we could apply the same rationale that St. Gregory had made when he said,
"What has not been assumed, has not been healed."
We can say, "What has not been raised has not been healed."
When the Logos was incarnate (λόγος; lógos is the Greek word for "Word";
that comes from the first chapter of the Gospel of John),
when the Word or the Son of God was incarnate,
He became fully human with a human soul and a body
in order to redeem, to sanctify, to elevate our human nature.
All of it! The whole of our human nature.
That's why he was incarnate as a whole person, an entirely human being,
he was hoomoousious with us, one in essence with us in our humanity,
the way in His divinity He was one in essence with the Father.
Now, if the body of Christ did not rise, then the whole man was not saved by Christ.
But we affirm continually in the life of the Church
that the whole person is sanctified by the grace of God.
So when we receive Holy Unction, it is for the healing of body and soul.
The whole person is also sanctified by Holy Communion.
Holy Communion is sanctification of the soul and the body.
We are united - body and soul to Christ through Communion.
When we baptize someone, we immerse the body.
Why do we do that rather than just having someone assent to certain beliefs
and then just call it baptism?
Or, you know, just say the Creed and you're a member of the Church.
No.
We immerse the body, because it's the temple of the Holy Spirit,
and the body is sanctified in baptism.
The whole person is healed, the whole person is saved.
Why?
Because the whole person is a creation of God,
and therefore the whole person must rise.
It's inconceivable that only the soul would rise—
either only Christ's soul or just ours.
So why should only the soul rise?
Because if you say that then you're suggesting that
only the soul was healed and the rest of us wasn't healed.
But Adam and Eve did not simply sin in the soul, they sinned in the body too.
They took the fruit and they ate it.
That was a deed. It was not just a rebellion in the mind.
And therefore the effects of the Fall of mankind were suffered by the whole man.
Not only did Adam and Eve's souls suffer, but there were physical effects from the Fall.
Now they had to work for their food,
"by the sweat of your brow shall you earn your bread."
Now Eve would experience pain in childbirth. Now women would be dominated by men.
Now there would be illness in the world, there would be death, etc.
So the effects of the Fall affect both the soul and the body, and therefore
it was imperative that Christ be incarnate as a full human being
with a human soul and a human body, and it was imperative that
He rise both in the soul and in the body.
The human being was created by God as what we call a "psychosomatic whole."
Either the whole thing rises, or nothing rises.
To deny the physical resurrection of Christ is to deny the humanity of Christ.
Can you see that?
So it's very important that when we talk about these things
we understand what we are talking about.
We can't simply speculate about such things.
We have to realize that to deny the physical resurrection
is to deny the humanity of Christ and therefore to deny our salvation.
There are consequences to what we say.
So it's important that when we think about these things,
that we should think about them, we should learn about them,
we should study theology.
But we should not engage in discussions on theological matters
or give our opinions if we don't know what we're talking about,
because this is not a pursuit to be entered into lightly,
like "armchair" theologians. This is not a matter of speculation.
We can't pick and choose and say, "Well, I'm a Christian but
I don't believe that Christ rose in the body."
This is serious business, because doctrine really matters;
there are many ideas that seemed logical at first sight,
many heresies which seemed to make sense when you first heard them, but they're heresies.
And a denial of the Resurrection is one such thing.
It has implications for our salvation, and if you don't understand that
then you really have no business expressing your theological views, because
if you lead someone astray with your argument then you are in fact responsible for that person.
So if Christ did not rise, then we also will not rise.
And if we cannot rise, then Christ also did not rise.
To deny our future resurrection is to deny Christ's resurrection.
And conversely, to deny Christ's resurrection is to deny our resurrection
and to deny eternal life itself.
I think this is probably a good place to stop.
There is much more to say about this, and I want you to understand that next time,
when we continue,
I'm going to continue along these lines on some of the theology of the Church.
I hope it is ok with you that we talk with you about the theology.
I think it's important to say what else Chrysostom has to say about
the theological effects of the denial of the Resurrection,
and we will also talk about some of the other parts of 1 Corinthians 15,
which are very interesting; for example, what Paul has to say about Christ
being the "first fruits" of the Resurrection.
Why does he say this?
Also Paul mentions a very peculiar thing when he talks about being "baptized for the dead."
What did Chrysostom have to say about this?
So I hope that next time we will complete our series by finishing up
with Paul and Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 15.
There's a number of very interesting issues to discuss next week,
and we will continue then with our discussion on 1 Corinthians.
But for now, let's close with our prayer.
"Christ is Risen from the dead, trampling down death by death
and upon those in the tombs bestowing life".
Ἀληθῶς ἀνέστη ὁ Κύριος! (Alithós anésti o Kýrios!)
Truly the Lord is Risen!
For more infomation >> "I was so relieved - Queen's was the place for me" - Duration: 2:28. 
For more infomation >> Warum ich nie wieder auf eine Esoterik Messe gehe (Folge 3: Was ist dran an Esoterik?) - Duration: 10:08. 
For more infomation >> 2017 Nissan Micra Review – As Good As The Last One Was Bad – Car Keys - Duration: 5:22. 
For more infomation >> WHEN MOUSEHOOD WAS IN FLOWER - Duration: 6:13. 
For more infomation >> Digitale Barrierefreiheit – Was ist das - Duration: 6:03. 
For more infomation >> Mariah Carey: "Alles, was man über sie liest, ist wahr" - Duration: 3:43. 
For more infomation >> Schau mal was ist bassiert wenn du dein Finger im Kreis legst - Duration: 1:45. 
For more infomation >> What Will Be Was Not - Duration: 42:55. 
For more infomation >> 10 years ago, the iPhone was launched! - Duration: 1:22. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét