Category Archives: Creeds

Creeds of the Kehillah ~ Part 47

Posted on by
Reply

The Symbol (Creed) of Athanasian

In our last post, we examined the third Creed of the Kehillah ~ The Symbol (Creed) of Chalcedon. In this post, we begin to examine the fourth Creed of the Kehillah ~ Athanasian Creed.

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith; Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty; From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies; and shall give account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved. [1]

The origin of the Athanasian Creed is involved in obscurity, like that of the Apostles’ Creed, the Gloria in Excelsis, and the Te Deum. It furnishes one of the most remarkable examples of the extraordinary influence which works of unknown or doubtful authorship have exerted. Since the ninth century, it has been ascribed to Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the chief defender of the divinity of Yeshua, and the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (d. 373). The great name of ‘the father of orthodoxy’ secured for it an almost ecumenical authority, notwithstanding the solemn prohibition of the third and fourth ecumenical Councils to compose or publish any other creed than the Nicene.

Since the middle of the seventeenth century, the Athanasian authorship has been abandoned by learned Catholics as well as Protestants. The evidence against it is conclusive. The Symbol is nowhere found in the genuine writings of Athanasius or his contemporaries and eulogists. The General Synods of Constantinople (381), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (451) make no allusion to it whatever. It seems to presuppose the doctrinal controversies of the fifth century concerning the constitution of Yeshua’s person; at least it teaches substantially the Chalcedonian Christology. And, lastly, it makes its first appearance in the Latin Churches of Gaul, North Africa, and Spain: while the Greeks did not know it till the eleventh century, and afterward rejected or modified it on account of the Occidental clause on the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son. The Greek texts, moreover, differ widely, and betray, by strange words and constructions, the hands of unskilled translators. [2]

In my next post, we begin to explore the Epistle of Ya’akov (James).

Click here for the PDF version.

 

[1] Historic Creeds and Confessions. (1997). Lexham Press.

[2] Schaff, P. (1878). The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes: The History of Creeds (Vol. 1, pp. 35–36). New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers.

Creeds of the Kehillah ~ Part 46

Posted on by
1

The Symbol (Creed) of Chalcedon

In our last post, we concluded our exploration of the Nicene Creed. This post examines a third Creed of the Kehillah ~ The Symbol (Creed) of Chalcedon. As I indicated in my last post, I have not been exposed to this creed in my upbringing.

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [coessential] with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of nature’s being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. [1]

Wow, the whole creed in one sentence.

The Creed of Chalcedon was adopted at the fourth and fifth sessions of the fourth ecumenical Council, held at Chalcedon, opposite Constantinople, A.D. 451 (Oct. 22d and 25th). It embraces the Nicene Creed and the Messianic doctrine outlined in the classical Epistola Dogmatica of Pope Leo the Great to Flavian, the Patriarch of Constantinople and martyr of diophysitic [2] orthodoxy at the so-called Council of Robbers (held at Ephesus in 449).

While the first Council of Nicea had established the eternal, pre-existent Godhead of Yeshua, the Symbol of the fourth ecumenical Council relates to the incarnate Logos, as He walked upon the earth and sits on the right hand of the Father. It is directed against the errors of Nestorius and Eutyches. They agreed with the Nicene Creed as opposed to Arianism but put the Godhead of Yeshua in a false relation to His humanity. It substantially completes the orthodox Messianic theology of the ancient Church.[3]

In my next post, we examine the Athanasian Creed.

Click here for the PDF version.

 

[1] Historic Creeds and Confessions. (1997). Lexham Press.

[2] A person who maintains that Yeshua has two natures, one divine, and the other human.

[3] Schaff, P. (1878). The Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical Notes: The History of Creeds (Vol. 1, pp. 29–30). New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers.

Creeds of the Kehillah ~ Part 45

Posted on by
1

The Nicene Creed~ Part 31

In our last post, we continued to explore the Nicene Creed. In this post, we continue to dig into the third article of faith, keeping with the phrase and the life of the world to come in the Nicene Creed.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

AND THE LIFE OF THE WORLD TO COME ~ Yeshua’s Return, the Judgment, and Eternal Life

Both the second and third articles of the Nicene Creed conclude with eschatology. In this second section, commenting on the life of the world to come, we expand on the themes found in the second article in light of the life that is yet to come. The final section of the second article of the Nicene Creed includes the themes of Messianic eschatology, namely, Yeshua’s glorious return to earth, the final judgment, and eternal life. Numerous factors influenced the reflection of the Fathers. In fact, the patristic reflection on eschatology takes shape following historical-cultural shifts, which in turn are influenced by the expansion of the Messianic movement, so that new times and new situations led Messianic thinkers to formulate eschatological beliefs in a renewed way, even though they remained substantially faithful to the biblical spirit. New questions constantly arose concerning the final or last realities, thanks to the meeting of the Messianic movement with the Greco-Roman pagan culture, to the influence of Gnosticism and the different Messianic heretical movements, and the dramatic experience of persecutions.

There are four thematic kernels presented here: the glorious return of Yeshua, the final judgment, the intermediate state, and eternal life. The Parousia, or Yeshua’s second coming in glory, is the horizon within which all the final events of history find their position, so that history, according to the teaching of Sha’ul, assumes a global meaning that includes the victory of Yeshua over sin and death, the resurrection of the dead and the final judgment.

The theme of the final judgment is closely connected to the Parousia, which is presented both as a universal and individual event, even though it mostly appears to be universal and final. The judge is Yeshua, who will separate the good from the bad, destining the former to life and the latter to eternal damnation.

In the context of the end of the world, the Fathers do not neglect questions concerning the individual’s destiny. They face the theme of the so-called intermediate state. The souls of the dead are in a condition of waiting before the final resurrection when they will be reunited with their bodies and will fully receive their due reward. In particular, Augustine supposes a specific judgment for the individual immediately after death, which involves a particular reward. However, it is not the definitive one, and without precisely describing the location of this reward.

Eternal life with God brings an incomparable blessing: communion with God amid the communion of the saints with God and with all who reflect God’s, holy love. This community embraces both the living faithful and the faithful departed who now enjoy eternal life with God. There is a unique union between the faithful on earth and in heaven, enabled by their mutual communion with the one Head and each other, a communion sustained by prayer, faith, hope, and love. The community or fellowship of the saints is a recurrent theme of the Brit Hadashah that points to communion with God and communion with all who share God’s life. The Son prayed to the Father that the whole community of faith may be one, as we are one.

The general scriptural term for the final state of the blessed is eternal life. This life is transformed into a future life of glory that does not reach full expression until the general resurrection, final judgment, and the final destiny of the faithful. The living God permits the new life with God to continue without ceasing. Eternal life brings to completion the work of grace begun in this life, where one is delivered from sin, its roots, and consequences, fulfilling God’s purpose in creation, redemption, and consummation. The transformation begun in faithful baptism does not come to nothing but lives on. The spiritual life begun in penitent faith is imparted in spiritual rebirth, grows by sanctifying grace, and lives on by completing grace. The characteristic feature of eternal life is the complete and unending enjoyment of life with God.

In Messianic teaching, heaven is both a place and a condition of eternal rest and joy in the Lord. It is to be present with the Lord. Heaven is where the blessed clearly see God and incomparably enjoy the blessings of divine glory. Heaven is represented as a secure lodging of unutterable glory, joy, and peace. Its most prominent features are tranquility, holiness, light, beholding, happiness, and the presence of the Lord. What happens in heaven is complete and endless participation in God’s goodness and happiness. Those whose names are written in heaven have come to God. They are the spirits of righteous men made perfect. Yeshua promised his disciples: I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.[1]

This post concludes our study of the Nicene Creed. I had no idea it would take us through thirty-one posts to examine it. I hope and pray that you have enjoyed learning more about what some of us have recited every Sunday for years.

In my next post, we begin to look at two final Creeds of the Kehillah that I am not familiar with. We will at least start to unpack the Symbol of Chalcedon.

Click here for the PDF version.

[1] Di Berardino, A., & Oden, T. C. (Eds.). (2010). We Believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Vol. 5, pp. 214–216).

Creeds of the Kehillah ~ Part 44

Posted on by
1

The Nicene Creed~ Part 30

In our last post, we continued to explore the Nicene Creed. In this post, we continue to dig into the third article of faith, keeping with the phrase and the life of the world to come in the Nicene Creed.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

AND THE LIFE OF THE WORLD TO COME ~ Blessedness and Condemnation

Both the second and third articles of the Nicene Creed conclude with eschatology. In this second section, commenting on the life of the world to come, we expand on the themes found in the second article in light of the life which is yet to come. The final section of the second article of the Nicene Creed includes the themes of Messianic eschatology—namely, Yeshua’s glorious return to earth, the final judgment, and the kingdom of Yeshua. In this final section of the commentary on this last phrase, we may observe how the complexity of ancient Messianic eschatology makes any attempt at schematization quite tricky. Numerous factors influenced the reflection of the Fathers. The patristic reflection on eschatology takes shape following historical-cultural shifts, which are influenced by the expansion of the Messianic movement. New times and situations led Messianic thinkers to formulate eschatological beliefs in a renewed way, even though they remained substantially faithful to the biblical spirit. New questions constantly arose concerning the final or last realities, thanks to the meeting of the Messianic movement with Greco-Roman pagan culture, to the influence of Gnosticism and the different Messianic heretical movements the dramatic experience of persecutions.

We will also notice the variety of language, symbols, and images used by the Fathers, at least up to Augustine. He was the first to give an organic arrangement to the eschatological questions, influencing most future reflections in this regard. The primary reference of patristic teaching is centered on the Yeshua event, with all its anthropological and soteriological reflections. Yeshua appears to be the hermeneutical key to any eschatological speech, the crucial element that resolves all questions.

The thematic kernels presented here are four in number: the glorious return of Yeshua, the final judgment, the intermediate state, and eternal life. The Parousia, or Yeshua’s second coming in glory, is the horizon within which all the final events of history find their position, so that history, according to the teaching of Sha’ul, assumes a global meaning that includes the victory of Yeshua over sin and death, the resurrection of the dead and the judgment. From this point of view, the passages from the Fathers reflect the complexity of the envisioned event, sometimes highlighting its most spiritual aspects, sometimes those which are more sensational and grotesque.

The theme of the final judgment is closely connected to the Parousia, which is presented both as a universal and individual event, even though it mostly appears to be universal and final. The judge is Yeshua, who will separate the good from the bad, destining the former to life and the latter to eternal damnation. We will notice that the Fathers linger on certain particularly terrifying elements of the judgment they indulge in graphic detail. These reflections offered them the opportunity to call the sinners to a worthy way of life and deter the believers from a sinful existence.

In the context of the end of the world, the Fathers do not neglect questions concerning the individual’s destiny. They face the theme of the so-called intermediate state. The souls of the dead are in a condition of waiting before the final resurrection when they will be reunited with their bodies and willfully receive their due reward. In particular, Augustine supposes a specific judgment for the individual immediately after death, which involves a specific reward. However, it is not the definitive one, and without precisely describing the location of this reward.

By presenting specific constant motifs in the early church’s heritage of faith, such as Yeshua’s glorious return, the final judgment, and the individual’s survival after death, this chapter reveals the Fathers’ efforts to comprehend faith in the first centuries of the Messianic age. Despite their disagreements, in the end, the comfort it afforded to those who look forward to that life that is yet to come cannot be overestimated.

Eternal life with God brings an incomparable blessing: communion with God amid the communion of the saints with God and with all who reflect God’s, holy love. This community embraces both the living faithful and the faithful departed who now enjoy eternal life with God. There is a unique union between the faithful on earth and in heaven, enabled by their mutual communion with the one Head and each other, a communion sustained by prayer, faith, hope, and love. The community or fellowship of the saints is a recurrent theme of the Brit Hadashah that points to communion with God and communion with all who share God’s life. The Son prayed to the Father that the whole community of faith “may be one, as we are one.”

The general scriptural term for the final state of the blessed is eternal life. This life is transmuted into a future life of glory that does not reach full expression until the general resurrection, final judgment, and the final destiny of the faithful. The living God permits the new life with God to continue without ceasing. Eternal life brings to completion the work of grace begun in this life, where one is delivered from sin, its roots, and consequences, fulfilling God’s purpose in creation, redemption, and consummation. The transformation begun in faithful baptism does not come to nothing but lives on. The spiritual life begun in penitent faith is imparted in spiritual rebirth, grows by sanctifying grace, and lives on by completing grace. The characteristic feature of eternal life is the complete and unending enjoyment of life with God.

In Messianic teaching, heaven is both a place and a condition of eternal rest and joy in the Lord. It is to be present with the Lord. Heaven is where the blessed clearly see God and incomparably enjoy the blessings of divine glory. Heaven is represented as a secure lodging of unutterable glory, joy, and peace. Its most prominent features are tranquility, holiness, light, beholding, happiness, and the presence of the Lord. What happens in heaven is complete and endless participation in God’s goodness and happiness. Those whose names are written in heaven have come to God. They are the spirits of righteous men made perfect. Yeshua promised his disciples: I am going there to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.[1]

In my next post, we continue to dig into the third article of the Nicene Creed: AND THE LIFE OF THE WORLD TO COME ~ Yeshua’s Return, the Judgment, and Eternal Life.

Click here for the PDF version.

[1] Di Berardino, A., & Oden, T. C. (Eds.). (2010). We Believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Vol. 5, p. 175).

Creeds of the Kehillah ~ Part 43

Posted on by
Reply

The Nicene Creed~ Part 29

In our last post, we continued to explore the Nicene Creed. In this post, we continue to dig into the third article of faith, keeping with the phrase We Look for the Ressurection of the Dead in the Nicene Creed.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

We Look for the Resurrection of the Dead

Questions on the destiny of the individual are closely connected with the looming problems that concern the final things. We have already seen the results of the patristic reflection on this in the previous chapter. In fact, after the description of the end of the universe and history, questions of great anthropological import arise concerning the future and the state of human beings after death. In this regard, the greater part of this section presents how the Fathers viewed the resurrection of the flesh and the immortality of the soul, themes that constitute the center of patristic eschatological [1] reflection.

As we learned in the last post, faith in the resurrection of the flesh was simply attested and needed no particular explanation. Very soon, however, the renewed cultural circumstances in which the faith was transmitted and the problems deriving from certain deviating doctrinal trends, such as Gnosticism, prompted the Fathers to further investigate this theme, especially from an apologetic point of view.

Deriving from Judaism, millenarianism is traced back in antiquity in the Asiatic milieu to Cerinthus and Papias of Hierapolis in Phrygia, while the key representatives of the Messianic millenarianism appear to be Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, who established this belief on the basis of Revelation 20:4–6. In any case, the importance of millenarianism in ancient Messianic eschatology was not destined to last: very soon Origen would radically criticize this doctrine for the excessive literalism that the millenarists attributed to the passages of Scripture that they quoted. The last set of selections related to this section of the creed is devoted to the doctrinal positions of Origen. In fact, if on the one hand Origen and his teachings were an object of admiration on the part of many, on the other they were a cause of scandal to the Fathers through nearly the entire patristic age. In particular, his conception of the end of the world, namely, the final apokatastasis (“recapitulation”), which suggests the idea of universal salvation and therefore does not admit the eternity of hell and its punishments, was definitively condemned together with other conceptions defined as Origenist by the emperor Justinian in 543. In spite of the contrasting judgments on the figure and the work of Origen, it was impossible to prevent, for instance, the profession of the doctrine of the apokatastasis by other thinkers of antiquity as well, as in the case of Gregory of Nyssa, who interpreted the final apokatastasis as a restoration of the original condition of the creatures, according to which all the creatures, namely, angels, human beings and demons or spirits, will harmonize one day in goodness.

In conclusion, the passages from the Fathers that are gathered in this section bring to light certain problems inherent in any discussion of eschatological questions. In this regard, a modern Messianic eschatology cannot help but take into consideration, or at least examine, these abundant and valuable sources. [2]

In my next post, we continue to dig into the third article of the Nicene Creed: AND THE LIFE OF THE WORLD TO COME ~ Blessedness and Condemnation

Click here for the PDF version.

[1] A branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world of humankind.

[2] Di Berardino, A., & Oden, T. C. (Eds.). (2010). We Believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Vol. 5, pp. 139–140).

Creeds of the Kehillah ~ Part 42

Posted on by
Reply

The Nicene Creed~ Part 28

In our last post, we continued to explore the Nicene Creed. In this post, we continue to dig into the third article of faith, keeping with the phrase We Acknowledge One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins in the Nicene Creed.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS

Questions on the individual’s destiny are closely connected with the looming problems that concern the end times. This post presents how the early Fathers viewed the resurrection of the flesh and the immortality of the soul, themes that constitute the center of patristic end times thoughts.

In the earliest times, faith in the resurrection of the flesh was attested to and needed no particular explanation. Very soon, however, the renewed cultural circumstances in which the faith was transmitted and the problems deriving from specific deviating doctrinal trends, such as Gnosticism, prompted the Fathers to investigate this theme further.

The passages by the Fathers on the resurrection that we are excerpting are divided into two sections: the first one presents us with texts concerning the resurrection in general; the second presents texts in which the resurrection of bodies and the flesh are discussed.

The first group of passages faces this question in a mostly philosophical sense, relying on the excellent connection between the omnipotence of God and the resurrection of the dead. The other passages, by connecting the resurrection of human beings with that of Yeshua. In particular, Tertullian raised his voice against the Gnostics and the Marcionites, asserting the truth of faith in the resurrection of the flesh. He based his reasoning on the work of God, who had the power to create as well as the power to re-create. He also based his argument on the substantial identity of the present body with the resurrected one.

Among the end-time themes connected to the questions concerning the resurrection is the doctrine on the advent of the millennial kingdom. This doctrine, which is more simply known as millenarianism, circulated among a particular segment of Messianics in the first centuries, even though it was never officially received into the kehillah. It maintains that the universal judgment and the end of the world will be preceded by a future earthly kingdom of one thousand years, which will be entirely new and will be the seat of the heavenly Jerusalem descended to earth where the resurrected righteous will reign with Yeshua, enjoying immense happiness and abundance of blessings.

From Judaism, millenarianism is traced in antiquity in the Asiatic milieu to Cerinthus and Papias of Hierapolis in Phrygia. In contrast, the key representatives of the Messianic millenarianism appear to be Justin, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, who established this belief based on Revelation 20:4–6. In any case, the importance of millenarianism in ancient Messianic eschatology was not destined to last: very soon, Origen would radically criticize this doctrine for the excessive literalism that the millenarians attributed to the passages of Scripture that they quoted.

In conclusion, the passages from the Fathers gathered in this section highlight specific problems inherent in discussing eschatological questions. In this regard, a modern Messianic eschatology cannot help but consider, or at least examine, these abundant and valuable sources.[1]

In my next post, we continue to dig into the third article of the Nicene Creed: We Look for the Resurrection of the Dead.

Click here for the PDF version.

[1] Di Berardino, A., & Oden, T. C. (Eds.). (2010). We Believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Vol. 5, pp. 87–90).

Creeds of the Kehillah ~ Part 41

Posted on by
Reply

The Nicene Creed~ Part 27

In our last post, we continued to explore the Nicene Creed. In this post, w continue to dig into the third article of faith, keeping with the phrase We Acknowledge One Baptism in the Nicene Creed.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

WE ACKNOWLEDGE ONE BAPTISM

Messianic baptism (which means “immersion”) goes back to Yeshua because it is administered because of His mandate. It is distinct from other previous types of baptism in use among the Hebrews. Regardless of who officiates in baptism, it is considered that it is always Yeshua who baptizes: He will immerse you in the Ruach HaKodesh and in fire. In the letter to Titus, baptism is defined as the mikveh [1] of rebirth and the renewal brought about by the Ruach HaKodesh (Titus 3:5b ~ CJB). Already in the Brit Hadashah, there exists a rich theology about baptism as rebirth, regeneration, and purification by the Ruach; as seal of faith, as union with Yeshua in death and resurrection; and as forgiveness of sins and as a condition for entering the kingdom of God.

Mark and Matthew begin their Gospels with the baptism of John and conclude with the command of Yeshua to baptize all. The Gospel of Mark ends with the command of Yeshua: As you go throughout the world, proclaim the Good News to all creation. 16 Whoever trusts and is immersed will be saved; whoever does not trust will be condemned. Kefa, on the day of Shavu’ot, encourages the people to receive baptism for the remission of sins: “Turn from sin, return to God, and each of you be immersed on the authority of Yeshua the Messiah into forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh! (Acts 2:38 ~ CJB) Thus, the forgiveness of sins and receiving the gift of the Ruach are closely united. Yeshua, however, did not need a baptism of repentance. The connection between the Ruach and baptism also emerges from the baptism of the centurion at Caesarea, when Kefa affirms that if God gave them the same gift as He gave us after we had come to put our trust in the Lord Yeshua the Messiah, who was I to stand in God’s way?(Acts 11:17 ~ CJB).

The Didache, a document that came from the countryside of Syria, from the second half of the first century, describes the rite as follows:

“Concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, baptize, ‘in the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit,’ in running water; but if you have no running water, baptize in other water, and if you cannot baptize in cold water, then use warm water. But if you have neither, pour water three times on the head ‘in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,’ and before the baptism let the baptizer and him who is to be baptized fast, and any others who are able. And you shall bid him who is to be baptized to fast one or two days before.”

In the normal rite, baptism consisted of a triple immersion: each following the response of the candidate to the minister who asked questions on the trinitarian faith. The Apostolic Tradition describes the central rite as follows:

Then after these things, let him be given over to the presbyter who stands at the water. And let them stand in the water naked. And let a deacon likewise go down with him into the water. As he goes down to the water, let him who baptizes lay hands on him, saying thus: Do you believe in God the Father Almighty? And he who is being baptized shall say: I believe. Let him immediately baptize him once, having his hand laid on his head. And after this let him say: Do you believe in Yeshua, the Son of God, who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, who was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate, and died, and rose the third day living from the dead, and ascended into the heavens, and sat down at the right hand of the Father, and will come to judge the living and the dead? And when he says: I believe, let him baptize him the second time. And again, let him say: Do you believe in the Holy Spirit in the holy church and the resurrection of the flesh? And he who is being baptized shall say: I believe. And so let him baptize him the third time.

The whole ceremony ended with the kiss of peace on the part of the whole community.

In the fourth century, these rites tended to expand in number, extension, time, and dramatic power. The more significant number of candidates led to some of the rites being anticipated on Good Friday. One rite acquired a solid spiritual and social significance: the newly baptized wore a white garment for the whole week following the baptism.

Present research on the baptism of infants has come to a complete stop. It is believed that the practice existed from the apostolic period. However, we have explicit evidence only from the following centuries. Baptism of infants becomes more and more common beginning with the fifth century. An adequate period of preparation for baptism is something that caught hold only slowly: we find it fully developed only in the third century, and it reached its high point in the fourth century and then began to decline because of the spread of infant baptism. Several reasons pointed to its necessity and influenced its development: the numerous heresies, the conscious decision to break with the pagan world, the weakening of initial enthusiasm, and apostasy in times of persecution.

In the New Testament, much importance is given to the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the newly converted. In the case of the centurion Cornelius, that outpouring comes before baptism, but this is an exceptional case. In general, the outpouring of the Ruach comes after baptism and by the imposition of the hands by the apostles, and it is a gesture that is necessary for the completion of baptism. When the emissaries in Yerushalayim heard that Shomron had received the Word of God, they sent them Kefa and Yochanan, 15 who came down and prayed for them, that they might receive the Ruach HaKodesh. 16 For until then, he had not come upon any of them; they had only been immersed into the name of the Lord Yeshua. 17 Then, as Kefa and Yochanan placed their hands on them, they received the Ruach HaKodesh. ~ Acts 8:14-17 (CJB). In fact, to be a full member of the new community, both were necessary, the immersion (ablution) in water and the imposition of hands. Very soon, the rite became one continuous process, with no intervals in between the various parts. All the components ultimately were included together under the one name of baptism.[2]

Creating this post has been a real eye-opener for me. I was sprinkled as an infant and had hands laid on me when I was twelve. In later years, I was immersed years later after I had prayed for the infilling of the Ruach.

In my next post, we continue to dig into the third article of the Nicene Creed: We Acknowledge One Baptism for the Forgiveness of Sins

Click here for the PDF version.

[1] Bath or pool with a flow of freshwater; used in Orthodox Judaism to this day for ritual purification.

[2] Di Berardino, A., & Oden, T. C. (Eds.). (2010). We Believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Vol. 5, pp. 87–90).

Creeds of the Kehillah ~ Part 40

Posted on by
Reply

The Nicene Creed~ Part 26

In our last post, we continued to explore the Nicene Creed. In this post, we continue to dig into the third article of faith, keeping with the phrase We Believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in the Nicene Creed.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

WE BELIEVE IN ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC KEHILLAH ~ One Holy Catholic and Apostolic ~ Part 2

The term catholic, not much used before, acquired a new significance in the mouth of Believers. Pacian of Barcelona wrote that no one used to be called catholic during the time of the emissaries. But when heretics had appeared and were striving under various names to tear apart the kehillot, the apostolic people required a name of their own by which they would mark the unity of an uncorrupted people. Ignatius of Antioch was the first to attribute the adjective catholic to the kehillah to warn Believers against the celebration of the Eucharist by renegades.

The final description that the creed uses in referring to the kehillah is the adjective apostolic. Not present in the Brit Hadashah, this term refers directly to the emissaries as a historical reality. In early messianic history, the emissaries enjoyed a privileged position in that they were bearers of the message of Yeshua and about Yeshua. That message could be transmitted only by people legitimately chosen and invested with that authority proper to Yeshua. The first bearers of the message, in turn, sent other emissaries. Its communication was oral. At the beginning of the second century, Papias of Hierapolis considered the oral reception more profitable than the written. Also, Tertullian referred to the methodology of reading Scripture within the oral tradition. In the second century, the apostolic authority was found in written texts that went under the names of the emissaries. All appealed to the emissaries and their teaching, even the Gnostics, who referred to the secret teaching of Yeshua and the emissaries. From this came the necessity of a public and documented succession from the emissaries onward through the drawing up of the lists of bishops.

The terminology of succession is not present in the Brit Hadashah. The preoccupation with assuring the continuity and fidelity to sound doctrine is present in the Pastoral Letters and the Acts of the Emissaries to preserve identity in time and space. For this reason, the priesthood was instituted. The succession was assured through the imposition of hands and the invocation of the grace of God: Do not neglect your gift, which you were given through a prophecy when the body of elders gave you s’mikhah. [1] 6For this reason, I am reminding you to fan the flame of God’s gift, which you received through s’mikhah from me. 7 For God gave us a Spirit who produces not timidity, but power, love, and self-discipline. [2] Clement of Rome was the first to elaborate on the terminology of succession. Tertullian confronted the issues of kehillot not founded by the emissaries. Over time, apostolicity [3] came to carry the weight of institutional and doctrinal importance concerning the catholicity of the kehillah.

One could write the history of the ancient kehillah as a continuous battle against swarms of heresies and schisms. It was a kehillah in continuous tension between unity and division, which it overcame partially through the centralization of power in the hands of the bishops. From this arose the necessity to celebrate numerous conciliar assemblies at various levels (diocesan, provincial, regional, or more than one geographical area, or of the whole empire). For example, in the councils, there was the African practice of rereading the canons of the previous meetings. Why? This rereading was also a sign of continuity. The councils, then, were a model of collegiality at various levels, both geographically and through time.

This continuity was essential for the faith and life of the kehillah. When Believers inserted apostolicity in the creed, they wanted to affirm the historical and verifiable continuity of the faith, of the kehillah, of the individual Believers, and the kehillot religious organization. The two terms, apostolic and catholic, complement each other in that the first explains the present unity and continuity with its origins while the second explains present kehillah.

Believers of the early centuries found and practiced different ways of preserving and promoting communion, unity of faith, and discipline between the numerous kehillot spread throughout the Roman Empire, especially in the first centuries and in the autonomous political entities succeeding centuries. More or less effective and valuable methods were indispensable because of the incredible variety that was very notable. Furthermore, communication and the circulation of ideas were problematic. Still, the organizations that were formed to ensure unity evolved enormously and sometimes assumed permanent forms. In ensuring ecclesial peace, the laity became more and more marginalized when they had exercised a significant role in early times. For example, in the third century, the laity was vigilant about the orthodoxy of their bishop. Contact with other Messianic kehillot served to maintain and develop a consciousness of many kehillot’s unity, like a federation of kehillot. There is a hierarchy of importance, reference, and coordination. In the East, the seats of reference were those of Alexandria, of Antioch of Syria, and, from the end of the fourth century, of Constantinople, which more and more became the center of attention and acquired a type of importance, which was challenged by the other eastern sees. The presence of the emperor in the capital attracted many bishops there who could form a type of permanent council during their stay in the city.

There had to be a close communication system, especially since there was no canon law, norms, and local and regional traditions. Not excluding those of the ecumenical councils, the conciliar canons had a relatively limited circulation, and their knowledge was lacking. A well-defined biblical canon did not exist either at that time. The Bible, a fundamental part of believing, was the constant point of reference in the life of Messianic kehillot, in particular, in antiquity. Biblical exegesis was at the basis of preaching, catechesis, doctrinal elaboration, ethics, the institutions and the liturgy, and the controversies. It was the source of unity and division because of the different possible interpretations, depending on different theologies. For this reason, discussion and communication, and not an imposition from above, created real communion between the kehillot. [4]

In my next post, we continue to dig into the third article of the Nicene Creed: We Acknowledge One Baptism.

Creeds of the Kehillah ~ Part 40

[1] 1 Timothy 4:14 (CJB).

[2] 2 Timothy 1:6–7 (CJB).

[3] Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity.

[4] Di Berardino, A., & Oden, T. C. (Eds.). We Believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Vol. 5, pp. 54–57).

Creeds of the Kehillah ~ Part 39

Posted on by
Reply

The Nicene Creed~ Part 25

In our last post, we continued to explore the Nicene Creed. In this post, we continue to dig into the third article of faith, keeping with the phrase We Believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in the Nicene Creed.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

WE BELIEVE IN ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC KEHILLAH ~ One Holy Catholic and Apostolic ~ Part 1

In the Apostles’ Creed, the profession of faith is personal: “I believe,” while in the Nicene Creed, it is “we believe.” The kehillah expresses its faith together. At the last part of the creed, after the profession in the Ruach HaKodesh and His work, we say we believe “in one holy catholic and apostolic church.” These four notes are fundamental for the definition of the kehillah as the kehillah of Yeshua, and they enable its recognition by all the baptized.

Holiness has always been the first characteristic of the kehillah to be recognized. Already from the beginning of the second century, we find the saying the “holy church.” Beginning from here, the texts of the Fathers repeatedly and incessantly define the kehillah as holy, up to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan profession of faith. The biblical foundation for its use leaves us in no doubt. Yeshua, the holy one of God, is the center of the new kehillah chosen and consecrated to raise to God true spiritual worship. This kehillah is the holy temple of God, and the death of Yeshua makes it holy and immaculate. The baptized are called holy ones to indicate their belonging to God and the consecration brought about by the baptismal water. The celebration of the Eucharist highlighted for all Believers the state of holiness in which they participated and to which they were called. This was so profoundly experienced that the emissary felt obliged to write about the necessity for a serious examination of conscience before approaching the celebration of the banquet. The holiness of the kehillah is founded on the presence and action in it of the Ruach HaKodesh. It is, therefore, original holiness that has no analogy in the previous history; it is objective and complete, fount and source of every other personal holiness that is born in the kehillah and is developed. If the kehillah were not holy, it could not proclaim as holy those who give testimony to true evangelical life. The history of the kehillah, then, is above all and before all a history of holiness. It is not possible to ignore or not recognize this dimension without misinterpreting the sacred texts and two thousand years of the history of the kehillah. If the kehillah is holy, then it cannot, because of its nature, sin, or have sinned. This poses another problem that must be faced: the presence of sinners.

The affirmation of the unity of the kehillah finds its root in the tremendous high-priestly prayer placed on the lips of Yeshua in the Gospel of John that they may all be one. Just as you, Father, are united with me and I with you, I pray that they may be united with us so that the world may believe that you sent me. [1] Sha’ul many times exhorts readers to attain this unity by using the powerful image of the body of Yeshua, where all members are connected. According to one bishop’s principle for one city, the unity of the kehillah was affirmed not only in rhetoric but also in the organization: each local kehillah was led by a bishop in communion with other bishops, according to one bishop’s principle for one city his territory. His office was primarily liturgical and one of guidance. He presided over the liturgical assemblies and was aided by presbyters and deacons. The celebration of the Eucharist expressed unity. The bishop decided who would be admitted to catechesis, who admitted catechumens to baptism, who baptized and celebrated the Eucharist, who admitted or excluded people from the Eucharist, who gave penance sinners and pardoned them.

The kehillah of the early centuries elaborated different systems to preserve, favor and develop unity among the kehillot. The lack of centralization and the absence of solid cohesion, in the institutional sense, constituted a weakness of the messianic kehillot in relation to the whole kehillah. Indeed, it was a strength in that all the kehillot were involved and felt responsible. Still, it was also a weakness, especially at a time when the doctrine was being refined and discipline was being constituted. This was true both in the relations between kehillot and inside a particular kehillah because of all the components’ sense of participation.

The affirmation that the kehillah is holy comes from Scripture, as does that of unity. The Brit Hadasah often calls Believers “holy ones.” Sha’ul writes that the Messiah loved the Messianic Community, indeed, gave Himself up on its behalf, 26 in order to set it apart for God, making it clean through immersion [2] in the mikveh, so to speak, 27in order to present the Messianic Community to Himself as a bride to be proud of, without a spot, wrinkle or any such thing, but holy and without defect.[3] The first letter of Kefa says, 9 But you are a chosen people, the King’s cohanim, a holy nation, a people for God to possess! Why? In order for you to declare the praises of the One who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light. [4] The holy nation is the new kehillah constituted of Believers; its holiness does not mean that there are not sinners in the kehillah, but the kehillah participates in the holiness of God, the only Holy One.

In my next post, we continue to dig into the third article of the Nicene Creed: We Believe in The Holy Spirt.

Click here for the PDF version.

[1] John 17:21 (CJB)

[2] Baptism.

3 Ephesians 5:27 ~ (CJB).

[4] 1 Kefa 2:9 ~ (CJB).

Creeds of the Kehillah ~ Part 38

Posted on by
Reply

The Nicene Creed~ Part 24

In our last post, we continued to explore the Nicene Creed. In this post, we continue to dig into the third article of faith, keeping with the phrase We Believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in the Nicene Creed.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,

who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son, He is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
 We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

WE BELIEVE IN ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH ~ The Church.

Recall that I prefer to call the “church” the kehillah, which means “community” in Hebrew. I think that it is much easier to think of “church” as “a community” and not as “a building.” So, I will take some liberty to change the word “church” from now on in this post to kehillah. You will also note that I have used numerous quotes from the Christian Standard Bible (CSB) instead of my “go-to” version of the Complete Jewish Bible (CJB). There is a simple explanation for doing so. This year, I am using the CSB for my reading to see what new gems I might discover for my daily devotions this year.

In our profession of faith, we proclaim, “We believe in … the kehillah.” Rufinus explains why in Latin, we say, “We believe the kehillah,” and not we believe “in the kehillah.” He writes:

“We believe the holy kehillah,” not as God but as the kehillah gathered together to God. And we believe that there is “forgiveness of sins”; we do not say “We believe in the forgiveness of sins.” And we believe that there will be a “resurrection of the flesh”; we do not say, “We believe in the resurrection of the flesh.” By this monosyllabic preposition, therefore, the Creator is distinguished from the creatures, and things divine are separated from things human. [1]

Understanding the Fathers of the significance and the nature of the kehillah is grounded on Scripture, especially on the Brit Hadashah. The strong images of Sha’ul support their explanation: the Messianic community as the body of Messiah, as his bride, as a mother. Because she is a bride, she can generate sons and daughters for the Father. Sha’ul, in describing the nature of the Messianic community, introduces the image of the kehillah as the body of Messiah and expounds it in the Pastoral Letters. Messiah is the head of that body: “He is the head of the body, the kehillah.… Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh, I complete what is lacking in Messiah’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the kehillah.”[2] There is a mystical identification between believers and Messiah, as is shown in the conversion of Sha’ul: “As he journeyed, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ And he said, ‘Who are you, Lord?’ And he said, ‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.’”[3]

To belong to Messiah, have a personal relationship with Him, and have union with Him implies the result of union with other believers. “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Messiah?… But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him.” [4] The same faith and love unify individuals in Messiah: “So we, though many, are one body in Messiah, and individually members one of another.” [5] According to Sha’ul, believers are members of a body and are connected, serving different functions. It is not only a visible unity, a society with all members in harmony; the unity is of a higher order. It is not only a social or a moral unity but a mystical body. Mystical does not mean something strange or hidden; it means that Messiah binds, guides, ties, unites us to Himself. It is a reality that is not obvious to our intelligence and is beyond our senses, and involves a unique union of all the members with Messiah, who is the head. John uses the image of the vine and the branches:

5 “I am the vine, and you are the branches. Those who stay united with me, and I with them, are the ones who bear much fruit; because apart from me, you can’t do a thing. 6 Unless a person remains united with me, he is thrown away like a branch and dries up. Such branches are gathered and thrown into the fire, where they are burned up. 7 “If you remain united with me, and my words with you, then ask whatever you want, and it will happen for you. 8 This is how my Father is glorified—in your bearing much fruit; this is how you will prove to be my talmidim.~  John 15:5-8 (CJB)

The members are bound through faith, love, and sacraments to Messiah, who endows us with His gifts: “holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.” [6] In the force of this union, the kehillah is the fullness or complement of Messiah: the Father “has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the kehillah, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.”  [7] It forms one whole with him: “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Messiah.” [8] This body is nourished by the Eucharist: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread.” [9]

The visible kehillah is a human, mixed company, with shadows and spots. It is the visible sign of the presence of the kingdom of God among human beings, sustained by hope, whose soul is the Ruach. [10]

In my next post, we continue to dig into the third article of the Nicene Creed: We Believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Click here for the PDF version.

[1] Rufinus Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed. In other words, we believe in God and things divine. We do not believe in things human; we simply believe them.

[2] Colossians 1:18, 24 (CSB)

[3] Acts 9:3-5 (CSB)

[4] 1 Cor 6:15, 17 (CSB).

[5] 1 Cor 6:15ans 12:5 (CSB)

[6] Colossian 2:19 (CSB)

[7] Eph 1:22–23 (CSB)

[8] 1 Cor 12:12 (CSB)

[9] 1 Cor 10:17

[10] Di Berardino, A., & Oden, T. C. (Eds.). (2010). We Believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Vol. 5, pp. 1–3).