Homily for the Tenth Sunday of Matthew - A Faithless and Perverse Generation (Metr. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos)

 

 Homily for the Tenth Sunday of Matthew

A Faithless and Perverse Generation

By Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou

"O faithless and perverse generation!" (Matt. 17:17)

Today's Gospel reading refers to the healing of the moonstruck young man by Christ. To the words of this young man's father that His disciples could not heal him, Christ replied: "O faithless and perverse generation!" (Matthew 17:17). With this word, Christ connects unbelief with perversion, and by extension faith with the correctness of morals and life.

Homily One for the Epistle Reading on the Sunday of the Holy Fathers - Christian Behavior (Metr. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos)

Sunday of the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod

 

By Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou

(Titus 3:8-15)

In his letter to Titus, the Apostle Paul, as we heard today in the Apostolic reading, among other things, urges him to advise Christians (clergy and laity) to behave properly in society. It does not speak of an outward behavior, but of the result of the salvation that took place with the incarnation of Christ and experienced in their lives.

The Spiritual Law According to St. Mark the Ascetic

By Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou

Human societies have need of laws if they are to function correctly, and such societies are described as well-ordered. The existence Of laws is essential because fallen man with his passions creates huge social problems, since the principle of individual rights applies. This means that each person, in his attempt to exercise his rights to the full, comes into direct confrontation with other people, who are also in the grip of passions and want to satisfy their own wishes and their individual rights. So there must be laws to set matters in order and to determine the bounds of citizens’ rights.

What happens in human societies also occurs in the spiritual context for exactly the same reason. If everyone had within them the Holy Spirit working to bring about illumination and glorification, there would be no need for a ‘religious’ law. However, that will only happen in human life at the end of time for those who have full communion with the Triune God.

In the pages that follow we will look in greater detail at the meaning of law and its different levels. We will concern ourselves mainly, however, with the force and effect of the spiritual law according to the teaching of St Mark the Ascetic.

Orthodoxy and the World Today: An Interview With Fr. Nikolaos Loudovikos

The following interview with Protopresbyter Fr. Nikolaos Loudovikos, Professor of Dogmatics and Philosophy at the University Ecclesiastical Academy of Thessaloniki, took place in 2007.

Apostolos Diamantis: How did you, a graduate of psychology, turn to theology?

Nikolaos Loudovikos: I come from psychology, I studied psychology. Then, through monks from Mount Athos, I moved on to Orthodox theology. And I immediately read the Greek Fathers. In my work I stand critically against existentialism, which has been adopted by some Greek theologians, which has its roots in Augustine and Plotinus. Namely that the soul is celestial and the body earthly. And so they talk about nature as if it is something we must emerge from. This division does not exist in the Greek Fathers, for whom the soul is a "thinly bodied spirit".

A.D.: These are certainly difficult things to follow for an ordinary person.

N.L.: Not at all. Ordinary people experience them empirically, by their participation in ecclesiastical life. It becomes tradition. The problem is with the schematic thinking of the "educated", those of the right and the left and the centrists. The cliches of the left are three categories: Middle Ages = Disaster, Enlightenment = Resurrection, Church = Christodoulos, namely an open tomb. Those on the right identify the entire Orthodox tradition with whatever is prevailing in the Church. A good relationship had with all of these is the monastic tradition and ordinary people, who have "kept the steps of a lost dance", as Dionysios Savvopoulos once said.

It is Easier for a Person to Abandon their Religion Rather than their Ego

By Metropolitan Meletios of Nikopolis

It is a thousand times easier for a person

to say and admit their religion is COMPLETELY WRONG,

rather than to say and admit that their thinking 
and their life is WRONG.

It is much easier for a person to abandon their religion

rather than their EGO,

and they are always looking for a religion 
that does not jeopardize their EGO.

Morality or Moralism?

By the Very Rev. John Breck

March 23, 2010

Today a great many people are entering the Orthodox Church from other, generally Western confessions. Their tendency, quite understandably, is to bring with them notions of sin and guilt, obedience and virtue (merits) that figure strongly in the way those confessions construe the means by which we attain salvation. Whether they remain in a lay state or become ordained, they often allow their "former delusion" to influence the way they conduct themselves and the way they expect others to behave within an Orthodox setting. They determine for themselves and for those around them just what degree of rigor is necessary in order to live a virtuous life. The upshot is that a quest for virtue and morality often results in legalism, moralism and self-righteousness.

Cradle Orthodox, laypersons and clergy, can also succumb to this temptation, of course. All of us, in fact, are susceptible of passing judgment on those whom we suspect of neglecting the rules or making choices that are not pleasing to God.

Saint James the Ascetic, Who Was a Rapist and Murderer

St. James the Ascetic (Feast Day - January 28)

God sees His creatures, such as man, not from what can be observed, but from the heart. And by His choices, He gives a loud slap to our respectability and pietism. If such a man as Saint James lived today, journalists would completely destroy him. Yet this man was recognized by God, and God revealed him to be one of our saints.

The Spiritual Person is not Moral, but Loving

By Archimandrite Paul Papadopoulos

Many times we hear priests talking about spiritual advancement, saying: "Let us try to become spiritual people." But what does spiritual advancement mean? Have we misinterpreted it in our minds?

When the Church Fathers speak of spirituality they are not talking about morality. The Church, my brethren, offers us spiritual, not moral perfection. Certainly the spiritual person is moral, but moral does not mean spiritual. We can achieve moral goodness by ourselves, but it is not the goal, and it should not be an end in itself, nor is morality sufficient to attract the grace of God. For example, no matter how pure you are, or chaste, or blameless your life is, even if you live a life of virginity, and no matter how just, and if everyone considers you a very moral person, yet if you do not have humility you have achieved nothing, for God "gives grace to the humble".

Irrevocable Oblivion or Eternal Memory? (About the Burial or Cremation of the Dead)

Below is a response to a new legislation on cremation in Greece:

By His Eminence Metropolitan Amphilochios

of Kissamos and Selino

Finally in this country, in this place which for centuries has been watered and nourished with the spouts of blood of the martyrs and saints of our Faith and Nation, it seems that some people have set about, authoritatively, to undertake the role of "catastrophizer", by desacrilizing and dechristianizing our people.

Behold, therefore, what they thought of and legislated regarding cremation.

The Immorality of Moralism

By Archimandrite Paul Papadopoulos

Moralism is the cancer of general morality. The "letter" of moralism kills the "spirit" of life in man. In this way moralism kills the ethos, because it fossilizes life. This is why eventually moralism negates morality. General morality is one thing while moralism and moralizing is quite another.

Orthodoxy and Modern Life: An Interview With Metropolitan Nicholas of Mesogaia

Below is an interview by Prof. Nikos Kokosalakis with Fr. Nikolaos Hatzinikolaou, who is now Metropolitan Nicholas of Mesogaia and Lavreotiki, but who was then living as a monk and teaching science. The interview was published in Religione e Societa on March 15, 1996. More about Metropolitan Nicholas and his extensive scientific background can be read here.

Orthodox Spirituality

N.K. I am grateful to you, Father Nikolaos, that you kindly accepted to talk with me on the theme "Orthodoxy and Modern Life". Your vocation as a monk, living and serving a spiritual ministry at this outpost of Mount Athos, here in the middle of Athens, and your training in the natural sciences makes an excellent combination for a view of Orthodoxy from a deep personal experience and a scientific perspective. Your views, therefore, will be of great interest to the readers of the journal Religioni e Societa.

Let's start with the topic of the spiritual dimension of Orthodoxy. More specifically, could you elaborate on Orthodox spirituality as a way of life, as an experience and its compatibility with contemporary everyday life and social reality?

The First Recorded Stand Against Slavery

As also mentioned by Kirby Page in Jesus or Christianity, Charles Loring Brace tells us in Gesta Christ, or, A History of Humane Progress under Christianity (1888) that it was not until the 9th century that the first recorded stand against slavery itself was taken by St. Theodore the Studite:

No direct word against slavery, however, came forth from the great Teacher [Jesus Christ]. It was not until the ninth century after, that one of his humble followers, Saint Theodore of Studium (Constantinople), ventured to put forth the command "Thou shalt possess no slave, neither for domestic service nor for the labor of the fields, for man is made in the image of God."

This quote is taken from the Testament (PG 99:1816D; 1817, ch. d) of St. Theodore, where he says that monasteries must not own slaves or female animals. He takes these prohibitions from his uncle St. Plato, the abbot of Sakkudion (Oration 11, PG 99:824-825, ch. 4.23). St. Theodore also mentions the subject of slavery in a letter to his student Nicholas (Epistle 10) and in his Catechesis (13). And in both of his recorded Lives, St. Theodore frees his slaves.

It should be noted that other Church Fathers before St. Theodore denounced slavery, though tolerated it at the secular level. For example, St. John Chrysostom examines the passions behind slavery, but explains that a faithful and godly slave is essentially free while those who are led by their passions and desires to sin are the true slaves. He writes: "Covetousness begat slavery, and an evil temper, and insatiable greediness. For Noah had no servant, neither had Abel, nor Seth, no, nor they who came after them. The thing was the fruit of sin, of rebellion against parents" (Homily on Ephesians 22). What differentiates St. Theodore's denunciation is that he does not tolerate it on the grounds that "man is made in the image of God", which would become the slogan for all later denunciations against slavery.

Read also: The Church Fathers and Slavery

Modern Discourse and the Challenge of History

Fr. James Siemens

September 2, 2013

RISU

A good deal of our current malaise, both in the Church and in society more broadly, can be attributed — I think — to a certain disregard for history. In terms of contemporary history, this disregard might be more accurately called amnesia, but equally that might be to give too much credit to those who do not account for the past — as if theirs is a merely passive act. No, I think the problem is worse than that. The problem is much more conscious, deliberate, and even vandalistic. This is in spite of the fact that, to the credit of a few in the media, there have been some recent acknowledgments of the importance of history, not least in relation to Syria and the Middle East, but also in relation to the Church Herself.

The recent celebrations in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine around the 1025th anniversary of the baptism of Kyivan Rus’, however contentious, have at least served as a catalyst for historical debate, with Ukrainian memory serving as a counterpoint to the misappropriation of history by others with their own ecclesiastical or political agendas. Developments in the public conversation around human sexuality, meanwhile, represent an act of conscious disdain for history of the sort that has come to characterize most Western dialogue more generally. Saying nothing, for example, about the fundamental rights of people of homosexual orientation, the arguments proffered in the last year by David Cameron’s government in the United Kingdom in favor of same-sex marriage amounted to nothing short of historical sacrilege. Where attention was paid to historical witness it was seldom more than in caricature, while terminology distilled through the process of centuries was disavowed and redefined at the stroke of a pen, the strike of a key, or the sound of an offhand comment. Unfortunately, the voice of the Church — at least in Britain, and at least as it was communicated publicly — was no better. What the media picked up was often reactionary in tone, wholly failing to satisfactorily enunciate an understanding of types of human relationships, types of human love, and the genesis of marriage itself. This was in spite of more than two thousand years of thinking about the matter. Alas, neither politicians nor theologians have been able, in this debate, to corral the forces of history to present something resembling historical and philosophical truth.

The very notion of history and the power it holds over society is one that extends back to the earliest civilizations. No pharaoh of early Egypt, for example, would have been so bold as to rule in ways divergent from his predecessors. For them, what had been done before dictated what could be done in the present, the rule of Akhenaten being the only fleeting exception. Even as people became more critically engaged with events of the past, these events were treated with utmost respect: history, to the ancients, both set precedent and transmitted meaning, and was therefore to be considered among the most fundamental sources of knowledge. From Judaic apocalyptic texts, through St Luke, to Eusebius, to the late antique chroniclers and those engaged in paschal computation, what had once happened pointed to what would happen, and so indicated what should happen. To be sure, the approach of contemporary humanity — at least in the West — both in the religious and secular realms, represents a radical divergence from this worldview, and the worldview of every civilization since that of ancient Mesopotamia.

The reasons for this, I imagine, are manifold. Certainly, the ideological abuse of history by the various totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century is one, leading as it did to widespread exasperation with any hint of enthusiasm for the historical in the wake of the Second World War. This ideological abuse may not have been the first of its kind where history is concerned, but in a philosophically fragmented world, it provided the perfect pretext for building a new order without the need to acknowledge, reference, or defer to, precedent. The repercussions of this can be seen in post-war urban planning, architecture, visual art, composition, and dance, national approaches to education, and even the Church’s liturgy. Indeed, it is resoundingly clear that the intellectual landscape of contemporary Ukraine continues to suffer from the misappropriation of history by different factions. The fact that the post-war world is also post-Freudian will have some bearing on many of these things but, in essence, it is surely the rejection of the historical as any kind of reference point that represents the foremost factor in Western society’s disintegration.

As theoretical as all this may seem, it is vital that traditional Christians — and anyone else with an interest in the proliferation of well-ordered, well-educated, and well-grounded society — learn to engage with history: not as a mere repository of motifs for romantic fiction, nor as something to be cast aside out of ignorance, but as the source of truth as it has unfolded across generations. To this end, we must learn the difference between historical notions and what the sources actually reveal. We must learn to interpret evidence, and to set aside our preconceived notions. We must learn to identify those areas in which respect for precedent has been eschewed in favor of an existentially determined style. The implications if we do not do this include everything from the prospect of further global violence, to increasingly oppressive legislation, to the surmounting loss of our artistic, intellectual, and liturgical heritage. At this pivotal moment in human history, the aim of every able person should be to engage issues by casting them against their historical background, and reading them in relation to the sources from which they emerge. Ultimately, only an ad fontes approach to questions we face will give us the context we need in order to plot a way forward.

Holy Hieromartyr Philonides, Bishop of Kourion

Saint Philonides of Kourion (Feast Day - June 17 and August 30)

Verses

Before Philonides offered his sacrifice,
He offered the sacrifice of his prudence.

The Hieromartyr Philonides was born in Cyprus around 250 AD. As a young man he was chosen to serve the Church of Christ as a clergyman and eventually the Bishop of Kourion (Latin: Curium), a great city and renowned for its worship of Apollo. In fact, Saint Philonides is the first known bishop of Kourion.

When the terrible persecution of Diocletian broke out, the ruler of Cyprus at that time was Maximus, who the holy bishop arrested and imprisoned. He was imprisoned with three of his spiritual children - the priest Aristokles, the deacon Dimitrianos, and the reader Athanasios (who are celebrated by the Church together on June 23rd). One morning, when this holy companionship ended their devout prayers, three executioners came into the cell and dragged out and brutally killed the three companions of Bishop Philonides. Then they told Philonides that he must sacrifice to idols, or else they would strip him naked and drunk satyrs would sexually assault his body.

The Holy Hierarch literally froze when he heard this, and having prayed for a long time with tears, he stood up, and called forward some of his fellow brother prisoners and revealed to them the stance of the ruler and his decision to sacrifice himself. He did this because he did not want anyone to be scandalized by the manner of his death. It should be noted that this decree to corrupt Bishop Philonides did not only apply to the Bishop, but to all Christians in order to corrupt them and humiliate them physically.

To escape a shameful death, Bishop Philonides slowly crawled through a secret passageway and came to a high cliff. Having knelt in prayer for some time, he then covered his face with his cloak, made the sign of the Cross three times, then threw himself off the cliff. Before his body touched the ground, the soul of the Holy Hieromartyr flew to the Heavens.

Shortly after his death, the Saint appeared in a vision to two travelers, running before them naked and bathed in perfume, holding a palm branch and having a crown on his head. They heard the Saint say: "Thank you, my Christ, for by You I was victorious. From the door of the earth, You raised me up to the door of heaven." The vision led the two men to the spot where the dead body of the Saint was lying, then he disappeared. However, the pagans took the Saint's body and threw it into the sea in order for it to disappear. But the sea washed the corpse back on the shore from where eventually the Christians took it and buried it with honors.

A Bishop named Aristos, who had been arrested by the pagans and set free, is responsible for writing about the glorious life and martyrdom of Saint Philonides. His death is placed in the period between 303 and 305. In the Synaxarion of Constantinople his commemoration is set for August 30th. However, according to the Synaxarion of Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite his memory is celebrated on June 17th.

Black People in Byzantine Society

By Apostolos Karpozilos

In Byzantine sources we do not find specific references to black people as a separate group that lived on the margins of Byzantine society due to their distinct color, their characteristics, their language or their culture. The sources, insofar as we know, do not seem to indicate the existence of a black people who were on the margins of society in urban centers or elsewhere, even during the period when the empire included areas of South Arabia and North Africa, with their mixed populations of nations and races.

Also the relatively little evidence we have at our disposal indicates that black people were not in particular considered a minority in the Byzantine mind. The names of the various peoples who inhabited the shores of the Red Sea and within Africa, both in early Christian and Byzantine sources, were characterized by confusion and ambiguity. The name commonly used for these people were Indians, whether they were Axumites, Ethiopians or Omirites.

Besides, the historical references to these peoples are limited to the beginning of the seventh century, where the empire still retained its sovereignty in Egypt by controlling Egyptian trade with other nations of the African continent.

With the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs the relationship between the empire and these peoples was cut off for good. It should, however, be noted that the attitude of the Byzantines towards the blacks, as reflected in the relatively few and scattered testimonies of sources, do not reflect any racial bias. Prejudices of this kind did not exist in antiquity, not even in the Greco-Roman period, when the empire was indeed multinational. At least there was no racial strife in the form and to the extent we know of them today, even though xenophobia, nationalism and dislike or contempt for uncivilized peoples were not unknown concepts in the world of antiquity. However, blacks did not face persecution nor were they excluded from the social mainstream as inferior due to their color.

Therefore the Byzantines inherited a culture for foreign peoples that had already formed during the Greco-Roman period, a mentality of excellence in both education and culture, and not racial especially in their relations with blacks and Negro-Africans in general. This attitude and mindset was influenced even more by the teaching of the Gospel, the message of which was directed generally to all without any discrimination.

The scant evidence we have for blacks can be divided into three categories of sources: the theological, historical and literary. But of which blacks are they talking about here - a particular race or people or of the dark colored in general? Byzantine writers bundle all the black or dark people under the name of Ethiopians, in the same way they group together the Indians, without making any distinction as to their place of origin, their characteristics or their language.

The word Ethiopian in Byzantium was used not only to indicate the inhabitants of Ethiopia, Nubia or Sudan, but also to indicate a black or dark person. The word derives from aitho (αίθω = burned) and ops (οψ = face), so that an Ethiopian (Αιθίοψ) is one who has a burned face from the sun. As Philostorgius writes of the inhabitants of Axum: "These are all of a very dark color, from the effects of the vertical rays of the sun."

The Church very early took a positive and specific attitude towards blacks, due to various biblical passages of the Old and New Testaments, which mention both Ethiopians and blacks. The interpretations of these passages by the Fathers of the Church formed an "African theology" as it was characteristically named by Professor Ernest Benz, who was the first to contribute to the extensive biblical scholia of Origen. In the passage of the Song of Solomon 1:5, the Ethiopian daughter, for example, addresses the daughters of Israel, and having the feeling of inferiority because of her color, she says apologetically: "I am dark, yet beautiful, daughters of Jerusalem, dark like the tents of Kedar, like the tent curtains of Solomon." According to Origen, the Ethiopian daughter here symbolizes the Church of the nations, while the daughters of Jerusalem symbolize the Jewish synagogue and the supremacy of the origin of the race of Abraham. This passage and several others (such as the Ethiopian woman taken by Moses in Number 12:1-2), is interpreted in the context of the teaching about the Gospel to the nations (cf. Acts. 21:25).

The contrast between the colors black and white, as expressed in the Song of Songs ("I am dark, yet beautiful." ... "Do not gaze at me because I am dark, because the sun has gazed on me."), is interpreted symbolically by Origen and the Fathers of the Church. During one period even the Church of Alexandria and generally Africa included within it various peoples, tribes and nations, including no doubt many blacks.

Any misinterpretation that might arise from biblical passages where blacks may be portrayed in a negative or humiliating way, such as Jeremiah 13:23 ("Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil."), were surmounted very early thanks to the timely intervention of Origen.

The few historical testimonies we have for blacks during the early Byzantine period are mainly limited to the field of diplomacy. The sources mention two or three times when Blemmyes and Ethiopian ambassadors requested a hearing from Constantine I (324-337) and Constantius II (337-361). However, these fragmentary accounts which we draw concerning the Negro-Africans can be numbered on our fingers, and their importance is rather limited, as the authors do not go into substantial detail.

We would add, however, that any references of Eusebius of Ceasarea to the presence of foreign ambassadors at the court of Constantine the Great, which mentions the Blemmyes race, the Indian and the Ethiopian, are not rhetorical places, but refer to a specific event. The relations of the empire with the various African peoples during this period, were mainly limited to the field of trade and the conclusion of several treaties, as with the Omirites of whom speaks the ecclesiastical historian Philostorgius. Also with the spread of Christianity there was promoted the political and economic interests of the empire in the sensitive area of ​​Southwest Arabia. As known, the emperor Constantine II attempted to influence ecclesiastical matters in the nation of Axum by sending a personal letter to the rulers Aizana and Sazana requesting the removal of Bishop Frumentius.

But the commercial activity was often compounded by the missionary work conducted by traders as well as the monks and ascetics of Egypt. "Indeed many Ethiopians were seen among the monastics living in asceticism, and many acquired the virtues and thus fulfilled the words of Scripture: 'Ethiopia shall hasten to stretch out her hands to God'" (Psalm 68:31). According to Jerome, who wrote in the early fifth century, Ethiopian pilgrims daily visited Jerusalem. Diplomatic relations with the nation of Axum continued under Anastasios I and remained until the time of Justinian.

The kings of Axum even sent precious gifts to Anastasios - for an unknown occasion - of an elephant and two giraffes among other exotic animals. Moreover, under Justinian, on the occasion of the accession of the Samaritans to the side of the Persians, a pact of friendship was sought with King Elisboa of Axum. John Malalas describes in great detail and in an impressive way the diplomatic mission and the arrival in the courtyard of Elisboa. Therefore, diplomatic contacts with the Ethiopians and Omirites during this period "give the appearance of a continuous, feverish activity" and were essentially inspired by political-economic incentives.

From hagiographic sources of the same period it is evident, not only in Egypt but also in the Arabian peninsula, that the monks of the desert had maintained contacts and communication with black people.

The Byzantine ecclesiastical calendar included, as is known, the memory of Saint Moses the Ethiopian (August 28), the life of which is indicative of the contacts ascetics of the Thebaid had, within the limits of Hermopolis in Egypt, with black populations, but also black robbers and bandits, just as it was in the background of the life of Saint Moses the Ethiopian. The same goes for contacts between monks and Arabs, whom sources do not always distinguish from the blacks. In hagiographic sources, especially those coming from the region of Sinai, there is however a distinction between Arabs and Blemmyes as two distinct and separate nations. It is also interesting to note that in the iconography of the Arab saints there is no distinction as to color, but they are illustrated just like the Byzantine saints.

In hagiographic texts of this period, we have the first mention of the term "black" to describe a race with negro features, the Blemmyes. However, in Greek papyri of Egypt from the 6th and 7th centuries, the term "black" refers to Sudanese slaves.

The presence of black soldiers and black slaves in Byzantium is another issue that needs in particular to be studied. Constantine Porphyrogenitus mentions in his work On Administering the Empire to his son Romanos that the leader of the Arabs, Abimelech, sent ambassadors to Justinian Rinotmitos seeking peace under the terms that the emperor would withdraw the battalian of Mardaites from Lebanon while he would offer each Roman emperor a thousand coins, together with a noble horse and an Ethiopian slave.

Mention of Ethiopian soldiers, or better of pirates, occurs in the narrative of John Kaminiates On the Capture of Thessaloniki by Leo of Tripoli in 904. Here it refers, in one sense, to Sudanese mercenaries who participated in the raids of Leo, the soldiers of which included Arab and African pirates.

While references to specific sources of historical data and events related to the presence of blacks in Byzantine society are minimal to nonexistent, the literary sources are numerous - although almost always these kinds of testimonials focus on one or two themes or literary sites . In the literature on the Ethiopians, there dominates mostly various quotations and variations of Ethiopian proverbs: "the Ethiopian remains Ethiopian", "an Ethiopian cannot be whitened", or even "the one born an Ethiopian is whitened" in a response to a Sticheron in commemoration of the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch by St. Philip. Most interesting are the references found in hagiographic texts, in which the demons usually appear as black, appearing in the form of Ethiopians, as in the Life of Symeon the Fool: "When the spirit fled, it passed through the phouska-shop in the form of an Ethiopian and broke everything... An accursed black man came and smashed everything."

As a rule, the demons that appear black as Ethiopians test the faith and fortitude of believers. A typical example is the Life of Andrew the Fool. In order to win crowns in Paradise, Andrew, while in a deep sleep, saw that he must wrestle with a black demon in a packed theater of many Ethiopians. Having faith in the words of the angel, that the Ethiopians are insolent and cowardly, the saint eventually emerged the victor in this spiritual struggle, having defeated all those blacks.

But in the Life of Symeon the Fool the appearance of Ethiopians in sleep represents death: "And when he (a great man of the city) was burdened (by illness) almost to death, he saw himself in his sleep playing dice with an Ethiopian, who was death." In dream texts, the same black color was seen as a harbinger of evil. In early hagiographical texts, the demon of fornication and pride appear in the form of an Ethiopian, while in other ones demons appear hairy, with the face of a dog, and as Ethiopians black as coal.

The descriptions of demons in hagiographical texts makes one wonder if they somehow reflect not only the fears and superstitions that prevailed among the working classes, but even racial prejudices concerning at least black people. From certain indications of the sources, they could support the view that racial discrimination was made, even though from the side of the Church it was declared that to neither Scythians nor Ethiopians was the kingdom of heaven closed, for everyone is welcome into the bosom of Christ. Incidents in the Life of Moses the Ethiopian, however, are indicative of a culture that was shaped by whites against blacks. To test the patience and humility of Moses, the monks of the Skete where he was a monk expelled him from their circle with derogatory characterizations and contempt: "The Patriarch, wanting to test him if he had true humility, secretly told the clergy to expel him out of the sacristy. So, when he appeared there after the Divine Liturgy, they expelled him calling him a black man. Moses immediately left without any objection. One of them, who followed him secretly to see if he was bothered, heard him speaking to himself: 'It is good what they have done to you, O black colored one. Since you are not a human, what are you doing with people?'"

Another report also highlights in a forceful way a sense of prejudice towards blacks in the story of the drunken beggar Zamaras, who lived, it seems, on the sidelines of Seleucia of Isauria: "An Ethiopian man, covered with darkness and gloom." The appearance of Zamaras in a dream of the author of this passage is indicative of the prejudice of the time. Some prejudice regarding blacks even teetered on the edges, as can be seen in a passage from a letter of Theodore the Studite, who says: "If a woman at the time of conception imagines an Ethiopian, she will give birth to an Ethiopian."

However, the fear inspired by Ethiopian demons or ghosts were not exclusively derived from their black color, but from several other features which made them fearsome in appearance, such as their stern gaze and face, the scruffy hair of their head, their large physique combined with nudity gave the appearance of warlike blacks, etc. Characteristic is a passage in the Life of Euthymios, of a small Ethiopian with fire emitting from his eyes, a dark complexion, and of considerable height. But even in other types of texts, Ethiopians are not only feared for their color, but in combination of their whole appearance, as in Kaminiates.

Ethiopians are rather rare in the pages of Byzantine chroniclers, and in most cases they don't appear in reality but proverbially, and always in relation to their color: "As for them, like Ethiopians they remained unchanged." Gradually the "Ethiopian" became synonymous with the dark or black person, and in references to "Ethiopians" and blacks in general, such as the Saracens and others, where they receive sneering importance, such as in the vernacular texts, like the Poulologos (Bird Book).

However, the satirical mood of the author of the vernacular text reflects not only the prejudices of the time against the "blacks" and the "Saracens", but also reveals the aesthetic preferences of the Byzantines. The black and generally the dark colors are not considered a thing of beauty, as opposed to the white and golden colors, which we see in portraits of emperors as outlined by historians and chroniclers. Also people who were publicly ridiculed had their faces smudged - a sign of dishonor - because in this way they brought on laughter. In one case a mob ridiculed Emperor Manuel I Komnenos, as the historian Niketas Choniates records, proclaiming the emperor a black man.

...

To summarize, in the form of a conclusion, we can say that Blacks did not significantly occupy the Byzantine mind because they did not acquire or play a special role in Byzantine society. Their numbers in the cities of Egypt and North Africa are unknown to us. Although their presence was not particularly felt in the traditionally Greek-speaking areas, they should have been in those areas during the period until the seventh century. However, these sources and the extent that I was able to consult, there is no special mention made about them.

The reason the Byzantines did not deal with the blacks or the marginalized, such as several other minorities, lies in the multinational and ecumenical character of the empire, whose ultimate aim was the conversion of the nations and their inclusion in the Christian ecumene, as this was the only true image of the heavenly kingdom on earth.

Source: ΟΙ ΠΕΡΙΘΩΡΙΑΚΟΙ ΣΤΟ ΒΥΖΑΝΤΙΟ (The Fringe in Byzantium), ΊΔΡΥΜΑ ΓΟΥΛΑΝΔΡΗ ΑΘΗΝΑ 1993. Translated by John Sanidopoulos.

Who Really Is A Bigot?

The word "bigot" is being thrown around more and more these days, especially since September 11, 2001 when the world woke up to the realization that there are a lot of "haters" in the world. At this time Militant Islam brought out the Militant Atheists which revealed Militant Secularism which helped give rise to Militant Politics (both liberal and conservative). One reaction gives birth to another reaction, so that the world is now a roaring flame from having reached a boiling point of extreme anger. As for who is right and who is wrong is not the issue, but the issue is how people use these movements to push their agendas, albeit in a very angry way. These days, for example, we have another extreme reaction where a very small group of people began getting a lot of media attention a few years ago for screaming "God hates fags!", and out of anger the opposition began yelling back "Bigots!". Very few in the world would agree with the former slogan, but the latter for me is very ambiguous and is being thrown around more and more by the rising Militant Secularist type against anything that disagrees with their position, especially if they are members of a religion or a different political party. For this reason I wanted to examine it a bit more to see how the word should be properly used, if used at all.

The exact origin of the word bigot is unknown. It may have come from the German bei and gott, or the English by God. William Camden wrote that the Normans were first called bigots, when their Duke Rollo, who receiving Gisla, daughter of King Charles, in marriage refused to kiss the king's foot in token of subjection, unless the king would hold it out for that purpose. Being urged to it by those present, Rollo answered hastily, "No by God", whereupon the King turning about, called him bigot; which name passed from him to his people. This story is likely fictional, as Gisla is unknown in Frankish sources. However, it is true that the French used the term bigot as an abuse for the Normans.

A bigot is most often defined as a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own. In other words, a bigot may be any person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. Or, a bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

Outside of the word's common association with prejudice, the dictionary definition of a bigot includes one who holds rigidly to an idea. Again, holding to what you believe to be true is, by itself, not inherently bad. Even the simple act of one person believing another to be a bigot, and refusing to be convinced otherwise, is itself a prime example of bigotry. According to this definition EVERYONE is a bigot. Everyone has a group that they have no tolerance for. It doesn’t matter if you are liberal, conservative, or moderate. Consider this; a bigot is someone who says they aren't a bigot.

Bigot is also used as a term of derision to imply contempt or disapproval. One noteworthy example of this is how the word bigot is increasingly being used to defame those who do not believe marriage between homosexuals should be validated in church or public policy.

It’s much easier to call someone a bigot than to consider their arguments. Elbert Hubbard said: "If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." Name-calling is a form of an attack, based upon one’s prejudices, emotions, or special interests, rather than one’s intellect or reason. It draws a vague equivalence between a concept and a person, group or idea. By linking the person or idea being attacked to a negative symbol, the propagandist hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence.

It's always amusing to watch those who bellow and brag about how superior they are, become strident and defensive, when their views are questioned or challenged! The only defense one has to deflect the truth is to resort to derogatory comments and personal attacks. Name-calling is the attempt to distract the uninformed observer from the message by attacking the messenger. Thomas Jefferson wrote: "Resort is had to ridicule when reason is against us."

The most powerful and persuasive contributions are made by those that don’t resort to cheap name calling and show that they can articulate their rebuttal rather than resort to the lazy way out of personal abuse.

Those who resort to brow-beating, name-calling, bullying, bashing, harassment, threats, mockery, and rudeness, instead of humbly and honestly facing the real issue, only stroke their own ego. They stroke their ego even further when they consider themselves more tolerant than those whom they call bigots. Eric Hoffer declared: "Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength." Name-calling is verbal abuse; a crude substitute for argument. It is the strategy of cowards: If you don't agree with someone, shout him down and call him names, so you think you win. Those who resort to name calling IMMEDIATELY discredit themselves and any ideas they have regardless of the validity.

G. K. Chesterton wrote: "We call a man a bigot or a slave of dogma because he is a thinker who has thought thoroughly and to a definite end." He also confirmed: "The people who are the most bigoted are the people who have no convictions at all." 

Bigot is most simply defined as the favoring of one argument over another. Bigotry, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad, but simply an inclination towards one idea over another. Examples of bigotry could be a preference for ice cream over broccoli, believing that the earth is spherical instead of flat, or the inclination to think that the Bible causes more harm than good. The question is not "Who is a bigot", but rather "About what are you bigoted and why?"

Charles Spurgeon, England's best-known preacher during the second half of the nineteenth century, declared: "The glorious charity of the present day is such, that it believes lies to be as good as truth; and lies and truth have met together and kissed each other; and he that telleth truth is called a bigot, and truth has ceased to be honorable in the world!"

We are left with answering the question: who really is a bigot? We can safely assume that those who call others bigots are in reality yelling at their own reflection. In my opinion, we are left with only two choices - it is either that EVERYONE is a bigot or NOONE is a bigot. I leave it to the reader to decide which is the fairer choice.

Financial Times Reports on Mental Health and Suicide in Greece

Greek Orthodox priest holds a Memorial Service for a man who committed suicide at Syntagma Square on April 4, 2012.

The Financial Times reported on the state of mental health in Greece on December 27th, and spoke of the rising rate of suicides in Greece, which rose by 37 percent from 2009 to 2011, as well as the large number of Greeks going to psychologists to be treated for anxiety, depression, abuses, somatisation, and antisocial behavior.

Regarding the position of the Greek Orthodox Church, it says the following:

"Public health experts caution that reporting is often imprecise in Greece because of the shame attached to suicide. For example, the Greek Orthodox Church has been known to withhold funeral rites from victims."

One would think the report would at least state the position of the Church of Greece on suicide accurately, mention how the Church is dealing with these mental health issues, and at least quote the recent statement of the Holy Synod from April 5th, which can be read here:

Holy Synod of Greece On the Suicide At Syntagma Square

The Financial Times report can be read here:

Crisis Takes Toll on Greeks’ Mental Health

Sword and War Metaphors in the New Testament

By Ray Fulmer

The imagery of ‘sword’, ‘war’, or conquest in the New Testament has often been used by various groups towards diverse and often contradictory ends. Most recently the Pope’s statements concerning Islam have provoked a backlash from the Muslim world, including, from certain quarters, the counter-indictment of Christianity as a ‘violent religion’ based on select New Testament sayings of Jesus. The claim that Jesus preached violence has predictably centered on the sword imagery deployed in the New Testament, namely Matthew 10.34:

Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. [Mt 10.34 NRSV]

On the surface the verse might seem rather self-condemnatory, but the truth is quite different. In this case a little extra reading immediately sheds light on what is actually being taught:

For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and whoever does not take up the cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Those who find their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will find it. [Mt. 10.35-39]

For a reader with any sense of textual continuity the connection between the ‘sword’ Jesus brings and the familial turmoil that his followers can expect for following him would be difficult to miss. Also, the explanatory text places the sword firmly into the realm of metaphor, especially by reference to cross bearing as the source of confronting familial turmoil.

There’s little difficulty in exonerating the sword imagery in the tenth chapter of Matthew from charges of Jesus expressing warlike tendencies, yet it’s hardly the only place in the New Testament where swords or warlike motifs are used as metaphors. But is the sword ever treated as a viable human solution to the problem of physical enemies in the NT? If not, can it be said that there is a consistent use of the sword imagery throughout the literary corpus of the New Testament?

By tracing the use of ‘sword’ imagery through different divisions of the New Testament a consistent anti-violence theme emerges. The sword in the NT is always a metaphor, either for struggle generally or for Christ himself. Most importantly, the New Testament never allows for the use of violence by followers of Christ against physical adversaries. Moreover, reading an acceptance of violence into the New Testament is a distortion to the Christian gospel.

In order to categorize the issue the paper will be divided into three traditionally recognized sections of the New Testament: Synoptic Gospels, Pauline writings, and Johannine writings, and will show how the imagery is used in each group of writings. Even though this survey will be insufficient to treat the issue in depth, it should give the reader an overview of the use of warlike imagery in the corpus as a whole.

Synoptic Gospels

Although Mt. 10.34 is the most often cited use of the sword in the New Testament, it’s not the only time a sword is seen in the Synoptic Gospels. All four Gospels (Synoptics and John) contain an account of the arrest of Jesus. As opposed to Matthew 10.34, these three other passages mention the use of swords in a very literal sense. They’re also remarkably similar in their narrative structures.

Firstly, the crowd that comes to arrest Jesus carries clubs and swords. It’s the same wording in all three synoptic Gospels. In all three accounts the significance of the swords and clubs lies in their relationship to the pattern of arresting a robber. In each account Jesus offers the crowd the same rebuke: “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs?” Jesus then points out that he’s always been in plain view, especially in the temple, and they had never seized him.

Secondly, and perhaps of more importance, in all three accounts one of the disciples uses a physical sword against the slave of the high priest who is with the crowd by cutting off his ear. Here the accounts differ slightly, but retain similar tones: In Mark the ear chopping is passed over as a non-event in the sense that the event occurs but no judgment is rendered on the action. Certainly the violent action by the disciple is not in a positive light since his action of striking the slave doesn’t change the outcome.

Arguing that Mark’s gospel is against the disciple’s use of the sword would be an argument from silence, but in Matthew and Luke the rebuke of the offender comes across as more striking:

Suddenly, one of those with Jesus put his hand on his sword, drew it, and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? [Mt. 26.51-53]

When those who were around him saw what was coming, they asked, ‘Lord, should we strike with the sword?’ Then one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus said, ‘No more of this!’ And he touched his ear and healed him. [Lk. 22.49-51]

In both cases the use of the sword in defense of Christ is unacceptable; the offending disciple is chastised, and the authority of heaven is asserted over and against the power of force. According to Matthew the sword’s proper “place” is in its sheath. In Luke no similar speech is given regarding the relationship between the use of the sword and perishing by the sword, but the particular “this” of which there is to be “no more” is exactly the resort to violence and physical power against an enemy in order to dictate a preferred outcome. By healing the high priest’s slave Jesus has chosen not only to condemn the use of violence in order to coerce preferred ends, but the statement “no more of this” is left broad and unspecified in order that the injunction can be understood in a more universal sense – no more of the way of the sword. The cycle of violence resulting from human ways of coercive power comes to an end with Christ – no longer will that be a legitimate way to solve problems for a child of God.

Even the book of John, which is often of a different literary tenor than the Synoptics, is amazingly parallel in this recounting:

So Judas brought a detachment of soldiers together with police from the chief priests and the Pharisees, and they came there with lanterns and torches and weapons. Then Jesus, knowing all that was to happen to him, came forward and asked them, ‘For whom are you looking?’ They answered, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus replied, ‘I am he.’ Judas, who betrayed him, was standing with them. When Jesus said to them, ‘I am he’, they stepped back and fell to the ground. Again he asked them, ‘For whom are you looking?’ And they said, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus answered, ‘I told you that I am he. So if you are looking for me, let these men go.’ This was to fulfil the word that he had spoken, ‘I did not lose a single one of those whom you gave me.’ Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it, struck the high priest’s slave, and cut off his right ear. The slave’s name was Malchus. Jesus said to Peter, ‘Put your sword back into its sheath. Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?’ [Jn 18.3-11]

Pauline Writings

Literary use of swords and combat in Paul’s writings are notably sparse and easily identified as metaphors within the writings themselves. Paul has an unequivocal stance of accepted martyrdom as the paradigm for Christian likeness to Christ. For Paul baptism into Christ is baptism into his death, and acceptance of the mind of Christ is de facto acceptance of the servitude and self-denial of earthly power. For Paul martyrdom is the paradigm for salvation since that is the focal point of Christ’s own ministry.

Two passages will serve to illustrate Paul’s understanding of being in the image and likeness of God by sharing in Christ’s death to the worldly passions (i.e. sin) and also by adopting Christ’s method of servitude-in-power in service to God:

Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. For whoever has died is freed from sin. But if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. The death he died, he died to sin, once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore, do not let sin exercise dominion in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. [Rom 6.4-12]

Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name,

so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [Phil. 2.3-11]

Being ‘alive’ to the fleshly life, to the passions and desire for worldly power as opposed to earthly servitude and acceptance of burdens, contradicts the entire notion of becoming an image of Christ, who alone is the image of God in which humans were created. Turning outside of the paradigm of self-sacrifice in order to promote the plan of God is automatically a distortion of the methodology given by God in the flesh. Christ’s method of self-sacrifice is, for Paul, the only legitimate way of confronting evil in the world.

Paul views resorting to violence as an a priori mistake in identifying the nature of Christian adversaries since by taking the martial metaphor as a physical command the locus of evil would be placed in the flesh of other human beings rather than in the misguided state of their souls. Paul is explicit that spiritual corruption is the guiding force behind physical evils and not vice-versa. To battle physical opponents is to misdirect efforts and therefore misdiagnose the sickness that underlies physical evil. Paul illustrates this view in his passage on ‘spiritual warfare’ from Ephesians:

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his power. Put on the whole armour of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armour of God, so that you may be able to withstand on that evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. Stand therefore, and fasten the belt of truth around your waist, and put on the breastplate of righteousness. As shoes for your feet put on whatever will make you ready to proclaim the gospel of peace. With all of these, take the shield of faith, with which you will be able to quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one. Take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. [Eph 6.10-17]

A look at all of the metaphors regarding the spiritual warrior in Ephesians shows that only one part of the equipped warrior is an aggressive instrument – the sword of the Spirit, which Paul immediately identifies as “the word of God.” Here the “word of God” could be taken in different ways. Certainly it cannot be understood as “the Bible” because that’s anachronistic; no such thing existed for centuries after the writing of Ephesians. “The Word of God” in Christian theology is also taken as referring to Christ himself, who is the Word that takes flesh (see John 1.1-12), although this terminology is not common in Paul’s writings. The Greek word for ‘Word’, logos, might also be instructive here as it’s the root also for ’logic’ and ‘rationality’, which would render a reading something along the lines of the sword being the logic of God – God’s true plan for the world - which Paul elsewhere identifies as the folly of the cross which scandalizes the wisdom of the world:

For what human being knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual. [1 Cor 2.11-13]

However coherent the ‘Word’ interpretations above might be, the best interpretive tactic is to situate the statement within the remainder of the reading from Ephesians:

Pray in the Spirit at all times in every prayer and supplication. To that end keep alert and always persevere in supplication for all the saints. Pray also for me, so that when I speak, a message may be given to me to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains. Pray that I may declare it boldly, as I must speak. [Eph 6.18-20]

By reading the Ephesians passages as one cohesive passage the reader can see that the single aggressive item in the Christian spiritual arsenal, the sword, is equated to the Spirit of God, which is in turn linked to the word of God. Paul then goes on to ask for prayers “in the Spirit”, namely for himself, who needs the spirit in order to proclaim the gospel to his captors. It’s the Spirit that Paul is counting on to “open his mouth” – the Spirit is the power that enables the “word” to come forth from Paul. It’s an attack of sorts, against the earthly kings, who serve false gods, by the kingdom of the true God, by the spiritual warrior Paul. So the sword in this passage is the proclaiming of the mystery of the gospel.

Johannine and Apocalyptic Writings

Of the apocalyptic literature in the New Testament the most striking is Revelation, aka The Apocalypse of John, which makes abundant use of sword and war metaphors. Although there’s no way around acknowledging the martial imagery in Revelation two questions must be asked as to its nature: 1. Is this martial imagery completely without internal or external textual qualification? In other words, is it speaking of a physical warfare unlike Ephesians? 2. Is the prerogative of using the sword given to followers of Christ, or is it reserved for Christ himself?

Clearly Revelation is set up as a kind of battle scene between the kings of the earth and the kingdom of God, which is ruled by its King, Jesus Christ and represented by the seven churches to whom the letter is sent.[i]

The royal language is hard to miss:

John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood, and made us to be a kingdom, priests serving his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. [Rev 1.4-6]

Next is a graphic metaphorical description of the returning king that culminates in the vision of the double-edged sword:

Then I turned to see whose voice it was that spoke to me, and on turning I saw seven golden lampstands, and in the midst of the lampstands I saw one like the Son of Man, clothed with a long robe and with a golden sash across his chest. His head and his hair were white as white wool, white as snow; his eyes were like a flame of fire, his feet were like burnished bronze, refined as in a furnace, and his voice was like the sound of many waters. In his right hand he held seven stars, and from his mouth came a sharp, two-edged sword, and his face was like the sun shining with full force. [Rev 1.12-16]

The figure of the son of man explains the symbolism of the lampstands to John:

As for the mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. [Rev 1.20]

By qualifying the lampstands John has forewarned the reader that the vision is not an entirely literal version of things to come. Symbolism is part of what he writes to the churches. As the letters begin to the individual churches the imagery of the double-edged sword reappears:

‘And to the angel of the church in Pergamum write: These are the words of him who has the sharp two-edged sword: ‘I know where you are living, where Satan’s throne is. Yet you are holding fast to my name, and you did not deny your faith in me even in the days of Antipas my witness, my faithful one, who was killed among you, where Satan lives. But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling-block before the people of Israel, so that they would eat food sacrificed to idols and practise fornication. So you also have some who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent then. If not, I will come to you soon and make war against them with the sword of my mouth. Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches. To everyone who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give a white stone, and on the white stone is written a new name that no one knows except the one who receives it.’ [Rev 2.12-17]

In the passage above the sword is equated with his mouth, which is a typical biblical literary trope for the teaching which is being presented (dealing with a mostly oral culture here). Alongside sword imagery, the language of conquest is repetitive. “To everyone who conquers” the figure promises variously to eat from the tree of life (2.7), avoidance of second death (2.11), hidden mana and a white stone (2.17), authority over the nations to rule them with an iron rod (2.26-27) and the morning star (2.28), to become a pillar in the Temple of God in the Heavenly Jerusalem (3.12), and a place on the throne besides the victorious conqueror Christ (3.21). But what does it mean to ‘conquer’?

In the early portions of the Revelation text the idea of conquest is explicitly linked to repentance for the transgressions of the Churches themselves. The message is meant to exhort obedience to Christ in the audience addressed. Using 2.16 above as an easy example, repentance will put the church community on the right side of the Lord’s impending conquest. Repentance is required because the people are not doing the Lord’s work and living by his commandments as they were given to the churches at the time of their founding. The main problem is that the churches are being infiltrated with false prophets and poor morality. Thus the letters are basically meant to say that the conquest is synonymous with repentance against failures of the community in question and return to the commands against fornication and idolatry, which are viewed as being caused by Satan and his servants ‘the nations’.

The idea that holding fast to the true faith and the commandments of God that accompany that faith is analogous to victory over the nations, indeed over the entire broken world, is seen more straight forwardly in another of John’s other writings, 1 John 5:

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the parent loves the child. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and obey his commandments. For the love of God is this, that we obey his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome, for whatever is born of God conquers the world. And this is the victory that conquers the world, our faith. Who is it that conquers the world but the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? [1 Jn 5.1-5]

A striking literary coherence between the verse above and the exhortations to the churches at the beginning of Revelation is created by the tying in of ‘blood’ in 1 John with the constant promptings to endure suffering on behalf of the faith in Revelation. In fact Revelation has a parallel passage where the conquest over Satan and the nations is equated with the confessing martyrs:

Then I heard a loud voice in heaven, proclaiming, ‘Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Messiah, for the accuser of our comrades has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. But they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they did not cling to life even in the face of death. [Rev. 12.10-11]

As for the ‘sword from the mouth’ and the ‘two-edged sword’ mentioned in the first two chapters of Revelation there is also similar imagery employed in the so-called ‘mini-apocalypse’ of 2 Thessalonians and in Hebrews that are of value in understanding the metaphors. Although they’re not Johannine, they’re useful insertions here as references. There are a couple of reasons to do so: Firstly, they come from the same literary matrix as the Johannine writings (late first century Christianity) 2. 2 Thessalonians is the other apocalyptic text in the Epistles. So to continue:

For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will destroy with the breath of his mouth, annihilating him by the manifestation of his coming. The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. [2 Thess 2.7-10]

Let us therefore make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one may fall through such disobedience as theirs. Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the one to whom we must render an account. [Heb 4.11-13]

In both passages the imagery of the word of God is linked to a weapon, be it a breath weapon or a two-edged sword, which is used to discern who is a believer and how they will be separated from non-believers at the time of the Lord’s coming. However, in no instance are the followers asked to participate in the Lord’s separating and judging. They’re passive instruments except that they are to prepare themselves for the judgment. Defeating the Satanic lies of the kings of the earth, who’s kingship is beholden to idols and false-gods and thus against the kingship of Christ, is the measure of their victory, which will be consummated by the Lord Christ himself at the time of the second coming. It is the failure to love the truth that will condemn the servants of Satan.

Lastly we turn to the most famous vision of the Apocalypse in Revelation, that of the rider on the white horse. It’s worthwhile to quote the text at length:

Then I saw heaven opened, and there was a white horse! Its rider is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems; and he has a name inscribed that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, wearing fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name inscribed, ‘King of kings and Lord of lords’. Then I saw an angel standing in the sun, and with a loud voice he called to all the birds that fly in mid-heaven, ‘Come, gather for the great supper of God, to eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of the mighty, the flesh of horses and their riders—flesh of all, both free and slave, both small and great.’ Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth with their armies gathered to make war against the rider on the horse and against his army. And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed in its presence the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulphur. And the rest were killed by the sword of the rider on the horse, the sword that came from his mouth; and all the birds were gorged with their flesh. Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and locked and sealed it over him, so that he would deceive the nations no more, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be let out for a little while. Then I saw thrones, and those seated on them were given authority to judge. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus and for the word of God. They had not worshipped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection. [Rev 19.11-20.5]

John echoes his own Gospel prologue here by giving the rider the title ‘Word of God’, which is the name of Christ (Jn 1.1-13). The sword that smites the nations is the sword from his mouth, which is none other than the Faithfulness and Truth which he embodies making war on the false gods. The motif of the “sword” from Ephesians is echoed here since it’s the mouth of Christ, i.e. his teachings, that make war on the adversaries.

Earthly rulers are identified as the ones who array for battle against the rider, led by the false prophet who worked signs for those who worshipped the beast in order to mislead them. The beast and his legions are in service to the Dragon, who is Satan, and it’s the Dragon who ultimately must be dealt with by throwing him down into the pit. But what does this act accomplish?

Despite the language regarding the Word’s smiting of the nations, this doesn’t appear to be a final outcome. According to the text, the final result of the “war” which the Word waged against the Dragon, the Beast, and their kings is not the physical death of all nations who opposed the white rider, but rather “that he [the Dragon] should deceive the nations no more.” Destroying the powers of evil doesn’t destroy humankind. The nations are still around, but they are no longer misled by false kings who follow the false prophet of a false god. It’s the demise of falsity and the turn by the nations towards the true King and the true God, not the physical destruction of the nations, which is affected by the rider on the white horse.

While the martyrs (those “beheaded for their testimony”) will rule with Jesus, they have no part in judging the unrighteous or in establishing the Kingdom. Earlier in Revelation they had even been told to wait for God to judge in His own time, and that he would not avenge them for now, but instead that their numbers would be added to for an undisclosed length of time to come. In other words, until Christ establishes his kingdom then his followers will have to accept the bitter sting of martyrdom and not ask God to judge the wicked before God’s time has come. To quote the earlier text:

When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slaughtered for the word of God and for the testimony they had given; they cried out with a loud voice, ‘Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long will it be before you judge and avenge our blood on the inhabitants of the earth?’ They were each given a white robe and told to rest a little longer, until the number would be complete both of their fellow-servants and of their brothers and sisters, who were soon to be killed as they themselves had been killed. [Rev 6.9-11]

Although the victory is assured, the earthly consummation of the heavenly victory has not yet come to earth. Textually speaking just the opposite has occurred, the devil, having been thrown out of heaven, is now on earth accusing the believers and causing misery in the “earth and the sea”, in other words over all creation (see Rev. 12.12).

An interesting point is that the false prophet of verse 20 is shown to be in the image of the beast (20.4), much as Christ is in the image of God the Father (see Col 1.15-20). Also, identification is made between those who serve the beast in his likeness and who share in his fate and those who share in Christ’s death and thus share in his glory – the martyrs. Similar imagery is used to show how close the resemblance of the beast and his followers will be to Christ and his followers. False salvation looks dangerously alike to real salvation.

The Dragon and the beast look deceptively close to the truth in other ways as can be seen in the way that the hymn of praise sung to the Dragon via the beast is uncomfortably similar to the way the people of Israel extol the greatness of God through his King – “They worshipped the dragon, for he had given authority to the beast, and they worshipped the beast saying “Who is like the beast, and who can fight against it?”” (Rev. 13.4) And, just as the Word wages war with the “sword from his mouth” against the false gods, so too the beast wages war against God with his mouth, from which he utters blasphemies against God and the Kingdom (see Rev. 13.5-6). He will be given victory over the saints and will conquer them, but they are not to resist. They are rather to endure and persevere in faith, as they have been commanded. But what’s really striking about this command is the reiteration that the saints absolutely cannot prevail by force against the beast. The beast is being allowed to conquer by God, and if the saints take up the sword against him then they will be killed by the sword. Returning to the text:

The beast was given a mouth uttering haughty and blasphemous words, and it was allowed to exercise authority for forty-two months. It opened its mouth to utter blasphemies against God, blaspheming his name and his dwelling, that is, those who dwell in heaven. Also, it was allowed to make war on the saints and to conquer them. It was given authority over every tribe and people and language and nation, and all the inhabitants of the earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slaughtered. Let anyone who has an ear listen: If you are to be taken captive, into captivity you go; if you kill with the sword, with the sword you must be killed. Here is a call for the endurance and faith of the saints. [Rev 13.5-10]

Conclusion

For Christians the sword is virtually always symbolic of the message of the preached gospel, proclaimed with boldness through the spirit, and their sufferings on behalf of that truth.

We’ve seen time and again through the scriptural reflections above that where God commands the sword to be wielded, it refers to the message of the gospel against the invisible powers of the world. When followers of Christ resort to the use of physical violence in the scriptures they are uniformly chastised for their error of judgment – they’re misunderstanding who the enemy is, which is not other humans per se, but rather the evil spirits that mislead earthly people.

Whether disciples or saints take up the sword in defense of Christ or his church the result is the same – they’re told that this is not the way of God. Additionally, using the sword, as Jesus stated in Matthew, is a denial that God is the author of human events. According to the Scriptural corpus, for a Christian to use coercion is a refusal to understand that God demands that his followers be willing to sacrifice themselves in order to avoid the ways of the world, namely violence. The idea of accepting an unfair burden on behalf of showing the love of God to another human being who will not pay you back in kind is at the heart of the Christian gospel, and to resort to violence is always a tacit distortion of that ideal.

It should be clear from these brief reflections that the martial imagery employed by the New Testament is not a license for Christians to use physical violence against physical enemies.

Christians must confront earthly evil, of that there is no doubt, but the methods they use are ubiquitously non-violent according to the New Testament scriptures. The Christian must have enough faith to trust God in matters of ultimate justice and vindication.

If Christ is the paradigm, and for Christians there can be none other, then evil is confronted properly only when the Christian can accept up front that the world hated Christ first, and that he was killed precisely by those he came to love and save. It is not ultimately in loving those who love us back that Christians show their faith in God, but by loving those who aren’t worthy of it, and who would not repay kindness with kindness. In expressing this fundamental truth of the Scriptures, this author bows out in deference to the words long written down by the foremost prophet of the Christian faith:

Do not repay anyone evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.’ No, ‘if your enemies are hungry, feed them; if they are thirsty, give them something to drink; for by doing this you will heap burning coals on their heads.’ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. [Rom 12.17-21]

* All Bible Quotes are from the New Revised Standard Version unless otherwise stated. All emphases throughout the paper are added.

[i] N.T. Wright makes an excellent case in numerous works that the very name ‘Jesus Christ’ is more properly understood as a title – ‘King Jesus’.

Source