The Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom: A Concept/Name Analysis

Frequent words appearing in the Divine Liturgy include: Lord, God, Son, Amen, Holy Spirit, Christ, Master, Theotokos, holy, ages, mercy, glory, pray, life, grace, sins, peace, blessed, pure, saints, offer, people, love, precious, glorious, souls, heaven, salvation, praise.

Concept Map created of the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom Liturgical Text generated using Leximancer by Katina Michael

Concept Map created of the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom Liturgical Text generated using Leximancer by Katina Michael

Ranked Concepts in the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. Identified here are the Names and Words that appear frequently in the Liturgy. Note: this is a translation of the Liturgy into the English as appears at All the words in "red font" were deleted, the words "people, deacon, priest" were deleted as identifiers, as were the prayers of thanksgiving at the conclusion of the web page.

Ranked Concepts in the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom. Identified here are the Names and Words that appear frequently in the Liturgy. Note: this is a translation of the Liturgy into the English as appears at All the words in "red font" were deleted, the words "people, deacon, priest" were deleted as identifiers, as were the prayers of thanksgiving at the conclusion of the web page.

How heresies shaped the development of Christology up to the end of the fourth century

Below is the final version of my essay for course CF103 on Christology and Trinitarian Theology. I received solid feedback after my draft submission, but also some critical additions I needed to make before this final submission. I tried my best to address these as per the suggestions of my tutor. My thanks to my tutor Rev. Dr. Alexander Tefft for his guidance and time in extensive feedback provided. 

Katina Michael

This paper is about heresy that shaped the development of Christology up to the end of the fourth century. Heresy can be defined as a deviation away from established Orthodoxy (i.e., the right beliefs) into error. In Christology, the Person of Christ refers to the study of the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ as they coexist within the one person. Specifically, this raises the question of who Christ was? Christology is the meeting point between the human nature of Christ (the Son of Man), and the divine nature of Christ (the Son of God, the Word of God, the Divine Logos) represented together in the one person (Gk prosopon, πρόσωπον) without mixture. Departing from the truth of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church is not only dangerous but destructive because it disrupts the transformative process of theosis that can be attained, since Christ died for our sins on the cross, for one truth not several relative truths. Diluting the truth or changing it in any way, has detrimental ripple effects for the ekklesia at large but also for the impact it would have on believers as their faith would be based on a moving target.

I hope to prove that heresy predominantly took the form of either denying Christ’s divinity (in extreme forms of anthropological maximalism), or denying Christ’s humanity (in extreme forms of anthropological minimalism), consequentially imbalancing the doctrine of the Holy Trinity formed by the consensus of the Early Church Fathers. Two well-defined heresies in the Arian strain (Christ is less than God) and the Apollinarian strain (Christ is less than man) will be compared as representative of other earlier heresies, for example, Ebionism and Docetism respectively. I will present evidence of how Christological debates between various points of view were refuted by the Apostolic Fathers who focused their attention on the God-man and the Incarnation in the Ecumenical Councils. This culminated in the formation of the doctrine of hypostatic union which recognised that Christ was fully divine and at the same time fully human. Of great significance is that heresies chiefly impacted upon soteriology (i.e., the religious doctrine of Salvation), and inexorably on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The Early Church Fathers as a result sought to document their beliefs forming Christian doctrine in the process, and eliminating erroneous points of view in the expression of the Christian faith.

The early church struggled to express the ineffable mystery of Jesus Christ. They were forced to articulate their experiences out of necessity and not for want of philosophical interest. They had to explicitly find the words to document what they believed based on a tangible experience of Christ, as opposed to what they did not believe or which deviated from Christ’s own teachings and those of the Apostles. Thus, the Apostles communicated their eyewitness experience to their disciples through oral transmission, who then communicated it down the continuum of the Church generation after generation, which we now know as Holy Tradition. But gradually, the Church had to use written formulations based on the original preaching of the Gospel to dispel certain points of view that were deemed to be inconsistent with the deposit of faith (Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition). Enter the term “heresy” (Gk hairesis, αἵρεσις), defined as “the formal denial or doubt of any defined doctrine of the Catholic faith”(Cross, 2005: 762). In antiquity the term denoted a “choice” or “thing chosen” or following a particular “philosophical school” or “school of thought”. In this way, heresy in the early church was understood as a particular “point of view” that was deemed to be wrong because it did not accord with the basic experience of the Apostles as witnessed to in their experience of Christ. So one reason why we have texts from this period regarding the Person of Christ is to eliminate points of view that were deemed to be erroneous and inconsistent with the Apostolic preaching. And the second reason was to express to the wider Graeco-Roman pagan world, concepts and language that were in some way comprehensible toward drawing unbelievers to the faith.

When we look at the early church, particularly as we see the beginning of the reflection on the Person of Christ, there is an attempt to answer the question that Christ himself posed to his disciples in Mark 8:29: “But who do you say that I am?” Peter was able to answer categorically to Him: “You are the Christ.” Yet, when Christ asked, “Who do men say that I am?” his disciples answered: “John the Baptist; but some say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets” (Mark 8:27, 28). Even after the witness of the single most important transhistorical event, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, still there were those who did not accept that Christ was God and formed their own elucidations, and others who believed in Christ’s deity but said a god would never take on a material body and suffer shamefully on a cross and die. Saint Paul and Saint John the Evangelist through their respective epistles warn the faithful to beware of the false teachers (2 Peter 2:1, 4, 12, 18) and the false prophets (1 John 4:1). The Apostles, were not only warning of a time far into the future, but in their Sitz im Leben, i.e. current context and setting. Thus, inconsistencies on who Christ was, even arose within the lifetime of the Apostles. Summing up the tendencies of these early heresies, without risking oversimplification of these sects, there are those who denied Christ’s divinity and those that denied Christ’s humanity, although it was seldom that “black and white”. Of course, unrelated to heresy, there were also those Early Church Fathers who emphasised the divine nature over and above the human nature of Christ (anthropological minimalism, e.g. the Alexandrian school of thought that emphasised the Logos-Sarx), and those who emphasised the human nature over and above the divine nature (anthropological maximalism, e.g. the Antiochian school of thought that emphasised the Logos-Anthropos) (Rausch, 2003: 153). An emphasis of one nature over the other did not equate to heresy, but extreme points of view that significantly unbalanced the symmetry in the God-man, such as Arianism and Apollinarianism that ensued into the 4th century, emphasised that Christ had only one nature, not two, i.e., one physis. Looking at these two heresies in some detail suggests that an express denial of the fullness of the truth was adopted by presbyters who lead the faithful astray.

Arianism: Denying Christ's Divinity

A major fourth century heresy was Arianism, named after a priest of Alexandria, Arius (256-336 A.D.) who was taught and mentored by Lucian of Antioch. Arianism in summary, denied the divinity of Jesus Christ. In 318 Arius wrote: “the Son is only a creature, made out of nothing, like all other created beings. He may be called God but only by an extension of language, as the first and greatest person chosen to be divine intermediary in the creation and redemption of the world” (Socrates, 2017). In his Thalia, Arius categorically stated: “there was [a time] when he (the Son) was not” (McDonald, 1975: 23). According to Arius, Christ might have sinned but did not, and was thus adopted by God because of his merits, by grace. Haldon (1966b: 41) writes that Arius believed that: “instead of being God he is a kind of demiurge who advanced in virtue and merit and thus came to be closely associated with the Father. But his nature is not of the same substance as the Father’s.” Most of the heretical sects that denied Christ’s divinity held boldly anti-Trinitarian beliefs. Haldon writes, that even the notion of the Incarnation (that the second Person of the Trinity became flesh and assumed a human nature) was reduced but to a figure of speech. In the Arian way of thinking “the logos was created and not divine”, Arius and his followers recognised Christ as Messiah but denied that he was “the natural Son of God” (Haldon 1966: 41).

It was Saint Athanasius the Great (296-373) who was the main obstacle to the rise of Arianism in the East, and one of the primary reasons why the First Council of Nicaea was convoked in 325. At this Council, Arianism was condemned (Schaff, 1894: 134) and the Nicene Creed formed, directly making emphasis of the words “begotten, not made”, making it clear that Christ was an eternal being and not created by God the Father: “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father” (The First Council of Nicaea, 325). The specific words incorporated into the Nicene Creed was "being of one substance” (Gk homooúsios, ὁμοούσιος) rather than Arius' heretical teaching “being of a similar substance” (homoioúsios, ὁμοιούσιος). Note the crucial difference, Arius’ ὅμοιος, hómoios, "similar", rather than ὁμός, homós, "same" (Erickson, 1966: 55-57). Athanasius, and others like Saint Alexander of Alexandria, upheld that man’s deification would only be possible if Christ indeed was truly God. If Christ were only a “creature”, then he could not be worshipped (Macleod, 1998: 123), and he would be unable to redeem or unite man to God (deify) (Schaff, 1910: 644-649). Athanasius charges Arius and his followers with dualism and heathenism, the worship of two separate “Gods”- an uncreated one and a created one- accusing them of polytheism (Schaff, 1910: 648f). In the final decades of the 4th century, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Saint Hilary of Poitiers, and Saint Basil the Great each played a significant role in reconciling with the many semi-Arians, swaying further theological momentum toward the Nicene Creed. In the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381, outcomes of the Nicene Creed were reaffirmed and expanded upon. By the 7th century, Arianism had all but vanished. Apollinarianism which we will consider next, was not of the magnitude or threat to Christianity as Arianism. The numerous edicts against it very early on, meant that it dwindled as a movement by 420 A.D. It could be said that Apollinarianism was diametrically opposite to Arianism in every sense, save for the fact that it too presented that Christ had only one nature. Arianism and Semi-Arianism were much more dangerous a heresy to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, because in denying Christ’s divinity, it then followed that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was destabilised and open to ongoing attack.

Apolliniarianism: Denying Christ’s Humanity

Apollinarianism is a heretical doctrine of Apollinaris the younger (310-390), bishop of Laodicea in Syria. According to Schaff (1910: 708-710), Apollinaris was esteemed by many Alexandrian fathers, including Saint Athanasius the Great, for his virtue, classical culture, scholarly vindication, and commitment to the Nicene faith. Schaff (1910) notes, Apollinaris fundamentally took the crux of the Trinitarian debates and reapplied them to the Person of Christ. He reoriented the discussion to the “psychical and pneumatic side of the humanity of Christ” (Schaff, 1910: 709), claiming that “Christ had a human body and only a sensitive soul, but had no rational mind [nous] or free human will. His rational soul was replaced by the Divine Logos, or word of God” (Haldon, 1966a: 33). But in his zeal to declare Christ’s deity, he attributed to Christ a human body and soul, but negated a human spirit, overriding the reasoning mind of Christ with the Divine Logos. Apollinaris is thus known for his ‘Word-flesh Christology’ which claimed that God did not conjoin with man but merely with the sarx (Erickson, 1966: 58ff). He believed entirely that God and flesh had collocated into one nature (McDonald, 1975: 16) because anything different would have meant that one nature would strive to overcome the other. As Kenneth Paul Wesche (1984: 85) has explained furthermore, Apollinaris’ beginning point was the “prosopon” derived out of Christ’s essence (ousia). Thus it logically followed that one person could only have one nature, “one physis, one hypostasis, one energeia, one prosopon”. Now for Apollinaris, who believed that Christ the Son was of one essence (homouousia) with the Father, it was only logical that Christ’s humanity would give way to his divine nature. For him, the only possible way for Christ to have been sinless, for instance, was to declare that Christ was also not fully human, and that he did not possess free will (Thomsett, 2011: 38).

Apollinaris’ teachings were condemned by the Roman councils in 377 and 381 and also the Council of Constantinople in 381. In 377, Pope Damasus I declared Apollinaris a heretic. In the seventh anathema in the Council of Rome 381 Pope Damasus I wrote against Apollinaris: “We pronounce anathema against them who say that the Word of God is in the human flesh in lieu and place of the human rational and intellective soul. For, the Word of God is the Son Himself. Neither did He come in the flesh to replace, but rather to assume and preserve from sin and save the rational and intellective soul of man” (Thomsett, 2011: 38). Schaff writes critically, that “Athanasius, the two Gregories, Basil and Epiphanius combated the Apollinarian error… from behind and from the flank, than in front” (Schaff, 1910: 713). The fundamental issue with Apollinaris’ teachings was specifically to do with soteriology: if Christ had not assumed then He has not healed (Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, Epistle 101). In support of his beliefs, Apollinaris cited the following Scripture: “and the Word became flesh” (John 1:14) and also Philippians 2:7 and 1 Corinthians 15:47. The Early Church Fathers retorted, that Saint John’s usage of the word “sarx” (i.e. flesh) as in other parts of Holy Scripture, were used to mean the whole human nature. In placing the Apollinarian controversy historically, the heretical sect disappeared in the early fifth century. The short-lived controversy acted to shift the debate from the Trinity to Christology, resulting in the Chalcedonian symbol in 451 A.D. Relatively speaking, Apollinarianism did not last long, disappearing by the early fifth century.

The Formation of the Doctrine of Hypostatic Union

Deviations in explaining the Person of Christ, inevitably have led to declarations deemed to be heretical by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as recorded in the Ecumenical Councils. In the case of Arianism it was in denying the divinity of Christ which then had direct consequences on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and in the case of Apollinarism it was in denying the humanity of Christ and subsequent salvation of man. Both of these heresies were representative of many early Christian heresies that surfaced just after the time of Christ unduly influencing their followers to stray away from the truth to varying degrees (see Figure 1). Importantly, these Christological debates led to the critical formation of the doctrine of hypostatic union (Gk ὑπόστασις) in the First Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. Simply put, hypostatic union is the union of the two natures of Christ, divine and human, in one and the same person. One nature of Christ, is not usurped and is not absorbed by the other, for instance, the human nature overtaken by the divine nature. And yet, both natures are united symmetrically in the person of Christ. We do not have two persons, or two Sons, or two Christs, but one person who is both fully God and fully man (Tyneh, 2003: 66f). They are not divided into two prosopa (Tyra, 2013: 97). And here is where two well-known Antiocheans, Theodore of Mopsuestia, followed by his disciple Nestorius, deviated from the truth in believing in a mere prosopic union of the two natures of Jesus Christ rather than the accepted doctrine of the hypostatic union. The confusion stemmed from the fact that translations of “prosopon” and “hypostasis” in the Greek equated to “person”, despite that a more correct translation of “prosopon” is “face”. It then follows, that “prosopon” is the form in which “hypostasis” appears (Grillmeier, 1975: 431).


Figure 1. Christological perspectives on the two natures of Christ adapted from Tyra (2013: 99).

Caption: The doctrine of the hypostatic union is shown at centre. Deviating from this centrist view, believers then fall into heresy emphasising the one nature position, declaring to varying degrees the denial of Christ’s humanity (e.g. Arianism) or the denial of Christ’s divinity (e.g. Apollinarianism).


In hypostatic union is the belief in a perfect and harmonious union of “two distinct but never separate natures” (Olson, 2002: 230). There is a communicatio idiomatum (characteristics) of the one nature to the other. We can say that the God-man thirsted, hungered, suffered and died and that he was all-wise, all-powerful, all-omniscient at the very same time. It is why Saint Athanasius the Great (c. 296–373) has written that the Son of God “…became man so that we might become God” (Against the Arians, 1.39, 3.34) . It is this doctrine of divinization, deification, theosis, that provides humans with divine grace (atonement) toward the possibility of everlasting life (Bartos, 1999: 174). In the second century, Saint Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons (c. 130–202) similarly said that God "became what we are in order to make us what he is himself" (Against Heresies, Book V), and then again, “If the Word became a man, It was so men may become gods” (Against Heresies, Book V). Saint Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215), similarly wrote: "Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god." (Exhortation to the Greeks, 1).

As Saint John Damascene (676-c. 754) put it so eloquently: “Whatever Christ said and did, He did so as the God-man, and all His actions and deeds were theandric… “He did not execute the human humanly for He was not only man but also God; nor did He execute the divine divinely, for He was not only God but also man” (Tyneh, 2003: 67f). No matter how hard theologians have tried to provide explanation, the hypostatic union remains a great divine mystery, “transcendent to our rational categories” (Baker, 2015). Tyra (2013: 97f) concurs that this was intentional as a “paradoxical protection of the mystery against rationalising explanations that effectively destroy the mystery”. It is clear from their contributions that the Early Church Fathers, spent considerable time concerned with refuting heresy, and in so doing articulated their position. It was in the Ecumenical Councils, one by one, that declarations became established and recognised as Christian doctrine and Dogmatic theology was formed. “The hypostatic union in Christ achieved an absolute proximity and communion of man and God, at the same time becoming the model and the power for the moral unity between man and God” (Bartos, 1999: 174). This mystery is what grants man the hope of eternal life, and cannot be scrutinised through deeper levels of logical reasoning for it would otherwise not be a mystery at all. It is also the very reason, why some Christian flocks have fallen into heresy to this day; the same errors repeating themselves over and over again in various guises throughout the centuries. When individuals take matters into their own hands, and proclaim to be above the consensus patrum, they will inevitably err, taking their followers with them. It is for this reason we must cling to the doctrines formed during the Ecumenical Councils.



Baker M. (2015) T.F. Torrance and Eastern Orthodoxy: Theology in Reconciliation, USA: WipfandStock.

Bartos E. (1999) Deification in Eastern Orthodox Theology, Milton Keyes: Paternoster Press.

Cross FL. (2005) Heresy. In: Cross FL and Livingstone EA (eds) Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Erickson MJ. (1966) The Word Became Flesh: A Contemporary Incarnational Christology, New York: Baker Book House.

Grillmeier A. (1975) Christ in Christian Tradition: from the Apostolic Age to Chalcedon (451), Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.

Haldon JA. (1966a) Apollinarianism. In: Haldon JA (ed) Modern Catholic Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 33.

Haldon JA. (1966b) Arianism. In: John A. Haldon SJ (ed) Modern Catholic Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 41.

Macleod D. (1998) The Person of Christ, Nottingham: SPCK Publishing.

McDonald HD. (1975) Development and Christology. Vox Evangelica 9: 5-27.

Olson RE. (2002) The Mosaic of Christian Belief: Twenty Centuries of Unity and Diversity, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Rausch TP. (2003) Who is Jesus?: An Introduction to Christology, Minnesota: Liturgical Press.

Saint Athanasius of Alexandria. Against the Arians, 1.39, 3.34.

Saint Irenaeus of Lyons. Against Heresies (Book V). Available at:

Schaff P. (1894) A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, and Practical Theology, Toronto: Funk & Wagnalls.

Schaff P. (1910) History of the Christian Church (Vol. III. Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity), 124, Michigan: Eerdmans.

Socrates. (2017) Division begins in the Church from this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop of Alexandria excommunicates Arius and his Adherents. Available at:

The First Council of Nicaea. (325) The Nicene Creed. Nicaea.

Thomsett MC. (2011) Heresy in the Roman Catholic Church: A History, North Carolina: McFarland & Company.

Tyneh CS. (2003) Orthodox Christianity: Overview and Bibliography, New York: Nova Publishers.

Tyra G. (2013) A missional orthodoxy: theology and ministry in a post-Christian context, Illinois: InterVarsity Press.

Wesche KP. (1984) The Union of God and Man in Jesus Christ in the Thought of Gregory of Nazianzus. St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 28: 83-98.


Topic Lecture 9 - Language of the Person, Hypostasis in the Gospel of John

These notes are assembled after listening to the lecture delivered by Rev. Dr. Nikolai Sakharov. Disclaimer: Any errors are completely my own as I intertwine the lecture material with my own reflections and additional source material.


We spoke about Christology of relationship about theology of relationship and how important it is. The question now about translation at the beginning of the gospel of John. What does it mean when John writes “pros ton Theon”? There is much speculation but the word “pros” meaning in Greek “towards”. In the authorised version of the Gospel of John the translation stands as: “and the Word was with God”. But the actual translation of this proposition is “towards”. And many have noted, that this is exactly what John means. The Logos all of Christ’s being was towards God the Father. And this is a formula of love. This being towards the other is the true realisation of, not only divine person, but also the human person. So really what we have here is the notion, “and the Word was towards God”. And perhaps in the English language, that cannot be said, because it implies movement. And this principle of Christology being, towards God, is spelt out in the rest of the gospel. And if you look at any authentic relationship in the gospel it is always “pros ton allon”, towards the other. But as humans, we find a relationship towards others, through our love towards others, in self-sacrifice for another.

And if you notice, all the holy gifts in our church they are given, whatever you might name, priesthood, any other sacraments, they are given as a service to other people. The priest for example, cannot confess himself. He only has this authority towards service of another. So this is a principle that is a product of John’s Gospel. So perhaps, if we translate the word Logos, in principle there was this principle of love towards God in the beginning. 

Q&A. When do we know if the great “I am” is intended versus an everyday “I am”? For example, in John’s Gospel when the disciples are in the boat and the Lord retorts in chapter 3: “do not worry I am”, how are we to understand this I am? In John’s Gospel, you will find different ways that this saying is used at times, Christ says “I am a good Shepherd”. But here it is obviously a different I am, to the “I am” of Sinai. But there are definitely uses of “I am” without predicate. These definitely imply, this Sinai revelation, “I am that I am”. In Greek language, you may know that you do not need to use the pronoun “I am”, you simply say where you may be, for example: “I am home”, could simply be “home”. So it is indeed an emphatic use of the term “I am” with Sinaitic roots in Exodus.

In the Gospel of John, things are not as straightforward, as other writings. He operates at a level that we cannot presuppose intense at times, in order to analyse logically. In the Gospel affects us in various ways, in various levels. When we consider for example symbolic actions of Christ’s actions, in the fourth Gospel, John has many levels of appeal to his reader. And one of his techniques, is to play on these associations. To member in Exodus: where God says, “I am I am”. In the Gospel of Matthew, it would be a direct quotation so that the scripture might be fulfilled. But John, does not write like this. He wishes to maintain, a level of mystery, which is important, for the depth of Christian message. Because once you have no mystery, and everything is clear, our text may lose its power, and depth.

Hypostatic language

And speaking about mystery, and things that are not set, or not written, we should move to the next topic. If we compare, our Christian new Testament, or our Gospels to any other religious book, be it the Quran, or the Old Testament, perhaps your notice, that it is much much smaller in size. In this respect, Christian scripture is unique. In fact it offers very little instructions for us to do, in our everyday life. There is no instruction for our codex of behaviour. But if you take for example the old Testament law, the whole day of an Israelite, is prescribed to morning to end. It is like a 24-hour manual, what to do and how to. And this idea, of what to do and how to do it is the focus of the old Testament. But the new Testament starts very differently. Yes of course, there are some parallels, but it doesn’t constitute the core, the focus of the new Testament. And furthermore if you compare the fourth Gospel with the synoptic gospels one thing immediately strikes us, that there are hardly any that could be subsumed even remotely in a consistent ethical teaching of Christ.

The fourth Gospel offers us very little, in fact, a kind of instruction in codex of behaviour, in what we should do in our daily life. And if you look at the synoptic gospels, and compare the fourth Gospel with the Synoptics, you will see that for example in Matthew you do find chapters where Christ expounds the way people ought to be, and the way they should behave, because for Matthew, Christ’s teaching was important linking back to the old Testament, that even resembled old Testament law. In chapter 9 in Matthew for instance we hear that Jesus speaks about, “bless it are the poor”, the meek, the merciful, the good heart, and there are some kind of ethical instructions here. In Matthew, we also hear “thou shall not kill… But I say to you whoever is angry…” There are specific amendments.  But when we come to John’s Gospel, there are none of these commandments of Christ. In fact, very few. And they seem to concentrate about one theme, love and faith. None of such formulations found in Matthew shall find John. In John there are no instructions for daily life.

Also we do find, occasional parables in John’s Gospel. Of course, Christ taught in parables. But all of them are of a completely different nature. They do not function as allegorical encoding of his teaching, at least for the synoptic gospels, but as short illustrations, to his message. So it looks like in the fourth Gospel we have a shift of concern. Instead, there are stories about Christ, his miracles, he signs, his dialogues with the Jews, and finally the Last Supper where we see three chapters dedicated to this toward the crucifixion. It seems to be all about Christ, and not about how and what to do. In John we do not have any of that. So, can we say that, that John presents us with a different kind of spirituality? Does it pass over in silence, ethics that Christ wished to teach the crowds, in the other Gospels?

So why the difference? What can we make of it? Is this a radically different form of Christianity? Course, one possibility is that Matthew had recorded all of these things in his gospel, and if John had seen and read this Gospel, then there wouldn’t have been any need to repeat. However, some scholars believe that John had not read the Gospel of Matthew before he wrote his gospel. So what other reasons can we summate? So we need to remember, that none of the other evangelists, felt the need to write down every single detail that he witnessed of Christ’s teaching, or life. There is something more to this. And we will see, that there are sayings of Christ that are recorded in the Gospel, that reappear later in the Pauline epistles, and also in our church services. For example, in the service the blessing of myrh and oil, we find the commandment of Christ, which is not recorded anywhere apart from the service. And Christ says: “Whosoever falls and raises himself will be saved.” And you won’t find such a saying in none of the Gospels. It appears only there.

None of the evangelists has in mind to record an exhaustive teaching of Christ’s words. In John, we find the very essence of Christian spirituality. If you compare the new Testament with the old Testament, you will find that especially the Leviticus priestly code, it is obsessed with flesh, the physical parts of the human being. All these rites of purification, the type of food you’re supposed to eat the type of clothes you’re supposed to wear, the customs to purify your physical existence, this is very much in focus of the Leviticus code. And even the very mark of the old covenant is circumcision. It is very much to do with human flesh. So we can say in the old Testament, man was addressed, and treated by God above all as flesh, as mortal. But in the new Testament, we witness a completely new phenomenon. Consider Dr Zhivago, a novel by Pasternak (?), where he writes about, what is different in Christianity? What is the main contribution of Christianity, for the history of civilisation? And one of the expository dialogues, Pasternak says, before Christ there was no notion of person. He said, there was a history of anonymous masses, suffering unrecorded, and then Christ comes and gives place and name to each of these little sufferers, and that is how the concept of person was born. And indeed we may say that, the new Testament deals with the new category of the human person in the new Testament addresses man, above all as person. That’s why you won’t find this of session, with flesh, as refined in the old Testament. Christ says, it is not where you eat that if I was you, but will proceeds out of you from your person holds, from your heart. And indeed a person becomes like a point of departure, for new Testament ethics. For example, you remember this example, “the Sabbath is for man, and man not for the Sabbath.” And recall the story of the widow casting two mites, Christ said that she contributed more than anyone else, because she gave all that she had. So the person becomes a measure of righteousness.

And John takes the spiritual dimension, man not as flesh, but as person, as spirit. He takes this personal, spiritual dimension to the extreme. And he explains the new type of being to Nicodemus. Christ says in chapter 3, ”what is one of the flesh is of the flesh, but what is born of the spirit is spirit” “ the spirit that makes life flesh profits nothing” (?). So, this marks a radical departure from the old Testament flesh type of righteousness. Instead, of flesh, John shifts our attention to the domain of spirit. And Johannine writings, in fact promotes the ultimate essence of this spiritual righteousness.

And I do not believe we should press the differences between the Gospel of John and the Synoptics. Yes, we do not find, in John’s Gospel the same set of commandments, but in fact they have the same message. Even if all of Christ’s commandments, were lost, and were not recorded but if we would learn about his life, his example, it would still be enough for us to see in Christ’s fulfilment of all his commandments to which he had given to us in his person. And this idea of commandment, being encoded, in Christ’s person, as an example, is very much present in John’s Gospel. Simply by presenting Christ in his life, his actions, and his relationship, John communicates much more than just a set of commandments and down on paper. Christ said, in chapter 13, “I have given you an example that you should do as I have done to you”, so Christ sets himself as an example. He is exactly the word of God, the Logos became flesh, the word of God, the Torah that became flesh. He is presented to us as our living commandment.

And in this respect let us consider John 14:31, the idea of person becoming a commandment: “but the world might know that I love the Father, the father has given me commandment, even so I do”. This notion commandments, is in singular. What kind of commandment with the father give Christ? So Christ, lived by the father, he does everything according to the father, he does everything in the name of the Father, father becomes the focus of his existential concern and expression. Thus, the father, becomes a living commandment for Christ: what he hears from the father, he does is the father does. There is a dynamic dimension to this idea of Christ as a commandment. It is not something which was once said, and finished. No, Christ looks up to the father and acts and lives according to his will. “I lived by the father”, Christ says.

And as the father becomes a living commandment Christ, Christ becomes a living commandment for us. In fact, if you think, Christ he left us his commandment, “this is my commandment to love one another as I have loved you”. But what definition can you give to this commandment of love? How can you prescribe what we should do when you love another person? Is it possible to give a definition of life? So perhaps in a family relationship, if I were to list down all the things that are done as an expression of love e.g. if a spouse is the washing up et cetera you could not possibly exhaust all the things that are done in love. You cannot give a definite list of all the things that are done to manifest love in a relationship. Descriptions don’t help us. So the only way you can teach how to love is by example. And that is why, Christ is set for us as a living example, is a living commandment. And by his example, we learn, what it means to love another person. And not only for Christ, but interpersonal relationship with the Trinity. It is an eternal cycle of love, “perixorisis” within the Trinity. And this is something that John wishes to be projected, on a human plane.

And this idea of person as a commandment, is also in the synoptic gospels. The story of the young men who comes to cries what shall I do to inherit eternal life. And Christ says to him, do you know the oldest commandments, then he said to him one thing which you lack, “sell every thing that you have, and follow me”. Possibly, it would be enough just to follow Christ. Another example, Matthew chapter 11:29 “learn of me for I am meek and lowly of heart”. Christ sets himself as an example. But we can say that the whole of John’s Gospel is this formula “learn of me”. Christ is primordial hypostatic paradigm. And this is presented to us dynamically not statically, in his actions, in his words, in his deeds, in his reactions and his relations. And he for us to follow and imitate him. There is no in fact difference in message between John and the synoptic gospels, concerning teaching, concerning the commandments of Christ. Christ, in John’s Gospel, fulfils all these commandments which he was given in the synoptic gospels. Christ himself fulfils them in John’s Gospel.

When we look, at the sermon on the Mount, and we hear the words “Blessed are the poor in spirit”, of course Christ is speaking about himself, given he could do nothing without the father, and would do nothing without the father. If you take, “blessed that they that mourn”, we do know that Christ was moved to tears on occasion.” And then, “Blessed are the meek”. And Christ was meek, he even washed the disciple’s feet at the Last Supper. And the same occurs throughout the whole sermon, “blessed are those who hunger and thirst”, and again Christ is found hungry “give me something to eat” and later thirsting on the cross. “Blessed are the merciful”, of course Christ fulfils his own commandments when they bring to him the woman who has been accused of adultery, and shows mercy. “Blessed are the peacemakers”… This is a recurring theme, where Christ says “peace unto you”. Whenever Christ appeared he would spread peace around him. And back in Matthew we hear, “Blessed are the persecuted…”, v15, “let your light shine on men… Glorify your Father in heaven”… And everything is done by Christ for his father’s glory.

John. “Be reconciled with your enemies”; Christ constantly invites the Jews to reconcile with him, but they do not. “Do not resist evil”. Remember, when the mob come to take him away, and he commends them “whatever you do, do it quickly” (John 13:27). “Therefore, be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”. And Christ himself fulfilled this commandment to the absolute extent possible, people who saw him, saw the father. We could study the synoptic gospels in the same way, and see how Christ fulfilled all the commandments, sometimes directly, and at other times indirectly. John sets him as an example for us to follow.

So the way of salvation, leads to life, according to Matthew’s Gospel. The way in John’s Gospel, is not what, but who. He is Christ himself, “I am the way”. It is a dynamic commandment, that is in the living Christ. If we look, at the whole, sayings of Christ in John’s Gospel, this idea of “follow me”, “come after me” is dominant. The Gospel begins, with this idea following Christ, and it ends with this idea of following Christ. Chapter 1 the idea is used three times, “they followed Jesus”, and we now know for John it was a theological notion to follow Jesus, and to follow his example. “And he said to Philip, follow me…” So it is the very first commandment that Christ gives in the Gospel of John. Again it comes up in many chapters, ch 8: “who follows me shall not walk in darkness”. Ch 10: “the good Shepherd… And he goes before them”, and the sheep follow him. What is interesting and unusual about this presentation about a good Shepherd. It is in the ordering, and usually the sheep go before the Shepherd. The shepherds go behind the flock showing direction from behind… But sometimes in the Middle East if the sheep know the Shepherd, the shepherd will go sometimes a little bit ahead and the sheep will follow. And Christ said in chapter 12: “anyone who serves me, let him follow me.” This following of Christ, is precisely the way of salvation. “Where I am, there also my servants shall be”. It is not speaking about geography, he is speaking about a mode of being, divine being.

Now, following Christ in geographical terms doesn’t mean they will be saved many followed Christ right down to the crucifixion and were part responsible for what occurred. There was a crowd who constantly followed Christ in geographical terms, but nevertheless turned against him. And indeed, once you start to live the gospel in your own life, you will notice, you will find yourself exactly in these types of experiences that Christ had in the gospel. Once you start to follow him in this way you will find situations like this that are very familiar.

This language of hypostatic paradigms, is very effective. If you look at a modern culture, young kids they are very much into their own idols, their heroes their worldly icons, you can teach a kid what he should do and what you shouldn’t do but once he says a movie, or is fascinated by some kind of image all your teaching is gone in an instance. He will imitate the hero, just after one hour. And that is the language of hypostatic paradigms that works it is far more powerful than just words.

It is remarkable that the Gospel actually ends with this dynamic idea of following Christ, or perhaps dozen and because it is open ending. We hear about Peter, following Christ, and the beloved disciple joining them. So the Gospel actually joins with this idea of following Christ.

Hypostatic paradigm

It is crucial, because of the language and early because Christ is represented in this way to us, as an example as a paradigm, it is also the language of John, of righteousness and sin. They are exemplified, they are not spelled-out for us, what is seen, but they are at exemplified in his example is. Most of the heroes of the gospel you will see, they are shown to us in their relationship with Christ. They are examples of relationship with Christ. They are some who love Christ like Lazarus, like Martha and Mary, who will end up in the resurrection but there are also those who reject Christ and lose their salvation, like becoming Christ enemies, and we notice an interesting trend in all the Gospels, but especially in John. But after the resurrection of Christ, know one of the enemies of Christ is mentioned, only the ones who loved him, Mary, his mother, his beloved disciple, Nicodemus. Positive examples survive to the next life, after the depiction of the resurrection.

Q&A. Imitating Christ sounds like sublime ethics, but how can the average person begin? It sounds too difficult? It is a positive experience, that comes not from reading the gospel and following every commandment etc. It involves a personal knowledge of Christ, and desire of communion with Him. That is what we do in the Liturgy, we prepare and come closer to him through the Holy Eucharist. And not just partaking in the body and blood of Christ in the physical sense but also in the spiritual sense. We try to participate in the Spirit of Christ, not just in his flesh and body in bread and wine, but also in his spirit- there is also spiritual communion. Once a person goes to Church, regularly participates in the life of the Church, the following happens defacto, because in one way or another, our ecclesiastical tradition has provided, all necessary means for our following Christ, by itself but also in our life and liturgical service.

Q&A. If you try to take ethical rules out of the New Testament like there were in the Old Testament, you cannot do it. Fr Sophrony once said, “when he was on Mt Athos, for him the Gospel looked like Utopia. It was impossible to fulfil. That is why he valued very much his encounter to Silouan the Athonite who gave him an answer, how to understand this paradox in this life. We are given an example of divine life in Christ’s commandments… perfect as our heavenly father is perfect. And the answer of Silouan is this revelation of Christ: “keep your mind in hell, and despair not”. This is the paradox of Christian ethics. Someone published a book in Russia, on how to be pious. They just singled out all of these commandments of “teachings of Christ”, and of course, it wasn’t even the teaching of Christ without His example, and without a personal relationship with him. It is a very complex experience.

This idea of hypostatic paradigms which teaches us Christian ethics

If you notice, every character in John’s Gospel has a representative trait. In every dialogue, which is recorded in the Gospel, there is an opening of the dialogue, and then the dialogue runs into from a particular character to the universal. This is a remarkable thing, this flexible movement between the individual, and then this individual becomes representative of the group. So John gives us an indication that what he wants to see us, in every character, is a type of person, type of relationship with Christ. Father Sophrony like to employ the same principle in the monastery, he would often say, if you learn to live in peace and love in the monastery with one father, then you will learn to live in peace and love with millions of people in the world. This is a good example of the idea how every person represents a type of people that we might live by, and once we learn to live in peace with that person then you are able to live in peace and concord with all people. And we see that in John we have this existential presentation both of sin and righteousness for these characters.

Let us examine a few examples. John 3:1, we hear that a Pharisee a ruler of the Jews comes to Christ. And that once John sets him as a paradigm, represents a type of attitude to Christ faith that doesn’t have roots. And he switches dialogue into plural. Begins to speak on behalf of certain groups, and if you look at verse two, “Rabbi, you know that you come from God”. Immediately Christ also switches into plural, in verse 11. He says: “I say to you, we know… You don’t receive our witness”. Why would Christ speak in plural?  Well, I think John wants us to see in every person and example, paradigm, a type.  And indeed, we see how John moves from particular individual dialogue into universal, it becomes parabolic in its character. In fact in itself this dialogue becomes a parable.

By the end of the discourse, their meeting becomes a microcosm of encounter between Jesus and the world, the universal truth is exposed, man is born by water and spirit. Towards the end of the dialogue, we see how he moves to these universal themes. He speaks about condemnation, and the light that has come to the world, it of darkness rather than light, takes off on this universal domain. One of the authors called his commentary on John, ”the maverick gospel”. He says, John like an eagle takes off from the ground, and then he sores in heaven on this pan-universal scale.

Yes, Nicodemus, provides us an interesting example, paradigm. He is rather confused about Christ. Perhaps his faith is not strong enough that he can follow Christ. Perhaps many people would find familiar these same kind of spiritual problems. Nicodemus is mentioned again in chapter 7. Remember he’s the one that tried to defend Christ against the Jews - he said, “does our law judge the man before it hears him and knows what he does?” And indeed, out of reverence Nicodemus comes to Christ’s tomb at the end of the Gospel, chapter 19: “… And he brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, to anoint Christ”. But John gives us a very profound psychological analysis of what really happened to Nicodemus, why he followed Christ. John in chapter 12 after he speaks about Pharisees, he says: “out of the rulers many did believe in him because of the Pharisees they did not confess Leicester should be put out of the synagogue, for they love the glory of man more than the glory of God.” So Nicodemus is given to us as an example of one who was afraid to follow Christ. Many of the rulers out of fear, didn’t confess Christ because they were afraid to be put out the synagogue. Does this phrase remind you of anything from the synoptic gospels? There was a rich man who could not follow Christ because of his treasures on earth. But of course, the parable of the sower, this world, the temptations, and riches of this world, that is the faith that has no roots. This is not the seed that fell on stony ground it had no deep roots. And what we have here is a similar teaching, that Christ gives us in Nicodemus, but it is like a parable in the synoptic gospels. This is the same message, but in a different form, communicated to us in this language of hypostatic paradigms. So the message of the hypostatic parables in John’s Gospel and the message in the Synoptics is the same.

Let us see how the same principle works in other characters. The very next chapter, chapter 4 where Christ meets the Samaritan woman. Again, we have this leap from individual particular to representative in the broader spectrum. Again, a change from singular into plural. Remember Christ begins his dialogue with the Samaritan woman, and then he addresses her in singular but later by verse 22 he begins to speak in plural: “you worship, what you do not know…” We see again, Christ switches into this plural. So in essence, she becomes a representative a certain group of people, the Samaritans. Another dynamic portrait, a hypostatic paradigm, another person who came to believe in Christ. It had she come to believe? And many of Christ’s teachings according to the synoptic gospel, reveals itself in a different way, the Christ talking about marriage et cetera. He discusses, the question of marriage with the Samaritan woman, and he says to her: “five men that you are with…” Because Christ speaks against adultery here. He is teaching here about how to pray, “worship of God in spirit and in truth”. In one way or another, all the synoptic messages and teachings, are to be found also in the Gospel of John, but through a different style of writing.

Why did Christ speak in parables?

And why does John, speak in this way using hypostatic paradigms? Why doesn’t he want to give us the direct commandment of Christ? Such as, do this or do that. Why this Christ speaking parables? Why does John use the same language, parabolic language, for this hypostatic paradigms? Why do you think this is the case? If we compare, the language of Christ, the way he gives his commandments, his teachings, with that of the old Testament you will find that he doesn’t use imperative very often. Occasionally he does, been the old Testament commandments, they always use imperative is: “thou shall not”. But English poet W.H. Auden once said, “you can’t tell people what to do, you can tell them a parable”. And this is very much what Christ employs when he speaks in parables. Because as I said earlier we’re dealing in the New Testament with the spiritual history of mankind, of the human person. Person whose freedom, God is eager to preserve. That is why he doesn’t impose himself, but he represents truth in this parabolic language. So that person, is free to make a choice on whether or not to follow Christ. And this is perhaps why we can translate “I speaking parables, so seeing they have the opportunity not to see, and hearing they have an opportunity not to hear.” That is why Christ speaks in parables. He leaves us to be free. The same goes with hypostatic language, and paradigms, in John’s Gospel. We are left free to decide for ourselves who we can associate ourselves with in the Gospel. The beloved disciple, perhaps Judas, perhaps Mary Magdalen, and this is how this language of paradigms works.

Q&A. There is a book by Jonah he actually mentions that, if Christ did wish to communicate this idea of deliberately blinding people he would have used the Isaiah quotation in full, but he did not. In Isaiah there is some very strong language where God wishes for this people to be blinded. But Christ omits the most important part of that quotation.

Man is a fact for God himself. Once you remove human freedom, you no longer have human beings. That is why there was a restoration of the fallen Adam into this freedom. This freedom that Christ brought to mankind, which lets humans be free. This gives them the choice of whether they wish to follow Christ not, it is a personal choice which God does not want to interfere with. And this is a choice that we make in the very depths of our heart. And the language that is employed by St Peter afterwards, it is the same language of non-coercion. He says: “I am going fishing” and the apostles replied: “we will go with you”. He did not impose, “we shall all go fishing”. This is the basis of our orthodox ecclesiology. Like Komakhov (?) wrote, “Christ bequeathed his truth, not to power, but to love”. Instead of legal authority we would possibly find perhaps in some other confessions, a legalistic understanding of authority. In the orthodox understanding of authority, this an authority of love above all not of power. And we venerate Christ, not for his power but for his love.

The Paradigm of Peter

We read passages where Peter is mentioned. And we can think what the evangelists wishes to communicate to us. If we considered the whole spiritual career of Peter, was following Christ from the beginning to the end, even to the point of his death. And in fact Christ did mention, that he predicted that Peter would suffer martyrdom as Christ did. And Peter is given to us as an example of a follower of Christ, as he has his own witnesses but nevertheless he follows Christ to the end. And indeed, Peter experienced his own Golgotha, and his own crucifixion. What actually happened to him, if we begin to analyse the situation in human terms and you went to Jerusalem with Christ. And in the Last Supper he said: “I will never betray you, I would die if it was necessary”. And after a few days he betrays him, it was a real personal tragedy when he realised what he had done. He felt a real cheapness about his personhood, that he betrayed eternal God that Peter himself had witnessed the Transfiguration with his own eyes. And if you take the attestation further, he was the oldest of the apostles, how embarrassing it was for him to set such example, he was in a state of nothingness, ultimate.

Father Sophrony said: “just imagine as pre-eternal God to have all this universal mission laid upon you, that is what happened later after the resurrection, but Peter felt such unworthiness, he said, “I will go fishing, I will do what I did at the beginning before I met Christ. After all this experience with Christ, Peter was broken with his betrayal of Christ so much, that he went back to doing what he was doing before, being fishermen.  This act in self, is a sign of profound spiritual property, humility. He does strange things, when he sees Christ in the boat, he jumps into the water. So have this very complex portrait of a Christian who has his weaknesses, his moments of not knowing what to do when he jumps and see. It is a very lively paradigm.

And there is also that of the beloved disciple. And if you notice the beloved disciple never speaks in the Gospel, he’s always silent, as someone who is always present with Christ.

Opposite of Righteousness

The opposite of righteousness is sin. What is sin? What is sinful? Can you give a definition? The way sin is portrayed in the new Testament, you cannot give a definition. In the same way that you can give a definition of love, cannot give a definition of sin. Sin, has now a personal dimension. In the old Testament, it was is to identify sin because you are doing certain actions to prescribed in the old Testament law the should be doing, if you’re doing this your sin. Sin in the old Testament is defined. But in the new Testament yes, Christ gives a list of the evils like what comes out of your heart (e.g. adultery), but this list of sins is not exhaustive. Can you give a definition of the sin of Judas, for example? What was wrong with what he did? The holy Fathers speak of Judas’s love for money, this perhaps was not the main point. The very fact that he betrayed Christ, was the major sin. He sinned against love. Judas was in a relationship of a follower to Jesus, and he severed that link by betraying him. But if you look at it according to the old Testament, Judas may not have committed any sinful action. He went to the Pharisees, told in the truth he didn’t lie, according to the old Testament he didn’t sin. But according to the new Testament, he sinned. And Judas did not only betray but delivered Christ to the Pharisees.

Sin is also given to us in this way, in the language of this hypostatic paradigm. And of course, there is a moment, where Satan enters Judas’s heart. Father Sophrony said that Judas was scandalised by Christ’s behaviour because remember the moment that he decided to betray him, a woman came to anoint him, and put precious oil and wiped his feet with her hair, and Judas at that moment thought, he receives pleasure from a woman, but he could not see the Christ was accepting her repentance. And this is the moment that Judas decided to betray him. But for Christ at this moment the salvation of this woman was so important. So what I am saying is that it is impossible to provide a definition of sin. Again, there is an infinite category of sin. Just like there is an infinite category of love, and love can be expressed in many forms. It is the same thing with sin, it can be expressed in many forms. In Soviet Russia people would report about their neighbours to authorities and they would think that they were doing nothing special because they were not seeing lies. So there were saying the truth, so what is wrong with the truth? Always in the right to say the truth? But you see according to the New Testament it is a sin which cannot be defined but it is a sin. In fact this personal dimension, people think at times that even if they see nice words but with a heavy heart, people can hurt, depends on the personal dimension. In the Akathist in our hymns to Christ we say: “Hail, now king of the Jews, king of Israel”. And of course, the same words were used by people who mocked him before the crucifixion. We can see that the same words can be understood differently given the different contexts infecting opposite ways.

Another hypostatic paradigm, in the fourth Gospel, other crowds. The concept of the crowd in John’s Gospel, is again, a very flexible and dynamic concept. If crowds are positively disposed towards Christ, find among the crowds his disciples. But in chapter 6, once the crowds turn hostile to Christ, they acquire a technical term “the Jews”. We see this dynamic from crowds to Jews. Bassler (?) Who asserts that the evangelist is not concerned with nationality, or geography, but he’s concerned with the type of attitude towards Christ, people who reject Christ and who do not accept Christ. So juice is not a nationality, but a type of people. This is crucial for our understanding, for political issues these days. Some fathers of the church believes the Gospel was anti-Semitic, but no this is not the case, and I would side with modern scholars that the term “Jew” was based on the type of attitude and behaviour.