I have recently seen some instances of catechumens and others crossing the bridge from western protestant Christianity to Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism who have struggled with the concept of intercessory prayer. Pre-existing conditioning with the concepts of sola-scriptura and a paradigm that views death as a hard barrier, inquirers often experience instinctive resistance, viewing the practice as a departure from what they understand as biblical practise.

However, when examined holistically, the invocation of the saints is not a late pagan corruption (I’ve spent the last couple episodes debunking some of these pagan corruption myths, this is no different.) Rather this practice is a highly sophisticated, deeply scriptural, and organically coherent extension of the New Testament understanding of the Body of Christ.

Once they can break through this mindset, however, a whole new world of understanding opens to them. I know this to be true as it aligns with my own experience.

On Substack a creator I follow (@annaseemo) recently posted the following note which spurred the revisiting of this issue:

My relationship with the saints has been somewhat awkward for me as I slowly shed my evangelical Protestant background to embrace Holy Orthodoxy.

However, today I bent my neck and kissed the holy relics of the Wonderworker St. John of Shanghai in San Francisco. Today I sang his Troparion with tears and celebrated his blessed feast. Today I truly realized the magnitude and reality of the saints. Today I remembered that our highest calling in our earthly lives is the acquisition of holiness in Christ our Lord. Today I realized how I have hardly even begun walking in this race! Lord have mercy, and pray for us, O wonderworker John!

I could really relate. Although my religious background was quite different I went through a very similar experience. I responded with:

When you finally have that realization of the reality and presence of the saints, it’s like a whole new universe opens up to you, things you’ve been learning start to click and fall into place and then you realize that you are just starting the journey, and how far you really have to go.

but! better late than never!

That sparked this post and as a result, this article is not meant as an apologetic or to convince anyone who is already dead set against this idea. It’s only to help those who are open to and wanting to accepting the idea understand the context of the practice and explore the support for it, as well as to put the arguments against it into proper context. I hope to base the context for this discussion primarily on the Bible since many coming to the church still retain the instinct and impulse that the Bible is the sole authority on divine teaching (the OP references coming from an evangelical protestant background, so this impulse is likely to be there. Some things take time to adjust to.)

I think that it is important to approach the topic from this perspective, demonstrating that this tradition is not only ancient and authentic, but is permissible and, in fact, a natural extension of core biblical truths.

One first immediate objection that I often see in online debates/discussions is that. This practice is not directly addressed in the bible, in contrast to what appear to be prohibitions against it.

Getting our Thinking Right

To understand this doctrine, we first need to overcome our own modern snobbery. Often we assume that ancient people, Christians included, were primitive, simplistic, or prone to superstitious thinking. As evidenced by the flawless deductive rigor of Euclid’s Elements, the formal logic of Aristotle's Prior Analytics, the staggering metacognition of Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations, and the algorithmic precision of Pāṇini’s Sanskrit grammar, large parts of the ancient world (particularly those handed down to us) operated at an elite level of intellectual astuteness that is rare even by modern standards.1 The reality is that the level of education and complex thinking may have been higher amongst the educated in antiquity than it is today where we are educated by one teacher to 30 students in a public education curriculum calibrated for the lowest common denominator.

“But it’s not in the Bible!” is a common rebuttal that I've heard many times. And in my mind I think that this is both true and false at the same time. It is true that the doctrine of intercession of the Saints is not plainly addressed simply and directly in scripture using the terms we would use today, but neither is the doctrine of the Trinity (the word trinity does not exist in the Bible at all) and virtually all Christians today are Trinitarians. In fact, we often use acceptance of the Trinity as a litmus test to determine whether or not one is a Christian. Like the Trinity, this is something that comes out of a comprehensive reading of scripture that pulls in clues and facts from many places order to formulate a comprehensive belief and practise that is well supported by scripture.2

This is a pattern of practice evident from the earliest days of the church. When the Early Church formulated its practices, it did not rely on wild speculation. They, like our scientists today, built robust philosophical and theological models based on collecting, understanding and structuring data - looking for patterns that would not otherwise be obvious.

The Orthodox understanding of the Communion of Saints functions precisely like this: it is a robust theological model that synthesizes numerous scriptural data points, a firm understanding of cultural context (which we will examine next,) and extra-biblical statements from Apostolic Fathers (those taught directly by the Apostles themselves) to bring it all together into a cohesive, non-contradictory whole.

This defense rests on three fundamental pillars:

Read more

The most reasonable-sounding, diplomatic statement in modern religious culture. It is also the precise opposite of what Jesus said.

Imagine the pitch.

“Tired of religions that just don’t get you? Sick of rigid rules, judgmental communities, and a God with strong opinions about how you spend your Friday night? Introducing Faith™ — the first belief system engineered around the most important person, the ultimate God of the universe: YOU. Take our thirty-second quiz. Tell us your values, your vibe, your hard no’s. Our algorithm matches you with a spirituality that fits your sensibilities and your lifestyle. Flexible plans. No long-term commitment. Cancel anytime. The first eternity is free.”

If that made you wince — good. Keep wincing. You’re going to need it.

Because a softer, kinder, holier-sounding version of that exact ad is the single most common thing I hear from sincere, intelligent, genuinely Christ-loving people. It came up recently. A dear and beloved friend, in the middle of a good and decent argument about how Christians shouldn’t be criticizing each other, but instead uniting against a common enemy, put it like this (I’m paraphrasing):

We should each find the religion that fits us. Who has the truth? We’ll all find out later.

And honestly? I get it. I want to be careful here, because there is something real and good buried under that sentence, and if I steamroll it, I’ll have missed the point.1

What’s good is the instinct against contempt. My friend was reacting, rightly, against the spectacle of believers knifing each other over differences while the house burns down around them. Don’t tear each other down. That instinct is valuable and correct. Mormons - the most attacked religious group in the Western world - know this all too well and are hypersensitive to it. This impulse is, in fact, deeply Christian. “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” So I want to honor the heart of it before I take a scalpel to its logic.

But the logic has to come out. Because the cure my friend reached for- find what fits you- is not a peace treaty; it’s poison. And it’s poison precisely because it sounds so humble, so generous, so live-and-let-live. Let me show you what it’s actually smuggling in right under your nose.

“Fits You” Is Fitting-Room Language

Listen to the verb. Fits.

That is not a religious word. It’s a retail word. It belongs in a fitting room, next to the mirror, the little bench, the sign that says "maximum 6 items,” and the warning about the penalties for shoplifting. You try things on. You check the fit. If it pinches you put it back on the rack and reach for a different size. The customer is always right.

It seems to me that we are the first civilization in our history who shop for Gods the way we shop for jeans. And we don’t even notice we’re doing it because the market isn’t a place we go anymore. It’s the air we breathe.

Everything is a product now. Your education is a product. Your relationships are a product (swipe, match, return). Your attention is a product being sold to someone else while you sleep. So, of course, faith became a product too. Of course, we started asking the living God the one question we ask of everything else in our lives: Does it suit me?

Here is the trap, and it’s airtight. If the customer is always right, then the customer isn’t God; it’s us, and God is just inventory. The moment you make “fit” the test, you have quietly crowned yourself the thing that does not move, the fixed point, the judge before whom all the religions of the earth must audition. They line up. They do a shark-tank pitch. You select. You have not found a faith. You have held a casting call, and the role was a god who agrees with me.

How American.2

I mean that precisely, not as an insult. The free-market church, the one you choose for how it suits you and how it makes you feel, is one of the most distinctly Western, consumer-centric, distinctly modern inventions in the whole history of Christianity. The early Christians would not have understood the question. You did not “find a church that fit you” in second-century Antioch. The Church was there. It had been handed something. And the only question on the table was whether you would conform to it. The direction of the verb ran the other way.

Ego is the Western mind’s true God. And “finding a faith that fits you” is its liturgy.

The Sleight of Hand in “We’ll All Find Out Later”

Now to the second half of my friend’s sentence, which is even sneakier than the first.

Everybody thinks they have the truth, so who really knows? We’ll find out later.

This feels like humility. It wears humility’s clothes. But watch the hands, because two completely different claims are being palmed as one:

1. People disagree about religious truth. Obviously. Wildly. This is just true.

2. Therefore, (the subtle implication is that) the truth can’t be known with certainty — or isn’t really there at all. (It seems to me to be back-door agnosticism.)

Claim one is a fact about us. Claim two is a conclusion about reality. And claim two does not follow from claim one. Not even a little.

Try it with anything else. Hand three strangers the address of where you’re trying to go, and watch them give you three different routes. Do you conclude that the city doesn’t exist? Are all roads equally good? Should you just drive in whatever direction fits you? Of course not. You conclude that at most one of them is right, possibly none of them, and your job is to figure out which. Disagreement is not a verdict that the destination is unreachable. It’s an invitation to do the navigation.

We already know this, by the way. We acknowledge this the moment we admit that each different “church” tradition teaches incompatible things. A thing cannot be both true and not-true in the same way at the same time. That’s the oldest rule in the universe; it’s a fundamental principle of Logic, and no amount of polite shrugging repeals it.

Also known as “the law of non-contradiction.” Aristotle states it in Metaphysics Book IV, but he didn’t invent it any more than Newton invented gravity; he just wrote it down. A claim cannot be both true and false in the same respect at the same time. Accepting such contradictions to both be true, by the very rules of formal logic, means that you can sneak ANY kind of absurdity or lie in the back door.

Note the self-detonating quality of the relativist proposition here. The sentence “there is no truth” is itself advanced as a truth.

Rationally, it follows that if that statement is true, then the very proposition it advances is false. It eats its own tail (it’s a self-refuting proposition, or self-referential inconsistency)

The 40 thousand different Christian denominations, springing from hundreds of different, contradictory theologies, can’t all be right. Some of them, likely most of them, are wrong about enormously important things. That’s not me being unkind. That’s just probability and math.

And then there’s the quiet little phrase doing the most damage of all: “we’ll find out later.”

It sounds patient. It sounds humble. In fact, it’s a permission slip, a doctor’s note excusing you from the hardest and most important homework of your life, because the answer key won’t be released until you’re dead. It sounds nice, but rationally considering your very eternal salvation (because that’s what’s at stake), it’s massively dangerous. It’s probably the most dangerous thought you can ever think.

AND it is not what Jesus said. He did not say ye shall know the truth eventually, in the fog, after the funeral. He said, present tense, on this side of the grave: “ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” And Jude tells us the faith was “once delivered unto the saints” — once. Past tense. Finished. Handed over. A deposit with a return address. Not an ongoing slow rollout of “continuing revelation” that updates itself with every change of ecclesiastical leadership.

You don’t wait for the truth to be revealed in the afterlife like exam results. It already happened. It has an address, a date, and a location. Your job is to trace it back to where it was delivered. That can be done, BUT it’s not easy. It costs you time, comfort, and a fair number of your assumptions. But it can be done. I know because I did it, and there is absolutely nothing about me that is special.

Where “Fits You” Goes to Die

Here’s the thing nobody points out. Jesus told a thirty-word story that detonates the entire fits-you framework, and it’s so short you’ve probably read right past it your whole life. Or were taught to misunderstand it.

Let’s examine it like the little sleuths we are.

“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls: Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.” — Matthew 13:45–46

This parable contains three details. Watch them carefully, because each one matters.

1. The merchant was seeking. “Seeking goodly pearls.” Active voice. He didn’t stumble onto it on a walk. Nobody handed it to him on a velvet cushion. He didn’t take a quiz and get matched by an algorithm. He went hunting. The truth, in this parable, is something you go and look for, on purpose, with effort, the way Vincent of Lérins did sixteen centuries ago when he set out to find a fixed rule for telling real faith from the counterfeits.3 Seekers find. Shoppers browse.

2. The pearl’s worth is intrinsic. “One pearl of great price.“ Its value is not set by whether it flatters the merchant, suits his taste, or works with his existing wardrobe. Its worth is intrinsic. It is worth what it is worth, full stop, whether he likes it or not, whether it’s convenient or not, whether it “resonates” or not, whether it matches his “vibe” or not. The truth God gives is not graded on a curve of how well it fits your life. It’s graded on whether it’s true.

3. The direction of fit runs completely backwards. The merchant does not ask whether the pearl fits his budget or will go with his wife’s earrings. He liquidates his entire life to fit the pearl. “Sold all that he had.” Everything. The man conforms to the pearl and is willing to sacrifice everything for it. The pearl never once, not for a single verse, conforms to the man.

That is the exact, perfect, surgical inversion of find a faith that fits you. The consumer sentence asks: Does this fit me? The pearl asks: Are you willing to be re-cut, re-set, rebuilt around this?

And now go back and notice what the scriptures somehow never say. They never say: " Find a worship service you enjoy. Find a congregation where the people are nice to you, and you’ve got friends. Find a gospel that’s close enough to the truth that you stay comfortable. None of those are in the Bible. It is not in the mouth of Christ. What is in His mouth is a strait gate and a narrow way that “few there be that find it,” and the flat command: “let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.” Mormons generally understand that “straight is the gate and narrow is the way” means that not only do few find it, but also that fewer people who find and enter into it stick with it.

A faith that fits you costs you little. And costing you little (I’m not talking about $$) is the single most reliable sign that it is not the pearl. (For my LDS readers — you know that the truth is in the business of celestializing you. Nobody, in the entire history of the cosmos, ever got celestialized by staying comfortable or by tithing being the epitome of their sacrifice.)4

But didn’t YOU just pick the Church That Fit You?”

Fair hit. The fairest one available, actually, and if you didn’t think of it, I’d be disappointed. You say the truth can be found — great. By what measure? Aren’t you just doing the same consumer move I am? Picking the tradition that suits you and slapping the word “apostolic” on it to feel authentic and objective about it? Ok, fair point.

So let me hand you the measure. And the whole point is that it isn’t mine.

Around the year 434, a monk in southern Gaul, a man whom Rome and the Orthodox East both honor as a saint to this very day, which is exactly why I’m using him5, went looking for precisely the thing my friend implies we can’t know: a fixed, reliable rule for telling the apostolic faith apart from its knockoffs (and there were always several - we know them today as heresies.) His name was Vincent of Lérins. And the answer he arrived at is the oldest there is. Hold fast to what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus. Everywhere. Always. By all Christians.

Sit with how completely that demolishes the fitting room approach. It’s not a preference test; it’s actually the anti-preference test. It asks nothing about your vibe. Nothing about your comfort. Nothing about your friend group, your favorite worship music, if you “felt the spirit”, or how the sermon made you feel on the drive home. It asks one cold, public, checkable question: is this what the whole Church, in every place, from the very beginning, received and handed down?

That is a test you can actually run. It’s historical. It’s documentable. The sources are sitting right there in the open, mostly hosted by people who have no Orthodox axe to grind. You do not need my permission, and you do not need my conclusions. You need a library card and some nerve, because…….

The Pearl Doesn’t Fit in Your Pocket

Here’s the part that settles it, on principle (at least I’m inclined to think so)

When I went looking, really looking, with the ubique-semper-ab-omnibus test in one hand and a stack of the patristic Fathers in the other. (OK, not literally, I had Fr. Trenham’s Patristic Nectar app on my phone with access to a few critical series that made an impact.)

The faith I found did not Fit me. Sure, there was a certain appeal; I did like the Byzantine music. I fell in love with the liturgy. I loved that it was ancient.

It did not fit my life or my sensibilities at the time. It is often inconvenient in ways I’m still adjusting to. In addition, I had to give up quite a lot and admit that many things in my life were for naught.

• I had to give up a community I was relatively comfortable with and a story about how reality and the afterlife worked that I’d believed my entire life.

• I had to accept that what I had lived and defended most of my life was not true.

• That suffering I had endured for my LDS faith was all for naught. I had been picked on enough as a young person for being odd, for being sickly, and a lot more for being Mormon. I was the only one in my family to serve a mission, and in preparing for it, I developed an illness that ended up requiring open-heart surgery. It necessitated my coming home early, and because I came home early to have heart surgery, the girls who had written me my entire mission wouldn’t even talk to me in the hallways of my ward building; they assumed that God didn’t protect me on my mission because I was unworthy (a common LDS mindset) I very nearly died from that illness and I almost didn’t make it through the surgery - the Dr’s couldn’t get my heart started again.

  • Ramifications from this will last the rest of my life: being on blood thinners, constant INR (blood thinner) monitoring via bi-weekly blood tests, further restrictions on what I can eat, large restrictions on activities like martial arts, all contact or extreme sports, or anything where there is a risk of bruising or suffering force to the head or chest. This rules out or adds great risk to a lot of things that I’d/or do love to do. A small sampling includes: Horseback riding, riding a motorcycle (which I have always wanted since I was a young teenager), Contact martial arts, boxing, Kendo, HEMA, skydiving, hang gliding, skiiing/snowboarding, etc. I have at times ridden a horse and a motorcycle, but I had to approach each with an abundance of caution and limit my amount of engagement with those activities; they could never be regular activities.

• I spent decades researching “anti-Mormon” issues and challenges to Mormonism, historical and doctrinal. Much time was spent sorting the illegitimate ones from the legitimate ones, and for those, finding the apologetic.6

  • Sometimes there was no existing apologetic, or it was weak, and I needed to go looking for information that supported it. Often, this required intense amounts of reading and study that usually required constructing new narratives or new understandings of church teachings or history that met the challenges.

In the end, I had to admit that my suffering might have all been for nothing. That I had to throw away almost 30 years of dedicated research and study, trying to defend Mormonism or prove that it could be true7. Ultimately, I had to admit to myself that it was all a waste of time. That I, with all my smarts, had been deceived into dedicating most of my life to something that was so clearly (to everyone outside the LDS church) a lie. That I had been manipulated into paying over a hundred thousand dollars in “tithing” to a group of con artists pretending to be prophets. That the church I had built up and taught my children to defend and be resilient in - was a lie. Worse still, that the probability that the LDS church could lead them to salvation or theosis, given the extreme depths of its heresies, was likely very low; a thought freaked me out more than anything else and ultimately sparked the major impetus behind this publication.

My new faith asks me to fast (twice a week) when I’d rather eat. To fast from foods (meat, fish, oil) that, if I avoid, make it very hard to eat anything at all (given my long list of food allergies and required food avoidances (most of which are vegetables).) The result being that I usually just don’t eat at all and go hungry. To stand for two hours when I’d rather sit due to lower back pain and pain from flat feet. To confess my actual sins out loud to another human being, which is as comfortable as it sounds. My first experience with confession, while miles better than my LDS experiences with “repentance,” still had the ring of sitting in the Mormon bishop’s office. I knew that orthodoxy would make me an outsider in my own family, and my current circle of friends would be likely to abandon me. I also knew that there was a very high risk that I would be kicking out the last leg of a very weathered stool that supported my already precarious marriage (it did, and I paid the price). I knew that the moral standards of conduct in orthodoxy were just as high, if not higher than in Mormonism, something I always kicked against. I had maintained, for decades, that if I were ever to get divorced, I’d never remarry. When LDS friends gasped and asked about forgoing sex, I scoffed and said that I’d just have sex with anyone I wanted to, marriage or no marriage, cause I didn’t think it mattered. I didn’t believe in what I considered to be these made-up “white people” rules. However, now I find myself divorced, dating, but holding women (who want to have sex) at bay with a position of “no sex before marriage,” one of the very rules I rejected when I was Mormon.8

If I had been shopping — if “fit” had been my test, I had already found it in Buddhism and would have stayed exactly where I was. Comfortable, not sacrificing anything, or built myself something cozier and called it “close enough.”

I did not choose Orthodoxy because it fit me. I submitted to it because, when I ran the test, I determined that it was what was handed down from Christ to the Apostles. And the fact that it cost me pretty much everything (my truck, my house, my woman - my life is a bloody country song) is not a bug in the story. It is the reason I trust it and the very reason I know I’m not being a hypocrite by writing this article.

Because a God who fits you is a God you made in your own image. He’s a mirror with a halo on it, your own preferences, your own ego, your own face, reflected with the volume turned up and a little incense or smoke machines added for atmosphere.9 The God who is actually there is the one who does not poll your opinion before He confronts you, does not soften His commandments to clear your filters, and does not audition for the role of your God. The pearl does not fit in your pocket.

You rebuild your pocket — your whole house, your whole life — around the pearl.

Here Is My Plea

And it is a plea, not a pitch.

Stop shopping. Start seeking. Put down the quiz and pick up the cross. The faith once delivered to the saints is not lost. It is not hiding in the fog of "we’ll find out later.” It is not relative, not unknowable, not gone. The Church that Christ founded is still standing. The truth the Apostles taught is still here, intact, traceable, and stubbornly refusing to conform to anybody’s lifestyle. It can be found by you, this year, with the two hands you already have. But! Only if you want it more than you want to be comfortable, and only if you’re willing, like the merchant, to sell everything you have to obtain it.

Don’t take my word for any of it. I would be insulting the pearl if I asked you to. I am nothing but a sinner, just like everyone else.

Go seek and verify it yourself — ubique, semper, ab omnibus, the Fathers are in the original, the sources linked below. Run the test on the tradition you’re in right now. Run it on mine. Run it on all of them you can, but do it prayerfully and let the Lord know you are willing to submit to whatever he tells you.

And then when you find it, and you will find it, if you actually look, do the one thing the merchant did that nobody talks about.

Don’t admire it. Don’t bookmark it. Don’t add it to your cart and tell yourself you’ll come back.

Sell everything.

And obtain it.

Primary Sources

I encourage you genuinely, not rhetorically, to verify everything below for yourself.

• St. Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium (c. 434 AD). The source of the “Vincentian Canon” — quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus (”what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”). The famous rule is laid out in the early chapters; the opening chapters also record Vincent’s own diligent search for a reliable criterion. Venerated in both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. Read the full text at New Advent here (Heurtley’s translation, from the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11).

• Scripture (King James Version, via the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ scripture portal, for readers coming from an LDS background):

  • Matthew 13:45–46 — the merchant and the pearl of great price.

  • Matthew 7:13–14 — the strait gate and the narrow way.

  • Matthew 16:24 — deny yourself, take up your cross.

  • John 8:32 — “ye shall know the truth” (present tense, note).

  • Jude 1:3 — the faith “once delivered unto the saints.”

• A general resource for the curious: New Advent’s Fathers of the Church library hosts the complete Ante-Nicene (pre-nicene) and Nicene/Post-Nicene Fathers in English. It is not an Orthodox site. It hosts the sources I’m citing here, and it’s a fine place to start running the ubique, semper, ab omnibus test on your own.

<sets down eggnog>

You know the guy. Every family has one. It’s the second day of Christmas, the wrapping paper is still on the floor, somebody’s auntie is asking if anyone wants more ham, and from the corner of the couch, between bites of shortbread, he clears his throat.

“You DO know … Christmas is just a stolen pagan holiday, right? December 25th was the birthday of the Sun god. Saturnalia. Mithras. Constantine made the whole thing up to keep the pagans happy. It’s not even in the Bible.”

And everyone kind of nods, because it sounds like the sort of thing that’s probably true, it has that delicious flavor of forbidden knowledge, the History-Channel-at-2 am feeling, the sense that you’ve peeked behind the curtain and seen the gears. It’s a great story. It has a villain, a cover-up, and a smug little payoff.

It’s also almost entirely false, and — like its cousin, the “Constantine paganized the Sabbath”1 myth I took apart in an earlier piece — it’s a relatively recent invention dressed up as ancient history. So pour yourself some more of whatever you’re drinking, because we’re going to do something the couch-guy never does: check. We’re going to trace exactly how the Church arrived at December 25, dig into the strange and beautiful date of the Annunciation, and then take every single pagan-origin theory, Sol Invictus, Saturnalia, Mithras, the whole crew — and put each one in the ground, one at a time.

I was raised Latter-day Saint (LDS aka Mormon.) I want to be clear that what we are about to dig into is not formal LDS/Mormon Sunday school teaching. In fact I’ve never heard anyone preach this from the pulpit at all. But I do think that the belief of some of these myths are fairly widespread in the LDS world, because I have heard them repeated quite a lot over the years from various LDS people I know/knew (mostly my mother) for it to stick.

What did I hear? That December 25 had nothing to do with the real Jesus and everything to do with pagan compromise — and that the real date was some time in early April.2 So believe me: as someone who was formerly LDS, I get the appeal. It’s completely inline with the great apostasy type narrative. I just heard this again recently and decided to scrutinized this position instead of accepting it at face value.

First, let’s be Honest: the Bible Gives us no Dates

Let’s concede the couch-guy his one true point and get it out of the way, because it costs us nothing.

The Gospels do not tell us when Jesus was born. Not the day, not the month, not even the season. Luke mentions shepherds in the fields (Luke 2:8), which people love to wield as proof — “see, no shepherd would be out in December!” — but that argument is much weaker than it sounds. Bethlehem winters are mild, flocks were often kept outdoors, and more importantly, it’s beside the point. Nobody seriously thinks December 25 was arrived at by meteorology.3

In fact, the earliest Christians weren’t celebrating Jesus’ birthday at all. Around the year 200, Clement of Alexandria runs through a whole menu of proposed dates that various Christian groups had floated, May 20, April 20 or 21, others, and December 25 isn’t even on his list.

His contemporary Origen openly mocked the idea of celebrating birthdays as a pagan, vainglorious habit fit for Pharaohs and Herods, not Christians. (Hence a good reason for why early christians were not celebrating his birthday.)

• I find this is highly ironic. Even if we granted, which we most certainly do not, that Dec 25th was chosen for pagan reasons; celebrating the Nativity, every year would be considered more pagan by early christian standards than the date it falls on. Let that sink in. Better point that finger somewhere else couch man!

For the first two centuries, the question of when Jesus was born simply wasn’t a priority. The cross was the priority. The empty tomb was the priority. Everyday christians weren't terribly concerned with when he was born.

Hold onto that: December 25 didn’t start as a guess about the weather on the night of the Nativity. It started as the answer to a math problem — and the math began at the cross.

How Christians Actually Got to December 25

Here is the chain of reasoning. It will feel alien to modern minds, which is exactly why no one borrowing a pagan party would ever have invented it.

1. The ancient principle of Wholeness. There was a deep conviction in the Jewish world, preserved in the Talmud, that the great turning points of salvation cluster on the same dates, that God’s work has a deliberate symmetry. The Babylonian Talmud records a second-century debate in which Rabbi Eliezer holds that the world was created in the month of Nisan, the patriarchs were born in Nisan, and in Nisan the world will be redeemed.4 Early Christians inherited a version of this instinct in a specific form: the idea that a great prophet enters and leaves the world in perfect wholeness. That he dies on the very same date he was conceived. No loose ends. No fractional life. A complete circle.

2. The date of the cross. Around 200 A.D., Tertullian of Carthage, working in the Latin West, reported a calculation that the 14th of Nisan, the day of the Crucifixion in John’s Gospel, fell on March 25 in the Roman solar calendar.5 Hold that date.

3. The date of creation. Around 221, the Christian historian Sextus Julius Africanus did something independent. In his world-chronicle, he fixed the moment of the Incarnation, the conception of Christ, not His birth, to March 25, the spring equinox, which he also held to be the very date of the creation of the world. The new creation begins on the anniversary of the first one. The new Adam is conceived on the day the cosmos was made.6

4. Do the arithmetic. If Christ was conceived on March 25 (the new creation / the Annunciation) and if, by that ancient principle of wholeness, the date of His conception equals the date of His death (March 25, the cross) — then count forward a normal nine-month pregnancy from conception, and you land, inevitably, on December 25.

Conception and crucifixion on one date; birth nine months later. That’s it. That’s the entire machine. It runs on Passover, Genesis, and a theology of cosmic symmetry, and there is not a single sundial or sun-god anywhere in the gears.

And here’s the part that should end the argument of pagan accretion itself: the East ran the same calculation and got a different answer, which proves it was a calculation.

Greek-speaking Christians worked from their own calendar, placing the Passion on the 14th of the spring month Artemisios, which corresponds to April 6 for us: same logic, same wholeness principle. April 6 conception, plus nine months, equals January 6.

January 6 is, to this day, the date the Armenian Church celebrates Christmas, and the root of Epiphany everywhere else.7 Two halves of the Christian world, working independently, produced two different dates by the same internal method. That is the fingerprint of a computation. You do not get that pattern from copying a pagan festival. You get it from doing the homework two different ways.

By around 200–235 AD, Hippolytus of Rome appears to have already drawn the December 25 conclusion explicitly. Two centuries later, Augustine spells the whole thing out and does it poetically. Christ, he writes, is held to have been conceived on March 25, the same day He suffered, so that the womb of the Virgin corresponds to the new grave in which no one had ever been laid; and He was born, according to tradition, on December 25.8 The conception and the death share a date; the womb and the tomb rhyme. That is not the theology of a man rebranding a solstice barbecue.

The Annunciation

March 25th keeps showing up in the calculation. Why March 25? It’s worth pausing at this point, because the date of the Annunciation is key to the entire calculation.

March 25 sits at the convergence of four lines, all of which the early Church found compelling:

1. It was the spring equinox in the Julian calendar. The hinge of the year, the moment in the year when light begins to win over darkness. For those seeing equinox and instantly jumping to Paganism, I would remind you that pagans didn't have a monopoly on the calendar and that even if some pagan festivals / holy dates also landed on the spring equinox, that would be, perhaps, an interesting correlation, but that's all it is. Repeat after me: "correlation does not equal causation?” There is a lot more work that you would have to do to show causation. I want to put this notion to bed clearly, so let's do that, shall we? Let's look at correlation vs causation to illustrate the absurdity of conflating the two.
   
   Every summer, two things climb together like clockwork: ice cream sales and shark attacks. Chart them side by side, and they rise in perfect, sinister lockstep. The correlation is undeniable. So, applying couch-guy logic with full rigor, we are forced to conclude one of two things: either ice cream summons sharks, or sharks give people a sudden craving for Rocky Road. Either way, lock up the Mister Softee truck. It’s a menace; we should ban ice cream from anywhere near beaches. Obviously, this example illustrates that conflating correlation with causation produces totally absurd results.
   

   Or — or — maybe both spike in summer, because summer is when people swim where the sharks are and because it's hot outside, when people also buy ice cream. There is a great big flaming common denominator up in the sky that is a driver to both of them. Nobody copied anybody. The “connection” was the weather the entire time.
   

   And that is exactly what’s happening with the equinox. Pagans clustered their festivals around the solstices and equinoxes for the very same reason the Christian conception of the Nativity math lands near one: because the turning of the sun is a real, visible, universal event that everyone experiences but nobody owns. The sky runs the same program for everybody: Roman, Christian, Norse, you, me, the shark, and those buying ice cream. Two groups arriving at the same season by completely different roads isn’t plagiarism; it’s a shared sky. To get from “they’re near the same date” to “one stole from the other,” you have to actually show your work, and nobody peddling the pagan theory ever does.

2. It was the computed date of the Passion. Tertullian dates the crucifixion to March 25.

3. It was the traditional date of the creation of the world. Africanus’s first day, when God said let there be light. And by the ancient Jewish prophetic principle of wholeness, it was therefore the date of the conception of Christ, the Word made flesh, the Light entering the world He had made, on the anniversary of the day He made it.

Sit with that for a second. On the Christian reckoning, the same date carries the first day of creation, the conception of the Redeemer, and the death that redeems all men. The beginning of the cosmos, the beginning of the Incarnation, and the climax of salvation, all folded onto a single square of the calendar. The Feast of the Annunciation, the day the angel Gabriel comes to Mary (Luke 1:26–38), got formalized as a liturgical celebration later, but the date was already there, fixed by this computation centuries before the feast had a name. 9

There’s even a second, Scripture-based route to the same place, and it’s worth knowing because my Protestant readers will likely find it easier to accept.

• Luke tells us John the Baptist’s father, the priest Zechariah, was serving in the Temple when the angel announced John’s conception (Luke 1).

• Luke then says Gabriel came to Mary in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, so the conception of Christ falls roughly six months after the conception of John.

• Run the calendar calculations, and you get John conceived in late September (his birth still celebrated June 24), and Christ conceived in late March, and born in late December.10

• Some saw further evidence in John the Baptist’s own words: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30.) - John born at the summer solstice, as the days begin to shorten; Christ born at the winter solstice, as the light begins to grow. The Fathers noticed. But, of course, they noticed.

Yes, There’s Sun Symbolism, but it’s Ours, Not Theirs

Now, the couch-guy will pounce here. “AHA — you admit it’s about the solstice! The growing light! The sun! Gotcha! The fathers are thinking like Pagans!”

No. And the distinction here is the whole ballgame.

Christians absolutely did see meaning in Christ being born as the natural sun turns and the days lengthen. They said so, out loud, constantly. The prophet Malachi had called the Messiah the “Sun of Righteousness,” rising “with healing in his wings” (Malachi 4:2). John’s Gospel opens with the light shining in the darkness, the darkness unable to overcome it (John 1:5). Ambrose of Milan called Christ the true Sun, the one who outshines and outlasts the dying gods of the old order.

But look carefully at what that move actually is. The Fathers are not bowing to the sun — they are conquering it. They are taking the most universal natural symbol there is, the returning light, and saying: you pagans have been worshiping the shadow; here is the substance. The sun in the sky is a created thing, a lamp God hung on the fourth day; Genesis says God set the lights in the heavens "for signs, and for seasons" — the sun is assigned a sign-making, time-marking function by God from day four (Genesis 1:14), and both Jews and Christians acknowledged and respected that.

Christ is the uncreated Light, it was always dimly pointing toward. Augustine put it bluntly to his congregation: "Do not worship the sun, worship the One who made the sun.” This is not capitulation to paganism; it is the boldest possible act of reclamation in the other direction. The claim that the cosmos itself, sun and solstice and all, was Christian propaganda all along, and the pagans just hadn’t read the memo.

And, the date came first, by computation. The fit with the solstice was received as confirmation, a providential wink from a God who arranges His calendar with poetry, not as the cause of the date. The math gave them December 25. The sun just happened to be standing in exactly the right place to make the point for them.

Now Let’s Bury the Pagan Theories, One at a Time

This is the part you came for. The “Christmas is pagan” claim isn’t one argument; it’s a shotgun blast of them, and the people who love them fire them in rotation, retreating to the next as each one fails… So let’s be systematic. Here is, as best I can assemble it, the complete arsenal. Watch them fall.

1. “December 25 was the birthday of Sol Invictus, the Unconquered Sun” (Aurelian, 274 A.D.). This is the one with an actual scholarly pedigree, so it gets the most attention. And it collapses on the dates. The claim that the emperor Aurelian established a December 25 sun-festival in 274 turns out to be a phantom: it appears on no coin, in no inscription, and in none of the ancient biographies of Aurelian. Our single earliest source placing a festival of Natalis Invicti on December 25 is the Chronograph of 354, and that very same document contains the earliest explicit record of Christians keeping Christ’s Nativity on December 25. In other words, the first time we can prove anyone held a December 25 sun-feast is also the first time we can prove Christians held Christmas, same century, same document. There is no demonstrable pagan precedent at all. The Roman religion scholar Steven Hijmans, who has studied this more closely than almost anyone, concludes there’s simply no evidence of a December 25 Sol festival before the mid-fourth century — and raises the genuinely likely possibility that the pagan feast was a reaction to the Christian one, not its source. William Tighe argues the same: that Aurelian’s heirs (or Julian the Apostate) planted a sun-festival on December 25 precisely to give pagans a counter-attraction to a date Christians had already claimed. Read that twice. The borrowing may run exactly backwards from what the couch-guy thinks. We may have been the ones they were copying.

2. The 12th-century marginal note (the only “smoking gun” — and it’s a dud). Here’s the dirty secret of this whole debate: there is exactly one ancient-ish text that actually claims the Church deliberately set Christmas on a pagan sun-date. It is a marginal gloss scribbled on a manuscript of the Syriac writer Dionysius bar-Salibi, who died in 1171. That’s the twelfth century. That’s a thousand-plus years after the events it claims to explain — the historiographical equivalent of a sticky-note on a modern paperback “explaining” the motives of the Roman Senate.11 The entire scholarly “borrowing” hypothesis, when you trace it to its textual root, rests on this one late, anonymous annotation. Everything else is inference. A note from the 1100s cannot tell you what a bishop in the 200s was thinking.

3. Saturnalia. People throw this one around constantly, and it’s the easiest to dismantle, because you only have to look at a calendar. Saturnalia ran from December 17 to 23. It ends two days before Christmas. It was a raucous festival of role-reversal, gambling, and gift-giving in honor of Saturn, and it has no birth-of-a-god theme, no nativity, and crucially, no December 25. You cannot have stolen a holiday by scheduling yours on a day the other holiday isn’t even being held. (Some Christmas customs may echo Saturnalian gift-giving, more on trappings below, but the date and the feast simply aren’t Saturnalia.)

4. Mithras “born December 25 of a virgin.” This is the internet’s favorite, and it is pure fabrication. Go look at what the actual Mithraic monuments and inscriptions say, because we have them. Mithras was not born of a virgin and was not born on December 25. Mithras was born from a rock, the petra genetrix, emerging fully grown, often with a torch and a knife, while shepherds (sometimes) look on. The ancient poet Commodian literally calls him “born from a rock.” The leading modern scholar of the cult, Manfred Clauss, flatly calls Mithras “the rock-born god.” Another Mithraic specialist, Alvar, states that there is no evidence of any kind, not even a hint, that December 25 or any winter day mattered in the Mithraic calendar. The “Mithras born December 25” claim is a confusion: late Mithraists identified their god with Sol, and so the (post-Christian) Sol date got retroactively pinned onto Mithras by modern writers who didn’t check.12

5. Horus, Attis, Tammuz, Dionysus — and the “16 crucified saviors” carnival. Once Mithras fails, the couch-guy reaches for a parade of other gods, all supposedly “born December 25 of a virgin.” None of them check out either — there’s no ancient evidence for a December 25 nativity for any of them. What’s worth knowing is the pedigree of these claims, because it’s embarrassing. They don’t come from historians. They trace through the 2007 internet film Zeitgeist, which lifted them almost wholesale from the self-published Jesus-mythicist writer “Acharya S” (D.M. Murdock), who in turn drew on Kersey Graves’s 1875 book The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors — a work of Victorian esoterica so unreliable that even committed atheist historians disown it. The historian Tim O’Neill, an atheist who runs a whole blog debunking bad history about Christianity, dismantles this lineage piece by piece. When the atheists are telling you your anti-Christian argument is garbage, the argument is garbage.13

6. Hislop’s Two Babylons (Christmas = Nimrod, Tammuz, Babylon). This is the granddaddy of the Protestant-fundamentalist version. Alexander Hislop’s 1853 claim that Christmas is a secret continuation of Babylonian sun-worship, complete with his trademark “this word sounds like that word, therefore they’re the same” method. I dismantled Hislop’s etymological malpractice at length in the Constantine piece (the man thought “Easter” was “Ishtar”), so I won’t relitigate it here. Just know that no serious historian of any faith or none has taken The Two Babylons seriously in over a century. It is the Da Vinci Code of the 1850s.

7. Yule, the Christmas tree, and the Germanic stuff (the honest concession). Some of the trappings of the modern celebrations of Christmas, as it spread north into Germanic and Norse Europe many centuries later, genuinely do have folk or pagan roots, or at least pagan-adjacent ones. The Christmas tree, the Yule log, certain feasting customs: these are late, regional accretions, picked up long after the date was set in the Mediterranean world. And we even know the Roman Catholic Church sometimes did this deliberately: around 601, Pope Gregory the Great wrote to a missionary in Britain advising him not to smash the pagan temples but to repurpose them, and to let old festival days be kept as Christian feasts. But notice the date, 601, and notice what’s being repurposed: customs and buildings, centuries after December 25 was already fixed by computation in North Africa and Rome.14 Confusing the tinsel with the timing is a category error. The date of Christmas is Mediterranean, computational, and third-century. The tree is northern, folk, and medieval. Both things can be true. Granting the second does nothing whatsoever to the first.

8. “Even the scholars and the encyclopedias admit it’s pagan.” People love to quote an old Catholic Encyclopedia or a confident 19th-century professor saying Christmas was lifted from Sol Invictus, as if that settles it — see, even the Christians admit it! But this is citing a contested hypothesis as if it were a confession. The pagan-borrowing theory was given its scholarly form by Hermann Usener in 1889 (building on the 18th-century writer Paul Jablonski), and it became the fashionable academic consensus for a good chunk of the twentieth century, which is why it filtered into encyclopedias and pulpits alike. But “fashionable academic consensus of 1900” is not the same thing as “true,” and the consensus has since been seriously dismantled by scholars like Thomas Talley, Hijmans, and Susan Roll. An encyclopedia repeating the best guess of its era is reporting scholarship, not surrendering the faith.

9. “Constantine invented it / Nicaea changed the calendar to fit the sun.” The catch-all. But the December 25 date demonstrably predates Constantine: the Donatist Christians of North Africa kept Christmas on December 25 but refused to celebrate Epiphany, and since the Donatists split off in 312 and then froze their practices in amber, their December 25 observance points to a North African tradition already in place before Constantine had any influence.15 And the related claim that the Council of Nicaea “adjusted the calendar” to align Christmas with the solstice is simply science fiction: the Julian calendar Julius Caesar installed in 45 B.C. ran untouched until the Gregorian reform of 1582. Nicaea didn’t move a single day. (For the full takedown of the “Constantine corrupted everything” genre, see the Constantine piece — this is just another limb of the same beast.)

So there’s the whole arsenal: Sol Invictus, the bar-Salibi gloss, Saturnalia, Mithras, the mythicist menagerie, Hislop, the Yule trappings, the “encyclopedias admit it” move, and the Constantine catch-all. Every. Single. One. Either chronologically impossible, evidentially empty, or quietly conceding the only point that matters. The couch-guy is firing blanks, and he’s firing them in a circle.

Why the Myth Won’t Die

So if it’s this hollow, and it is, why does it have such a grip? Why does it come back every December like clockwork, more reliable than the snow?

Because, as my anthropology professors would say, the myth was never really about December 25 and it was never about truth. It’s a boundary marker — the same charter-myth machinery I keep running into in this whole project. For the Protestant restorationist (and for my old Latter-day Saint world), “the Catholics paganized Christmas” is a load-bearing wall: it lets you treat the entire historic, liturgical, sacramental Church as a compromised counterfeit, so that walking away from it — rejecting its feasts, its calendar, its accumulated wisdom — feels like purity rather than loss. And for LDS, if you let go of this myth, you have to contend with the reality that early Christian history is not corrupted or counterfeit. The thought that it's authentic and valid may be enough for many people to trigger destruction as they have to eventually admit that the Great Apostasy narrative they've accepted as the foundational raison détre, is just as fraudulent as this myth. And if the Great Apostasy is a fake, there is no reason for Mormonism to exist at all - and the First Vision must, by extension, be fraudulent.

For the secular skeptic, the myth scratches a different itch: it confirms the comfortable modern assumption that all religion is just recycled superstition, that there’s nothing under the tinsel but older tinsel. That reality can be distilled down to plain old secular materialism. Two opposite tribes, the fundamentalist and the village atheist, holding hands over the same mythical history, for exactly opposite reasons. The closer you actually are to the ancient Church, the louder you have to insist it was a fraud to justify your existence. The narcissism of small differences, wearing a Santa hat.

And there is something achingly American in the deepest version of it; the conviction that I, armed with a meme and a hunch, can stand in judgment over twenty centuries of saints and scholars and councils, and pronounce the whole inheritance corrupt. That every generation before me was duped, and I alone have seen clearly. We call it skepticism. It is, more often, just pride in a paper crown.

“The date isn’t in the Bible, therefore it’s a pagan corruption” pulls the same move as the Great Apostasy story. Take a real gap in the explicit record, fill it with a conspiracy, and use the conspiracy to justify the break. But the gap, examined, isn’t a conspiracy at all. It’s a community of believers doing careful, prayerful, scripturally-rooted math; concluding that the Light of the World entered His creation on the day He first said let there be light, and was born nine months later as the sun itself turned back toward us in the dark.16

That’s not a pagan accident. That’s the most Christian thing imaginable.

So this year, when the couch-guy clears his throat, be kind, pass him the shortbread, and then, if he’s actually curious, walk him through the math. Tell him the date didn’t come down from the sun. It came down from the cross. And I’d encourage you, as always, to verify every word of it yourself: the sources are below. Go read Augustine on the womb and the tomb. Go count the nine months. Go check whether Aurelian’s festival shows up on a single coin.

It doesn’t. But the empty tomb shows up everywhere, even, if you know how to read it, in the date of the cradle.

Primary & Scholarly Sources

• Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.21 (c. 200) — the menu of proposed birth-dates; December 25 absent. New Advent

• Tertullian, Adversus Iudaeos (Against the Jews) 8 (c. 200) — the 14 Nisan / March 25 crucifixion calculation. New Advent

• Sextus Julius Africanus, Chronographiae (c. 221) — the Incarnation/conception fixed to March 25, equated with the creation of the world. (Surviving fragments; ed. Wallraff/Adler, De Gruyter, 2007.)

• Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel 4.23 (c. 204–235) — early reference to the December 25 Nativity; see T.C. Schmidt, “Calculating December 25 as the Birth of Jesus in Hippolytus,” Vigiliae Christianae 69 (2015).

• Augustine, On the Trinity 4.5 (c. 399–419) — the conception-equals-Passion (March 25) and December 25 birth; the womb/tomb parallel. New Advent

• Anonymous, On Solstices and Equinoxes (4th c. North Africa) — the explicit equinox/solstice computation for John and Jesus.

• The Chronograph of 354 (Philocalian Calendar) — earliest record of both the December 25 Nativity (Depositio Martyrum) and the Natalis Invicti.

• Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 10b–11a — Rabbi Eliezer on creation, the patriarchs, and redemption in Nisan (the sacred-symmetry principle).

• Andrew McGowan, “How December 25 Became Christmas,” Bible Review (2002) / Biblical Archaeology Society. BAS

• Steven Hijmans, “Sol Invictus, the Winter Solstice, and the Origins of Christmas” (Mouseion, 2003) and “Usener’s Christmas” — no evidence of a December 25 Sol festival before the mid-4th century.

• William J. Tighe, “Calculating Christmas,” Touchstone (December 2003) — the calculation hypothesis; the pagan feast as a reaction to the Christian one.

• Thomas J. Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year (2nd ed., 1991); Susan K. Roll, Toward the Origins of Christmas — the standard scholarly treatments dismantling the borrowing theory.

• On Mithras: Manfred Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras; and Tim O’Neill, “Pagan Christmas” / “The Great Myths 2: Christmas, Mithras and Paganism,” History for Atheists. historyforatheists.com

• Scripture: Luke 1:5–38; Luke 2:8; Malachi 4:2; John 1:5; John 3:30 — linked above to the LDS friendly churchofjesuschrist.org (their website.)

If this helped you see the receipts, send it to the couch-guy in your life. He’s not a bad guy. He’s just been handed a sticky note from the 12th century and told it was the truth. If he doubles down, he's shoring up that boundary wall because he won't be able to survive if it collapses.

<tinfoil hat>

Gather round, friends and readers, and those who barely tolerate me, because I am about to reveal the secret history they don’t want you to know.

A pure, faithful early Church kept the Saturday Sabbath, exactly the way God intended. Then, in the fourth century, a scheming, power-hungry Roman emperor named Constantine conveniently “converted” to Christianity to glue his crumbling empire back together. In doing so, he made the empire a Christian empire and quietly fused the faith of the martyrs with paganism (sun) worship. He moved the holy day from Saturday to Sunday to flatter his favorite pagan deity, Sol Invictus, the Unconquered Sun. He rubber-stamped the whole heist at the Council of Laodicea in 364. And so the Christianity you’ve inherited is really just paganism wearing a clergy collar. Thus, the total corruption of a pure original early Christianity that worshipped in house churches just like modern protestants, proving "beyond a shadow of a doubt” that the early church was thoroughly corrupt and needed either reforming or restoring (depending on who you are hearing the story from.)

</takes off tinfoil hat>

Were you paying attention? Because almost every load-bearing claim in that paragraph is false, and we can prove it — not with vibes, not with "faith," not with another Graham Hancock series on Netflix, but with documents that any of you can pull up on your phone before you finish your coffee.

This article owes its existence to a piece by Dr. Nathan Jacobs over at Theological Letters — the same scholar whose work on the Trinity I leaned on in an earlier article (The Trinity Actually Makes Sense).

Dr. Jacobs very effectively dismantles this whole “Constantine paganized the Church” narrative, and I’d encourage you to go read and watch it for yourself.1 What I want to do here is something slightly different. Jacobs shows you the myth is false. I am interested in where the body of this myth came from, why it refuses to stay buried, and why it has a special, white-knuckle grip on the two communities I love most: my Protestant friends and my cradle faith, the Latter-day Saints.

Because here’s the thing nobody tells you. This isn’t ancient history. It’s a charter myth — and a fairly recent one. Before you read this article, I suggest reading or watching/listening to Dr. Jacob's very fine article. Links below.

Theological Letters

Constantine and Pagan Capitulation? Why Christians Worship on Sunday Instead of Saturday

Thank you for reading Theological Letters! To my subscribers, thank you for being here. To my paid subscribers, thank you for sustaining this work. Remember, your likes and restacks truly help expand my reach. I appreciate you all.Theological Letters is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or…

Read more

2 months ago · 21 likes · 2 comments · Dr. Nathan Jacobs

and You can watch/listen to it here

Go watch it. I’ll wait. (I won’t actually wait. We both know how good I am at sticking to a plan.)

A Quick Word From My Anthropology background

I studied anthropology, so forgive me — I cannot look at a story like this and not see the machinery underneath it.

Every group that breaks away from a parent group needs an origin story. Not a history — an origin story. Anthropologists call this a charter myth2: a narrative whose real job isn’t to record what happened but to justify the present arrangement.

The charter myth explains why we are over here and they are over there, why we are pure and they are fallen, why our existence is not a rebellion but a rescue.

The “pagan corruption” narrative is a very efficient charter myth that pulls double duty:

• For Protestants, it explains why the Reformation wasn’t a schism but a recovery — Rome fell into pagan darkness, and Luther and Calvin pulled the Bible back out of the rubble.

• For Latter-day Saints, it’s the same story taken to it's most radical logical conclusion. If Rome merely got only partially corrupted, a reformation could fix it. But if the corruption was total — if the very priesthood authority evaporated off the face of the earth — then no human reformation could ever be enough. You’d need a restoration. From heaven. Which is, conveniently, exactly the product on offer! (funny how that works!)

I held this myth myself, for years, with all my “might, mind, and strength,” fingernails dug in when debating my roman catholic educated Father. When I sat in LDS Sunday School as a kid, I was taught that this is literally why we call this period of time the Dark Ages3 — the lights of the true gospel had gone out. The story felt like bedrock. It was load-bearing for my entire understanding of who I was.

So,, no, I’m not looking down on anyone who believes this. I’m telling you I used to be you. And then I went and scrutinized this belief. Which is really just popular culture in protestant circles these days.

The True Genesis: Post-Reformation Propaganda

James E. Talmage’s 1909 book The Great Apostasy popularized this idea inside Latter-day Saint circles, but Talmage did not invent it.4 He was a chemist and a geologist by training, not a theologian, and he had never set foot in a seminary. He went to the university library, read what was on the shelf, and what was on the shelf was three and a half centuries of Western European anti-Catholic polemic. He was drinking from a very deep, very poisoned well.

Follow the water upstream and you arrive at a group of Lutheran scholars in the mid-1500s, led by Matthias Flacius Illyricus, who produced a colossal 13-volume work known as the Magdeburg Centuries (1559–1574).

Their goal was not history. It was litigation. They combed through what they knew of the Christian past, century by century, building a case that the Roman Church was a corrupt, illegitimate institution, and that every Catholic practice they happened to dislike, from vestments to the veneration of saints, was a “pagan error” that unconverted Romans had smuggled in through the back door. It was a 13-volume indictment dressed up as a history (or better yet mythtory.)

By the 19th century the indictment had mutated into something closer to Da Vinci Code fan fiction. In 1853 a Scottish Presbyterian minister named Alexander Hislop published The Two Babylons, in which he claimed the Catholic Church was a literal continuation of ancient Babylonian mystery religion. His method was to find two words that sounded vaguely alike and declare them secretly identical. His most famous “discovery” was that “Easter” is really “Ishtar,” the Babylonian fertility goddess.

This is linguistically illiterate. It’s the same logic as insisting the English F-word and the French phoque are the same word because they sound alike when you say them fast — never mind that phoque just means “seal,” the marine animal.5 Serious historians and linguists have always treated Hislop as a crank. But cranks sell, and The Two Babylons became an underground blockbuster, seeding the “pagan corruption” myth deep into popular culture, American evangelical fundamentalism, Seventh-day Adventism, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

But the shenanigans didn’t end there. once the ball got rolling it just continued rolling. Baptists pick up on this, like most everyone else in those days to push that they called Baptist Successionism. Just like mormons using this mythology to justify their restorationism, baptists used this to justify their particular branch of reformationism. The idea behind Baptist Successionism is the claim that “true,” non-hierarchical, suspiciously Baptist-shaped churches had always survived underground, hunted by the evil paganized Catholic machine.. This was later codified in the immensely popular 1931 booklet The Trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll, which relied on the exact same historical narrative: that Constantine “paganized” the visible church in the 4th century, leaving only a tiny remnant of true believers. This myth still persists in protestant circles today. Same myth. Different mascot.

The Historical Reality: Do the Math

Here is where the whole thing collapses, and it collapses on a single verifiable fact:

Christians were worshiping on Sunday for nearly two centuries before Constantine was born.

Not “probably.” Not “according to one tradition.” Not “according to your interpretation of history.” We have a paper trail. Let me lay the documents out in chronological order, and pay attention to the dates, because the dates are the murder weapon. Constantine’s Sunday edict was issued on 7 March 321. Keep that number in your head.

The New Testament itself (c. 50–95 AD). Before any of the Fathers the apostolic writings already show believers gathering on “the first day of the week.” We traced this in my previous series. Luke records the church at Troas breaking bread on the first day (Acts 20:7). Paul tells the Corinthians to set aside their offering on the first day (1 Corinthians 16:2). John, exiled on Patmos, says he was “in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Revelation 1:10). And Paul had already told the Colossians to let no one judge them regarding sabbaths, which are “a shadow of things to come” (Colossians 2:16–17). The Sabbath question was live and being settled in the apostolic generation — roughly 250 years before Constantine supposedly touched it.

Pliny the Younger (c. 112 AD). This is my favorite, because the witness is a hostile pagan. Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia, and he wrote to the Emperor Trajan asking how to prosecute these troublesome Christians. In his report he describes their crime: they were in the habit of meeting on a fixed day before dawn to sing a hymn to Christ “as to a god.” That’s an enemy of the Church, with no theological axe to grind, documenting fixed-day Christian worship two hundred and nine years before the edict. You cannot get a more unimpeachable witness than the prosecutor.

The Didache (late 1st–early 2nd century). This little [priesthood manual to use LDS terminology] of church order, which some scholars date early enough to make it older than parts of the New Testament, instructs Christians to gather on the Lord’s own day to break bread and give thanks.6

St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 108 AD). Ignatius, by tradition a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote to the Magnesians while being marched to Rome in chains to be executed. In a passage that has been argued over for centuries, he describes Christians as no longer keeping the Sabbath but “living in observance of the Lord’s Day.” 7

The Epistle of Barnabas (c. 130 AD). And here’s one that should make the heart of every reader of this Substack beat a little faster. Barnabas explicitly says: “we keep the eighth day with joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the dead.” The eighth day (which we did a previous series about.) Sunday as the first day of the new creation, the day of Resurrection — a theology so old it’s sitting in a document from around 130 AD, nearly two centuries before Constantine could have “invented” it.

St. Justin Martyr (c. 155 AD). And then we get the smoking gun, addressed, like Pliny’s letter, but from the other side; to a Roman emperor. Justin writes to Antoninus Pius and openly describes what Christians do: “on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place,” for readings, a sermon, prayers, and the Eucharist. Why Sunday? Justin tells us plainly: because it is the first day of creation, and because Jesus rose from the dead on that day. Not Sol Invictus. The Resurrection.

So let’s actually do the math the myth never wants you to do.

Witness Dates Centuries before Constantine’s edict:

• Acts / 1 Corinthians c. 50–57 AD ~270 years

• Pliny (a hostile pagan!) c. 112 AD ~210 years

• Ignatius of Antioch c. 108 AD ~213 years

• The Didache c. 90–120 AD ~200+ years

• Epistle of Barnabas c. 130 AD ~190 years

• Justin Martyr c. 155 AD ~166 years

• Constantine’s Sunday edict 321 AD — (you are here)

Constantine didn’t invent Sunday worship. He showed up to a party that had already been running for almost three hundred years.

“But What About Sol Invictus?”

This is usually the moment someone says: fine, but Constantine still called it “the venerable day of the Sun,” and Sunday is obviously a sun-god day, gotcha punk, now capitulate to my ill informed “superior“ pop-culture.

Two problems.

First, the chronology runs the wrong way. The specific imperial cult of Sol Invictus — the one the myth always names — was elevated to a major state religion by the Emperor Aurelian in 274 AD.8 That is after Pliny (112), after Ignatius (108), after the Didache (90), after Barnabas (130), and after Justin (155) had already documented Christian Sunday worship as a settled fact. If anybody was borrowing a holy day from anybody, the chronology has the Christians there first. You cannot copy your homework from a kid who hasn’t shown up to school yet.

Second, the “Christians are secret sun-worshippers” charge isn’t a modern discovery. It’s a recycled second-century pagan slander, and the Fathers explicitly denied it.

Around 197 AD, the North African writer Tertullian complained that some pagans supposed “the sun is the god of the Christians, because it is a well-known fact that we pray towards the east, or because we make Sunday a day of festivity.” And then he turns it right back on them: you pagans, he says, are the ones who set aside the day of Saturn for leisure, and many of you move your lips toward the rising sun.9

Christians, Tertullian insists, face east and rejoice on Sunday for entirely different reasons — the Resurrection, the light of Christ — not because they worship the orb in the sky.

Sit with the irony. The exact accusation that Hislop and Talmage and a thousand TikTok “alternative history” accounts treat as a hidden truth they uncovered is, in fact, an ancient misunderstanding that the early Church looked at, named out loud, and rejected — eighteen hundred years ago. The myth isn’t a revelation. It’s a pagan caricature of Christianity that someone fished out of the recycling bin and spray-painted gold.

The Nature of the Edict and Didn't Constantine make the empire officially Christian with his “edict of Milan" so he could use it as a political tool?

Why did Constantine call Sunday “the venerable day of the sun” in his 321 AD decree?

Pragmatism. Rome was still a overwhelmingly pagan empire. Christianity had only been legal since the Edict of Milan in 313 AD. The Edict of Milan did not make the empire Christian (another modern misconception) it only legalized christianity and made it an accepted practise. Christians were still a minority. If an emperor (of a still largely pagan empire) wants to declare a civil day of rest across a vast, predominantly pagan empire, he cannot tell them to take “the Lord’s Day” off, that phrase would mean absolutely nothing to them. Instead, he used the civil, solar calendar terminology that his pagan subjects recognized. The edict did not command anyone to worship the sun; it simply picked a day of rest using the common language of the culture.

False premise #1: Constantine “made the empire Christian.” He didn’t. This is just factually wrong. It's not a matter of interpretation, it's a historical fact. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself.

Constantine’s actual legal act is known as the Edict of Milan in 313AD, which legalized Christianity; it granted toleration, ended the persecutions, and restored confiscated property. Toleration is not establishment.

The edict is, largely, a declaration of freedom of religion without fear of persecution, for all people, not just christians.

Here is the bulk of the text of the actual edict, edited down for relevance and brevity - (I removed some parts that seemed repetitive and replaced them with […] ) but if you don't trust me, please go read the full text at: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/edict_of_milan.htm.

When we, Constantine and Licinius, (then co-) emperors, […] conferred together with respect to the good and security of the commonwealth, it seemed to us that, amongst those things that are profitable to mankind in general, the reverence paid to the Divinity merited our first and chief attention, and that it was proper that the Christians and all others should have liberty to follow that mode of religion which to each of them appeared best; so that that God, who is seated in heaven, might be benign and propitious to us, and to every one under our government. And therefore we judged it a salutary measure, and one highly consonant to right reason, that no man should be denied leave of attaching himself to the rites of the Christians, or to whatever other religion his mind directed him, that thus the supreme Divinity, to whose worship we freely devote ourselves, might continue to vouchsafe His favour and beneficence to us. And accordingly we give you to know that, without regard to any provisos in our former orders to you concerning the Christians, all who choose that religion are to be permitted, freely and absolutely, to remain in it, and not to be disturbed any ways, or molested. […] at the same time that the open and free exercise of their respective religions is granted to all others, as well as to the Christians. For it befits the well-ordered state and the tranquillity of our times that each individual be allowed, according to his own choice, to worship the Divinity; and we mean not to derogate aught from the honour due to any religion or its votaries. […] we formerly gave certain orders concerning the places appropriated for their religious assemblies; but now we will that all persons who have purchased such places, either from our exchequer or from any one else, do restore them to the Christians, without money demanded or price claimed, and that this be performed peremptorily and unambiguously; and we will also, that they who have obtained any right to such places by form of gift do forthwith restore them to the Christians: […] “All those places are, by your intervention, to be immediately restored to the Christians. And because it appears that, besides the places appropriated to religious worship, the Christians did possess other places, which belonged not to individuals, but to their society in general, that is, to their churches, we comprehend all such within the regulation aforesaid, and we will that you cause them all to be restored to the society or churches, and that without hesitation or controversy: […] So shall that divine favour which, in affairs of the mightiest importance, we have already experienced, continue to give success to us, and in our successes make the commonwealth happy. […]

The Roman Empire did not become officially Christian until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380, issued by Theodosius I — forty-three years after Constantine was dead.

So the claim fails before we even get to the interesting part. But let’s grant the protestants their best version and go to the real argument.

False premise #2: he did it “as a political tool to unify the empire.” This is the part that’s not just wrong but rationally backwards.

To unify something, you reach for the common denominator, the thing the most people already share. So ask the obvious question: at the moment Constantine threw in with Christ (the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, 312), what fraction of the empire was Christian? A minority. Estimates vary, but the serious ones put Christians somewhere well under a fifth of the population, and in much of the West, far less than that, heavily concentrated in eastern cities. The other 80-plus percent were pagans: the Senate, the old aristocracy, and, crucially, the army, whose officer corps was thick with devotees of Sol and Mithras.

Now run the “unification” thesis through that fact. We are asked to believe that a master political strategist surveyed a fractured empire and concluded that the way to bring everyone together was to embrace the religion of the small, distrusted minority that the other ninety percent had been feeding to lions. That is not statecraft. That is the single most divisive, idiotic, religious choice on the menu. And it’s worse than merely unpopular, because of why Romans had persecuted Christians in the first place: Christians were prosecuted as antisocial “atheists” precisely because their flat refusal to honor the pagan gods and offer the imperial sacrifice. Something that was understood as a solvent of civic unity, a threat to the pax deorum that held the state together. So the claim asks us to believe Constantine adopted, as a unifying instrument, the one faith every Roman already regarded as the great dis-unifier. It inverts the entire Roman understanding of what the religion did to a society.

Here’s where the absurdity becomes total, because the actual unification tool was sitting right there on the shelf, and he didn’t use it. If your single overriding aim is to weld a sprawling, polyglot, ninety-percent-pagan empire into one, you already have the perfect device: the imperial cult and the cult of Sol Invictus, the flexible, near-monotheistic solar ideology that the army loved, that the emperor Aurelian had elevated for exactly this purpose a generation earlier, and that offended almost no one because it could absorb everyone’s local gods. That was the off-the-shelf unifier. A cynical Constantine optimizing for unity grabs Sol Invictus with both hands and never looks back. Instead he gradually walked away from it toward the one cult that couldn’t be blended with anything. The “political tool to unify” thesis can’t explain the most basic fact about his choice: he picked the anti-unifier and left the actual unifier on the table.

It gets even worse, because Christianity in 312 wasn’t even internally unified, so it couldn’t have unified anyone else. Constantine spent his reign refereeing Christianity’s own civil wars: the Donatist schism in North Africa, the Arian controversy, which was so bitter he had to convene the Council of Nicaea in 325 just to stop the Church from tearing itself apart. He didn’t import a unifying force into imperial politics. He imported a whole new front of theological warfare. You do not reach for a religion that is publicly splitting in two as your instrument of cohesion. That’s not picking a flag everyone can salute; it’s handing everyone a different team’s jersey and hoping for peace.

Was Constantine politically calculating? Of course, he was a soldier and a Roman Emperor, not a monk. Faith and statecraft were braided together in him, as they were in every ancient ruler; it’s a both/and, not an either/or. Historians genuinely debate the depth of his personal conviction, and that’s a fair debate. But notice that the lifetime pattern, decades of church-building, Christian legislation, raising his sons in the faith, deferring baptism to his deathbed (a common practice for those who took the washing-away of sins seriously), all while absorbing real political cost from a resentful pagan establishment, fits sincere-if-savvy belief far better than pure opportunism. The cartoon version, “cynical atheist adopts Christianity purely to unify the empire,” is the least supportable reading on the evidence, not the most.

So where does the cynical story even come from? Largely Enlightenment historiography, Gibbon and his heirs10, who needed the fourth-century turn to be a political racket rather than a genuine religious shift. Which should sound familiar: it’s the secular cousin of the very pagan-corruption myth we’ve been dismantling. Both stories require the Constantinian moment to be a cynical power-grab, one says he paganized the Church, the other says he weaponized it — and both ignore the same inconvenient documents.

Boiled down, the argument asks you to believe that a brilliant politician unified a pagan empire by embracing the persecuted minority everyone else despised, declined to use the unifying cult already built for the job, and chose instead a faith that was both notorious for refusing civic unity and actively at war with itself. That’s not a strategy. That’s the setup to a joke.

The mythtory needs Constantine to be a cynical mastermind, and the actual history makes him a terrible one.

And Laodicea?

Now let’s go back and grab a thread the myth left dangling that some protestants like the Seventh Day Adventists lean heavily on, The Synod of Laodicea11, around 363–364 AD, which the conspiracy treats as the moment the swap of worship to Sunday was “formalized.” There are three problems, that get worse as you go.

Problem one: the date. Laodicea is later than Constantine’s 321 edict and decades after his death in 337. It can’t be the origin of anything Constantine supposedly started, and it certainly can’t predate two centuries of documented Sunday worship. As an “origin point,” it’s a non-starter on the calendar alone.

Problem two: read what it actually says. Canon 29 of Laodicea reads: “Christians must not judaize by resting on the Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honouring the Lord’s Day.” Notice the logic. You do not need to pass a rule telling people to honor Sunday unless Sunday is already the established Christian day. The canon isn’t creating Sunday worship — it’s defending an existing, centuries-old Sunday norm against a minority of judiazers who were still resting on Saturday in a Jewish manner. The very existence of the rule is proof that Sunday was already the default. It’s like passing a law reminding people to drive on the right side of the road; you only bother when right-side driving is already the norm and a few folks (maybe die hard brits) keep drifting on the left.

Problem three: which should really be the nail in the coffin: the same council says, in Canon 16, that the Gospels are to be read on the Sabbath — Saturday — along with the other Scriptures.12 So the 4th-century Church that the myth says “abolished Saturday and replaced it with a pagan Sunday” was, in the same breath, still assembling on Saturday to read Scripture (as per traditional synagogue worship.) This is fatal to the myth’s clean little binary. There was no dramatic flip, no pagan substitution, no abolition. There was a Church that honored the Lord’s Day as the day of Resurrection and in many places kept a Saturday observance too exactly as the documents have shown us all along.

The “Closet Pagan” Problem

There’s one more angle Jacobs raises that I want to underline, because it’s less about documents and more about human beings, and it’s the part the conspiracy theorists never reckon with.

The myth requires you to believe that the early Christian bishops and theologians were secretly itching to keep their old pagan habits — that they were soft, syncretistic, easily bullied into compromise.

Now look at how these men actually lived and died.

Justin Martyr, the same man who wrote that calm, matter-of-fact description of Sunday worship for the emperor, was dragged before the Roman prefect Rusticus, ordered to offer a pinch of incense to the gods to save his life, and refused. He and his companions chose torture and beheading over a single nod to paganism.

Ignatius of Antioch wrote his letters in chains, on the road to his own execution, and begged his flock not to rescue him, because he wanted to be ground like wheat by the teeth of the lions and so be conformed to the suffering of Christ.

These are not the actions of men looking to soften the edges of their faith to keep the neighbors comfortable. The idea that a Church built — literally — on the blood of anti-pagan martyrs would, a few decades later, casually fold paganism into its worship to please a politician is not just historically false, it's absurd. You don’t die rather than burn one grain of incense to Caesar’s gods, and then turn around and dedicate your holiest day to the Unconquered Sun. The martyrs would have spat.

But Constantine never really converted, he kept his paganism until baptised on this death bed.

It is true that Constantine himself kept the pagan high-priestly title Pontifex Maximus his entire reign, kept the sun-god Sol Invictus on his coinage well after his supposed conversion, never closed the temples, never banned the old cults, and the triumphal Arch of Constantine that the Senate built in Rome to celebrate his victory is conspicuously not Christian. It thanks “the divinity” in vague terms and leans on traditional and solar imagery.

Surely this is proof enough that the pagan mythtory is true, right? Wrong.

Those facts are true, but they’re being asked to prove something they can’t. This only works if you let three completely different questions get blurred into one. Watch the seams:

1. Did the Roman state become Christian under Constantine? (No — slowly, partially, and not fully for generations.)

2. Did Christian worship and doctrine become pagan? (A claim about the content of the faith. Which we explored in great detail in a previous article series we began in April and is still rolling out to free subsribers. The answer is a resounding NO.)

3. Was Constantine personally a sincere Christian? (A claim about one man’s soul.)

The Pontifex Maximus title, the Sol coinage, the open temples, the vague Arch — every one of those facts speaks to question 1. The corruption thesis needs them to answer questions 2 and 3. They don’t, and pretending they do is a level-confusion: evidence about the state gets smuggled in as evidence about the Church’s faith and about a man’s interior life. Those are three different things.

Here’s the part that flips it. If Constantine were paganizing Christianity, you’d expect to find him importing pagan rites, gods, and theology into Christian worship. But that’s not what any of these facts show. What they show is the exact opposite: he left the pagan apparatus standing in the civic and state sphere and left Christian worship alone to be Christian. The two ran in parallel. A man paganizing the Church meddles in the liturgy; a man tolerating a still-pagan empire while favoring a Christian minority leaves both spheres alone — which is precisely the picture. So these facts, read carefully, cut against the paganization thesis rather than supporting it. “He didn’t abolish paganism in the empire” is not the same sentence as “he poured paganism into the Church.”

And each fact has a mundane explanation that has nothing to do with crypto-paganism:

• Pontifex Maximus was welded into the imperial office itself — a constitutional fixture, not a personal devotional choice. Every emperor held it; it wasn’t set aside until Gratian refused the robes in the late 370s–380s, two generations later. Holding it tells you Constantine kept operating inside Roman constitutional forms. It does not tell you he was out back sacrificing to Jupiter. (There’s real debate about whether he ever performed the rites or just held the title.)

• The Sol Invictus coinage was state propaganda aimed at a majority-pagan population and a sun-and-Mithras-loving army. The telling thing is the trajectory: Sol fades off his coinage through the 320s as Christian-friendly imagery and the Chi-Rho come in, and he withdrew himself from depictions of pagan sacrifice. That’s a shift over time, not a static paganism. It’s also worth knowing that Christians themselves had long called Christ the “Sun of Righteousness” (Malachi) and the Light of the world — there’s even a third-century Christ-as-Helios mosaic in the necropolis under St. Peter’s. The boundary between “the Sun” and “Christ the true Sun” was being renegotiated by Christians, not borrowed from pagans.

• Not closing the temples is toleration and prudence, not allegiance. Forcibly banning the cults of ninety percent of your empire is how you start a civil war, not how you govern. Rome has many example of unpopular emperors who had been deposed. Constantine was not stupid. That he restrained himself is evidence of a careful ruler, arguably even of religious moderation, not of secret loyalty to the old gods. Restraint isn’t a confession.

• The Arch of Constantine was built by the Senate, a pagan body, in their own traditional idiom, to honor him the way they honored emperors. He didn’t design it as a creedal statement. And that famously hedgy inscription, that he conquered “by the prompting of the divinity,” is actually revealing: the pagan Senate reached for weasel words precisely because everyone knew his victory was being credited to a non-traditional god they didn’t want to name. The vagueness is a fingerprint of a shift already underway, not proof of paganism.

On “he never really converted,” is just unfalsifiable heart-reading, and we simply can’t see his soul. But the behavioral record runs heavily counter to this narrative: he built the great churches (the Lateran, Old St. Peter’s, the Holy Sepulchre), legislated in Christianity’s favor, exempted and empowered the clergy, convened and funded Nicaea, wrote theological letters, sent his mother on pilgrimage, raised his sons in the faith. Even the deathbed baptism that skeptics love to cite cuts against them: deathbed baptism was a sincere and common practice then, reflecting the belief that baptism washes away sins. You don’t carefully delay a sacrament you think is meaningless. A fake Christian using baptism as a prop gets baptized early and in public for maximum effect. Delaying it for spiritual reasons is a believer’s anxiety, not a cynic’s.

But here’s the decisive point, the one that makes the whole objection collapse even if you grant it everything. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Constantine was the most syncretistic crypto-pagan you can imagine, a man who never shed a single pagan instinct. It still wouldn’t get you to “Christian worship is paganized,” because Constantine did not write the faith. The doctrine wasn’t his to compose. At Nicaea he was the convener and the enforcer, the conference organizer, not the theologian. He didn’t even understand the Greek of the dispute (the whole homoousios fight went over his head), and the proof is what happened next: within a few years he was persuaded the other way, he recalled Arius, and exiled Athanasius, the very man defending the orthodox doctrine the corruption crowd thinks Constantine invented. He ended up on the Arian (i.e., the side the Church later condemned as heretical) end of the argument. A man who can’t follow the theology, and who lands on the losing/heretical side of it, is in no position to paganize a creed. He couldn’t steer it; the bishops did.

And those bishops were not pliant courtiers. Many of them carried the scars of the persecutions Constantine had only just ended; confessors who had been maimed for refusing to sacrifice to the gods. The notion that those men took their theology from a half-catechized emperor is exactly absurd. And the entire fourth century after Constantine is the story of bishops defying emperors: Athanasius in and out of exile five times, fighting Constantine and his Arian-leaning son Constantius II, who tried far harder than his father to bend the Church to imperial will; and totally failed. “The Church just did whatever the emperor wanted” is refuted by the most famous biography of the century.

Now, the fair concession, because there genuinely is a kernel here worth granting. The corruption crowd is pointing, clumsily, at something real: Constantine inaugurated the fusion of throne and altar. The entanglement of bishops with imperial power, the emperor convening councils, the long Byzantine experiment in “symphonia” that can tip into Caesaropapism. That’s a serious development, and Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants all have to reckon with it; Orthodoxy in particular has its own internal critique of when the empire leaned on the Church too hard. But notice what kind of critique that is: it’s a critique of church-state politics. It is not evidence that the worship and the doctrine turned pagan. You can grant the whole problem of the Constantinian settlement and it gets you exactly nowhere toward “the Eucharist is a sun-cult ritual” Keep those two apart, the politics and the faith, and the paganization thesis has nothing to stand on.

The above facts prove that the empire stayed largely pagan, which is the opposite of the Church going pagan; the man’s personal internal sincerity is unknowable but his life points to belief. Even maximal cynicism about Constantine can’t touch the conclusion, because the faith was guarded and defined by battle-scarred bishops who routinely defied him, including over the very doctrine he’s accused of inventing. It’s the same mythical-history trick we keep meeting: real facts about a transitional age, yanked up a level to make a claim they can’t support.

How Talmage Fits Into the Puzzle

Talmage arrived at the tail end of this wave of historical revisionism. When he sat down to write The Great Apostasy, he didn’t invent the narrative; he simply went to the local university library and read these mainstream Protestant texts. He adopted their historical arguments, but he pivoted the conclusion to fit Latter-day Saint theology:

• The Protestant Conclusion: The original gospel was buried under pagan traditions, but it was successfully reformed by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and others who stripped away the Catholic “pagan accretion” to get back to the Bible.

• The Latter-day Saint (Talmage) Conclusion: The pagan corruption was so absolute, institutional, and complete that the very divine authority (the Priesthood) was entirely lost from the earth. Therefore, a mere “reformation” of existing structures was impossible; a total, divine restoration from heaven was required.

So, while Talmage is an important figure in defining how a specific religious movement understands the history of early Christianity, the broader pop-culture belief that early Christianity is secretly dressed-up paganism is a direct inheritance from centuries of fierce, post-Reformation Protestant propaganda (fuelled largely by wars and conflicts with Catholics.)

Why the Myth Will Not Die

So if it’s this easy to disprove, and it is; you just watched it happen with links you can click yourself , then why does it survive?13

Because, as my anthropology professors would say, the myth isn’t doing the job you think it’s doing. It was never primarily a claim about the fourth century. It’s a boundary marker. It’s the wall that keeps Protestants Protestant and Mormons Mormon, by making the alternative, the ancient, sacramental, liturgical Church, look like a pagan counterfeit you’re well rid of.

This is the narcissism of small differences at industrial scale. The closer a community actually is to the real Church, the louder it has to insist on a story that makes that Church monstrous, because if the ancient Church was simply the Church, faithful and unbroken, then the whole justification for having left it quietly evaporates and you are the heretic and the one in error. The myth has to be huge precisely because the real distance is small.

And there is something distinctly, achingly American in how this all plays out. The myth flatters the deepest instinct of the Western religious mind: the conviction that I, Me, armed with my Bible and my private judgment, can leapfrog two thousand years of saints and martyrs and councils and reconstruct pure Christianity from scratch in my own living room. That every prior generation got it wrong and I finally got it right. We dress this up as humility , “just me and my Bible,” but make no mistake, it is the most prideful claim a human being can make about the things of God. It enthrones the individual ego as the final arbiter of revelation. How American. How very much the western mind worshiping, in the end, itself.

But step out of the polemics and into the documents and the conspiracy simply evaporates. There is no fourth-century cover-up. There is no pagan switch. There is only a long, unbroken, fiercely checkable line of Christians who gathered on the first day of the week the eighth day, the day of the empty tomb, and did so not because an emperor loved the sun, but because their Lord had walked out of a grave on a Sunday morning, and they were willing to be fed to lions rather than pretend otherwise.

They didn’t borrow that day from the sun. They received it from the One who made the sun.

I encourage you, genuinely, to verify what I've written. The links are right there. Go read Justin to the emperor. Go read the prosecutor Pliny. Go count the years yourself. That’s the whole point: this faith has nothing to hide, because it was never the thing in disguise.

The disguise was the myth.

Primary Sources

• Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10; Colossians 2:16–17 — New Testament references to “the first day of the week” / “the Lord’s day” and Paul relativizing the Sabbath. Linked above to churchofjesuschrist.org.

• Pliny the Younger, Letters 10.96 (c. 112 AD) — a hostile pagan governor describing fixed-day Christian worship “before dawn.” Georgetown / J. O’Donnell

• St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians 9 (c. 108 AD) — “living in observance of the Lord’s Day.” New Advent

• The Didache (late 1st–early 2nd c.) — gathering on the Lord’s day to break bread. New Advent

• Epistle of Barnabas 15 (c. 130 AD) — “we keep the eighth day with joyfulness... on which Jesus rose again from the dead.” New Advent

• St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 67 (c. 155 AD) — “on the day called Sunday, all... gather together to one place.” New Advent

• Tertullian, Apology 16 (c. 197 AD) — rebutting the pagan charge that Christians worship the sun. New Advent

• Tertullian, Ad Nationes I.13 — the same rebuttal, expanded. CCEL / Schaff, ANF03

• Synod of Laodicea, Canons 16 & 29 (c. 363–364 AD) — Gospels read on the Sabbath (16); honoring the Lord’s Day over Judaizing rest (29). New Advent · CCEL / Schaff, NPNF2-14

And for a thoroughly entertaining real-time demonstration of how this kind of “alternative history” holds up under cross-examination, the Wes Huff / Billy Carson debate is a great example and can be found here:

popcorn recommended.

Once you learn to spot a charter myth, you start seeing them everywhere, including in the mirror. If this one helped you see the receipts for yourself, share it with the person in your life who still thinks Constantine moved the Sabbath and paganized the early church. They deserve to know they’ve been handed a 16th-century dan brown book and told it was history.

Share

1

Theological Letters

Constantine and Pagan Capitulation? Why Christians Worship on Sunday Instead of Saturday

Thank you for reading Theological Letters! To my subscribers, thank you for being here. To my paid subscribers, thank you for sustaining this work. Remember, your likes and restacks truly help expand my reach. I appreciate you all.Theological Letters is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or…

Read more

2 months ago · 21 likes · 2 comments · Dr. Nathan Jacobs

You can watch it here

We’re going to walk through the current liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. This is a really big and important topic. I pray that I get this right. All errors here are mine and due to my particular human fallibility.

Picture this… (without the Mull River shuffle joke this time)

It’s Sunday morning. You are standing in an Orthodox parish somewhere in the world. It could be Denver, Austin, Toronto, Thessaloniki, Tripoli, or Addis Ababa. Could be a temporary space (maybe for a mission church) or a permanent domed cathedral (for an established parish). The specifics don’t matter.

You are standing with the general body of the faithful. Maybe it’s your first time attending a liturgy; maybe you are cradle Orthodox and already have it memorized. As you look around, you see that the priest is vested. There is a deacon at his side, also vested. The acolytes (adult male altar servers in plain black cassocks) and altar boys (younger boys wearing sticharion) are holding candles. The choir has begun to sing something in a mode that sounds like it’s from mythic history. The air smells like beeswax and incense.

I am going to attempt to walk through the entire service with you. From the first words to the last. And at every movement, I am going to try to stop and name the pedigree, and if I can explain a little bit. i.e.

This part is from the synagogue. This part is from the Temple. This part is from the Apostles. This part is from the Didache. This part is from Basil. This part is from Chrysostom. This part is from the Apostolic Constitutions. This part is from St. Cyril of Jerusalem. This part is from Isaiah. This part is from Christ Himself.

Six articles have led to this one. Six articles of patient documentary work - Justin Martyr in 155 AD, the Temple in your parish, the synagogue that became a church, the Didache that shouldn’t exist, the Anaphora and its eleven movements, the bishops through whom the liturgy came down.

Now we put it all together.

Now let’s start our walk with Christ and his Apostles as we engage in authentic traditional Christian worship.

Before the Beginning: The Proskomedia

The Divine Liturgy does not begin when you think it begins.

45 minutes before the priest opens the Royal Doors and you hear “Blessed is the Kingdom,” there is a quiet service happening in the sanctuary that most parishioners never see. It is called the Proskomedia - the service of preparation.1 The priest stands at a small table to the left of the altar called the Prothesis (the “setting forth” table). He has before him the loaves of prosphora - the offering bread, stamped with a specific seal, made and brought to the church by the faithful. And with a small liturgical spear2, he begins to cut. (The number of prosphora used depends on the tradition. In the Greek tradition, which I’m a part of, we typically use as many as we believe are needed based on the size of the congregation. My parish is large, and so it is not uncommon for us to use 9-10. (For the blessing of the Loaves for feast days, there are always 5- but it’s a different recipe. For very large congregations they may use multiples of five.)

He cuts the central square out of the first loaf - the part that is stamped. This square has a name: it is called the Lamb. The priest intones as he cuts: “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and as a lamb without blemish, so opened He not His mouth.” Direct quotation from Isaiah 53:7 - the prophecy of the Suffering Servant, seven centuries before Christ.

The priest pierces the right side of the Lamb with the spear, reading the words of the Evangelist John describing the spear thrust at Calvary (John 19:34). He pours wine and water into the chalice, the same wine and water that flowed from Christ’s side. From the remaining four loaves, or the remaining portion of the large loaf from which the lamb was cut, he cuts small particles in honor of the Theotokos, the ranks of the saints, the living faithful of the parish, and the departed. Each particle is placed on the diskos - the paten - around the Lamb, in a specific arrangement that visually depicts the entire Church gathered around Christ: Christ in the center, His Mother to His right, the saints ranked in order, the living below, the departed below them.

When the priest is finished, the diskos looks like a map of the Church - every member of the Body accounted for, every commemoration named, every Christian past and present gathered around the Lamb.

Where does this come from?

The Proskomedia as a formal service took its current shape between the eighth and fourteenth centuries. But the pattern is much older than that. It is older than Christianity itself. Because what is the priest doing at the Prothesis? He is preparing the offering. He is cutting the bread. He is arranging the elements before the sacrifice.

That is the Tabernacle pattern. Leviticus 24:5-9: twelve loaves of bread, fresh every Sabbath, set in order on the Table of the Presence, consecrated to the Lord. In Article 2 of this series, we walked through how every Orthodox church on earth preserves the three-zone Temple architecture - the Outer Court, the Narthex, the Nave where the faithful stand, the Holy of Holies (the sanctuary behind the iconostasis, which is the Temple veil,) opened rather than abolished in Christ. The Proskomedia happens in that architecture. The priest stands in the Holy of Holies, at the Prothesis table, preparing the offering that will soon be carried to the Altar. The Proskomedia is the New Covenant version of the showbread - but now the twelve loaves have become one Lamb, and the particles arranged around Him are no longer the twelve tribes but the whole Body of Christ: saints, faithful, departed, the Theotokos who bore Him, all gathered around the One who gathers them.

This part is from the Temple.

And the Lamb itself - cut with the spear, pierced in the side, spoken over with the words of Isaiah 53 - this is direct apostolic theology. The earliest Christians called the Eucharist “the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8). The Apostle John saw Him. The Apostle Paul preached Him - “For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7). The Proskomedia takes the apostolic theology of the Lamb and enacts it ritually before the Liturgy begins.

This part is from the Apostles.

The First Cry: Blessed Is the Kingdom

The priest situated in front of the Altar, behind the Royal Doors, blesses the Gospel Book on the altar, and cries out:

“Blessed is the kingdom of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and to the ages of ages.”

The people answer: “Amen.”

That opening acclamation is already doing theology. It’s declaring this Liturgy as an event in the Kingdom of Heaven. It’s a Kingdom event.

Every other major Eucharistic liturgy - Roman, Ambrosian, Coptic - begins with “In the name of the Father” or a similar Trinitarian formula. The Byzantine liturgy is different. It does not open with the name of God as an invocation. It opens with the Kingdom of God as a proclamation. The Liturgy is not about what we are doing for God this morning. The Liturgy is about the Kingdom that is already breaking in upon us, and our entry into it.3

Where does this come from?

From Christ Himself. The first words of His public preaching in Mark 1:15: “The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the Gospel.” The Orthodox Liturgy begins by announcing the exact message Christ began with. We are entering the Kingdom.

This part is from Christ Himself.

And the congregational “Amen” that answers? That is the oldest liturgical response in Christianity. The word is Hebrew. It is what Jewish worshippers shouted at the end of every synagogue prayer in the first century. It is what Paul assumes the Corinthians are shouting at the end of their Eucharistic prayers around 55 AD (1 Corinthians 14:16). It is the word that has never been translated out of Christian liturgy, in any language, in any century, anywhere on earth. You say it. The Coptic monks in Egypt say it. The Syriac Christians in Kerala say it. The Russian Orthodox in Alaska say it. It is the same word.4

This part is from the synagogue.

The Great Litany

A deacon steps out through a door in the iconostasis, faces the people, and begins to chant a long sequence of petitions. It is called the Great Litany or, in Greek, the Megalḗ Ektenḗ. Each petition is answered by the choir with “Lord, have mercy” - in Greek, Kyrie eleison. The deacons in the liturgy fulfill the role of angelic messengers. In most iconostases there are two deacons’ doors, one with the icon of Gabriel and one with the icon of Michael. The deacons often come out the door of Gabriel, in the role of heavenly messengers moving between heaven and earth, and they enter back into the holy of holies through the door of Michael the Archangel, the protector of heaven.

Deacon: In peace let us pray to the Lord.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Deacon: For the peace from above and for the salvation of our souls, let us pray to the Lord.

People: Lord, have mercy.

Deacon: For the peace of the whole world, for the stability of the holy churches of God, and for the unity of all, let us pray to the Lord.

People: Lord, have mercy.

And it continues. For travelers. For the sick. For the prisoners. For favorable weather. For the abundance of the fruits of the earth. For deliverance from all affliction, wrath, danger, and necessity. Petition after petition. Prayers for the whole world are brought before the altar.

Where does this come from?

From the synagogue. The Great Litany is the Christian form of the ancient Jewish Amidah - the “standing prayer” of eighteen (later nineteen) blessings that structured every synagogue service in the first century.5 In Article 3 of this series, I walked you through the full synagogue service that Jesus attended every Sabbath of His earthly life - the Shema, the Amidah, the Kedushah, the Torah and Haftarah readings, the homily, the intercessions, the fixed order of chanted prayer. The first half of the Divine Liturgy is that service, baptized into Christ.

The Amidah was a sequence of petitions covering every dimension of communal and personal need: for understanding, for forgiveness, for healing, for rain in its season, for the regathering of Israel, for peace. Jesus prayed the Amidah. Peter prayed the Amidah. Paul prayed the Amidah. When they began to gather as Christians, they did not stop praying sequences of petitions like the Amidah - they baptized the pattern into Christ. The Great Litany of the Divine Liturgy is what the Amidah became once the Messiah the Amidah had prayed for had arrived.

This part is from the synagogue.

And the response - Kyrie eleison - is older than the Christian Liturgy. It appears in Psalm 123:3 and throughout the Psalter. It is what the Canaanite woman cried out to Jesus in Matthew 15:22. It is what the ten lepers cried in Luke 17:13. It is what Bartimaeus cried in Mark 10:47. It is the cry of every person in the Gospels who encountered Christ in the flesh. The Church has never stopped crying it.

This part is from Christ Himself.

The Three Antiphons

After the Great Litany, the choir begins to sing three sets of Psalm verses called the Antiphons. Each is separated from the next by a short litany and a prayer from the priest.

The First Antiphon traditionally uses verses from Psalm 103 (“Bless the Lord, O my soul”). The Second Antiphon uses verses from Psalm 146 (“Praise the Lord, O my soul”). The Third Antiphon, on Sundays and feast days, uses the Beatitudes from Matthew 5 (“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven”).

Between the Second and Third Antiphons, the choir sings the hymn “Only-begotten Son and Logos of God” - a sixth-century composition traditionally attributed to the Emperor Justinian, which compresses the entire Christological doctrine of Chalcedon into six lines of poetry.6

Where do the Antiphons come from?

The Psalter has been the prayer book of the people of God for three thousand years. David composed some of the psalms. The Levitical choirs sang them in the Temple. The synagogues of the Diaspora chanted them every Sabbath. Christ Himself quoted them from the cross - “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me” is Psalm 22. The Apostles prayed them. The monks of the Egyptian desert in the third and fourth centuries structured their entire daily life around chanting the whole Psalter every week.

When you hear the choir at an Orthodox parish begin “Bless the Lord, O my soul,” you are hearing words that David may have composed, that the Temple choirs certainly sang, that Christ knew by heart, that the Apostles prayed, that the desert Fathers chanted in their caves, and that have been sung in Christian liturgy without a Sunday off for nearly twenty centuries.

This part is from the Temple. And this part is from the synagogue. And this part is from Christ Himself.

The Little Entrance

After the Third Antiphon, something shifts. The priest and deacon bow before the altar. The deacon takes up the Gospel Book. They circle the altar and exit through the north door of the iconostasis in solemn procession, led by altar servers carrying candles. They pause in the middle of the nave. The deacon raises the Gospel Book high and cries:

“Wisdom. Arise.”

And the choir sings (on most Sundays):

“Come, let us worship and bow before Christ. Save us, O Son of God, risen from the dead, to You we sing: Alleluia.”

This is the Little Entrance. The Gospel Book processes into the sanctuary through the Royal Doors.7

Where does this come from?

From the synagogue. Every first-century synagogue service included a solemn procession of the Torah scroll - the reader would bring the scroll from the ark, process it through the assembly so that the people could see and touch it, and carry it up to the bimah to read. The Torah procession was the visible sign of God’s Word entering the midst of His people. It is still practiced in synagogues today, every Sabbath.

The Little Entrance of the Divine Liturgy is the Christian form of the Torah procession. But now the Word is not carried on a scroll of law. The Word is carried on a book of Gospel. Because the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory (John 1:14). The Torah procession has been fulfilled in the Gospel procession. The scroll has become a book. The book is Christ.

This part is from the synagogue.

The Trisagion

After the Little Entrance, the choir chants what is arguably the most ancient hymn of the Christian Liturgy still in continuous use:

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.

In Greek: Hágios ho Theós, Hágios Ischyrós, Hágios Athánatos, eléison hēmâs. This is the Trisagion - the “thrice-holy” - chanted three times, with a doxology, then once more.

Where does this come from?

From Isaiah. Specifically from Isaiah 6:3 - the vision of the prophet in the Temple in the year that King Uzziah died, where he heard the seraphim crying “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory.” The Trisagion is the Christian expansion of Isaiah’s angelic cry.

The hymn itself entered formal liturgical use in Constantinople in the fifth century, but its roots are much older. The Jewish synagogue had a prayer called the Kedushah - the “sanctification” - based on the same Isaiah 6 passage. Jews were praying the Kedushah in the first century. Christ prayed it. The Apostles prayed it. When Christians began to compose their own worship, they kept the Kedushah pattern and expanded it. The Trisagion is one of its forms.8

A precision note worth landing here - because Article 5 of this series walked through the Anaphora and named the Epinikios Hymnos (the Triumphal Hymn, the one that begins “Holy, holy, holy, Lord Sabaoth”) - you might wonder whether this Trisagion is the same hymn. It is not. The Trisagion is a fifth-century Constantinopolitan hymn that inherits the Kedushah pattern. The Epinikios Hymnos is the Anaphora’s direct quotation of Isaiah 6, inherited through a different channel from the Jerusalem liturgical tradition. Two different hymns, both descended from the same synagogue Kedushah, both descended from the same prophet Isaiah, both sung in every Divine Liturgy. The same root. Different branches.

This part is from Isaiah. And this part is from the synagogue.

The Scripture Readings

After the Trisagion, the choir chants the Prokeimenon - a short Psalm refrain announcing the day’s theme. Then the reader proclaims the Epistle - a reading from the New Testament letters or the Acts of the Apostles. Then the choir sings the Alleluia. Then the deacon, standing in the center of the nave, proclaims the Gospel.

When the Gospel is announced, the people respond: “Glory to You, O Lord, glory to You.” And at its conclusion: “Glory to You, O Lord, glory to You.”

Where does this come from?

Straight from the synagogue.9 The first-century synagogue service had two readings: one from the Torah (the Law), and one from the Prophets (the Haftarah). The people stood for the Torah reading and sat for the Haftarah. The reader identified the source. The people responded with acclamations. There was a prescribed cycle of readings covering the Torah over the course of a year.

The Christian Liturgy preserved the pattern exactly. Two readings. Specific cycle. Standing for the Gospel (as the synagogue stood for the Torah) - because the Gospel is the Torah fulfilled in Christ. The acclamations at the beginning and end are the direct Christianization of the synagogue responses. If you attended a synagogue this Sabbath and an Orthodox parish on Sunday morning, you would recognize the pattern immediately. One service sat down for the prophets and stood for the Law. The other sits down for the Apostle and stands for the Gospel. The same movement, the same posture, the same purpose.

This part is from the synagogue.

And what does Jesus Himself do in Luke 4:16-21? He stands up in the Nazareth synagogue. He is handed the scroll of the prophet Isaiah. He opens it and reads: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to preach the Gospel...” Then He sits down and delivers the homily. That is a synagogue service. That is also the structure of every Divine Liturgy’s Liturgy of the Word. You stand for the reading. You sit for the homily. You do what Christ did.

This part is from Christ Himself.

The Homily

After the Gospel, the priest (or the bishop, if he is presiding) delivers the Homily. A sermon explaining the readings, applying them to the life of the Church, exhorting the faithful to the Christian life.

Where does this come from?

The synagogue, again. The homily was the regular feature of every first-century synagogue service following the readings. This is what Jesus did in Luke 4. This is what Paul does in Acts 13:14-16 when he is invited to speak “after the reading of the Law and the Prophets.” This is what every traveling rabbi did when he was visiting a new synagogue. The custom of following Scripture readings with a homily of application is as old as rabbinic Judaism and has been unbroken in Christian worship from the first generation.

This matches exactly what Article 1 of this series showed you in Justin Martyr’s First Apology. Writing in 155 AD, Justin described the Christian Liturgy to a pagan emperor: “When the reader has finished, he who presides instructs and exhorts to the imitation of these good things.”10 Justin saw it. The pattern was already fixed. It is still fixed. Scripture first, homily second, in that order, every Sunday, in every Orthodox parish, the way Christ did it in Nazareth and the way Paul did it in Pisidian Antioch and the way Justin watched it happen in Rome.

This part is from the synagogue.

The Pivot: From Synagogue to Temple

At this point in the service, something shifts. We have completed the Liturgy of the Word - the synagogue-derived portion of the Divine Liturgy, structured around the proclamation of Scripture. The readings, the homily, the Trisagion, the Antiphons - all of this descends from the Sabbath morning worship that Jesus attended every week of His earthly life.

Now we cross into the Liturgy of the Faithful - the Temple-derived portion of the Liturgy, structured around the offering of sacrifice. 11

In the ancient Church, this was a literal threshold. Everyone who was not baptized had to leave before the Liturgy of the Faithful began. The deacon would call out, in some form: “Catechumens, depart!” and “The doors, the door, let us be attentive.” The doors would close. The mysteries were for the faithful only.

Most Orthodox parishes today still include the litanies and the prayers for the catechumens at this point in the service, though the formal dismissal is rarely enforced. But the theological shift is the same as it was in the second century. We are leaving the synagogue. We are entering the Temple. We are about to offer the sacrifice.

The Cherubic Hymn and the Great Entrance

The choir begins to sing a hymn that, in every Orthodox parish, marks one of the most sacred moments of the entire service:

Let us, who mystically represent the Cherubim and who sing the thrice-holy hymn to the life-creating Trinity, now lay aside every worldly care.

This is the Cherubic Hymn.12 While the choir is singing, the priest and deacon go to the Prothesis table where the bread and wine are waiting. The priest lifts the diskos (with the Lamb and all the particles of the saints and faithful). The deacon lifts the chalice. They process out through the north door of the iconostasis, through the nave of the church, past the faithful, and back through the Royal Doors to the altar.

This is the Great Entrance.

The gifts that were prepared at the Proskomedia forty-five minutes ago now come through the nave, past the people, into the sanctuary. The choir finishes the hymn:

So that we may receive the King of all, Who is invisibly escorted by the angelic hosts. Alleluia. Alleluia. Alleluia.

Where does this come from?

From the Temple. Specifically, from the Day of Atonement.13 On Yom Kippur, the High Priest would process the blood of the sacrifice from the outer altar (where the animal had been slain) into the Holy of Holies to sprinkle it on the Mercy Seat. The procession from the place of preparation to the place of offering - that is the Temple pattern.

Article 2 of this series walked through the three-zone Temple architecture preserved in every Orthodox church. Article 3 showed you that the Liturgy of the Word descends from the synagogue, while the Liturgy of the Faithful descends from the Temple. The Great Entrance is the moment where that movement into the Temple becomes unmistakable. The bread and wine that have been prepared at the Prothesis (the “outer altar” of the Liturgy) are now carried into the sanctuary (the “Holy of Holies” of the Liturgy) for the offering of the sacrifice. The priest functions in the role of the High Priest. The deacon is his assistant. The altar servers carrying candles are the Levites, while also representing the presence of the heavenly hosts. The faithful who bow as the gifts pass are the people of Israel watching the procession.

The difference is that the High Priest is no longer a son of Aaron. The High Priest is Christ, and the priest at the altar is acting in persona Christi - in the person of Christ, the true and eternal High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (read Hebrews 7 on that). And the blood is no longer the blood of bulls and goats. The blood is the Blood of Christ Himself, the pure offering prophesied by Malachi 1:11 - the prophecy that Article 4 showed you is already being applied to the Eucharist in the first-century Didache, before anyone had written the word “liturgy” in any language.

This part is from the Temple.

The Creed

After the Great Entrance, after the Kiss of Peace between the clergy, the congregation chants the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.14 The whole Creed. Every article. From “I believe in one God, Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth” through the articles on the Son, the Spirit, the Church, the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come.

Where does this come from?

From the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea in 325 AD. It was expanded at the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. The Creed was composed to defend the apostolic faith against the Arian heresy, which denied the full divinity of Christ. It is the shortest, most precise articulation of Christian theology the Church has ever produced.

But the content of the Creed is not a fourth-century invention. Every clause of the Nicene Creed can be traced to prior Christian baptismal creeds, which can be traced to the apostolic tradition, which can be traced to the teaching of Christ Himself. The Creed is what Peter confessed at Caesarea Philippi (Matthew 16:16): “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” The Creed is what Paul summarized in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5. The Creed is what Ignatius of Antioch preached in 107 AD. The Creed is what Irenaeus defended in 180 AD.

The Council of Nicaea did not invent the content. The Council gave the content its most precise formal expression and declared it binding for the whole Church. The Creed is the apostolic faith, defined with imperial precision, chanted by the congregation at the climactic moment of every Divine Liturgy.

This part is from the Apostles.

The Anaphora

And then, at the very heart of the Liturgy, comes the prayer we spent all of Article 5 walking through.

The deacon cries: “Let us stand aright! Let us stand in awe! Let us be attentive, that we may present the Holy Offering in peace.” The choir answers: “A mercy of peace, a sacrifice of praise.” The priest begins: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God and Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.”

And the Anaphora begins. Eleven movements, each one an inheritance. I will not walk them again here - Article 5 did that work. But I want you to remember what sits inside this prayer:

• The Opening Dialogue is what Hippolytus of Rome records in his Apostolic Tradition around 215 AD, identical to what is prayed in every Orthodox parish today.

• The Preface is the cosmic thanksgiving that takes the shape of the ancient Jewish berakhah - the blessing-prayer that names God as Creator and Redeemer.

• The Pre-Sanctus builds the bridge from earth to heaven, naming the Cherubim and Seraphim who surround the throne.

• The Epinikios Hymnos - the Triumphal Hymn, what the West calls the Sanctus - is the song the prophet Isaiah heard the seraphim singing in the Temple in the year that King Uzziah died.

• The Post-Sanctus is the cosmic gift of the Father in giving His only-begotten Son for the life of the world.

• The Institution Narrative is the direct quotation of the words of Christ at the Last Supper, in the exact form preserved in 1 Corinthians 11 by the Apostle Paul.

• The Anamnesis is the remembrance of the Cross, the tomb, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the enthronement, and the second coming - a remembrance of the future Coming that is the sign that time itself is folding here.

• The Epiclesis is the calling-down of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts - a movement present in every Eastern liturgy, descending through the Antiochene tradition to the apostolic prayer of Jerusalem.

• The Intercessions are the prayers of the Church for the whole world, gathering the saints, the departed, the living, the hierarchs, the rulers, the suffering - ending with “Especially for our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary” and the people’s response, the Áxion Estín - the hymn revealed, according to tradition, by the Archangel Gabriel to a monk on Mount Athos.15

• The Doxology is the final glorification: “And grant that with one voice and one heart we may glorify and praise Your most honorable and majestic name, of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and ever and to the ages of ages.”

• And the people’s Amēn seals it.

This is the prayer that comes down from Jerusalem. Article 6 of this series walked through the chain - the Liturgy of St. James, attributed by the Church to the brother of the Lord and confirmed by St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s mid-fourth-century Mystagogical Catecheses to have been celebrated in essentially its received form at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. From the Liturgy of St. James, the Antiochene tradition descended. Through the Antiochene tradition, Basil refined and theologically formed his Cappadocian recension. Through the Antiochene tradition, Chrysostom carried the prayer to Constantinople. From Constantinople, it spread to every Eastern Christian community under the sun. The chain has never been broken, and the Church confesses it with confidence: Through the prayers of our Father among the Saints, John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople...

When you stand in the Orthodox parish, and the priest begins this prayer, you are not witnessing a human composition. You are witnessing the prayer of the Church across two thousand years, on every continent, in every language, praying together now, in the timelessness of the Liturgy, through the one Spirit who makes the offering.

This part is from Jerusalem. This part is from the Apostles. This part is from Christ Himself.

The Lord’s Prayer

After the Anaphora, after the Holy Spirit has descended and the gifts have been changed, the deacon calls the faithful to prepare for communion. And then, together, the whole congregation prays:

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

The Lord’s Prayer. Prayed exactly as Christ gave it to His disciples. In Matthew 6:9-13. In Luke 11:2-4.

Where does this come from?

From Christ Himself. Directly. In His own words. The Our Father is the one prayer in the Christian Liturgy of which we can say - with zero uncertainty, zero scholarly hedge, zero textual ambiguity - this prayer is the prayer of Christ.

The Didache from the first century instructs Christians to pray the Our Father three times a day (Didache 8).16 The Apostles prayed it. The martyrs prayed it. The desert Fathers prayed it. Every Christian of every tradition on earth has prayed it continuously for two thousand years.

The Orthodox Liturgy places it here, directly before communion, because this is where Christ taught His disciples to pray for daily bread - and the daily bread, in the deepest sense, is about to be given.

This part is from Christ Himself.

“The holy Gifts for the holy people of God”

The priest lifts the consecrated Body of Christ from the diskos. He holds it over the altar. And he cries out:

The holy Gifts for the holy people of God.

In Greek: Tà Hágia toîs hagíois. The holy things, for the holy ones.

The people answer: One is Holy, one is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Where does this come from?

From the Didache. Directly. Chapter 10, verse 6. Written, at the latest, in the 90s AD - within living memory of the Apostles. Article 4 of this series spent its entire length walking through the Didache and showing its overlaps with the modern Divine Liturgy. This pre-Communion exchange is one of those overlaps, hiding in plain sight in chapter 10.

The Didache preserves a liturgical exchange that goes exactly like this: “If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.” 17 That is the same invitation, the same call for self-examination, the same movement of prayer. The Orthodox Liturgy’s “Holy Gifts for the holy people of God” is the first-century Didache text refined into liturgical form. The Didache says “if anyone is holy.” The Liturgy answers: “One alone is Holy - Jesus Christ.” Christ alone is the source of the holiness we are about to receive.

The call came down from the first century. The response came up from the faithful Church.

This part is from the Didache. And this part is from the Apostles.

Holy Communion

The priest and deacons commune at the altar. Then the Royal Doors are opened, and the priest comes out to the people with the chalice. The deacon calls out: “With the fear of God, faith, and love, draw near.” The choir sings a Communion Hymn - most often a verse from the Psalms. The faithful approach the chalice with their arms crossed over their chest, receive on a spoon the Body and Blood of Christ together, and are blessed with the words:

The servant of God (Name) partakes of the Body and Blood of Christ for the remission of sins and life eternal.

Where does this come from?

From the Upper Room. The night He was betrayed, Christ took bread, gave thanks, broke it, gave it to His disciples, and said: “Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you for the remission of sins.” He took the cup, gave thanks, and said “Drink of it, all of you; this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.” This portion of the gospel story should be very familiar to every Christian, as it was the heart of the Christian worship service from the beginning.

That was the first Communion. Everything since has been a continuation of that meal.

The Apostles communed. They handed the meal to their disciples. Their disciples handed it to the next generation. The chain has never broken. Justin Martyr describes it in 155 AD. The Didache describes it in the first century. Ignatius of Antioch calls it “the medicine of immortality” in 107 AD.18 Cyril of Jerusalem teaches the newly baptized about it in 348 AD at the Holy Sepulchre.

The spoon is a later development - it was introduced in the Byzantine Church around the ninth century to make communion more practical for large congregations. But the meal itself, the substance of what is being received, the theological reality - that is as old as the Last Supper.

When you receive Holy Communion at an Orthodox parish, you are receiving what the Apostles received from Christ Himself in the Upper Room on the night before He died. Not an approximation. Not a symbol. It.

This part is from Christ Himself.

The Dismissal

After communion, after the thanksgiving prayers, after a final litany, the priest comes through the Royal Doors one last time. He stands before the icon of Christ and prays the Prayer Behind the Ambon - a blessing over the people that concludes the offering. Then he returns to the altar. The deacon cries:

“Let us depart in peace.”

And the priest gives the final dismissal, commemorating the intercessions of the Theotokos, the saints, the Apostles, the holy fathers, and the saint of the parish - ending with:

“Through the prayers of our holy fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy on us.”

The people cross themselves. The choir sings “Many Years” for the bishop. The faithful line up to receive a piece of blessed bread - the antidoron - from the priest’s hand as they leave.

It is over.

It will begin again next Sunday.

Where does this come from?

From everywhere we have been. The dismissal is the Church’s final act of parádosis - sending the faithful out with the blessing of all the saints who prayed this prayer before them. The antidoron is the remaining bread from the Proskomedia, not consecrated as the Eucharist but blessed and distributed to everyone including non-Orthodox visitors, so that no one leaves the Liturgy without receiving something from the offering.

The antidoron is particularly worth noticing. In the ancient Church, the Eucharist was offered by the whole community, and what remained after Communion - the bread that had not been consecrated, the remains of the offering - was distributed to the poor, to the catechumens, to the visitors, to anyone who had not yet been baptized into the full communion of the Church.19 The antidoron is that ancient practice still alive. A small gesture. A piece of blessed bread. A sign that the offering of the Church is for the whole world.

This part is from the Apostles.

What You Just Saw

Let’s take a step back and look at the whole shape of what we just walked through.

• The Proskomedia - Temple pattern, apostolic theology.

• The Opening Doxology - Christ’s own proclamation of the Kingdom.

• The Great Litany - synagogue Amidah, baptized into Christ.

• The Antiphons - Psalms of David, sung continuously for three thousand years.

• The Little Entrance - the synagogue Torah procession, fulfilled in the Gospel.

• The Trisagion - Isaiah’s vision of the seraphim, expanded into Christian doxology.

• The Scripture Readings - the synagogue Torah-and-Prophets pattern, now Apostle-and-Gospel.

• The Homily - the synagogue sermon, preached by Christ Himself in Nazareth.

• The Cherubic Hymn and Great Entrance - the Temple procession on the Day of Atonement, now carrying the true Lamb.

• The Creed - the apostolic faith, formalized at Nicaea and Constantinople.

• The Anaphora - the prayer of Jerusalem, delivered through Basil and Chrysostom, descending from the Liturgy of St. James to the apostolic tradition itself.

• The Lord’s Prayer - from the lips of Christ.

• “The Holy Gifts for the holy people of God” - from the Didache, first century.

• Holy Communion - from the Upper Room.

• The Dismissal and Antidoron - from the Apostolic Church.

Every movement of the Liturgy is either (a) directly inherited from Jewish worship that Christ Himself participated in, (b) directly inherited from apostolic practice documented before the end of the first century, (c) directly drawn from the words of Christ preserved in the Gospels, or (d) a Byzantine formalization that elaborates, ornaments, or gives liturgical form to one of the above.

The Byzantine and medieval elaborations are not innovations in the sense of introducing new theological content. They are refinements, elaborations, and hymnographic developments that take inherited theological material and give it new poetic or liturgical form. The Áxion Estín is a tenth-century hymn, but Marian veneration is apostolic. The Cherubic Hymn is a sixth-century composition, but the theology of the earthly congregation joining the heavenly ranks is in the Sanctus tradition that goes back to the synagogue Kedushah and ultimately to Isaiah 6. The Trisagion is from the fifth century, but it is an expansion of Isaiah 6:3.

This is actually the same theological argument Article 6 made about Basil and Chrysostom - they did not invent the Liturgy; they received and refined an inheritance. The same principle applies to every Byzantine hymnographer and every liturgical development. Refinement of inheritance is itself a form of fidelity. Nothing was added to the Liturgy that contradicted or replaced the apostolic deposit. Likewise, nothing that was an apostolic inheritance has been removed or replaced. Things were added that adorned it.

Not a single movement was invented by the Reformers’ imagined “medieval corruptions” that supposedly had to be purged in the sixteenth century. (Besides, the Reformers were about reforming the roman catholic church, not the eastern orthodox church - of which they knew little.)

What This Means

For six articles, we have been building toward this. And the conclusion I want to offer is not triumphant. It is quiet.

If the Divine Liturgy really is what I have shown you - and I believe the documentary record is solid enough that you can verify these claims for yourself with the sources I have cited throughout the series - then something follows that matters for every Christian, of every tradition, on earth.

For my LDS readers: I have said it many times before, and I’ll say it again: the Great Apostasy did not happen. Or, more precisely, if it happened, it did not happen to the Church that has been praying this prayer continuously for two thousand years.20 The Liturgy you have just walked through is the prayer that was being prayed in Jerusalem within a generation of Pentecost. It is the prayer that the Apostles celebrated. It is still being prayed. The chain is unbroken and documentable. If you have been told that the apostolic Church fell away and required restoration, the Liturgy is the evidence that at least one branch of that Church (which Christ promised that the gates of hell could never prevail against) never fell away. The prayer is still here. The priesthood is still here. The Eucharist is still being offered on the altars of every Orthodox parish every Sunday morning.

This does not tell you what to do with that fact. But it tells you that the fact is real, and the fact is verifiable, and the fact deserves to be sat with honestly.

For other Christian readers: The apostolic Church was not simpler than this. It was not more improvisational than this. It was not more Bible-focused at the expense of sacramental worship. It was not closer to what you recognize as “New Testament Christianity” than what you have just seen. The apostolic Church was this. Sacramental. Liturgical. Priestly. Sacrificial. Rooted in the Temple and the synagogue. Offering the Eucharist as the fulfillment of the Old Testament pattern. Communing the baptized faithful with the Body and Blood of Christ.

If the Reformers were trying to recover apostolic Christianity, they were trying to recover this. And if they did not recover this, then the question becomes whether what they recovered is what Christ actually gave His Church on the night before He died.

I am not asking you to become Orthodox. I am asking you to read the sources. Justin Martyr. The Didache. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Apostolic Constitutions. Go see for yourself. The documents are not hidden. They have been available the whole time.

For everyone: The Divine Liturgy is not a museum piece. It is a living service, offered every Sunday, by a living Church, for the life of the world. It is not frozen in stone; it is not an irrelevant artifact of the past. It has absorbed local flavors, local languages, local music, local architecture - there is a Russian way of chanting and a Greek way of chanting and an Antiochian way and an Ethiopian way, and they are all different in their aesthetic texture and all identical in their theological and structural essence. The Liturgy breathes. The Liturgy sings. The Liturgy is being offered right now, somewhere on earth, as you read this sentence, because with the dawn on every meridian, the bells ring and another Sunday morning begins and another priest enters the sanctuary and another community gathers and another Eucharist is offered.

The prayer has never stopped.

It will not stop in our lifetimes.

It will not stop at all.

What Comes After This Series

This is Article 7. This is the end of The Liturgy Remembers.

I started this series because I am a convert from the Latter-day Saint (Mormon) tradition. I walked into an Orthodox parish for the first time a few years ago, not knowing what I was looking at. I felt something I could not explain, something ancient, something drawing me into a time and space I had never experienced before. A thing that not only drew me in, but also lifted me into a knowledge and experience of Christ and divine worship. I went home and started reading. What I found in the reading - and what I have tried to show you across these seven articles - is that what I had walked into was not a quaint medieval novelty, but the oldest continuously practiced Christian worship on earth, and it was older than I knew how to measure. I had repeated, powerful experiences with the Holy Spirit throughout my attendance at liturgy after liturgy without it being based on a raw elevation emotion or burning in my bosom. Yet partway through it, I came away with the deepest conviction of orthodoxy and the liturgy as truth; and FINALLY, I had both an intellectual and spiritual confirmation of the truth - something I had long desired. In the LDS tradition (or at least my experience within it), there was no emphasis on, nor expectation of, an intellectual confirmation or surety; in fact, during the time I grew up Mormon, such a thing was typically discouraged in favor of a purely emotional “confirmation.” As a person with high-functioning autism, having and relying on a purely emotional response was never going to work for me.

I wrote these articles for anyone who might be where I was. LDS readers who have questions about the Great Apostasy narrative or any other LDS historical issue and find themselves searching for the truth. PIMO’s Physically In, Mentally Out Mormons who don’t really know which way to go, only that they are tiring of living inauthentically and can’t stay where they are forever. I hope to help show them that there is a viable alternative to secular material atheism, that there is a church that delivers on the promises Mormonism makes but cannot (in my opinion) deliver on, and that leaving the LDS faith doesn’t mean that you need to give up on Christ.

Or maybe protestant readers who have suspected for years that there must be something more than what they have been given. Catholic readers who want to understand the Eastern inheritance they share. Orthodox readers who love the Liturgy and want to understand its depth and historical ties. Seekers who have no particular tradition but sense that Christianity in the simplified versions they have thus far encountered cannot be all there is.

I have tried to be scrupulously honest about the documentary evidence throughout. Where scholars disagree, I have named the disagreement. Where the Church’s tradition goes beyond what secular historians will confirm, I have named the gap and explained why I still trust the Church’s witness. Where both can be true at once, I have suggested the both/and without insisting on it.

If you have followed the series to the end, you have the documentary case. You have the sources. You have the sequence of intellectual propositions. The rest is not mine to give you. The rest is yours to do.

Find a parish. Visit. Listen.

Stand through the service and let the prayer wash over you. Do not try to follow along in a book for the first time. Just be present. Soak it all in. Let the incense fill the nave. Let the chanting do what chanting does. Watch the procession. Watch the Royal Doors open. Watch the deacons as heavenly messengers move between heaven and earth. Watch the priest come out with the chalice. Watch the people stream forward, arms crossed, to receive the gift of the Body and Blood of Christ.

You do not have to do anything the first time. You do not have to join anything. You do not have to decide anything. You just have to be there.

And then, if something in you stirs, go back the next Sunday, even if the initial foreignness was something you struggled with.

The Liturgy has been waiting for you the whole time.

The Apostles were there first.

It is time we caught up.

Primary Sources

As always, the historical claims in this article can be verified against the sources themselves. Do not take my word for any of it. Please come to a knowledge of the truth on your own.

• St. Justin Martyr, First Apology 65-67 (c. 155 AD) - The earliest pagan-facing description of the Christian Liturgy. Every major structural element of the modern Divine Liturgy is visible. Read it at New Advent here.

• The Didache (late 1st century) - The earliest Christian worship manual. Contains Eucharistic prayers, the instruction to pray the Our Father three times a day, the pre-Communion exchange that became the “Holy Gifts for the holy people of God” acclamation, and the citation of Malachi 1:11. Read it at New Advent here.

• St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catecheses (c. 347-348 AD) - The catechetical lectures delivered at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre walking new Christians through the structure of the Divine Liturgy. The fifth lecture describes the Anaphora in detail. Read it at New Advent here.

• The Apostolic Constitutions, Book VIII (c. 375-380 AD) - The fourth-century compilation preserving an older stratum of the Antiochene liturgical tradition, including the Clementine Liturgy that is structurally the parent of the modern Divine Liturgies. Read it at New Advent here.

• The Anaphora of St. James - The ancient Jerusalem liturgy from which the Antiochene family of liturgies (Basil, Chrysostom) descends. English text at New Advent here.

• The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (GOArch official text) - The modern English translation used in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Print it out. Follow it during a service. Available at goarch.org.

• Isaiah 6 - The prophet’s vision of the Lord enthroned with the seraphim singing “Holy, holy, holy.” The scriptural root of the Trisagion and the Triumphal Hymn. Read it here.

• The Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD) - The earliest Christian martyr-bishop’s letters, written en route to his execution in Rome, describing the bishop-led Eucharistic assembly as the sole legitimate gathering of the Christian community. Read them at New Advent here.

• All six previous articles in this series - Available at The Eighth Day / The Liturgy Remembers on Substack. Read them in order if you have not yet.

Imagine you walked into your grandmother’s kitchen, opened her recipe box, and pulled out a card titled “Grandma’s Chicken Soup.”

You make the soup. You eat the soup. The soup is delicious. Your kids ask where the recipe came from, and you say, “This is Grandma’s chicken soup.” And they grow up knowing it as Grandma’s chicken soup. Their kids will know it as Grandma’s chicken soup. Two hundred years from now, if your great-great-great-granddaughter is still making it, it will still be called Grandma’s chicken soup.

But here’s the thing.

Grandma did not invent chicken soup.

She got the recipe from her grandmother, who got it from a Polish neighbor in 1923, who got it from her mother in Galicia in 1880, who got it from the woman across the village whose mother-in-law made the best soup in three counties. The carrot-to-celery ratio is from the Polish neighbor. The pinch of dill is from a Lithuanian cousin who married in. The dumplings, technically, are from a different recipe entirely - your grandmother just always served them together because they go.

Grandma adapted. Grandma edited. Grandma standardized the version that her family ate every Friday night for forty years. Grandma’s name went on the card. The card became the family canon.

But Grandma did not invent chicken soup.

I want you to hold that image. Because what happened in Grandma’s kitchen, on a small scale could have been what happened in the Byzantine Church on a vast scale, with the two greatest Eucharistic prayers in all of Christian history.

Two Names on Two Liturgies

If you walk into any Greek Orthodox parish in the world this Sunday morning, you will hear the priest celebrate one of two liturgies. Most Sundays, it will be the Theía Leitourgía toû Hagíou Iōánnou toû Chrysostómou - the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.1 On ten specific days each year - the five Sundays of Lent, Holy Thursday, Holy Saturday, Christmas Eve, the Eve of Theophany, and January 1 (Basil’s feast day) - the priest will celebrate the Theía Leitourgía toû Hagíou Basileíou toû Megálou - the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great.

Two liturgies. Two saints’ names. Two prayer-texts that have been used continuously in the Greek Orthodox world for at least 1,500 years.

And here is the question almost no Orthodox layperson stops to ask:

Did Chrysostom and Basil actually write these liturgies?

The answer according to scholars is: mostly no.

And once you understand why the answer is “mostly no,” you will understand the heart of what this entire series has been arguing.

What Chrysostom and Basil may have actually done

Let’s introduce these two men because we need to feel the weight of their authority before we examine what their legacies.

St. Basil the Great (330-379 AD) was Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia (modern central Turkey). He was one of the three “Cappadocian Fathers” - the trio of theological giants (Basil, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and their friend Gregory of Nazianzus) who, in the late fourth century, defended and articulated the Trinitarian theology that defines orthodox Christianity to this day.2

Basil wrote the foundational treatise On the Holy Spirit. He organized monastic life in the Eastern Church. He fed the poor of his city through an institution called the Basileiad that was, essentially, the world’s first hospital. He stood up to the Arian Emperor Valens to his face and refused to back down. When Valens’s prefect threatened him with confiscation, exile, torture, and death, Basil reportedly answered: “Confiscation? I have nothing. Exile? I am at home everywhere. Torture? My body is already broken. Death? It would be a kindness.” The prefect went back to the Emperor and said, “We have never spoken to a bishop like this before.” Basil replied: “Perhaps you have never yet had to deal with a bishop.”3

This is the man whose name is on the Liturgy, and he was an absolute Boss.

St. John Chrysostom (c. 347-407 AD) was Archbishop of Constantinople - which is to say, the Patriarch of the imperial capital itself, the most prominent ecclesiastical position in the Eastern Empire. He was called Chrysostomos - “Golden-Mouthed” because his preaching was so powerful that his sermons drew enormous crowds, were transcribed by stenographers as he spoke, and have been preserved in greater volume than the writings of almost any other Father. He was famous for his commentaries on Scripture, his ascetic personal life, and his refusal to flatter the imperial court. The Empress Eudoxia hated him because he denounced her vanity from the pulpit. She had him exiled. The people of Constantinople rioted. He was exiled again. He died on the road to his second exile, in 407, at age sixty.

This is the other man whose name is on the other Liturgy, also an absolute Boss.

Both of them are giants, titans and most importantly, Saints. Both of them are honored as among the “Three Holy Hierarchs” of the Eastern Church (along with Gregory of Nazianzus). Both of them shaped Eastern Christianity in ways that still ripple two thousand years later.

And according to scholars, ,neither of them invented the liturgy that bears his name.

The Basil Question

Let me start with Basil, because his case is more straightforward than John’s.

The scholarly consensus on Basil is this: he edited and reformed an existing liturgical tradition that was already being used in his diocese in Cappadocia. He did not compose a brand-new liturgy from scratch. The testimonies we have describe him shortening and reforming what already existed, not creating something out of nothing.

The earliest evidence comes from his own contemporaries. Gregory of Nazianzus, in his funeral oration for Basil delivered shortly after Basil’s death in 379, mentions that Basil produced “liturgical rules of prayer.”4 A treatise attributed to St. Proclus of Constantinople (mid-5th century) reports that Basil noticed people were getting tired of the length of the existing liturgy, so he shortened it. Notice the verb. He did not write a new one. He shortened the existing one. The Council of Trullo in 692 - one of the major councils of the early Church - explicitly recognized “the written liturgy of the archbishop of the Caesareans, St. Basil, whose renown has spread through the whole world.”

So Basil did real liturgical work. The Liturgy of St. Basil really does carry his theological fingerprints - particularly the dense Trinitarian language of the Anaphora, which sounds exactly like Basil’s On the Holy Spirit.5 When you read the Liturgy of St. Basil’s Anaphora and then read Basil’s theological treatises, the same voice is unmistakable. He really was involved in producing the prayer text.

But apparently what Basil did was receive an inheritance and refine it.

Where did the inheritance come from?

The scholarly best guess is that it came from the Liturgy of St. James, the ancient Eucharistic prayer of Jerusalem, which tradition (and good circumstantial evidence) attributes to James the brother of the Lord, the first Bishop of Jerusalem.6 The Liturgy of St. James was the mother liturgy of all the West Syrian / Antiochene family of liturgies. Basil’s diocese in Cappadocia used a local form of this Antiochene tradition. Basil shortened and refined that local form. The result is what we now call the Liturgy of St. Basil.

There is also a fascinating historical wrinkle. The version of the Liturgy of St. Basil that the Coptic Orthodox Church uses today is older than the version the Greek Orthodox Church uses.7 Both go back to a common ancestor that predates Basil himself. Some scholars think Basil may have actually brought the original prayer-form with him from Egypt (Basil traveled extensively in his early career and spent time in Alexandria around 357 AD). Others think the prayer-form was already circulating in both Egypt and Cappadocia and Basil’s contribution was the Cappadocian recension.

Whichever theory is right, the point holds. Basil did real work. But the work he did was editorial. He received a prayer that was already being prayed by other Christians in other places, refined it according to his theological priorities, standardized the form for use in his own diocese, and handed it on. His name went on the card. The liturgy became known as Basil’s liturgy. But Basil did not invent it.

The John Chrysostom Question

If Basil’s case is “edited an existing liturgy,” John Chrysostom’s case is more complicated - and the way the Orthodox Church herself answers it is more important than any modern scholarly reconstruction.

Let me start with what the Church confesses, and then I will tell you what modern academic scholarship adds, complicates, or contests.

What the Church confesses. The Orthodox Church has, for at least fifteen hundred years, taught that the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is in fact the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. This is not a casual attribution. It is a confession the Church makes every time the priest opens the altar service book - which on the cover and in the title of the prayer-text says, in Greek, Ἡ Θεία Λειτουργία τοῦ ἐν Ἁγίοις Πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου, “The Divine Liturgy of our Father among the Saints, John Chrysostom.” The Church says this in the title. The Church says it in the dismissal of every Liturgy (”Through the prayers of our Father among the Saints, John Chrysostom...”). The Church has said it in every Liturgy book printed in every Orthodox jurisdiction in every century since the liturgy began to be celebrated.

The Church’s confession is grounded in what was received from those who knew Chrysostom personally - his disciples, the bishops who succeeded him in Constantinople, the priests who served at Hagia Sophia, the chain of liturgical practice that came down through the centuries of the Byzantine Church. The living memory of the Church remembered who taught the Constantinopolitan Church to worship this way, and the Church wrote his name on the liturgy.

This is a serious witness. It is the kind of witness this entire series has been arguing we should take seriously - because lex orandi, lex credendi, and because the Church’s living memory of her own liturgical practice is a primary source of theological truth, not merely a sentimental label that needs to be validated by external academic authority.

What modern academic scholarship adds. Beginning in the nineteenth century, with the development of comparative liturgical studies as an academic discipline, scholars began reconstructing the manuscript history of the prayer-text we now call the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom. The earliest surviving complete manuscript is the Barberini Codex, dated to the late eighth or early ninth century - roughly four centuries after Chrysostom’s death in 407. Working backwards from that manuscript, comparing it to other Eastern Christian liturgical texts, and tracing the development of various phrases and movements, modern scholars have argued that the prayer-text crystallized into its current form gradually over the centuries between Chrysostom’s death and the Barberini manuscript - and that the actual textual contribution of Chrysostom himself may be limited.

Some scholars go further. Encyclopædia Britannica states that “the evidence that he had anything to do with its composition is unconvincing.”8 The Wikipedia summary, citing a body of academic literature, describes Chrysostom’s connection as “a matter of debate among experts.” The standard scholarly reference, Father Robert Taft’s multi-volume A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, documents in painstaking detail the extent to which the prayer-form developed after Chrysostom rather than with him.9

I want to acknowledge this scholarly opinion honestly. It is doing legitimate work. It is reconstructing manuscript history, identifying textual layers, and dating crystallizations of the prayer-form. The work is technical, careful, and worth respecting.

But - and this is the important part - the modern scholarly consensus and the Church’s confession are answering different questions, and only one of those questions is finally decisive for the argument of this series.

The scholars are asking: can we, working with eighth-century manuscripts and comparative textual analysis, prove that the specific words in front of us were composed by Chrysostom personally? That is a narrow question, and the honest scholarly answer is “probably not all of them, and we cannot tell which ones.”

The Church is asking: who did the Holy Spirit work through to give us this prayer in the form in which we have received it? That is a wider question, and the Church’s answer, testified by an unbroken liturgical tradition that begins in the immediate aftermath of Chrysostom’s episcopate, is St. John Chrysostom. Not because Chrysostom personally wrote every word, but because Chrysostom is the bishop through whom the Antiochene liturgical tradition came to Constantinople, became the dominant prayer-form of the imperial capital, and was handed down to the rest of the Eastern Christian world. The Church remembers him as the one through whom this prayer comes to us. The Church has never had any reason to revise that memory.

Where the conflict actually sits. When the modern scholarly consensus and the Church’s tradition appear to conflict, my own experience as a former Latter-day Saint who has done a great deal of historical investigation is that the Church’s tradition has a remarkable habit of being vindicated over time. The scholarly consensus of 1850 is not the scholarly consensus of 1920, which is not the scholarly consensus of 1960, which is not the scholarly consensus of today. The Church’s tradition does not work that way. It accumulates and preserves rather than overturning and revising. When the Magdala synagogue was excavated in 2009, traditional readings of first-century synagogue practice that secular scholars had been dismissing for a century were suddenly vindicated by the stones in the ground. When the Sahidic Coptic Basil manuscript was discovered in 1960, the scholarly story about Basil’s liturgical work had to be substantially revised in ways the tradition had never needed to worry about.

The pattern is real. New manuscripts are still being discovered. New textual analyses are still being published. The “consensus” of any given decade is provisional. The Church’s confession of who taught her to pray is not provisional. It is grounded in her own continuous memory of her own liturgical life, handed down with the utmost fidelity.

So when Britannica tells me that the evidence for Chrysostom’s authorship is unconvincing, I take the point. The evidence visible to a nineteenth- or twentieth-century manuscript scholar is what it is. But when the Church tells me, in every Liturgy of every Orthodox parish for fifteen hundred years, that this is the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom - I trust the Church. The Church was there, these 20th century scholars were not. The Church received the prayer from Chrysostom’s own disciples. The Church has never lost the memory.

What scholars say Chrysostom actually did. Within the framework of the Church’s confession, the most likely historical picture is something like this. Chrysostom, having served as a deacon and priest in Antioch before becoming Archbishop of Constantinople in 398 AD, brought the Antiochene Eucharistic tradition with him to the imperial capital. He celebrated this prayer-form throughout his episcopate. He preached on its meaning in the homilies of his that have been preserved. He defended it against heretics. He taught his clergy and people to pray it. After his exile and death, his disciples and successors continued to celebrate this same prayer-form, eventually displacing the older Constantinopolitan use that had previously been dominant.

I want to suggest something to the reader at this point, because I think there is a way of reading the evidence that resolves the apparent tension between the Church’s confession and the scholarly investigation.

It is possible that both readings are true. It is possible that Chrysostom genuinely shaped, refined, and delivered this Liturgy to the Church at Constantinople, the seat of the Empire and the most prominent See in the Eastern Christian world, and that he stood on the shoulders of giants, building upon a tradition that was already ancient when he received it. It is possible that he was both a real contributor to the prayer’s final form and a faithful transmitter of an inheritance far older than himself. The Church’s confession that this is his Liturgy and the scholarly observation that the prayer descends from older sources need not be in conflict.

I am not asserting this resolution as historical fact. The scholarly debates are real and unsettled. But I am suggesting that parádosis - the act of receiving and handing on - is itself a contribution. To receive faithfully is itself a form of stewardship. To hand on faithfully is itself a form of creation. The prayer that comes down to us through Chrysostom can be both the apostolic prayer and Chrysostom’s prayer, in the same way that Grandma’s chicken soup can be both the inherited recipe and Grandma’s soup. There is no necessary contradiction. The Apostle Paul himself frames his own teaching about the Eucharist this way - “I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you” (1 Corinthians 11:23). Receiving and delivering. Both real activities. Both holy.

That is what parádosis looks like at its best. And it offers a way of reading the historical evidence on which the scholarly investigation and the Church’s confession both stand together, rather than in opposition. The reader is free to decide whether that reading is persuasive. I find it persuasive. But that is my personal opinion.

His name is on the card. The Church confesses that the card is correct. The prayer is older than he is, and the prayer may also, in a real sense, be his. The Church is not wrong to honor him as the saint through whom this prayer came down to us.

The Liturgy of St. James and the Prayer of Jerusalem

There is one more piece of this story that I have not yet placed on the table, and it is arguably the most important piece of all. Because everything I have told you so far about Basil and Chrysostom - their reception of the Antiochene tradition, their refinement of inherited prayer-forms, their delivery of those prayers to the Eastern Christian world - traces back through one prior link in the chain.

That link is the Liturgy of St. James. Sometimes called the prayer of Jerusalem. And it is the source from which the entire Antiochene family of liturgies - including Basil and Chrysostom - descend.

Let me tell you what the Church confesses about this Liturgy, what scholars have established about it, and why both together build a serious case for apostolic authenticity.

What the Church confesses. The Liturgy of St. James is attributed to James the brother of the Lord - the first Bishop of Jerusalem, the man who presided over the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, the author of the New Testament Epistle of James, and the man whose martyrdom around 62 AD is recorded by Josephus and Hegesippus. The Church holds that this is the original Eucharistic prayer of the Jerusalem Church - the prayer of the Mother Church of all Christianity, the prayer prayed at the holy places where the events of the Gospel actually happened, the prayer that bears the name of the brother of the Lord himself. The Quinisext Council of 692 AD (of the Roman Catholic church) in Canon 32, formally honored this attribution - placing the Liturgy of St. James alongside Basil and Chrysostom as one of the three great apostolic Eucharistic prayers preserved by the Church.10

The Liturgy of St. James is still being prayed today. It is the principal Eucharistic prayer of the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, the Maronite Church, and other West Syriac Christian communities. In the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is celebrated annually on the feast of St. James (October 23), and in some parishes in Jerusalem it is celebrated more regularly. If you ever get a chance to attend, do. You will be praying the prayer of the Mother Church.

What modern scholarship has established. The scholarly investigation has reached a position that, on the surface, looks like it complicates the Church’s confession. Most scholars date the received text of the Liturgy of St. James - the form preserved in our oldest manuscripts - to the late fourth or early fifth century. Some, following John Fenwick’s 1992 study, attribute its final compositional form to St. Cyril of Jerusalem around 370 AD.11 The earliest complete manuscript we possess, Vatican gr. 2282, dates to the late ninth or early tenth century - some 850 years after James the brother of the Lord was martyred.

So if you ask the narrow scholarly question - can we prove that James personally composed the prayer-text we now have? - the answer is no. The text we have shows fourth-century markers that postdates James himself by three centuries.

But here is where the conflict resolves. The same scholarly investigation that places the received text in the fourth century also places the underlying liturgical pattern in Jerusalem in apostolic or near-apostolic times. The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on the Liturgy of Jerusalem states the conclusion bluntly: “We have, then, certain evidence that our St. James’s Liturgy is the original local rite of Jerusalem.” The internal evidence in the prayer text itself - the constant references to the holy places of Palestine, the prayer for “holy and glorious Sion, mother of all Churches,” the way the intercessions are structured around the Jerusalem Church - all of this reveals a prayer that was developed in Jerusalem, for Jerusalem, by the Jerusalem Church.

And we have direct documentary evidence from the mid-fourth century that confirms this. St. Cyril of Jerusalem - who became Bishop of Jerusalem around 350 AD - delivered a series of catechetical lectures to newly baptized Christians in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre itself. The lectures are called the Mystagogical Catecheses (literally “the teaching of the mysteries”), and in them Cyril walks his catechumens through the Eucharistic liturgy they have begun celebrating. He describes the Sursum corda dialogue. He describes the triumphal hymn. He describes the Epiclesis. He describes, in detail, the prayer-form that we now know as the Liturgy of St. James.12

The Mystagogical Catecheses are dated to around 347-348 AD. They describe the Eucharistic worship being celebrated in Jerusalem at the very site of the Resurrection. And the prayer Cyril is teaching his catechumens is structurally identical to the Liturgy of St. James.

This means the Liturgy of St. James, in essentially the form we now have it, was being prayed in Jerusalem - at the Holy Sepulchre - in the mid-fourth century. That is two and a half centuries earlier than the oldest surviving manuscript would suggest, if we were working from manuscripts alone.

And the prayer Cyril describes is itself a refinement of an older prayer. The Apostolic Constitutions, a Syrian compilation from around 370-380 AD, preserves what most scholars consider an older stratum of the same liturgical-family - simpler, less developed, more obviously close to the apostolic root. The trail keeps going back. Behind the Liturgy of St. James in Cyril’s mid-fourth-century Jerusalem stands an older Syrian-Antiochene rite. Behind that stands the apostolic liturgy of the earliest Jerusalem Church, the liturgy of James the brother of the Lord, the liturgy that was being celebrated in homes and house-churches in Jerusalem within years of the Resurrection itself.

The both/and applies here too. We can, if we wish, read the evidence as the Church has always confessed it: this is the Liturgy of St. James, the brother of the Lord, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and the liturgical form he established for the Mother Church has been preserved and refined through the generations until it reaches us today. Or we can read the evidence the way some modern scholars do: this is a fourth-century Jerusalem composition that builds upon older apostolic patterns and bears James’s name as a matter of honoring the Jerusalem tradition he founded. Or we can suggest, again, that both readings are saying something true. The prayer is genuinely the prayer of Jerusalem. It does carry James’s apostolic signature in the sense that it is the prayer of his church. The fourth-century shaping is real. The apostolic root is also real. Both belong to the same liturgical inheritance.

Why this matters for the entire series. The Liturgy of St. James is the parent of the Liturgy of St. Basil. The Liturgy of St. Basil is the parent of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. These are not separate liturgies invented by different Fathers in different centuries. They are successive refinements of one continuous Jerusalem liturgical tradition, handed down from the Mother Church of Jerusalem and it’s first jewish Christians of “the way” to the great See of Antioch, from Antioch to the Cappadocian churches that Basil reformed, from Basil’s reformed liturgy to the Antiochene tradition Chrysostom brought to Constantinople, from Chrysostom’s Constantinople to the entire Eastern Christian world.

When you stand in an Orthodox parish on Sunday morning and the priest begins the Anaphora, you are not praying a fourth-century Cappadocian invention or a fifth-century Constantinopolitan composition. You are participating in a refinement of the liturgy that was being performed at the Holy Sepulchre in the mid-fourth century. Which was a refinement of the liturgy that was being performed in the Jerusalem house-churches a generation earlier. Which was a refinement of the liturgy that James the brother of the Lord taught the first Christian community in Jerusalem after the Resurrection.

The chain runs all the way back. The Church confesses it. The scholarly investigation, at minimum, supports the plausibility of it. And when both honest sources of evidence point in the same direction, that is what authenticity looks like.

Why This Strengthens the Argument

If you have been reading this series carefully, you may be wondering whether what I just told you is a problem for the case I have been making.

The series has been arguing, article by article, that the Orthodox Divine Liturgy is not a medieval invention but the preservation of an apostolic inheritance. I have spent five articles showing you the documentary evidence: Justin Martyr in 155 AD, the Didache in the late first century, the synagogue inheritance of the Liturgy of the Word, the Temple inheritance of the Liturgy of the Faithful, the Anaphora’s eleven movements that converge synagogue and Temple and Christ.

And now I have told you something that may seem at first to complicate the case: the Liturgies of Basil and Chrysostom are not the personal compositions of Basil and Chrysostom. They were liturgies far older than the men who refined them. And those older prayers themselves descend from the Liturgy of St. James and the apostolic worship of some of the first christian communities in Jerusalem.

Doesn’t that weaken the argument? Doesn’t that suggest the Orthodox liturgical tradition is more cobbled-together and less unified than I have been claiming?

No. It does the exact opposite and here’s why.

If Basil and Chrysostom had each invented their respective liturgies from scratch, the case for apostolic continuity would be weaker, not stronger. It would mean that two specific fourth-century bishops sat down with blank scrolls and composed brand-new Eucharistic prayers, and the Orthodox Church has been using their personal compositions for the last 1,600 years. That would be an argument for Orthodoxy as the work of two creative theologians, not as the preservation of apostolic inheritance.

But what actually happened - what the Church confesses and what honest historical investigation supports - is something far more powerful. Two of the greatest theologians and bishops of the fourth century - Basil and Chrysostom, men who could have written anything they wanted, men who were brilliant enough and authoritative enough to compose new liturgies if they chose to - received the apostolic Eucharistic tradition that came down to them, shaped and refined it where refinement was needed, gave it their theological voice, taught it to their flocks, defended it against heresy at personal cost, and handed it on to the next generation of bishops who handed it on to the next, and so on, until it reaches us this Sunday morning.

The Church gave the liturgies their names because Chrysostom and Basil were the bishops through whom the apostolic liturgy came down to us in the form we now have it. They are not the liturgies inventors. But neither are they merely passive conduits. They are the liturgies guardians in the active, contributing, theologically formative sense - the named saints whose stewardship gave the apostolic liturgy the shape in which we now receive it. What they handed on was older than they were. And what they handed on was, in a real sense, theirs - because faithful reception and faithful delivery are themselves a contribution. They took an inheritance and made it the inheritance of generations to come. That is the work the Church honors when she names the liturgies after them.

This is why their names are on the liturgies. Not because they invented anything. Because they were the faithful curators through whom an apostolic inheritance was preserved.

The Eastern Christian instinct for naming liturgies is the opposite of the modern Western instinct for naming books. When we name a modern book, we name the author - the originator, the creator, the source. The name belongs to the person who made the thing. When the East named the liturgies, it named the guardian - the bishop who received the liturgy faithfully, preserved it, and handed it on to the next generation. The name belongs to the person who protected the inheritance.

This is the same instinct that produced the patristic principle: “We have received and we hand on.” The Apostle Paul names this explicitly in 1 Corinthians 11:23: “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” Paul did not invent the Eucharist. He received it from the Lord and handed it on to the Corinthians. The Greek verb here is paralambánō - to receive what is handed down. The corresponding verb for handing it on is paradídōmi - to deliver, to transmit. From these two verbs comes the Greek noun parádosis - often translated as “Tradition.”

Tradition, in the Eastern Christian sense, is not something old that is preserved out of antiquarian sentiment. Tradition is the act of receiving and handing on the apostolic deposit. It is a verb before it is a noun. The whole Christian life, in the Orthodox understanding, is participation in this parádosis - this receiving and handing on of what was given by Christ to the Apostles, by the Apostles to their disciples, by their disciples to the next generation, and so on, in an unbroken chain.

Basil and Chrysostom are exemplars of this. Their names are on the liturgies because they show what faithful tradition looks like. Each of them received an inheritance, prayed it faithfully, refined it where it needed refinement, and handed it on. Each of them did the same thing the Apostles had done before them. Each of them did the same thing the bishops who came after them would do.

Their names are not signatures of authorship. They are signatures of fidelity.

The Pattern of the Series

I want to step back now and name what we have actually seen across this series, because Article 6 is the article where the pattern becomes visible as a whole.

In Article 1, I showed you Justin Martyr describing the Divine Liturgy in 155 AD - fifty-five years after the death of the last Apostle. He describes a service that already has all the structural elements of the modern Orthodox Liturgy. Justin did not invent that service. He was describing what was already being done in Rome and across the Empire. He received and reported.

In Article 2, I showed you that the architecture of every Orthodox church is a deliberate continuation of the Tabernacle and Temple blueprints God gave to Moses. The bishops and Christians of the second, third, and fourth centuries did not invent sacred Christian architecture. They received the Old Testament pattern and built it into their churches. They received and built.

In Article 3, I showed you that the first half of the Divine Liturgy is structurally the synagogue service that Jesus attended every Sabbath of His life, and the second half is the fulfillment of Temple sacrificial worship. The Apostles did not invent Christian worship, they received the Jewish liturgical inheritance, allowed Christ to fulfill it, and prayed it for the rest of their lives. They received and fulfilled.

In Article 4, I showed you that the Didache - possibly first-century, almost certainly within living memory of the Apostles - already contains Eucharistic prayers, Sunday gathering, the Eucharist as sacrifice, the explicit citation of Malachi 1:11, and the closed-communion discipline. The Didache’s author did not invent any of this. He was writing down what his community was already practicing. He received and recorded.

In Article 5, I showed you the Anaphora itself - the Great Eucharistic Prayer with its eleven movements - and demonstrated that its essential shape is older than every Christian tradition that uses it. Eastern, Western, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Syriac - they all have an Anaphora with the same basic structure. None of these traditions invented it. They all received it from a common apostolic source in the holy land.

And now in Article 6, I have shown you that the two greatest Anaphoras in the Orthodox tradition bear the names of two of the greatest bishops of the fourth century - and that the Church confesses these as their liturgies because they are the bishops through whom the apostolic prayer came down to the Eastern Christian world. I have also shown you that behind both Basil and Chrysostom stands the Liturgy of St. James - the prayer of Jerusalem itself, attributed by the Church to the brother of the Lord, and confirmed by the Mystagogical Catecheses of St. Cyril of Jerusalem to have been celebrated in essentially its received form at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by the mid-fourth century. The Antiochene liturgical inheritance that Basil and Chrysostom received and handed on traces back, through every honest investigation we can do, to apostolic Jerusalem.

Do you see the pattern?

Nobody in this story is inventing anything.

Not Justin. Not the architects of the early churches. Not the Apostles. Not the author of the Didache. Not the bishops who shaped the Anaphora. Not Basil. Not Chrysostom. Not the editors of the Barberini manuscript in the eighth century. Not the Byzantine liturgists who standardized the liturgical texts we use today. Not the modern Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America that publishes the English translation we have been quoting throughout this series.

At every link in the chain, what is happening is reception and transmission. What is not happening is invention.

This is the deepest claim of the entire series. The Orthodox Divine Liturgy is not the product of any individual mind. It is not the achievement of any single century. It is not the doctrine of any single Church Father. It is the cumulative, continuous, faithful preservation of what Christ gave the Apostles and what the Apostles handed to their disciples, what their disciples handed to the next generation, and what every generation since has handed forward.

When you stand in an Orthodox parish on Sunday morning and the choir begins the Anaphora, you are not participating in a service that anyone composed. You are participating in a service that has been handed down. And when the priest says the words of Christ - “Take, eat, this is My Body, which is broken for you for the remission of sins” - he is saying what every Orthodox priest has said, in every Liturgy, in every parish, on every continent, for nearly two thousand years.

The chain has not been broken.

A Word to My LDS Readers

You have heard the argument throughout this series that the Orthodox Church preserves an unbroken apostolic tradition. Article 6 puts a specific historical case on the table: the two greatest Eucharistic prayers in Orthodox use bear the names of fourth-century bishops, and the Church has confessed for fifteen hundred years that these are their prayers - that the prayer-form came down to us through them. The Church remembers her own liturgical history. She remembers who taught Constantinople to pray.

This is significant for the LDS account of Christian history because the LDS framework requires a break somewhere - a Great Apostasy in which the apostolic priesthood, authority, and ordinances/ (sacraments & holy services) were lost, eventually requiring restoration in 1830.

The Orthodox liturgical evidence does not show a break. It shows continuous transmission. Every Father from the second century to the eighth, every bishop who ever celebrated the Liturgy, every Eastern Christian community that ever came under the Byzantine sphere - they all received and handed on the same essential prayer. There is no point in the documentary record at which someone says, “The apostolic prayer has been lost, and I am introducing a new one to replace it.” There is no moment at which the Eucharistic offering stops being practiced. There is no break.

I am not arguing this to wound you. I am arguing it because I made the same investigation you may now be making, and the documentary evidence had to be looked at honestly. If there had been a Great and total Apostasy, it would have been a major event, and it should be visible in the historical record - someone, somewhere, would have noticed that the Eucharist had stopped being celebrated, or that the apostolic prayer had been corrupted beyond recognition, or that a new prayer-form had to be introduced to replace what had been lost. We do not see any of this. We see continuity. And this is the challenge with a Great Apostasy narrative: when you ask details about it, when, where, who, how, and why, there are no specific answers that can be pointed to in any historical record. Most times, there are no answers to the above questions. Why? because, in my opinion, it’s not history, it’s mythology.

The question this puts to LDS readers is not whether the apostolic tradition was preserved, but where it was preserved. The Orthodox Church claims that it was preserved in her, in the unbroken chain of bishops, in the unchanging Liturgy, in the prayer that has not stopped being prayed. The historical evidence at minimum supports the plausibility of this claim. Whether the claim is true, ultimately, is a question for prayer and discernment. But the claim is at least on the table, supported by exactly the kind of documentary evidence that any serious historical inquiry requires.

Sit with that. Read the sources I have cited. Ask whether the documentary picture matches the apostasy narrative you have been told. Decide for yourself.

A Word to My Protestant Readers

You have inherited a very complicated relationship with the early Church Fathers. The Reformers—Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli cherry-picked ruthlessly, subordinated the Fathers to their own limited and private interpretation of Scripture, openly mocked or dismissed them when the patristic consensus didn’t line up with sola fide (Luther), rejection of free will (Calvin), or their new sacramental minimalism (Zwingli). This wasn’t a humble submission to an apostolic inheritance. It was the same ego-driven impulse I unpacked in “Going Beyond the Mark”: peel away anything that smells to you like “corruption” until you’re left with whatever fits your own personal ideas and theologies.

I do believe, however, that they had a noble goal: they sought to prune away what they considered, from their renaissance perspectives13, medieval additions/corruptions to recover what they assumed was a "simpler, purer" Christianity of the apostolic age (even while discarding the views and writings of church leaders in that earlier age when they didn’t align with their own ideas.) Publicly, they stated a desire to bring the faithful back to the heart of the Gospel by removing what they saw as the "clutter" of history.

However, as we look closer at the historical record, we encounter a challenging question: Did the Reformers and the Apostles define "simpler" and "purer" in the same way? Was the assumption that there was a simpler, purer Christianity of the apostolic age (that fit their definitions) a correct assumption? Or was it erroneous?

We often equate "simplicity" with informality, more a reflection, perhaps, of our modern American/Western preferences. But the Patristic age tells a different story.

The historical record suggests that early Christian worship was deeply sacramental, liturgical, and priestly. This wasn't a lack of sophistication; it was a reflection of a Near Eastern inheritance that saw worship as a participation in the heavenly court.

Similarly, the Reformers sought purity through subtraction—by stripping away things that they themselves, 1500 years after the fact, felt were "man-made" (I think they either didn’t understand them or didn’t understand where they had come from. Anything that felt foreign to their European pre-enlightenment humanist culture was jettisoned.)

But for the Church Fathers, "purity" wasn't found in having less; it was found in the exactness of the Sacrifice. To them, the "purest" form of the faith was the faithful preservation of the Eucharist as the literal Body and Blood of Christ.

Consider the Anaphora (the Eucharistic prayer) we examined in Article 5. This wasn't a later invention or a "corruption"; it was the language of Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, passed down through them from the liturgy of Saint James, the brother of our Lord. It is sacramental, sacrificial, and priestly. If this was how the Apostles and their immediate successors prayed, it suggests a difficult irony: In their zeal to recover a "purer" Church by stripping away the Liturgy, sacraments, and other things they didn’t like, the Reformers may have inadvertently discarded the very "apostolic inheritance" that the early martyrs fought and died to protect.

I don't share this to make you defensive. I say it because the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is a living document sitting in front of all of us. We can examine its history and its theology. When we do, the answer provided by historical investigation strongly suggests that the Orthodox liturgical tradition is genuinely apostolic in both shape and content. (In a way that no other tradition can.)

This leaves us needing to ask and answer some vital questions.

• If our goal is to follow the Apostles, where does the evidence lead?

  • Does it lead to Joseph Smith? Sidney Rigdon? John Wesley? Martin Luther? John Calvin? Ulrich Zwingli? John Nelson Darby? Alexander Campbell? Emmanuel Swedenborg? Ellen White? Johnathan Edwards? George Whitefield?

• Is it possible that the Reformers did not restore the Church to its original "simple/pure" state, but rather shaped new religious movements to fit their own cultural milieu and personal beliefs? That is a hard thing to consider, and I know that it takes immense courage to even ask the question.

If you are looking for a deeper relationship with the Lord, if you are a seeker after truth, know that I have walked a path similar to what you may now be considering. The path leads to the Apostles. The Apostles lead directly to Christ. The Liturgy they prayed is not lost to time; it is still being prayed today. Truth is what it is, but that does not mean it is easy to accept. There is no shame in admitting that accepting the truth, particularly when it contradicts your own tradition, will require great sacrifice. 14

Find a parish. Visit. Listen.

What Article Seven Will Cover

We have come to the end of the historical and structural arguments of this series.

In Article 1, you saw what Christian worship looked like in 155 AD. In Article 2, you saw the Temple in your parish. In Article 3, you saw the synagogue that became a church. In Article 4, you saw the book that shouldn’t exist. In Article 5, you walked through the eleven movements of the Anaphora. In Article 6, you saw that even the named bishops on the great liturgies were guardians of an apostolic inheritance, that the chain runs back through the Liturgy of St. James to the apostolic liturgy of Jerusalem itself, and that the Church remembers all of this rightly when she names the liturgies in their honor.

In Article 7, the final article of this series, we are going to put it all together. We will walk into an Orthodox parish on a Sunday morning, and I will try to guide you through the structure of the Divine Liturgy, naming the pedigree of every single movement.

This part is from the synagogue. This part is from the Temple. This part is from the Apostles. This part is from the Didache. This part is from Basil. This part is from Chrysostom. This part is from the Apostolic Constitutions. This part is from St. Cyril of Jerusalem. This part is from Isaiah. This part is from Christ Himself.

By the end of Article 7, I do not think you will ever look at Christian worship the same way again. And I do not think you will ever sit in a service - any service, anywhere - without instinctively asking, where did this come from?

The Apostles were there first.

It is time we caught up.

Primary Sources

The historical claims in this article can be verified against the following sources. As always, do not take my word for any of it.

• Encyclopædia Britannica, “Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom” - The most accessible single statement of the scholarly consensus on Chrysostom’s actual relationship to the liturgy that bears his name. Read it here.

• Catholic Encyclopedia, “Liturgy of Saint Basil” - The Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on the Basilian liturgy, with extensive discussion of authorship, dating, and the relationship to other ancient liturgies. Read it here.

• St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Funeral Oration on St. Basil the Great (Oration 43, 379 AD) - The earliest direct testimony to Basil’s liturgical work, by his closest friend and theological collaborator. Read it here.

• The Quinisext / Trullan Council (692 AD), Canon 32 - The seventh-century ecumenical recognition of the Liturgy of St. Basil as authentic patristic inheritance.

• St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit - The theological treatise whose Trinitarian language and sensibility is unmistakably present in the Anaphora that bears Basil’s name. Reading the treatise alongside the liturgy is the strongest internal evidence for Basil’s involvement in the Anaphora’s composition. Read it at New Advent here.

• St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 82, and Homilies on 1 Corinthians - Chrysostom’s own preached theology of the Eucharist, which provides the theological context for understanding what kind of liturgical tradition he represented and why his name became attached to the Antiochene anaphoral tradition. Read it at New Advent here.

• The Anaphora of St. James - The ancient Jerusalem liturgy traditionally attributed to James the brother of the Lord, which most scholars identify as the parent of the Antiochene / West Syrian liturgical family that includes both Basil’s and Chrysostom’s anaphoras. English text available here.

• St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Mystagogical Catecheses (c. 347-348 AD) - The five lectures delivered to newly baptized Christians at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, walking them through the meaning of the Mysteries they had just begun to celebrate. The fifth lecture describes the Eucharistic liturgy in detail and provides the earliest direct documentary evidence of the structure of the Liturgy of St. James being celebrated in Jerusalem in the mid-fourth century. Read it at New Advent here.

• The Quinisext Council, Canon 32 (692 AD) - The seventh-century ecumenical council canon that names the Liturgies of St. James, St. Basil, and St. John Chrysostom together as authoritative apostolic witnesses to the Eucharistic tradition. Read the canons at New Advent here.

For readers who want to go deeper: The standard scholarly reference on the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is Robert F. Taft15, A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Pontifical Oriental Institute, multiple volumes from 1975 onward). Taft is a Catholic Jesuit and a member of the Society of Jesus, which means his scholarship is sober, rigorous, and not motivated by Orthodox apologetic concerns. His conclusions about the development of the prayer-text are accepted by Orthodox liturgical scholars as well. For Basil specifically, the best scholarly treatment in English is John Fenwick, The Anaphoras of St Basil and St James: An Investigation into Their Common Origin (Pontifical Oriental Institute, 1992). For a more accessible introduction to the entire field, see Hugh Wybrew, The Orthodox Liturgy: The Development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite (SPCK, 1989).

Please note, this is article 5 in a 6 part series. It is somewhat important that you read them in sequence.

• Part1, Part2, Part3, Part4

I want to start with a confession. This is the article I have been most afraid to write. Not because the argument is hard - by this point in the series, four articles in, the argument is mostly built. Article 1 showed you that the early Church was already doing the Divine Liturgy by 155 AD. Article 2 showed you that the architecture of every Orthodox parish is the Jerusalem Temple fulfilled in Christ. Article 3 showed you that the first half of the Liturgy is the synagogue service Jesus attended every Sabbath of His life, and that the second half - the part we are about to walk into - is the fulfillment of Temple sacrificial worship. Article 4 showed you that all of this is documented in the Didache - a manual older than parts of the New Testament, including the explicit reading of Malachi 1:11 as the prophecy of the Eucharistic sacrifice.

So the argument is laid. The framework is built. What is left is to walk you into the room itself. And that is what scares me, because the room I am about to walk you into is the most sacred space in Christian worship, and I am not an ordained priest, I’m not even a seminarian, so I’m trying to tread extremely carefully, because I don’t fully feel qualified to write this, despite copious amounts of checking materials, conferring with AI assistants, etc.

This is the prayer the priest prays at the altar. The prayer the Seraphim sing. The prayer the Apostles handed down. The prayer that calls bread and wine and turns them, by the descent of the Holy Spirit, into the Body and Blood of the Risen Christ.

It is called the Anaphora.

And to write about the Anaphora is to attempt to describe, in human words, the prayer that joins heaven to earth.

I am going to do my best. I am going to try to be precise. I am going to be very careful. I am going to keep my hands open and my voice quiet, the way you should when you walk into a holy place. And I am going to ask, before we begin, that you read this article slowly. Not because the argument is complicated - though it is - but because what we are walking into deserves slow reading.1

Any errors in this document are mine and due to my own human limitations.

Let’s -a- go. (like from mario kart)

What the Word Means

The Greek word anaphora (ἀναφορά) comes from the verb anapherō, which means “to carry up” or “to offer up” or “to bring up.” It is the same root from which we get the English word “metaphor” (literally “carrying across”). Ana means “up.” Pherō means “to bear” or “to carry.”

The Anaphora, then, is the carrying up.

It is the offering. The prayer that lifts the bread and wine, and with them, the whole Church, and with the Church, the whole world, up to God the Father, through God the Son, in God the Holy Spirit.

Every ancient Christian liturgy on earth has an Anaphora. The Roman Mass has one (called the Eucharistic Prayer in modern English). The Coptic Liturgy has one. The Armenian Liturgy has one. The Ethiopian Liturgy has one. The Syriac Liturgy has one. The Maronite Liturgy has one. The various Byzantine Liturgies have several (we will examine the major two in Article 6). Every single one of these traditions, now separated from each other by centuries and continents and the theological controversies that shattered communion between them, all retain an Anaphora at the center of their Eucharistic worship.2

And every one of these Anaphoras has the same essential shape.

This is not a coincidence. It is evidence. The shape of the Anaphora goes back to the apostolic period, before any of these traditions had separated from each other. They all preserved the same prayer because they all received the same prayer. From the same Apostles. Who received it from the same Christ.

I want you to sit with that for a second. There is no other prayer in the world that has this property. The Anaphora is, structurally, theologically, liturgically, the most cross-traditional prayer in Christian history. Eastern and Western, Greek and Latin and Syriac and Ge’ez (Ethiopian) and Coptic and Armenian. All of them, doing the same thing, in the same order, with the same essential words.

That is what the apostolic deposit looks like when it is preserved across two thousand years.

The Eleven Movements

The Byzantine Anaphora - the one prayed in every Greek, Russian, Romanian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Antiochian, and other Orthodox parish on earth - has eleven distinct movements.3 I am going to name all eleven now, briefly, so you have a map of where we are going. Then we will walk through each one. I have included the Greek terms where possible.

1. The Opening Dialogue/The Eisodos - sometimes referred to as the Prooímion (Προοίμιον.) “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ...”

2. The Próphasis/Preface - “It is meet and right...”

3. The Pre-Sanctus/Eulogētikḗ - The transition into the angelic hymn, the prayer leading to the triumphal hymn

4. The Epinikios - The triumphal hymn. “Holy, Holy, Holy...”

5. The Post-Sanctus/Prayer of Thanksgiving - The remembrance of God’s saving acts

6. The Institution Narrative (Words of Institution) or Sýstasis - “Take, eat... Drink ye all of it...”

7. The Anamnesis - “Remembering, therefore...”

8. The Epiclesis/Epíklēsis- The calling down of the Holy Spirit

9. The Intercessions/Diptycha - “Remember, O Lord...”

10. The Doxology/Doxología - “And grant us with one mouth and one heart to glorify...”

11. The Great Amen - The congregation’s response sealing the prayer

Eleven movements. Each one doing specific theological work. Each one inheriting specific elements from synagogue, Temple, Apostles, or all three. Each one preserved across two thousand years and across every ancient Christian tradition.

Let’s walk through them.

Movement One: The Opening Dialogue / The Eisodos

The Anaphora begins with a dialogue between the priest and the people.

Priest: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

People: And with your spirit.

Priest: Let us lift up our hearts.

People: We lift them up unto the Lord.

Priest: Let us give thanks unto the Lord.

People: It is meet and right. (my parish uses a slightly different translation that says it is proper and right.)

You have already heard part of this. The opening blessing is taken almost word-for-word from 2 Corinthians 13:14 - the apostolic benediction Paul wrote to the Corinthian church around 56 AD. The Christian liturgy did not invent this opening. It received it from Paul.

But the rest of the dialogue is even older than Paul.

“Lift up your hearts.” In Latin: Sursum corda. This is the most ancient surviving liturgical formula in Christian history. It is attested in Hippolytus of Rome’s Apostolic Tradition (around 215 AD), which is the earliest detailed description of a Christian liturgical service we have. It is identical in every Christian tradition - Eastern, Western, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Syriac, Maronite. Every. Single. One.

Which means Sursum corda must be older than any of these traditions had separated from each other. It must be apostolic.4

And what is it doing?

It is calling the congregation out of this world.

Lift up your hearts. Not your eyes. Not your hands. Your hearts. The center of your being. The seat of your will. The place where you actually live. Lift them up. Lift them out of the city outside. Lift them out of your job, your worries, your relationships, your phone, your bank account, your children, your marriage, your fears about the future and your regrets about the past. Lift them up unto the Lord.

Because what is about to happen cannot happen at the level of your everyday consciousness. What is about to happen is that the priest is going to step into the place of the High Priest, the bread and wine on the altar are going to become the Body and Blood of Christ, and the entire assembly is going to be carried up - anaphora, carried up - into the heavenly throne room where the Seraphim are singing. You cannot do that with your heart still doom scrolling on your phone. Lift up your hearts.

The people respond: We lift them up unto the Lord. This is not a formality. It is a vow. The congregation is committing actively and verbally to be present for what is about to happen.

And then: Let us give thanks unto the Lord. Eucharistesomen. Let us eucharist. The verb form of the noun. The prayer is named for what it is doing.

It is meet [proper] and right. The people agree. The thanksgiving begins.

Movement Two: The Preface / Próphasis

The priest now begins the great prayer of thanksgiving.

It is proper and right to hymn You, to bless You, to praise You, to give thanks to You, and to worship You in every place of Your dominion. For You, O God, are ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, existing forever, forever the same, You and Your only-begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You brought us out of nothing into being, and when we had fallen away, You raised us up again. You left nothing undone until you had led us up to heaven and granted us Your Kingdom, which is to come.

Quoted From the the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom on the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America’s website, you can read it yourself here:

Stop and listen to what just happened.

This is thanksgiving on the cosmic scale. The priest is not thanking God for nice weather. The priest is thanking God for creation (you brought us out of nonexistence into being), for salvation (when we had fallen, you raised us up again), and for eschatology (you brought us up to heaven and granted us your Kingdom which is to come).

The whole of salvation history, compressed into three clauses. Past, present, future. Created, fallen, redeemed, glorified.

This is the architecture of all Eucharistic prayer. The Eucharist is not just a meal of remembrance. It is a recapitulation a calling-back of the entire arc of God’s saving action so that the offering about to be made participates in all of it. The bread and wine on the altar are not isolated objects. They are about to become the focal point of the entire cosmic drama.

You can hear, in this Preface, the structure of the Jewish berakhah - the blessing-prayer that names God as Creator, as Redeemer, as the Holy One of Israel. Article 4 showed you the birkat ha-mazon, the Jewish grace after meals, with its three-part structure of blessing for creation, blessing for the land, and prayer for restoration. The Anaphora’s Preface is the Christian fulfillment of that pattern. Same structure. Same theological architecture. Filled with Christ.

Movement Three: The Eulogētikḗ or Pre-Sanctus

The Preface flows directly into the Pre-Sanctus, which is the transition into the angelic hymn:

We thank You also for this Liturgy, which You have deigned to receive from our hands, even though thousands of archangels and tens of thousands of angels stand around You, the Cherubim and Seraphim, six-winged, many-eyed, soaring aloft upon their wings,

singing the triumphal hymn, exclaiming, proclaiming, and saying: Singing the triumphal hymn, exclaiming, proclaiming, and saying…

The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom

The priest is now naming what is happening in the heavenly places at this exact moment.

The earthly assembly is not alone. The earthly assembly is being joined - is already joined, is in fact already singing with - the angelic hosts who stand around the throne of God. The Liturgy on earth is not a separate event from the Liturgy in heaven. They are the same Liturgy, one performed in time and the other in eternity, and at this moment in the prayer they converge.

Soaring with their wings. That is a direct allusion to Isaiah 6:2 - the Seraphim Isaiah saw, who “each had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly.”

Many-eyed. That is an allusion to Ezekiel 1:18 - the four living creatures Ezekiel saw, whose rings were “full of eyes round about.” And to Revelation 4:8 - the four living creatures John saw around the throne, who were “full of eyes within.”

The Anaphora is now doing something extraordinary. It is naming, by their biblical descriptions, the angelic beings who are present in the room. Not metaphorically present. Liturgically present. The Pre-Sanctus is the priest saying, in effect: we are about to sing with them. They are here. They are singing. We are joining their song.

And what is the song?

Movement Four: The Epinikios (Ἐπινίκιος’) - the triumphal hymn, aka the Sanctus

The congregation now sings the most ancient and universal hymn in the entire Christian liturgical tradition.

Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth (Lord of the Angelic Hosts)!

Heaven and earth are filled with Your glory!

Hosanna in the highest!

Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!

Hosanna in the highest!

This is the Epinikios. And I want to take my time with this one, because it is the moment in the Liturgy where every thread of this entire series ties together.

The first half of the Sanctus - Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth! Heaven and earth are full of Your glory! - is taken directly from Isaiah 6:3. It is the song the prophet Isaiah heard the seraphim singing in the Temple in the year that King Uzziah died. ⁵

The second half - Hosanna in the highest! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord! - is from Psalm 118:26 and from the crowds’ acclamation as Christ entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday in Matthew 21:9.

And here is what I want you to see.

The Epinikios is not a Christian invention. It is an inheritance.

The Jewish synagogue prayer called the Kedushah (Hebrew for “holiness” or “sanctification”) combines exactly the same Isaiah 6:3 hymn with a verse from Ezekiel 3:12 - “Blessed be the glory of the LORD from his place.” The Kedushah is the moment in synagogue worship when the congregation joins the angelic praise of God. The community stands. They sing the seraphic hymn. They join the worship of heaven.

The Christian Epinikios is doing the same thing. With one critical change. The second half of the Epinikios is no longer Ezekiel’s “Blessed be the glory of the LORD from his place.” It is the crowd’s “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” The blessing is no longer of an abstract glory. It is of a Person. The One who comes.

And the One who comes - the One whose coming the crowd was acclaiming when they sang this in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday - is Christ.

The Christian Epinikios has taken the Jewish Kedushah and Christified it. The angelic hymn of Isaiah 6 still calls the congregation into the worship of heaven. But the second half of the hymn now identifies, by name, the One whose coming makes that worship possible. The He who comes in the name of the Lord is the One whose Body and Blood are about to be made present on the altar. The Epinikios is announcing His arrival.

In Article 3, I told you that the Liturgy of the Word inherits the synagogue service, and the Liturgy of the Faithful fulfills the Temple. The Epinikios is both at once. It is the synagogue’s Kedushah, drawn from the prophet’s Temple vision in Isaiah 6, sung by the congregation joining the angels’ eternal song around the throne of God, identifying by name the Christ whose body is about to be offered as the pure offering Malachi prophesied. Synagogue, Temple, Christ. All three. Converging in one hymn.

The hymn that is now being sung this very Sunday morning, in every Orthodox parish on earth, by congregations who may not even realize what they are doing.

They are joining the seraphim. They are praying the Kedushah of their elder brothers in the synagogue. They are standing in the Temple where Isaiah stood. And they are welcoming Christ, the One who comes in the name of the Lord, into the bread and wine on the altar in front of them.

Lex orandi, lex credendi. The law of prayer is the law of belief.

The Christian Epinikios has been sung continuously, by every ancient Christian tradition on earth, for at least 1,800 years - and probably longer. It is referenced in Clement of Rome’s letter to the Corinthians (around 95 AD), in Ignatius of Antioch’s letter to the Ephesians (around 107 AD), in Tertullian (early 200s), and is a fixed element of every surviving fourth-century liturgical text. The Epinikios did not develop late. The Epinikios is the prayer of the apostolic Church.

Which means that when you stand in an Orthodox parish on Sunday morning and hear the choir begin “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord of Sabaoth!” - you are hearing the song the Apostles sang. You are hearing the song their Jewish ancestors sang in the synagogues of Galilee and Judea. You are hearing the song Isaiah heard the seraphim sing in the Temple in the year that King Uzziah died.5 And you are hearing the song that has not stopped being sung, in some place on earth, every Sunday for two thousand years.

The hymn does not break. The hymn cannot break. The hymn is the song of the angelic worship of God in heaven, and that worship has been continuous from before time and will be continuous beyond time.

The Liturgy is letting you join it.

Movement Five: The Post-Epinikios / Post-Sanctus

After the Epinikios, the Anaphora continues with what is called the Post-Epinikios - the priest’s prayer that picks up the thanksgiving and carries it into the remembrance of Christ’s saving work.

Together with these blessed powers, Master, Who loves mankind, we also exclaim and say: Holy are You and most holy, You and Your only-begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. Holy are You and most holy, and sublime is Your glory. You so loved Your world that You gave Your only-begotten Son so that everyone who believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. When He had come and fulfilled for our sake the entire plan of salvation, on the night in which He was delivered up, or rather when He delivered Himself up for the life of the world, He took bread in His holy, pure, and blameless hands, and, giving thanks and blessing, He hallowed and broke it, and gave it to His holy disciples and apostles, saying:

Let’s take notice of what just happened.

The priest moved from the general praise of God to the specific moment of the Last Supper. The Anaphora is now doing what every ancient Eucharistic prayer does at this point: it is narrating the institution of the Eucharist itself.

You can hear the verbatim quotation of John 3:16 - “You so loved Your world that You gave Your only-begotten Son...” The prayer is weaving Scripture into itself. Not as proof-texts. As prayer. The Word of God is being prayed back to God in the Liturgy.

And then the prayer arrives at the moment of the Last Supper itself.

Movement Six: The Sýstasis or Words of Institution

The priest now speaks the words of Christ Himself.

Take, eat. This is my Body which is broken for you for the remission of sins.

Likewise, after partaking of the supper, He took the cup, saying,

Amen.

Drink of this, all of you; this is My Blood of the new covenant, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.

Amen.

This is what is called the Words of Institution or the Institution Narrative. It is the priest, speaking in the person of Christ, repeating the words Christ Himself spoke at the Last Supper.

The four Gospel and Pauline accounts of these words (Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, and 1 Corinthians 11:23-25) are conflated into the liturgical form. The Anaphora is not quoting one Gospel. It is praying what Christ said. The narrative is being re-presented not as historical reportage but as living liturgical action.

A small word about Eastern and Western theology here, because it matters.6

In Western Roman Catholic theology, particularly after the medieval period, the Institution Narrative came to be understood as the moment of consecration - the precise instant at which the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. The priest speaks the words of Christ, and at that moment the change happens.

Eastern Orthodox theology has historically located the moment of consecration later in the prayer - at the Epíklēsis, when the Holy Spirit is called down upon the gifts. The Institution Narrative establishes what is about to happen and by whose authority, but the change itself happens by the Spirit, in response to the Church’s prayer.

Both traditions agree that the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Christ. They differ on the precise when and how of the change. The Eastern emphasis on the Epíklēsis preserves something the Didache already showed us in Article 4: that the Eucharistic prayer is fundamentally an act of the whole Church, not a magical formula spoken by an individual priest. The change happens because the Holy Spirit responds to the Church’s offering.

For now, what matters is that the priest has just spoken the words of Christ. The bread and wine on the altar are no longer being merely held. They are being identified. The priest has just announced what they are about to become.

Movement Seven: The Anámnēsis

After the Institution Narrative comes one of the most theologically dense moments in all of Christian liturgy.

Remembering, therefore, this saving commandment and all that has been done for us: the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection on the third day, the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the right hand, and the second and glorious Coming again - Yours of Your own we offer to You, on behalf of all and for all.

The Greek word for “remembering” here is Anámnēsis - the same word Christ used at the Last Supper when He said “Do this in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:19). And anámnēsis in this context does not mean what English speakers usually mean by “remembrance.” (suck it Ulrich Zwingli!) It does not mean thinking about something that happened in the past.

It means making something present.

In Hebrew thought, when a community remembers a saving event - the Passover, the Exodus, the giving of the Law - it does not merely recall it intellectually. The community enters the event. It becomes present to it. The past saving act becomes liturgically present in the now.

That is what is happening here. The priest is naming, in sequence, every saving event of Christ - the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the Sitting, and the second Coming - and re-presenting them, all of them, as present realities in this Liturgy at this moment.

Notice the verb tense on the second Coming. “Remembering... the second and glorious Coming again.” You can only “remember” something that has happened. But the Anaphora remembers Christ’s future coming. Because in the Liturgy, time is folded. The Coming has happened, is happening, will happen, and we are present to all of it at once.

And then, having made all of this present, the priest offers it. “Yours of Your own we offer to You, on behalf of all and for all.”

This is the line that breaks the question of who is offering and who is receiving.

The bread and wine on the altar - the prosphora the people brought, the wine pressed from grapes God grew in soil God created, watered by rain God sent - all of it is Yours of Your own. The Church is not bringing God anything that did not first come from Him. We offer back to God what He first gave us. On behalf of all and for all.

This is why the Eucharist is a sacrifice and not a payment. It is not us giving God something to pacify Him. It is us returning to God His own gifts, transformed by His own action, on behalf of His own world. The whole movement is grace.

The congregation responds with one of the most ancient hymns in the liturgy:

We praise You, we bless You, we thank You, O Lord, and we pray to You, our God.

And now the prayer arrives at its center.

Movement Eight: The Epíklēsis

The priest extends his hands over the bread and wine. The deacon stands in attendance. The congregation has fallen silent.

The Epiclesis is about to happen.

Once again we offer to You this spiritual worship without the shedding of blood, and we beseech and pray and entreat You: Send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon the gifts here presented,

And make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.

Amen.

And that which is in this cup, the precious Blood of Your Christ.

Amen.

Changing them by Your Holy Spirit.

Amen. Amen. Amen.

The Greek word Epíklēsis/epiclesis (ἐπίκλησις) means “calling upon” or “invocation.” This is the moment in the Anaphora when the Church asks the Father to send the Holy Spirit, upon the bread and the wine and upon the people.

Notice that. Upon us and upon these gifts. The Spirit is invoked not only on the elements but on the Church. The same descent of the Spirit that sanctifies the bread and wine sanctifies the people who will receive them. The Eucharist is not changing one set of objects in isolation. It is changing the whole Body of Christ. The bread becomes His Body. The wine becomes His Blood. The Church becomes what she eats.

And the priest says, changing them by Your Holy Spirit.

The Greek word translated “changing” here is metabolō - the same root from which we get the English word metabolism. It means a thorough transformation. The bread is no longer bread. The wine is no longer wine. They are now, by the descent of the Holy Spirit, the precious Body and the precious Blood of the Risen Christ.

This is the moment. This is what the Liturgy has been building toward. This is what the Sursum corda was preparing us for. This is what the Epinikios was announcing. This is what Christ Himself instituted in the Upper Room and what He commanded His Apostles to do until His coming again.

And let me be precise about the theology, because precision matters here.7

Orthodox theology does not claim to explain what happens at the Epíklēsis. It does not provide a metaphysical mechanism. The Western Catholic Church developed the doctrine of transubstantiation using Aristotelian categories of substance and accidents. Orthodox theology has historically declined to provide such an explanation. We use the word metabolē - change - and we let it stand. The bread and wine become the Body and Blood. How this happens is mystery. That it happens is faith.

But what Orthodoxy has always affirmed - from the earliest centuries to today - is that the change is real. The bread is not a symbol of the Body. The bread becomes the Body. The wine is not a memorial of the Blood. The wine becomes the Blood. This is what the Fathers taught. This is what the liturgies pray. This is what every ancient Christian tradition - Eastern and Western, Greek and Latin and Coptic and Syriac and Armenian and Ethiopian - has held without exception, until the sixteenth century, when certain men we call the Reformers introduced, for the first time in Christian history, the idea that the Eucharist might be merely symbolic.8

The Anaphora cannot be read in any other way. The Eucharistic prayer of the apostolic Church, attested in the Didache, in Justin Martyr, in Ignatius, in every patristic source we have, treats the bread and wine after the Epíklēsis as the actual Body and Blood. The priest does not pray “Father, help us to think of this bread as your Son’s body.” The priest prays “Make this bread the precious Body of Your Christ.” That’s not symbolism or a memorial, that’s consecration.

Movement Nine: The Intercessions / Diptycha

The bread and wine on the altar are now the Body and Blood of Christ. And the prayer that follows takes the most extraordinary turn in the whole Liturgy.

The Church now intercedes. With the Body and Blood of Christ on the altar in front of her, the Church begins to pray for the world.

So that they may be for those who partake of them for vigilance of soul, remission of sins, communion of Your Holy Spirit, fullness of the Kingdom of Heaven, boldness before You, not for judgment or condemnation. Again, we offer You this spiritual worship for those who have reposed in the faith: forefathers, fathers, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, preachers, evangelists, martyrs, confessors, ascetics, and for every righteous spirit made perfect in faith,

The Church remembers her dead. Not as people who are gone. As people who are alive - who are with Christ - who are participating, even now, in the same Liturgy from the other side of the threshold.

Especially for our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary.

The Church names the Mother of God. She is the first and greatest of those who said yes to Christ. Her fiat - “let it be done to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38) - made the Incarnation possible. The whole liturgy now pauses to honor her.

The choir sings the Axion Estin - one of the most ancient Marian hymns in Christianity:

It is truly meet to bless you, O Theotokos, ever-blessed and most pure and the Mother of our God. More honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, who without corruption gave birth to God the Word - true Theotokos, we magnify you.

And then the priest continues the intercessions:

Again we beseech You, Lord, Remember all Orthodox bishops who rightly teach the word of Your truth, the presbyterate, the diaconate in Christ, and every priestly and monastic order. Again we offer You this spiritual worship for the whole world, for the holy, catholic, and apostolic Church, and for those living pure and reverent lives. For civil authorities and our armed forces, grant that they may govern in peace, Lord, so that in their tranquility we, too, may live calm and serene lives, in all piety and virtue.

Remember, Lord, this city in which we live, and every city and land, and the faithful who live in them. Remember, Lord, those who travel by land, sea, and air; the sick; the suffering; the captives; and their salvation. Remember those who bear fruit and do good works in Your holy churches and those who are mindful of the poor, and upon us all send forth Your mercies.

This is the “Lord, Remember” that I showed you in Article 4 - the prayer pattern that goes back to Didache 10. Now you see what it has become. The Church, with the consecrated Body and Blood on the altar, now lifts up by name every category of human being she can think of and intercedes for them. The bishops. The cities. The travelers. The sick. The captives. The poor.

The Eucharist is not a private devotion. The Eucharist is the prayer of the whole Church for the whole world. The Church does not eat this meal for herself. She eats it on behalf of all and for all. The intercessions are the proof. The bread on the altar is being offered for everyone.

Movement Ten: The Doxología

The intercessions conclude with the priest singing aloud:

And grant that with one voice and one heart we may glorify and praise Your most honorable and majestic name, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages.

The Anaphora resolves into doxology. Glory to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and forever. The same doxological structure we saw in Didache 9-10 in Article 4 - “to you be the glory forever” - preserved here, two thousand years later, as the closing movement of the great Eucharistic prayer.

Movement Eleven: The Great Amen

And then the people respond.

Amen.

This single word is the seal of the entire Anaphora. It is the people’s affirmation that everything the priest has just prayed - the thanksgiving, the Epinikios (triumphal hymn), the Institution Narrative (Sýstasis), the Anámnēsis, the Epíklēsis, the Diptycha intercessions, the doxology - all of it has been prayed with them and on their behalf.

In some Orthodox traditions, the people sing this Amen three times, or with elaborate musical setting, because the moment is so weighty. This is the Great Amen. It is the moment when the priest’s prayer becomes the Church’s prayer. The ancient liturgical instinct was that no Eucharistic prayer is valid without the people’s Amen. The Anaphora is not the priest’s private offering. It is the offering of the entire Body of Christ, with the priest praying as their leader and representative.

The Amen is the Church saying: yes. Let it be so. This is our prayer. This is our offering. This is our Body and Blood.

And the Anaphora is complete.

What Just Happened

I want to step back from the prayer for a moment and look at what just happened, because if you have followed the Anaphora through all eleven movements, you may need help seeing it whole.

What just happened is the apostolic Christian Church re-presenting the one sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, offered to the Father, by the descent of the Holy Spirit, on behalf of the entire world, in fulfillment of the Temple sacrificial system, with the saints and angels of heaven joining in.

Every thread of this series ties together in this prayer.

The synagogue inheritance is here, in the berakhah structure of the Preface, in the Kedushah that became the Epinikios, in the Remember, Lord intercessions, in the doxological refrains.

The Temple inheritance is here, in the priestly offering, in the sacrificial language (“this reasonable and bloodless worship,” “Yours of Your own we offer to You”), in the language of pure offering echoing Malachi 1:11, in the architectural placement behind the iconostasis where the Holy of Holies has always been.

The apostolic inheritance is here, in the Institution Narrative repeating the words of Christ Himself, in the “this is My Body... this is My Blood” commanded at the Last Supper, in the entire theological architecture of thanksgiving-and-offering that we saw already documented in the Didache by the late first century.

The Christ Himself is here, present in the bread and wine, the One who was prophesied by Malachi as the pure offering, the One whose coming the triumphal hymn announces, the One whose Body and Blood are being offered on the altar in front of you.

The Anaphora is not a service Orthodox Christians perform. The Anaphora is the place where the Church goes to meet Christ. Or more precisely, it is the place where Christ comes to meet the Church, having opened the way through the veil with the sacrifice of His own flesh, having summoned the Holy Spirit to consecrate the gifts, having made present in time the one sacrifice He offered once for all in eternity.

And this prayer - this exact prayer, in essentially this exact form - has been prayed continuously, every Sunday, in every Orthodox parish in the world, for at least 1,600 years.9 The shape of it is older. The triumphal hymn is apostolic. The Sursum corda is apostolic. The Epiclesis is apostolic. The intercessions are apostolic. The doxology is apostolic.

The Apostles prayed this. Their disciples prayed this. Every generation since has prayed this.

It is still being prayed.

A Word to My LDS Readers (I’ll be nice)

I want to pause here and address you directly, because some of what I have walked through so far may sound kind of familiar to you, and most of it will sound like nothing you have ever encountered, and the combination is disorienting (I know.)

The covenant character of Eucharistic worship - the way the Liturgy preserves continuity with ancient Israel, the way it understands sacred space and sacred service, the way it treats certain rites as matters of holy boundary rather than open access - much of this will resonate with patterns you know from the LDS tradition.

The specific theology - the descent of the Holy Spirit transforming bread and wine into the actual Body and Blood of Christ, the consecration performed by an unbroken apostolic priesthood, the Trinitarian dogma that the Holy Spirit is God in the same nature as the Father and the Son - some of this is genuinely new ground, and I am not going to pretend otherwise.

What I will ask you to consider is this. The pattern of weekly sacred ordinance, performed by a recognized priesthood, in a sacred space marked off from ordinary access, with strict eligibility requirements for participation, with covenental language and remembrance of saving acts - this pattern is not LDS in origin. It is apostolic. The Orthodox Church has been doing it, in essentially the same form, for two thousand years. The Didache documented it in the late first century. Justin Martyr documented it by 155 AD. The Anaphora I just walked you through is the prayer that has been the center of that practice for at least sixteen centuries.

If the LDS tradition is right that there was a great apostasy, then the Orthodox Church should not exist. There should be a clean break between the apostolic Church and what came after. But the documentary record does not show a break. It shows continuity. It shows the Apostles doing this, their disciples doing this, the next generation doing this, every generation since doing this. There is no point in the chain where someone introduces new doctrine, no moment of apostasy, no break in the prayer.

I am not asking you to convert in the next ten minutes. I am asking you to look at the evidence. The Anaphora is the evidence. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Does any of this look even remotely like an LDS sacrament service? Not in my 40+ years of LDS experience. I know you were told that the original church was lost and that we don’t know what the first Christians believed or how they worshiped, but that’s just not true. If you want to know what the Apostles believed, look at what they prayed. They prayed this. They handed it to their disciples. It has not stopped being prayed. The most difficult thing to admit to yourself (at least it was for me) will be the realization that, there was no “great apostasy,” that the original church was not lost or taken from the earth and that there was no break in priesthood authority.

A Word to My Protestant Readers

The Anaphora I just walked you through asserts things that most Protestant traditions have long abandoned and no longer assert. It treats the bread and wine as actually becoming the Body and Blood of Christ. It treats the priest as standing in the apostolic succession with authority to consecrate. It treats the saints in heaven as alive and praying with us. It treats the Eucharist as a sacrifice. It treats Mary as the Theotokos and offers her honor. It treats the prayers and intercessions of the Church as efficacious for the living and the dead.

I know some of this will be hard. I know that for many of you, the Reformation taught you that all of this was medieval Roman Catholic accretion that Luther, Calvin and Zwingli and the other Reformers stripped away to recover the simple gospel of the apostolic Church.

What I want you to consider is that the Reformers were not stripping away medieval Roman accretion. They were stripping away apostolic Christianity itself. The things they removed - the priesthood, the sacrifice, the real presence, the intercession of the saints, the sacramental view of the Church - were not invented in the middle ages. They are documented in the late first century. They are in the Didache. They are in Justin Martyr. They are in Ignatius and Irenaeus and Cyril and Chrysostom and Basil. They are in every ancient Christian tradition that survived from the apostolic age.

If the apostolic Church believed and prayed all of this, and the documentary evidence says it did, then any Christian tradition that does not believe and pray all of this has departed from the true apostolic Church somewhere along the line.

I am not saying this to wound you. I am saying it because I love you, and because I made the same journey you may be considering, and because I owe you the honest truth. The Anaphora is not a Roman Catholic prayer that the Orthodox happen to share. It is the prayer of the apostolic Church, preserved in the Orthodox East, that the Roman West also preserved (with later developments), and that the Reformers eventually threw out with the bathwater.

The question is not whether to follow the Reformers. Men who were not prophets, and did not claim to be. Sinners, like you and me, no matter how well intentioned, who followed their own ideas and had their own motivations. The question is whether the Reformers were right.

Read the Didache. Read Justin Martyr. Read Ignatius. Read the Anaphora. And then ask yourself, honestly, whether the church the Reformers tried to recover looks anything like the church the documents actually show us.

Looking forward to Article Six

We have walked through the Anaphora. We have seen its eleven movements. We have seen how it gathers up every thread of the entire series - synagogue, Temple, Apostles, Christ - into a single prayer that has been prayed continuously for at least sixteen centuries.

Article 6 will examine the two greatest editors of that prayer.

In the late fourth and early fifth centuries, two of the most important bishops and theologians in Christian history shaped the form of the Anaphora that the Orthodox Church still uses today. Their names are John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, and Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea. We will see, with documentary evidence, that neither of them invented the liturgies that bear their names. They were editors. The liturgies were already there. They received them, refined them, standardized them, and handed them on. Which is exactly what the Apostles told them to do.

The fact that we call these prayers “the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom” and “the Liturgy of St. Basil” is, in some sense, a courtesy. They might more accurately be called “the apostolic liturgies as edited by John Chrysostom and Basil the Great.” But the point is that these editors were not inventors. They were curators of an inheritance.

If you have stayed with me this far, you already know what is coming. The pattern of the entire series - we did not invent this, we received this - is going to play out one more time, in the lives of two specific historical figures whose names are still spoken at every Orthodox Liturgy in the world.

Subscribe so you don’t miss it.

The Apostles were there first. It is time we caught up, the hour is late, and it’s time to get off the fence.

Subscribe now

Primary Sources

The Anaphora is too important to take anyone’s word for. Read the texts yourself.

• The Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom - The most commonly used Eucharistic prayer in the Orthodox Church today. The full English text is available at numerous Orthodox parish websites. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America hosts a clean version here. All of the quotes in this article from the liturgy are from the English translation of St. John Chrysostom’s liturgy as provided by the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

• The Anaphora of St. Basil the Great - Used on specific liturgical days throughout the Orthodox year, especially during Lent. Longer and more theologically expansive than Chrysostom’s. Available in English here.

• Isaiah 6:1-8 - The prophet’s vision of God enthroned with Seraphim singing the Holy, Holy, Holy. The biblical root of the Sanctus. Read it here.

• Matthew 26:26-28, Mark 14:22-24, Luke 22:19-20, 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 - The four New Testament accounts of Christ’s Institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper. Matthew, Mark, Luke, 1 Corinthians.

• 2 Corinthians 13:14 - The apostolic benediction that became the opening of the Anaphora. Read it here.

• Malachi 1:11 - The prophecy of the pure offering, foundational to the Eucharistic-as-sacrifice theology of the Anaphora. Read it here.

• Hebrews 9-10 - The New Testament’s most extended theological argument for Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice as the fulfillment of Temple worship. The theological ground beneath the Anaphora. Read Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10.

• St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, Lectures 19-23 (around 350 AD) - The earliest extended patristic explanation of the Divine Liturgy aimed at newly-baptized Christians. Cyril walks through the Anaphora step by step, explaining what each movement means. Indispensable for understanding how the fourth-century Church understood the prayer it was praying. Read it at New Advent here.

• St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 82 and St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews - Chrysostom’s own theological exposition of the Eucharist and its sacrificial character. Available at New Advent here.

• St. Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit - Basil’s definitive fourth-century treatment of the divinity and work of the Holy Spirit, including the Spirit’s role in the consecration of the Eucharist. The theological foundation of the Epiclesis. Read it at New Advent here.

• The Didache, chapters 9-10 and 14 - The first-century document we examined in Article 4, attesting to the apostolic Eucharistic prayer pattern. Read the full text here.

For readers who want to go deeper: The standard scholarly treatment of the Anaphora’s history and structure is Robert F. Taft, The Byzantine Rite: A Short History (Liturgical Press, 1992) and his more technical multi-volume A History of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Pontifical Oriental Institute). Hugh Wybrew, The Orthodox Liturgy: The Development of the Eucharistic Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite (SPCK, 1989) is more accessible. For the patristic theology of the Eucharist, see Johannes Quasten’s Patrology volumes I-III, which collect the relevant patristic texts with introductions.

Picture this, nope not a small country farm, 1873 Constantinople. Now called Istanbul. But in 1873 it was still the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church. A Greek Orthodox bishop named Philotheos Bryennios is working in the library of the Monastery of the Holy Sepulcher in the Greek quarter of the city.1 He is in his fourth decade. He has a beard you could shelter a small family in. He is a serious scholar - had studied in Germany, reads Greek the way most people read their own first language, knows the manuscripts and the Fathers cold.

He is pulling codices off shelves. Looking. Cataloging. The kind of patient, unglamorous work that academic libraries are full of at any given moment.

And at some point - we don’t know exactly which afternoon, which hour, but it happened - he pulls down a 1056 AD Byzantine codex. Opens it. Starts reading.

Inside are some things he already knows about. A letter attributed to Clement of Rome. A couple of Epistles of Barnabas. Standard patristic library material. Fine. Interesting. Nothing you’d call a sensation.

And then, tucked between these other documents, he turns a page and finds something that makes his hand stop moving across the parchment.

A title at the top of the page.

Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων.

The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles.

What Bishop Bryennios is holding in his hands is a document that the Christian Church has not seen in roughly fourteen hundred years. It is mentioned by name in Eusebius, in Athanasius, in Clement of Alexandria - the greatest Fathers of the fourth century knew this book existed, knew it was very old, and some of them even thought it belonged in the New Testament canon. But the text itself had vanished. Lost. Gone. Nobody in the Western Church had laid eyes on it since the early Middle Ages. It existed only as a rumor. A ghost in the footnotes of people more famous than itself.

And Bishop Bryennios just pulled it off a shelf.

He does what any careful scholar does. He closes the book. He goes home. He takes a breath. He comes back. He reads it again. Then he sits on the discovery for ten years (I am not making this up - ten years - because he wants to make sure he has it right), and in 1883 he publishes it.

The world promptly loses its mind.

Catholic scholars, Protestant scholars, Orthodox scholars, secular scholars, all of them - they have in their hands a document that, depending on how you date it, might be older than some of the books of the New Testament. A first-century Christian handbook. A manual for baptism, fasting, prayer, Eucharist, and community life, written by somebody, for somebody, in the generation of the Apostles themselves or the generation right after.

The document has a short, formal title, but in the almost 150 years since its rediscovery it has come to be known by a single Greek word.

The Didache (pronounced did-ah-KAY, or, if you are getting fancy, did-ah-KHAY - it rhymes with “okay” and it means “teaching”).2

And when Orthodox Christians read it - I mean really read it, slowly, with the Divine Liturgy in their memory - something strange happens.

They recognize the prayers.

Not vaguely. Not in spirit. Not structurally.

Word for word.

Let me show you what I mean.

What We Actually Have

Let me establish what we are dealing with before we get to the payoff, because you deserve to know how strong the evidence actually is.

The Didache is a short document - sixteen brief chapters, maybe four thousand words in English translation. It has four parts:

1. The Two Ways (chapters 1-6): A moral catechism based on the Jewish “two ways” teaching tradition - the way of life versus the way of death - re-framed for Christian use. This is the part that gets used to prepare catechumens for baptism.

2. The Liturgical Section (chapters 7-10): Instructions for baptism, fasting, the Lord’s Prayer (prayed three times daily), and the Eucharist.

3. The Community Section (chapters 11-15): How to receive traveling prophets and apostles, how to appoint bishops and deacons, how to hold Sunday worship.

4. The Eschatological Section (chapter 16): Watch for the coming of the Lord.

The document is anonymous. It calls itself “The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles to the Nations” - which is not a claim to have been written by the Twelve, but a claim to be preserving what they taught. It is written in Greek. It almost certainly emerged from a Jewish-Christian community in Syria or possibly Palestine or Egypt.

And here is the thing that matters most: it describes Christian worship.

Not abstract theology. Not apologetic. Not a gospel narrative. Christian worship. How to baptize. How to pray. How to give thanks over the bread and the cup. What to do on the Lord’s Day. Which prayers to use.

This is the oldest surviving Christian worship manual we have.

And the question is - how old is it, really?

The Dating Fight

Scholarly dating of the Didache has ranged, at the extremes, from about 40 AD to about 150 AD.3 That is a genuinely wide range that is still debated.

Let me walk you through where the consensus is.

The early end of the range (50-70 AD). A significant minority of serious scholars, Jean-Paul Audet being the classic example, Alan Garrow and others more recently, argue that the Didache is pre-70 AD. Some of them think it may be older than parts of the New Testament. Their arguments are structural: the church organization the Didache describes (itinerant apostles, prophets, and teachers with only rudimentary local bishops and deacons) looks earlier than what we see in Paul’s Pastoral Epistles or in Ignatius of Antioch. Its liturgical instructions presume no institution narrative in the Eucharistic prayer, no “on the night he was betrayed, he took bread...” which is the kind of simplicity that many scholars believe reflects a very early stage of development. Its Jewish character is deep enough to suggest a community still in close conversation with Jewish worship, which fits better with pre-70 AD conditions than with the late first century after the break with the synagogue hardened.

The middle of the range (80-100 AD). Most serious scholars land here. Michael Holmes, editor of the standard Loeb Classical Library edition of the Apostolic Fathers, writes that while the Didache “may have been put into its present form as late as 150, though a date considerably closer to the end of the first century seems more probable.“4 This is the consensus comfort zone. Late first century. Roughly contemporary with the Gospel of John. Older than 2 Peter. Older than Jude. Older than Revelation.

The late end of the range (100-150 AD). A small group of scholars argues for a second-century date, usually citing the relative sophistication of some passages or the possibility that the author knew the Gospel of Matthew. Even these scholars, though, generally acknowledge that the Didache is preserving much older material, Jewish-Christian prayers and teachings that go back substantially earlier than the date of the final redaction.

Here is the important takeaway. Even the latest plausible dating of the Didache places it within living memory of the Apostles. And the most plausible dating places it in the late first century - composed by someone who could have shaken hands with people who shook hands with the Twelve.

But the dating of the final text is not really the most important question. The most important question is: how old are the prayers inside it?

Because the prayers inside a liturgical manual are almost never newly-composed at the time of writing. Liturgical manuals preserve prayers. They write down what is already being prayed. Which means the prayers in the Didache are older than the Didache itself.

How much older? We cannot know exactly. But the scholarly consensus is that the Eucharistic prayers in chapters 9-10 reflect very early Jewish-Christian practice, quite possibly going back to the apostolic period itself. Jewish liturgical scholars have shown that the prayers in Didache 10 are a direct Christian adaptation of the birkat ha-mazon, the Jewish grace after meals.5 Same structure. Same movements. Same grammatical patterns. Christianized in content - but Jewish in its bones.

Which means what we are reading, when we read Didache 9-10, is something very close to the actual Eucharistic prayers used by the apostolic generation itself.

Let me show you what they say.

Didache 9 - The Prayers Over the Cup and the Bread

Here is the text of Didache 9, in a standard English translation.6 I have formatted it to make the structure visible.

Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way.

First, concerning the cup:

We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus your Servant; to you be the glory forever.

And concerning the broken bread:

We thank you, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through Jesus your Servant; to you be the glory forever.

Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom; for yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ forever.

But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, “Give not that which is holy unto dogs.”

Read that again. Slowly. Out loud if you can.

I want you to notice four things about what you just read.

1. It is a thanksgiving. The word Eucharist (Greek eucharistia) literally means “thanksgiving.” And the prayers are, precisely and structurally, prayers of thanksgiving. We thank you, our Father. Twice. Over the cup. Over the bread. This is the theological shape of the Eucharistic action itself. Christ gave thanks before He broke the bread, Paul says Christ “took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it” (1 Corinthians 11:24). The Didache is preserving, at the earliest possible documentary level, the most ancient Christian name for this act. Thanksgiving. Eucharist.

2. It is addressed to the Father. “We thank you, our Father.” Not to Jesus directly. Not to the Holy Spirit. To the Father, through Jesus His Servant (Greek pais, which can mean “servant” or “child”). This is what the scholars call the “through Christ” structure of early Eucharistic prayer - we pray to the Father, through the Son, in the Spirit. The trinitarian grammar is already there in the earliest known text.

3. The image of the scattered grain. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. Stop and sit with that image. The bread was once scattered - individual grains of wheat, grown on different hillsides - and has been gathered into a single loaf. And that gathering of grain into bread is a sign of something else: the Church, scattered across the earth, being gathered into one through the Eucharist. It is an ecclesiology built into the prayer. You are what you eat. The Church becomes one body by eating the one bread.

4. And this is the one that should stop you cold. “Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord.”

The Didache, in the first century or close to it, is drawing a line around the Eucharistic table that Orthodoxy still draws today.

Closed communion. Not a cultural quirk. Not a medieval development. Not a Byzantine innovation. Not a late piece of gatekeeping dreamed up to keep people out. It was there from the beginning. The baptized alone ate and drank. Every other Christian who showed up was welcome to hear the readings, welcome to hear the homily, welcome to pray - but the Eucharist was for those who had passed through the waters.7

If you have ever been to an Orthodox parish and been told you could not receive communion because you were not Orthodox, and you felt hurt by that, I understand. I really do. But I want you to understand what is actually happening. The Orthodox Church is not being rude to you. The Orthodox Church is doing what the Didache - The teachings of the 12 apostles - told the Church to do in the first century. The instruction has not changed. The Church has not moved. It is doing the same thing it was told to do by the Apostles themselves.

Now let me show you chapter 10.

Didache 10 - The Prayer After Communion

But after you are filled, give thanks this way:

We thank you, holy Father, for your holy name which you caused to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality which you made known to us through Jesus your Servant; to you be the glory forever.

You, Master Almighty, created all things for your name’s sake; you gave food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to you; but to us you freely gave spiritual food and drink and life eternal through your Servant.

Before all things we thank you that you are mighty; to you be the glory forever.

Remember, Lord, your Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in your love, and gather it together from the four winds, sanctified for your kingdom which you have prepared for it; for yours is the power and the glory forever.

Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David! If anyone is holy, let him come; if anyone is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.

Maranatha is an Aramaic word. It means “Our Lord, come!” It is preserved here, in the Greek text of the Didache, untranslated - the same way Paul preserves it untranslated in 1 Corinthians 16:22. Maranatha. The prayer for the return of Christ.

That one word is doing enormous historical work. The author of the Didache, writing in Greek, feels the need to preserve the original Aramaic. Which means this prayer was so ancient, so deeply rooted in the apostolic community, that even in a Greek-speaking context it was still prayed in the original Aramaic of the earliest Jewish-Christian Church in Jerusalem.

This is what the Twelve prayed.

Not might have prayed. Not probably prayed. Prayed. In the Upper Room. In the Temple courts. In the homes where they broke bread daily. The Aramaic word that the author of the Didache preserves untranslated is the same word the Apostles shouted in their own language when they longed for their Lord to return.

What Your Orthodox Parish Is Praying This Sunday

I want to show you what happens when you hold the Didache’s prayers up against the prayers of the modern Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

Before I do, a technical caveat. The two Eucharistic prayers in Didache 9-10 are not the direct literary ancestors of any one modern anaphora. The modern Orthodox Divine Liturgy - whether the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom or the Liturgy of St. Basil, which we will examine in Article 6 - uses a longer, more developed form of Eucharistic prayer that includes the words of institution (”on the night He was betrayed...”) that the Didache does not include.8 So the claim I want to make is not “modern Orthodox prayers are cut-and-pasted from the Didache.”

The claim I am making is something different, and in some ways more profound. The claim is that the Didache and the modern Orthodox Divine Liturgy share a common shape, a common vocabulary, and in several places common specific language - because both of them are drawing on the same apostolic stream of liturgical practice.

Let me show you what I mean. I am going to pick four specific places where the overlap is striking.

Overlap 1: “To you be the glory forever.”

The Didache’s Eucharistic prayers keep returning to a specific doxological9 refrain - “to you be the glory forever.” It appears four times in Didache 9-10. It is the constant downbeat of the thanksgiving.

Walk into an Orthodox parish today. Listen to any Divine Liturgy. At the end of virtually every priestly prayer, you will hear some version of the doxology: “For Yours is the glory, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.” This is not a medieval invention or a Byzantine flourish. This is the exact doxological shape of the Didache’s Eucharistic prayer, still being prayed at every Divine Liturgy in the world, almost two thousand years later.

Overlap 2: “Remember, Lord, Your Church.”

Didache 10: “Remember, Lord, your Church, to deliver it from all evil, and to make it perfect in your love, and gather it together from the four winds.”

Open the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. In the Anaphora - the Great Eucharistic Prayer that we will examine in detail in Article 5 - the priest prays: “Again we offer unto You this reasonable service, for the whole world, for the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church... Remember, O Lord, every Bishop of the Orthodox... Remember, O Lord, this city in which we dwell, and every city and countryside... Remember, O Lord, those who travel...”

The same verb. “Remember, Lord.” The same object. The Church. The same movement of prayer - gathering up the whole Body of Christ and setting it before the Father. The Didache’s remember is preserved, elaborated, made universal, but unmistakably the same prayer.

Overlap 3: “Gather Your Church.”

Didache 9: “Let your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom.”

Didache 10: “Gather it together from the four winds, sanctified for your kingdom which you have prepared for it.”

Liturgy of St. Basil: “...that all of us who share in the one Bread and the one Cup may be united to one another in the communion of the one Holy Spirit, and that none of us may partake of the holy Body and Blood of Your Christ unto judgment or condemnation.” The prayer for unity in the Eucharist, for the gathering of the Church into one body through the one bread. Same theological vision. Same liturgical request.

Overlap 4: The Invitation and the Response.

Didache 10 ends with an extraordinary exchange: “Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the Son of David! If anyone is holy, let him come; if anyone is not, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.”

The pattern is a public invitation to communion, if anyone is holy, let him come, followed by a congregational Hosanna and an eschatological cry: Maranatha, our Lord come.

Now listen to what happens in every Orthodox Divine Liturgy at the moment of communion. The priest lifts the holy gifts and cries out: “The Holy Gifts for the holy people of God!” The congregation responds: “One is Holy, One is Lord, Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father. Amen.” And before communion the congregation sings: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord... Hosanna in the highest!”

The public invitation, the call for holiness, the response of faith, the Hosanna, the cry for the coming of the Lord. It is the shape of Didache 10, scaled up and liturgically elaborated. But the shape is the same. The ancient structure holds.

Four overlaps. There are more. These are enough to make the point.

Didache 14 - The Hinge

Now I want to show you the verse that Article 3 was setting up.

In Article 3 (go read it, if you haven’t already - it contains the setup for everything I am about to say), I made the claim that the Liturgy of the Faithful is the fulfillment of Temple sacrificial worship in Christ. I told you that the Fathers read Malachi 1:11 as the key prophecy of this fulfillment: “From the rising of the sun even to its setting, my name shall be great among the nations, and in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering.”

I promised that Article 5 would develop this claim in detail. But I want to show you, right now, that this reading of Malachi is not a later invention of the Fathers. It is not a fourth-century development. It is there in the Didache.

Here is Didache chapter 14, in full. It is only a few sentences long.

On the Lord’s day of the Lord, come together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.

But let no one who has a quarrel with his companion join with you until they are reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be defiled.

For this is what the Lord has said: “In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”

Stop. You should probably read that again.

The Didache - possibly first-century, almost certainly within living memory of the Apostles - is doing four things in these three sentences that change everything.

1. It is giving instructions for Sunday worship. “On the Lord’s day of the Lord, come together.” The weekly pattern is already fixed. Sunday gathering. Not Saturday synagogue. Not a Passover-only annual Eucharist. Every Sunday, the Church gathers. This is the pattern that Justin Martyr describes fifty to a hundred years later, and here it is already assumed.

2. It is calling the Eucharist a sacrifice. “That your sacrifice may be pure... that your sacrifice may not be defiled.” The word is thysia. It is the technical Greek word for a Temple sacrifice. The Didache is calling the Sunday Eucharistic gathering a sacrifice. In the first century. In a Christian document. Before there was a Vatican, before there was a Pope, before there were any of the medieval developments that Protestant polemics often blame for “inventing” the idea of the Eucharist as sacrifice. It is there, at the earliest possible documentary level, in the earliest surviving Christian liturgical manual.

3. It is requiring confession before communion. “After confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure.” Communion is preceded by confession. Personal reconciliation is required first - “let no one who has a quarrel with his companion join with you until they are reconciled.” This is the ancient Christian discipline. It is still the Orthodox discipline today. Confession before communion. Reconciliation before approaching the altar. The instruction has not changed.

4. The Didache is explicitly citing Malachi 1:11 as the scriptural warrant for calling the Eucharist a sacrifice.

“For this is what the Lord has said: In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great King, says the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations.”

The author of the Didache, writing down the practices of his community, has already worked out the Malachi 1:11 reading of the Eucharist that the Fathers would later develop in vast theological detail, indicating (at least to me) that this thread of thought predated any future patristic exegesis.

This is not a later invention, nor is this is a medieval Roman Catholic sacramental overreach. It is right there. In the oldest surviving Christian worship manual we have. The Eucharist is the pure offering prophesied by Malachi, made in every place, among the nations, fulfilling the Temple sacrificial system in Christ.

Which means the claim I made in Article 3 - that the Liturgy of the Faithful is the fulfillment of Temple worship - is not my claim. It is not an Orthodox claim. It is not a patristic claim. It is a first-century Christian claim, preserved in the earliest document of Christian worship we possess.

Lex orandi, lex credendi. The law of prayer is the law of belief.

The first Christians prayed this way because they believed this. They believed the Eucharist was the pure offering of Malachi, the fulfillment of Temple sacrifice, made in every place, among the nations, through the Body and Blood of Christ. And they are still praying this way, every Sunday, in every Orthodox parish on earth.

The Didache stands as a witness

What This Means

I want to close by naming what the Didache does and does not do, because this is a case where over claiming would weaken the argument.

The Didache does not give us a complete liturgy. It gives us prayers and instructions, but not a full order of service. We do not have a moment-by-moment script for what happened in Didache-era Sunday worship.

The Didache does not give us the institution narrative. The words “This is my body... this is my blood” are not in the Didache’s Eucharistic prayer. This is a real feature of the text and scholars argue about why - possibly because the institution narrative was so central that it went without saying, possibly because Didache 9-10 is an Agape meal blessing with the Eucharist proper happening separately, possibly because the institution narrative had not yet been fixed in the exact form that later liturgies would use. The honest answer is that we are not sure.

The Didache does not solve every question about early Christian worship. There are things it assumes that we wish it had explained, things it leaves out that we wish it had included, and ambiguities in the Greek that scholars will still be arguing about in another hundred and fifty years.

But what the Didache does give us is enormous. It gives us - within living memory of the Apostles - a document that shows us:

• A Christian community already meeting on Sunday rather than Saturday

• Already calling its central rite Eucharist (thanksgiving)

• Already praying structured Eucharistic prayers that share specific language with the modern Orthodox Divine Liturgy

• Already restricting communion to the baptized

• Already requiring confession before communion

• Already calling the Eucharist a sacrifice

• Already citing Malachi 1:11 as the prophetic warrant for that sacrificial reading

• Already praying “Maranatha” in Aramaic, the language of the Twelve

Every one of these elements is still present in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

If you want to argue that Orthodox Christianity is a medieval development, a Byzantine accretion, a late distortion of some simpler earlier Christianity, you have to explain not only everything in the past 3 articles, but the Didache itself. You have to explain why the oldest Christian worship manual we possess looks like a shorter, simpler version of what is happening in an Orthodox parish down the street from you.

I am not sure it can be explained. I am not sure it has been explained by anyone, ever, in any sustained apologetic against Orthodox liturgical claims. The Didache is there. It is an embarrassment to every idea of Christian worship that says the apostolic Church was simpler, more Protestant, more Mormon, more improvisational, less sacramental than what later traditions developed. The apostolic Church was already doing what Orthodox Christians do now.

The apostolic Church was offering the Eucharist. The apostolic Church was restricting it to the baptized. The apostolic Church was confessing sin before communion. The apostolic Church was calling the Eucharist a sacrifice. The apostolic Church was reading Malachi 1:11 as a prophecy of that sacrifice.

The Apostles were there first.

It is time we caught up.

Share

Next week we go deeper into the prayer itself. In Article 5, we will examine the Anaphora - the Great Eucharistic Prayer that sits at the heart of every Orthodox Divine Liturgy. We will see how the Anaphora fulfills the Kedushah of the Jewish synagogue, how it sings the Sanctus that Isaiah heard the seraphim singing in the Temple in the year that King Uzziah died, how it re-presents the one sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, and how it performs the Temple fulfillment that the Didache was already pointing toward. If you thought the Didache was a sensation, wait until we examine the Anaphora.

Become a paid subscriber if you haven’t already. The series only works as a whole. And the Anaphora is where all the roads meet.

Primary Sources

The Didache is short enough that you can read it yourself in one sitting. Please do. Don’t take my word for any of this.

• The Didache, full text (Roberts-Donaldson translation) - One of the most commonly cited public-domain English translations. Read the full text at New Advent here.

• The Didache, full text (Charles H. Hoole translation) - An alternate early English translation. Read it at Early Christian Writings here.

• The Didache, full text (Kirsopp Lake translation from the Loeb Classical Library) - The scholarly standard English edition. Read it at Early Christian Writings here.

• Malachi 1:11 - The prophecy of a pure offering made in every place among the nations, cited in Didache 14. Read it here.

• 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 - Paul’s account of the institution of the Eucharist, including the “gave thanks” (eucharistesas) verb that gives the Eucharist its name. Read it here.

• 1 Corinthians 16:22 - Paul’s preservation of the Aramaic Maranatha prayer. Read it here.

• Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, chapter 25 - Eusebius’s fourth-century catalogue of Christian writings, which mentions “the so-called Teachings of the Apostles“ - one of the patristic references that confirmed the Didache had existed long before its rediscovery in 1873. Read it here.

• Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter (367 AD) - Athanasius recommends the Didache as useful reading for catechumens, confirming its continued circulation in the fourth-century Church. Read it here.

For readers who want to go deeper: The standard English-language critical edition of the Apostolic Fathers, including the Didache with introduction and notes, is Michael W. Holmes, The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations (Baker Academic, 3rd edition, 2007). For the scholarly debates around dating and composition, Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser’s The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (Fortress Press, 2002) is the most thorough single-volume treatment. For the Jewish liturgical background - particularly the parallels between Didache 10 and the birkat ha-mazon - please see Enrico Mazza’s The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer (Liturgical Press, 1995)

My family was poor when I was a kid.

Restaurants were something other people’s families did. We grew up in a poor area and “going shopping” meant going to the Safeway to get the necessities. “Going out to eat” was a concept that mostly applied to birthdays and the occasional visit from family.

But we had a weekly ritual anyway. Every evening, we watched TV together. My dad would grab a bag of mandarin oranges from the kitchen, sit down on the sofa, peel one orange at a time, and hand one to each of us in turn. One for my mom. One for me. One for each of my siblings. Then he’d peel one for himself. Then the show would start. When it was bedtime, my father would make grilled cheese’s for us so we wouldn’t want to stay up by complaining we were hungry. The “grilled cheese sandwiches” were basically a single piece of bread with a couple of pieces of cheese on them that got put into the oven until the cheese melted. Then we’d fold the bread in half and eat it.

I want you to understand that this was not a random activity. This was the thing. The wrapper around the day. Dad peeled. We ate. Star Trek the Next Generation played on the TV. Nobody wrote it down on a calendar or scheduled it. Nobody said “tonight we will perform the oranges ritual.” It just happened, every night, the way things that matter most tend to happen - without announcement.

And when I think back on it now, forty-something years later, the thing I remember most is not the show, although I was and remained star-trek nerd. I don’t remember actually watching the show. I remember the smell of citrus peel on my father’s hands, I remember that every single one of us got a whole orange, and I remember that he peeled his own last and that he then made us those “grilled” cheeses, even though by the end of the day, he was certainly exhausted and running on fumes.

That is how weekly ritual work.

It is not about the grand events. Grand events, for us, were rare. My dad would occasionally decide we were all going out to eat, and when he did, we were going out for Cantonese food. Always the same place - I don’t remember the name and neither does he, but I remember the place. Live lobsters, crabs, and fish in the aquariums by the front door. A big carved wooden dragon mounted on the far wall. Round tables in a wide-open room, with the lazy Susan in the middle, and the waitresses greeting you in Cantonese when you walked in. The dishes came out one at a time and went onto the lazy Susan, and you took some and then spun it around to the next person.

And we drank tea.

This is the part that matters, so stay with me. My mom is ardently LDS (Mormon) The Word of Wisdom - the LDS health code - prohibits tea. My dad, who was also LDS at the time, had a workaround: Asian teas were fine. Other teas were not. Mostly because that’s what he grew up drinking. He was taught that you don’t drink something cold while you are eating something hot, it’s bad for the body and digestion. He decided, somewhere in the quiet part of his own conscience, that sitting at a Cantonese restaurant with his wife and kids, and not drinking tea, was a kind of betrayal of what he knew to be right. So we drank tea. Hot tea with hot food. No soda (no matter how much we begged.) No cold drinks with hot food - that was the rule, my dad had taken from this Chinese heritage, rather than bending to a cultural conformity imposed on him by some guai-lo’s in Utah.

I am forty-something years old now and I still drink Asian teas. I don’t drink non-Asian teas unless they’re herbal. And despite having an LDS wife and raising my kids in the LDS church, I still followed my father’s way. A compromise my dad made at a round table in the 1980’s, unbelievably, shaped (and still shapes) what I order at restaurants four decades later.

Ritual is like that.

The big stuff, the occasional Cantonese restaurant meal, the dragon on the wall, the waitresses teaching us Cantonese phrases, those were the memorable feast days. But the weekly stuff, dad, oranges, TV, the couch, was the foundation. The feast days made sense because of the weekly pattern underneath them. You don’t notice the weekly pattern when you are a kid. You notice it forty years later, when you realize it has shaped the way you exist in the world.

Hold that felt sense. The way weekly rhythm becomes the thing that makes you you, without you ever noticing it happened. Because it is the single most important thing to understand about what I am about to walk you through.

We are going to leave the sofa now and step back two thousand years, to a small stone building in a dusty town in Galilee on a Sabbath morning. The ritual is different. The food is different. The stakes are infinitely higher. But the shape of what is happening, a weekly gathering of a community, with a known pattern, with people who have been doing this their whole lives and do not need to be told what comes next, that part is the same.

Because it turns out that Jesus Christ Himself was a regular weekly attendee at a very specific kind of service. He had been going every Sabbath His entire life. His parents took Him as a boy. He went as a man. Luke tells us He went “as was his custom” (Luke 4:16) - which is the Gospels’ quiet way of saying this is what He did, every week, forever.

And the shape of that service - the thing Christ walked into every Sabbath in Nazareth, the thing Peter and John went to in Jerusalem, the thing Paul preached in across the Diaspora - the shape of that service is the shape of the first half of every Orthodox Divine Liturgy being prayed in every Orthodox parish in the world.

Not an echo. Not an inheritance-in-spirit. Not a loose structural resemblance.

That.

Let’s go.

Jesus Went to Church

Here is something that almost never gets said out loud in the western protestant world: Jesus Christ was a regular weekly attendee at an established public worship service.

He did not invent Christian worship. He did not improvise. He did not show up at age thirty, gather His disciples around a campfire, and say “okay gentlemen, let’s figure out how to do this.” He had been attending the same kind of service since He was a boy. His parents had taken Him to the Temple at twelve (Luke 2:41-49). He went to the synagogue in Nazareth every Sabbath (Luke 4:16). He went to synagogues across Galilee as an adult (Matthew 4:23, Mark 1:21, Luke 4:15). He read Scripture standing up, as was the custom (Luke 4:16). He sat down to teach, as was the custom (Luke 4:20). He knew the Torah reading schedule well enough to unroll a specific scroll to a specific passage (Luke 4:17)1.

And His disciples continued the pattern after His resurrection. Peter and John went up to the Temple “at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour” (Acts 3:1) - which was not them inventing a new Christian prayer time but observing the established Jewish hour of the afternoon sacrifice. Paul preached in synagogues “as his custom was” (Acts 17:2) - the same phrase Luke uses of Jesus. In Acts 13, when Paul visits the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, he sits and waits through the entire service - “after the reading of the Law and the Prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, Ye men and brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on” (Acts 13:15). Paul does not barge in. He sits through the Torah reading and the Prophets reading, and only then, when invited by the ruler of the synagogue, does he stand to speak.

These are not incidental details. These are descriptions of a fully-formed, community-wide, weekly liturgical pattern that the earliest Christians inherited wholesale from their Jewish context. They did not need to invent a weekly worship service. They already had one. They had been going to it their whole lives.

So the real question is not “where does Christian worship come from?” The real question is “what did that synagogue service actually look like?”

The Temple and the Synagogue Were Different Institutions

Before I answer that, I need to pause and clear up something that most Christians have never thought about.

The Temple and the synagogue were not the same thing.

I know that sounds obvious when I say it out loud. But you would be astonished at how many serious Christians I have spoken to who have a vague mental picture of “first-century Jewish worship” that smushes the Temple and the synagogue into a single fuzzy blob and calls it all “Old Testament worship.” It wasn’t. They were structurally, geographically, and functionally distinct institutions, and understanding the difference is critical for understanding what the earliest Christians inherited from each.

The Temple was in Jerusalem. Singular. There was one. It was the center of the sacrificial system - the bronze altar in the courtyard where animal sacrifices were offered, the Holy Place with its daily offerings, the Holy of Holies that the High Priest entered once a year on Yom Kippur. It was staffed by the Aaronic priesthood - the sons of Aaron, serving in rotating courses, with Levites assisting. It was the architectural blueprint we walked through in the last article. And it was destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, ending its existence as a functioning institution for good.

The synagogue was everywhere. Archaeologists have identified first-century synagogues in Galilee (Magdala, Gamla, Capernaum), in Judea (Masada, Herodium), and throughout the Diaspora (Delos, Ostia, and later all over the Roman Empire).2 There were, according to one rabbinic tradition, over four hundred synagogues in Jerusalem alone. Synagogues were not sacrificial. They had no altar. They had no priesthood in the Temple sense - instead, they were led by a “ruler of the synagogue” (archisynagogos) and an attendant (chazzan / huperetes) who managed the scrolls, and the adult male members of the community took turns reading and teaching. The center of the synagogue was not an altar but a reading stand, on which the Torah scroll was placed.

Two institutions. One people. Working together.

The Temple was the place of sacrifice - where sin was atoned for, where priests served, where the continual offerings kept the pattern of Israel’s covenant relationship with God unbroken. The synagogue was the place of Scripture - where the Word of God was read, where the community gathered to hear the Law and the Prophets, where teaching and prayer and the recitation of the faith happened every Sabbath.

And here is the thing almost no one tells Christians: both of these institutions made it into the Christian Church.

The Temple, as I showed you last time, is the root of Christian sacred architecture. Every Orthodox church is a structural descendant of the Jerusalem Temple: three zones, an altar for the Eucharistic sacrifice, a veil, a priesthood, the whole inheritance.

The synagogue is the root of the Christian liturgy of the Word. The first half of every Divine Liturgy - the readings, the Psalter, the intercessory prayers, the homily - is structurally the synagogue service. The Temple filled the building; the synagogue filled the service inside the building. Both, together, fulfilled in Christ.

This is also, incidentally, why the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD did not entirely destroy Judaism or Christianity. Judaism survived because it had already developed the synagogue as a complementary institution centered on the Word, and after 70 AD the synagogue became the primary vehicle for Jewish worship. Christianity survived because it had already absorbed both institutional patterns - the Word-centered synagogue and the sacrificial Temple - and had fulfilled the sacrificial function in Christ’s one offering, made present in the Eucharist. When the Temple fell, the Church had already become the Temple.

But that is getting ahead of ourselves. Let’s back up. What exactly happened in that synagogue service that Jesus attended every Sabbath?

What Did a First-Century Synagogue Service Actually Look Like?

I have to be careful here because the scholarly answer is “we know a lot, but not everything, and scholars disagree about some of the details.”

Our most detailed descriptions of synagogue liturgy come from the Mishnah (compiled around 200 AD) and the two Talmuds (compiled between roughly 400 and 500 AD). These rabbinic sources describe a highly developed liturgical system - fixed prayers, fixed numbers of benedictions, fixed reading cycles. But they were written 150 to 500 years after Christ. And in that gap, after the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, Jewish worship was significantly reorganized. The rabbis standardized and formalized things that we assume had been more fluid in the first century. So when we read the Mishnah’s account of synagogue prayers, we are looking at a snapshot taken well after the service Jesus attended.

Scholars have had to triangulate. They work backwards from the Mishnah, comparing it with the New Testament’s own fragmentary glimpses, with pre-70 AD inscriptions and archaeological remains (the Theodotos inscription, the Magdala stone, the Gamla synagogue floor), with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and with references in Philo and Josephus. And in the last twenty or thirty years, archaeological discoveries have shifted the consensus considerably - the Magdala synagogue was excavated in 2009, and it has changed the picture of what first-century synagogues looked like.3

So I am going to tell you what the scholarly consensus says about the core structure, and I am going to do my best to flag honestly where the details remain uncertain. This is a case where being precise about what we know and what we don’t know is stronger than pretending to more certainty than we have.4

Here is what we can say with generally high confidence. The first-century synagogue service on a Sabbath morning had, at minimum, these elements:

1. The Shema. The central confession of Jewish monotheism, drawn from Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Deuteronomy 11:13-21, and Numbers 15:37-41. “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord.” This was recited by the community twice daily, morning and evening, and was the foundational statement of faith that defined Israel as Israel. By Jesus’s time it was already ancient. Every observant Jew said it. Jesus Himself quoted the Shema when asked what the greatest commandment was (Mark 12:29-30).

2. The Tefilah (also called the Amidah). Tefilah literally means “prayer,” and in this context means The Prayer - the central liturgical prayer of the synagogue service. By the later rabbinic period it would become fixed at eighteen benedictions (and is therefore also called the Shemoneh Esreh, “Eighteen”), but in Jesus’s time it is thought that the form was still fluid - scholars estimate it had roughly twelve to fourteen benedictions in the first century, and the exact wording was not yet standardized.5 What was fixed was the structure: a pattern of praise, petition, and thanksgiving, recited standing (amidah means “standing”), facing Jerusalem.

3. The readings from the Law and the Prophets. This was the heart of the synagogue service, and it is the part best attested in our sources. The Torah was read aloud in the community every Sabbath, cycling through the entire Pentateuch over a set period. The exact cycle in the first century is debated. Some scholars think it was a triennial cycle (three and a half years.) Others think it was already annual in some communities - but the practice of reading straight through the Torah, week by week, Sabbath by Sabbath, is firmly established. After the Torah reading came a reading from the Prophets (the Haftarah). This is what Jesus is doing in Luke 4. He stands up to read from Isaiah, which was the Prophets reading, after (we can infer from the structure of the service) the Torah reading had already happened.

4. A seat for teaching. After the readings, someone - usually a visitor invited by the ruler of the synagogue, or a respected member of the community - would sit down and offer a word of exhortation, teaching, or interpretation of what had just been read. This is exactly what Jesus does in Luke 4:20-21: He finishes reading, rolls up the scroll, hands it back to the attendant, sits down, and every eye in the synagogue is fixed on Him, waiting to hear what He will say. The posture was the signal. Readers stood. Teachers sat.

5. The Kedushah. This is the piece that will matter most for Article 5, so pay attention now. The Kedushah (Hebrew for “holiness” or “sanctification”) is a liturgical response drawn directly from the prophet Isaiah’s vision in Isaiah 6:3, where he sees the seraphim around the throne of God singing “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory.” By the Second Temple period, this seraphic song had been incorporated into synagogue worship as a congregational response - the people standing and joining the angels’ praise. The exact form of the Kedushah that we know from later Jewish liturgy developed over time, but the practice of liturgically joining the Isaiah 6 hymn is attested in Second Temple Jewish sources.6 Hold that thought. We will come back to it in Article 5 with some force.

6. The psalmody. The Psalms were Israel’s hymnbook. They were sung in the Temple by choirs of Levites. They were chanted and sung in the synagogue as part of the liturgical rhythm of the service. When Jesus and His disciples ended the Last Supper by singing “a hymn” before going out to the Mount of Olives (Matthew 26:30), they were almost certainly singing the Hallel psalms (Psalms 113-118), which was the established Jewish practice at Passover. The Psalter was the prayer book of ancient Judaism, and it was woven into every liturgical gathering.

7. Prayers for the community, the ruler, and the wider world. Synagogue prayer included intercessions for the people, for rulers, for the sick, for travelers, for the restoration of Israel. The specific forms varied, but the practice of corporate intercessory prayer was standard.

8. A blessing or dismissal. The service ended, as it began, with a blessing. The priestly blessing from Numbers 6:24-26 - “The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make His face shine upon you” - was ancient and widely used.

That is the core structure. Scripture readings, chanted Psalms, the Shema and the Tefilah, standing prayer, the Kedushah, a homily on the text, intercessions, a blessing.

Now watch this.

The Luke 4 Moment

I want to zoom in on the single best documented example of a first-century synagogue service in existence, because it is preserved in the New Testament and it shows you exactly what I am talking about.

Luke 4:16-21. (Go read it yourself: here.)

Let me walk you through it sentence by sentence, because every detail is evidence.

“And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up: and, as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day.”

Two things already. First: “as His custom was.” This was His pattern. This was every Sabbath. Christ did not drop into synagogue that day on a whim - He went because He always went. Second: the synagogue. Not the Temple. Not a field meeting. Not an impromptu revival. The established weekly gathering of the local Jewish community in its dedicated worship space.

“And He stood up to read.”

He stood up. The posture is the signal. Readers stood in the synagogue. That detail tells you which part of the service we are in - we are in the Scripture reading portion, after the initial prayers, after the Shema, after the Tefilah. The service has been going for a while. We have arrived at the readings.

“And there was delivered unto Him the book of the prophet Esaias.”

The scroll of Isaiah. Delivered by the attendant - the chazzan - whose specific job was to manage the scrolls and hand them to the readers. This is a formal, choreographed moment. Someone is playing the role of scroll-bearer. Someone is playing the role of reader. Everyone knows what is happening.

The fact that Jesus is reading from Isaiah rather than the Torah tells us this is the Haftarah - the reading from the Prophets - which in the established pattern came after the Torah reading. The Torah reading has already happened. We are now in the prophetic portion of the Scripture cycle.7

“And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me...”

He unrolls the scroll. He “finds the place.” Whether this was a pre-assigned reading for that particular Sabbath or whether Jesus chose His own passage is debated, but either way, He knew the scroll well enough to navigate it. This is not a novice improvising. This is a Jew who has been attending synagogue His whole life, who knows the scroll layout, who knows the reading cycle.

“And He closed the book, and He gave it again to the minister, and sat down.”

He finishes reading. He hands the scroll back to the attendant. And then He sits down, because, as I said a moment ago, readers stood and teachers sat. The posture signals the transition from reading to teaching.

“And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on Him.”

Everyone knows what is coming. They know the structure of the service. They know that after the reading comes the teaching. They are waiting for the sermon.

“And He began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.”

The shortest sermon in history. And also the most scandalous. But look at the form of the moment, the liturgical choreography of it. Jesus has just performed the functions of the synagogue service exactly as any Jewish man of His time would have performed them. Reading standing. Handing back the scroll. Sitting to teach. Speaking to a congregation that knew exactly what to expect because this was exactly what happened every Sabbath in every synagogue in the Jewish world.

This is one of the best-documented first-century synagogue services we have.

And it is, structurally, the first half of the Orthodox Divine Liturgy.

Let me show you.

The Liturgy of the Word

If you walk into an Orthodox parish this Sunday, the service you will attend is called the Divine Liturgy. And it has two halves.

The first half is historically called the Liturgy of the Catechumens - because, as we will see in a moment, it was the portion of the service that catechumens (people preparing for baptism but not yet baptized) were permitted to attend. In modern usage it is also called the Liturgy of the Word, because its center of gravity is the reading and proclamation of Scripture.

The second half is called the Liturgy of the Faithful - because only the baptized, the communing members of the Body of Christ, were permitted to attend. Its center of gravity is the anaphora, the great Eucharistic Prayer we will examine in Article 5.

The first half - the Liturgy of the Catechumens - is what I want to walk through now. Because every element of it is an inheritance. Every element came from somewhere. And that somewhere is the synagogue.

• The Opening Doxology. The Liturgy begins with the priest blessing the Kingdom of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. A blessing at the beginning. Just as the synagogue service began with a blessing. The priest will say “Blessed is the Kingdom of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Now and ever and unto the ages of ages.” This is the clue that the Divine Liturgy has begun, it also signifies that this is a “Kingdom” event. i.e. an event taking place in the Kingdom of God.

• The Great Litany. A long series of intercessory petitions, sung by the deacon and answered by the congregation with “Lord, have mercy.”

  • “For the peace from above and for the salvation of our souls, let us pray to the Lord.

  • For the peace of the whole world... For this holy house and for those who enter it with faith...

  • For travelers by land, sea, and air, for the sick and the suffering, for captives...”

  • The specific wording is Christian, but the form - corporate intercessory prayer, led by an appointed minister, with the congregation responding - is directly inherited from synagogue intercessory practice.

• The Antiphons. Three sets of sung Psalm verses, interspersed with short hymns and responses. The Psalter is woven into the service as liturgical prayer. This is exactly what was happening in the synagogue. The Psalms were not decoration. They were the Church’s prayer book and hymn book, inherited from Israel, prayed by Christ Himself, and prayed by the Orthodox Church every Sunday morning. Those newly attending an Orthodox church may at first look for a separate hymnal. They won’t find one, because Christians have it embedded in the bible.

• The Little Entrance. The deacon (or priest) takes the Gospel book off the altar, processes with it through the Royal Doors, around the church, and up to the altar again. The congregation stands. The priest declares: “Wisdom! Let us attend!” The Gospel book - Christ in the Scriptures - is being carried in procession to the reading stand.

  • If that sounds familiar, it should. In the synagogue, the Torah scroll was brought out from the ark where it was stored, carried in procession through the congregation, and placed on the reading stand. The entrance of the sacred text into the midst of the assembly. The pattern is the same. The text has changed from Torah to Gospel, but the movement - the procession, the reverence, the liturgical unveiling of the Word of God to the assembled community - is the synagogue pattern fulfilled.

• The Trisagion. “Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us.” Sung three times, then with a doxology. This particular hymn, in this particular form, is a later Christian development. Tradition attributes it to a vision during an earthquake in Constantinople in the fifth century.8 But the instinct it expresses - the threefold “Holy, Holy, Holy” joining the Seraphim of Isaiah 6 - is drawn from the same Kedushah tradition that shaped first-century synagogue worship. The Isaiah 6 song runs through the whole bloodstream of Jewish and Christian liturgy. We will meet it again, in its most undiluted form, in the anaphora.

• The Epistle Reading. A deacon or reader chants a passage from the New Testament epistles - Paul, Peter, John, James, Hebrews, Jude. This is read standing. The reader stands. The congregation stands.

• The Alleluia and the Gospel Reading. After the Epistle, the congregation sings “Alleluia” (from the Hebrew hallelu-Yah, “praise the Lord”) while the Gospel book is prepared. The priest or deacon then reads the Gospel aloud, standing, at the ambo (the raised reading platform in front of the Royal Doors).

Let’s stop and take a pause.

What just happened?

A reader stood to read from the writings (the Epistles). Another reader stood to read from the Gospels. Both readings chanted or proclaimed aloud to the assembled community, standing in reverence. The Word of God, read in its fullness, week by week, Sunday by Sunday.

This is structurally identical to what was happening in Luke 4. In the synagogue, a reader stood to read from the Torah. Another stood to read from the Prophets. Both readings chanted to the assembled community. The Word of God, read in its fullness, week by week, Sabbath by Sabbath.

The Christian Church, from its earliest days, replaced “Torah and Prophets” with “Epistles and Gospels” - while preserving the exact liturgical structure that had carried the Torah and Prophets in the synagogue. Two readings. Standing posture. Chanted or solemnly proclaimed. Followed by a teaching.

• The Homily. After the Gospel is read, the bishop or priest stands (or, more commonly in Orthodox practice, if it is the Bishop, he sits in the bishop’s chair as a representative of the apostles and Christ, if it is a priest, he stands) and delivers a homily on the readings, exhorting the people to live out what they have heard.

Jesus, in Luke 4, did exactly this. He finished reading from Isaiah, handed the scroll back, sat down, and taught. “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.”

The posture of teaching. The exegetical application of the Scripture just read. The authoritative word spoken to the assembled community.

Same service. Two thousand years later. Fulfilled in Christ.

• The Litany of Fervent Supplication and the Prayers for the Catechumens. After the homily, the deacon leads the congregation in further intercessory prayers - for the Church, for the bishops, for the civil authorities, for the sick, for travelers, for the departed. Then a specific set of prayers is offered for the catechumens - those preparing for baptism.

And this is where the Liturgy of the Catechumens reaches its structural hinge.

The Shift at the Dismissal

At the end of the prayers for the catechumens, the deacon cries out:

“Catechumens, depart! Catechumens, depart! All catechumens, depart! Let none of the catechumens remain!”

And then the famous ancient command:

“The doors! The doors!”

In the early Church, this was literal. Catechumens were physically dismissed from the service at this point. The doors of the church were closed. Only the baptized faithful remained. What was about to begin, the Liturgy of the Faithful, the Eucharistic offering, was for the baptized only. I have been told that in ancient times, sometimes you did not know if a catechumen was a Roman spy, so for the most sacred part of the service, they were dismissed.

In modern practice, catechumens are not always physically dismissed (though in some traditions they still are), but the deacon still cries out the ancient words. The structural moment is preserved, even where the physical practice has softened.

And this is the exact moment - the exact moment - when the first half of the Divine Liturgy ends and the second half begins.

It is also, not coincidentally, the exact moment when the synagogue service ends and the uniquely Christian part of the Liturgy begins.

Here is what I want you to take away. The first half of the Divine Liturgy - the Liturgy of the Catechumens - is the synagogue service fulfilled in Christ. The readings, the Psalmody, the intercessions, the homily. It is structurally open to anyone who comes to hear the Word of God, just as the synagogue was structurally open to God-fearers9 and interested Gentiles in the first century (Acts 13 records Paul preaching in synagogues to mixed audiences of Jews and “devout Gentiles” - likely God-fearers). The Liturgy of the Word is, in a real sense, a Jewish inheritance of Christian worship - the part of the service that the Apostles knew how to do before they ever met the risen Christ, because they had been doing it their whole lives.

The second half, the Liturgy of the Faithful, is something else. It does not have a direct synagogue parallel, because the synagogue was not sacrificial. But it has an even deeper root. The Liturgy of the Faithful is the fulfillment of Temple worship in Christ.

Remember what we established in Article 2. The Orthodox church building is architecturally the Jerusalem Temple fulfilled. Three zones. A veil. A sanctuary behind the veil. A priesthood. Vestments. Incense. Every element of Temple architecture, preserved and transfigured in the physical space of the Orthodox parish. That whole architectural claim from Article 2 would be meaningless - would be theatrical set dressing - if the worship performed inside that architecture were not itself sacrificial Temple worship fulfilled. The Holy of Holies exists because a sacrifice is offered there. The veil opens because the High Priest has passed through. The altar is the altar because the offering happens on it.

The Liturgy of the Faithful is what happens behind the iconostasis, at the altar, by the priesthood, in the fulfilled Holy of Holies. It is the Eucharist, the one sacrifice of Christ re-presented (not re-performed, re-presented) in every Liturgy, everywhere, among all nations. The Fathers read this as the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy: ”From the rising of the sun even to its setting, my name shall be great among the nations, and in every place incense shall be offered to my name, and a pure offering” Malachi 1:11. Not in Jerusalem only. Everywhere. Not among Israel only. Among the nations. A pure offering, made in every place, until the end of the age.

That is the Liturgy of the Faithful. And it is the second Jewish root of the Divine Liturgy, not the synagogue root, but the Temple root, fulfilled in the one sacrifice of Christ and extended across the world in the apostolic succession.

We will walk through the Anaphora itself in Article 5, piece by piece, and I will show you exactly how the Temple fulfillment is performed in the words, the gestures, and the architecture of the prayer. For now, the point to hold is this: the Divine Liturgy has two Jewish roots, not one. Synagogue on the one side. Temple on the other. The first half of the service inherits Israel’s weekly gathering for the Word. The second half fulfills Israel’s sacrificial offering in the Body and Blood of the risen Christ.

Put those two halves together, and what do you get?

Synagogue plus Temple, both fulfilled in Christ.

The Jewish inheritance of the Word, and the Jewish inheritance of the Altar. The ancient weekly service the Apostles had attended all their lives, joined to the ancient sacrificial offering they had all witnessed in Jerusalem, now fulfilled in the one sacrifice of Christ given them the night before He died. Both preserved. Both transfigured. Both still being prayed, every Sunday, in every Orthodox parish on earth.

That is the Divine Liturgy.

What the Earliest Christians Actually Did

Now here is where it gets really interesting, because we can actually watch this happen in the New Testament itself.

In the book of Acts, the earliest Christians are doing exactly what I am describing. They go to the synagogue. They attend the Jewish service. And then, separately, they gather in homes “to break bread” - Luke’s technical phrase for the Eucharist (Acts 2:46, Acts 20:7).

Two gatherings. The synagogue service, and the Eucharistic meal. Eventually, these two gatherings merged into a single Christian service, which is exactly the shape we have been walking through. The synagogue half (Liturgy of the Catechumens / Liturgy of the Word) became the first half of the Christian service. The Eucharistic half (Liturgy of the Faithful) became the second.

Initially, Jewish Christians attended synagogue on the sabbath and then met separately on Sunday to celebrate the Eucharist (Sunday because it was the day of the Lord’s resurrection.) By AD 80-90, Jewish Christians were being progressively pushed out of synagogues due to social hostility brought about by institutional Jewish resistance, not by Christian choice. This is unsurprising as the Jewish institution I’m referencing here consisted of the the very pharisaic rabbis who rejected Christ and called for his crucifixion.10 An additional motivator was likely the Birkat haMinim - the "curse against the heretics and nazarenes - a term that included christians"11 - which was added to the daily synagogue liturgy. The addition of this curse is traditionally associated with the rabbinic academy at Yavneh (Jamnia) under Rabban Gamaliel II. As Christians were pushed out, there would have been gradual need and desire to add the old service Christians were now barred from into the independent Christian service already being held on Sunday.

How long did this take? When exactly did the two services fuse into one? The evidence is fragmentary, but we can say with confidence that by the time Justin Martyr writes his First Apology in 155 AD, the document I walked you through in Article 1 - the fusion is complete. Justin describes a single Sunday morning service with both halves: readings and homily followed by Eucharistic Prayer and communion. The synagogue half and the Eucharistic half are already one liturgy, celebrated together, in Rome, fifty-five years after the death of the last Apostle.

Which means this fusion happened very early. Very, very early. The Apostles themselves lived to see it.

And it has not changed since.

The Pattern in Your Parish

I want to end by making this practical.

If you have never been to an Orthodox Divine Liturgy, and I suspect most of my readers have not, go. Not to convert you on the spot (though hey, I wouldn’t complain.) Go to see the pattern. Go to hear what I have been describing, with your own ears, in the flesh. Go and see if you don’t feel transported by something ancient, and even a little foreign.

You will hear intercessory prayers that are structurally the same prayers the synagogue prayed before the Temple fell. You will hear Psalms chanted as they were chanted in the Second Temple. You will watch a book of Scripture processed into the midst of the congregation as the Torah was processed in Magdala, Nazareth, and Pisidian Antioch. You will hear two readings stood for and chanted, one from the epistles and one from the Gospels, structurally identical to the Torah-and-Prophets pattern Jesus participated in on that Sabbath in Nazareth. You will hear a homily given from the place of teaching, following the Scripture readings, exhorting the hearers to live what they have just heard.

And then you will hear the deacon cry out, “The doors! The doors!” and you will be standing at the exact liturgical seam where the Jewish inheritance hands off to the apostolic Eucharist.

This is not a Byzantine innovation or a medieval development. This is not a quaint cultural holdover from the old country. This is the worship pattern Christ Himself attended every Sabbath of His earthly life, joined to the Eucharist He instituted the night before He died, preserved and taught by His Apostles, and handed on in unbroken succession to a parish down the street from you.

Lex orandi, lex credendi. The law of prayer is the law of belief.

The Apostles prayed this way because they believed this. Their disciples prayed this way because they believed this. Every generation of Orthodox Christians since has prayed this way because they believed this.

And if it matters what the first Christians believed, then it matters what the first Christians prayed.

And it is still being prayed.

Next week, we go deeper into the documents. Justin Martyr is not the earliest source we have for Christian worship - he is only the earliest pagan-facing source. There is an even older document, called the Didache, that some scholars date as early as the middle of the first century - which would make it older than parts of the New Testament itself. The Didache gives us a Eucharistic Prayer that is stunningly close to what Orthodox Christians still pray at every Divine Liturgy. We will read it together, side by side with the prayers used today, and you will see the fingerprints of the Apostles on both.

If you want to read that article when it drops, become a paid subscriber now. The series only works as a whole. The Apostles were there first. It is time we caught up.

Primary Sources

Every claim in this article can be verified against the documents themselves. Don’t take my word for any of it. Go read them.

• Luke 4:16-30 - The best-documented first-century synagogue service in existence, preserved in the Gospel of Luke. Read it here.

• Acts 13:13-52 - Paul’s experience of synagogue worship at Pisidian Antioch. Note especially verses 14-15, which describe “the reading of the Law and the Prophets” followed by an invitation to a “word of exhortation.” Read it here.

• Acts 15:21 - James’s reference to the universal weekly reading of Moses in the synagogues of every city. Read it here.

• Acts 3:1 - Peter and John observing the hour of the afternoon prayer (the ninth hour) at the Temple. Read it here.

• Isaiah 6:1-8 - The seraphim’s “Holy, Holy, Holy” hymn that became the liturgical Kedushah in Jewish worship and the Sanctus in Christian worship. Read it here.

• Justin Martyr, First Apology, chapters 65-67 (c. 155 AD) - The earliest extended Christian description of a combined Word-and-Eucharist Sunday service, showing the fusion of synagogue liturgy and apostolic Eucharist was already complete by the mid-second century. Read it here.

• The Mishnah, Tractate Megillah and Tractate Berakhot - The earliest rabbinic descriptions of synagogue liturgy. Compiled around 200 AD, these tractates describe a more developed form of synagogue worship than existed in the first century, but they retain elements clearly rooted in earlier practice. English translations available in Jacob Neusner’s The Mishnah: A New Translation (Yale University Press) and in various online editions.

• Philo of Alexandria, On the Contemplative Life and Embassy to Gaius - First-century Jewish witness to synagogue worship from the Diaspora. Available in the Loeb Classical Library and online at Early Jewish Writings.

• Josephus, Against Apion 2.17 and Antiquities of the Jews 16.43 - First-century Jewish witness to the universal weekly practice of Scripture reading in synagogues. Available online at Sacred Texts.

A general resource for the curious: For readers who want to go deeper into the scholarly reconstruction of first-century synagogue worship, the archaeological excavation reports on the Magdala synagogue (2009) and the Gamla synagogue have significantly shaped the current consensus. The standard academic reference is Lee I. Levine’s The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (Yale University Press, 2nd edition, 2005), which remains the gold standard. Also valuable is Anders Runesson, Donald Binder, and Birger Olsson’s The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins to 200 CE: A Source Book (Brill, 2008), which collects the primary sources.

You’re trying to assemble an IKEA bookshelf.

You have the instructions. You have the little paper bag of dowels and the plastic cam-lock fasteners. You have that weird L-shaped Allen wrench that is somehow always the exact tool required and is also somehow always going to be lost by next Tuesday. You have Piece A and Piece B and Piece 47-C, which you were told was “not needed for most configurations” but which is apparently critical for this one.

You are going to follow those instructions exactly, because if you don’t, if you put the back panel on backwards, or skip the step about pre-drilling the little cam holes, or tighten the bolts out of order, the whole thing is going to wobble. Or lean. Or not fit together properly and you’ll just end up having to take it all apart and put it back together properly.

You will obey the instructions. Meticulously. For a bookshelf.

Have you ever wondered why we spend 3 hours following the blueprint for a piece of Swedish particle board to the exact millimeter, but the minute someone suggests that God’s instructions for how to build His house might actually matter we collectively shrug and go “well, it’s the thought that counts” and throw up a pole barn with some folding chairs and a projector screen?

Because…. (and this isn’t going to make me popular):

God actually did give instructions for how to build His house. Very specific instructions. He dictated the dimensions. He specified the materials. He designed the furniture. He designed the decorations, images and visuals, he prescribed the vestments of the priests down to the color of the thread and the arrangement of the pomegranates on the hem. (Yes, pomegranates. Fruit embroidery. On the priest’s robe. We’ll get there.) He did this on Mount Sinai, to Moses, in a conversation that covers roughly seven chapters of the Book of Exodus. And when He was done giving the instructions, he said this:

Read that again. Pattern. Not suggestion. Not general concept. Not “vibe.” Pattern. The Greek Septuagint uses typos - the word from which we get “type” and “typology.” God gave Moses a type, a pattern, a blueprint. And Moses was to make things according to that pattern.

And here is the question this entire article exists to answer:

What if somebody actually did?

What if, after the resurrection, after the tearing of the veil, after Pentecost and the sending out of the Apostles - somebody took God’s blueprint, held it up against the new reality of the risen Christ, and built Him a house on purpose? What if that house is still being built today, in every country on earth, by people who learned how to build it from people who learned how to build it from people who learned how to build it from the Apostles themselves?

What if the blueprint never went away?

Giddy up and let’s Ggggggoooooooooooooo.

Architecture Is Theology

In the first article of this series, I established a principle that is going to do a lot of the heavy lifting for this whole project: lex orandi, lex credendi. The law of prayer is the law of belief. How a church worships is how a church actually believes.

There is a sister principle, but I don’t think it has a Latin phrase and I’m not going to just make one up, because I don’t have to. The Fathers have already said it. Repeatedly. At length. For centuries. To paraphrase it basically boils down to is this:

What you build to worship in is what you believe about worship.

Eusebius of Caesarea, around 315 AD - just after the persecution of Diocletian ended and Christians could finally build publicly again - delivered a dedicatory oration at the consecration of the rebuilt basilica at Tyre. The oration is preserved in full in Book 10 of his Church History (read it here.) He calls the bishop Paulinus “a new Beseleel, the architect of a divine tabernacle, or Solomon, king of a new and much better Jerusalem, or also a new Zerubabel, who added a much greater glory than the former to the temple of God.” Eusebius is not treating the Christian basilica as something new. He is treating it as the direct lineal descendant of the Tabernacle that Moses built, the Temple that Solomon built, and the Second Temple that Zerubbabel built. The fourth-century Christian church is, in Eusebius’s own mouth, the continuation of that same architectural tradition - fulfilled, transfigured, but unmistakably the same lineage.

And Eusebius is not inventing this interpretation at Tyre. He is reporting it. He is giving voice to a theology of sacred architecture that the Church had already cultivated for generations before him.1

Three centuries later, St. Maximus the Confessor writes a work called the Mystagogia, literally “the teaching of the mysteries.” In which he lays out, in systematic theological detail, what the various parts of a church building mean. The nave is the world of the faithful. The sanctuary is the kingdom of heaven. The screen that divides them is the threshold between the two ages. The whole building, taken together, is an image of the cosmos, of the human person, and of the Kingdom of God. This is not metaphor. This is not syntactic sugar. This is theology rendered in stone and wood and screen and lamp, and Maximus spells it out explicitly because, for him, the building teaches. The building forms the faithful who stand in it. It is a catechesis2 you can walk into.

A century after Maximus, St. Germanus of Constantinople - the Ecumenical Patriarch who defended the veneration of icons against the iconoclast emperors - begins his commentary On the Divine Liturgy with this:

“The Church is the temple of God, a sacred space, a house of prayer, the convocation of people, the Body of Christ... She is heaven on earth, where the transcendent God dwells as if in his own home and passes through.”

Heaven on earth. Where the transcendent God dwells as if in his own home. That is not hyperbole, and it’s not a quaint eighth-century turn of phrase. That is the working definition of what an Orthodox church building is, preserved and prayed in Orthodox parishes to this day. Germanus’s commentary became the somewhat official explanation of the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine world for the next six hundred years. What he says about the church building is what the Church said. It is what the Church continues to say.

So when I tell you that sacred architecture is not decoration - that it is not optional, that it is not “whatever works for your community,” that it is theology made of stone and wood and glass and paint - I am not giving you my personal opinion. I am reporting what Eusebius reported, what Maximus systematized, and what Germanus prayed. For the Fathers, sacred architecture is doctrine you can walk into. It is belief with a roof on it.

This is not a uniquely Christian idea. Every religious tradition on earth has understood this. The Greeks built temples to specific gods in specific shapes for specific reasons. The Egyptians laid out their tombs according to cosmic principles. The Muslims built the Dome of the Rock on the exact spot where they believe Muhammad ascended to heaven. The Buddhists orient their stupas to the cardinal directions. Everyone knows that what you build to worship in matters.

Everyone, apparently, except modern Western Christianity - which, unmoored from the tradition of the roman catholic church, decided that it didn’t really matter. The specific shape of the building became an afterthought. That one could worship God in a gothic cathedral, a converted warehouse, a storefront, a strip mall, or (I am not making this up) a repurposed Hooters in Johnson City, Tennessee.3 That sacred space is a concept, not a place. That God will meet you anywhere, so why bother with anywhere in particular?

I want to push back on that, because God Himself, on Mount Sinai, in front of Moses, did not say “build me a worship experience that reflects your local cultural context.” He said make all things according to the pattern shown to thee on the mount.

He had a pattern. He gave it to us. Let’s look at what it was.

The Blueprint God Delivered

Open your Bible to Exodus chapter 25.

What you are about to read is one of the most detailed construction specification documents in the ancient world. It runs from Exodus 25 through Exodus 31, with a repeat-performance in Exodus 35 through 40. (God dictates the plans. Then Moses repeats them back. Then they get built. Seven full chapters of detailed architectural instructions, delivered twice.) This is not casual. This is the most serious thing in the entire Torah besides the Ten Commandments themselves, and in fact, the Ten Commandments get stored inside the edifice these chapters describe.

This is the Tabernacle, the portable sanctuary that Israel carried through the wilderness for forty years. Later, under Solomon, the Tabernacle’s design was executed in stone and gold as the permanent Temple in Jerusalem. The Temple was destroyed, rebuilt after the Exile, and then magnificently expanded by Herod the Great just before the birth of Christ. It is this Herodian Temple, structurally identical in its essentials to the Tabernacle blueprint, that Jesus walked into, that He drove the money-changers out of, that His disciples admired for its massive stones. And it is this Temple whose veil tore in two at the moment of His death.

The shape of the Tabernacle, the First Temple, and the Herodian Temple was the same. The materials changed. The scale changed. The essentials did not. Because God gave the pattern once, and that pattern was the pattern.

Here is what the pattern looks like.

Three zones. Concentric. Each one holier than the last.

Zone One: The Outer Court. The largest area, also know as a preparation area, the one any worshiping Israelite could enter. In the Tabernacle, it was the open-air courtyard surrounded by a curtained wall. In the Temple, it became the Court of the Women and the Court of Israel. Later, under Herod, an outer Court of the Gentiles was added - but the original design was just “the court where the people stood.” This is where a great altar stood - the altar of burnt offering, where animal sacrifices were made. This is the place of preparation. The place where purification happened. The place where the worshiper came with his offering.

Zone Two: The Holy Place. You entered through a curtain. This was the interior of the sanctuary proper. Only priests could enter. Inside were three furnishings, and you will want to remember all three of them, because they are all going to come back:

• The Menorah - the seven-branched golden lampstand, which burned perpetually from evening until morning. (Exodus 25:31-40)

• The Table of Showbread - on which twelve loaves of bread were placed fresh every Sabbath, one for each tribe of Israel (Exodus 25:23-30)

• The Altar of Incense - which stood directly before the veil, and on which incense was burned (Exodus 30:1-10) The Altar of Incense was a stationary piece of furniture, a small golden altar that stood directly in front of the veil, inside the Holy Place. Morning and evening, the priest burned the prescribed incense on it. Once a year, on Yom Kippur, the High Priest carried coals from this altar into the Holy of Holies in a portable censer (machtah in Hebrew.)

Perpetual light. Continually renewed offering bread. Regular incense. Continually offered in perpetual liturgical patterns. The Holy Place was not a place where stuff happened occasionally or casually. It was a place where the fundamental furniture of worship was always active according to prescribed patterns of worship.

Zone Three: The Holy of Holies. The innermost chamber. The place where God Himself dwelt, between the cherubim on the Mercy Seat of the Ark of the Covenant.

Only one person on earth could enter the Holy of Holies.

The High Priest.

And he could only enter on one day of the year.

Yom Kippur. The Day of Atonement.

And before the Holy of Holies hung the most important piece of fabric in the ancient world.

The Veil.

The Veil

Exodus 26:31-33 (read it):

The veil was made of blue, purple, and scarlet threads, woven with fine twisted linen. It was embroidered with cherubim - the angelic guardians of God’s presence. It hung on four pillars of acacia wood overlaid with gold, set in four silver sockets. It separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. It was, according to Josephus (the Jewish historian writing at the end of the first century AD, and you can read him yourself here), approximately sixty feet tall in the Herodian Temple. Sixty feet. Sixty feet of embroidered linen separating the holy from the most holy.

Amazing, God’s instructions for His house included a sixty-foot wall of fabric, hand-embroidered with angels, woven with blue and purple and scarlet threads, hanging between the worshiper and the presence of God.

The veil did a very specific theological job. It said: you cannot come in here. Not because God is cruel. Not because God doesn’t want you. But because you are not yet ready, and until you are, approaching Him directly will kill you. The Law of Moses records the story of Uzzah, who touched the Ark of the Covenant to steady it when the oxen stumbled, and dropped dead on the spot (2 Samuel 6:6-7). God is not safe. The veil was a mercy. The veil was the thing that let you stand near without being consumed.

And the High Priest, once a year, on Yom Kippur, passed through the veil with the blood of the sacrifice, and sprinkled it on the Mercy Seat, and thereby atoned for the sins of the entire nation.

One priest. One day. One passage through the veil.

Until Good Friday.

On the ninth hour, at the moment Christ died on the Cross, three separate Gospel writers - Matthew, Mark, and Luke - record the same event: the veil of the Temple was torn in two from the top to the bottom (Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45)4 From the top. Which is to say, from God’s side down. Not from man reaching up, but from God reaching down, and ripping the fabric in half.

Most of my Protestant readers know that this happened. Most of them have been told what it means. Most of them have been told wrong.

The standard Protestant reading is that the tearing of the veil abolished the Temple. That the veil tearing means sacred space is over. That we no longer need altars, priests, incense, vestments, or any of the rest of it, because Christ is the only priest we need and He already did the one sacrifice that mattered. There is a partial truth here. Christ is the only High Priest. His sacrifice is the one that matters. But the conclusion - therefore, we don’t do any of the rest of it - does not follow. Certainly this is not what the earliest Christians understood, the ones who lived while the Temple was still standing, the ones who saw the tearing happen - they didn’t draw that conclusion.

They did something else instead.

And the question is: what?

Walking Into an Orthodox Church

Come with me.

We’re going to walk into an Orthodox parish on a Sunday morning. Any of them. Doesn’t matter where. A cathedral in Moscow. A storefront in Boise. A Greek parish in Astoria, Queens. A mission in rural Alabama where the priest converted from being a Baptist pastor eight years ago and the congregation of thirty people meets in what used to be a beauty salon. Every single one of them is built on the same floor plan.

Because every single one of them is built on the floor plan.

You enter the church. Before you walk into the worship space proper, you pass through a kind of vestibule or entry area. In a larger church this is an entire room. In a smaller one it might just be a small area just inside the doors. This space is called the Narthex. Historically, and in many parishes still today, this is the place where catechumens (those preparing for baptism) stood during portions of the Liturgy from which they were dismissed before the Eucharist. It is also traditionally the place where penitents, those under discipline, those not yet fully received into the Church, could stand and participate in the outer parts of the service.

Hold that thought. Remember the three zones of the Temple. Remember that the outermost zone was the place of preparation, the place where the non-priest worshiper came. Hold that thought.

You pass from the Narthex through a set of doors into the main body of the church. This is called the Nave. (The word is from the Latin navis, meaning “ship,” because the early Church understood the Nave as the ark of salvation carrying the faithful through the flood of the world. Which is a beautiful image but not the one I need you to hold right now. Hold the Temple image. Hold the second zone.)

The Nave is where the faithful stand, and in traditional Orthodox practice, we do stand, for most of the service, because we are in the presence of the King.5 Around you, you will see:

• Oil lamps, burning perpetually before the icons. Not electric. Not fake. Real oil, real flames, kept lit. Some of them have been burning in certain monasteries for over a thousand years. (The monks take turns making sure the flame never goes out.) Perpetual light.

• Incense, which the deacon or priest will bring through multiple times as prescribed during the service, swinging the censer on its chains, filling the nave with a specific smoke from specific recipes that haven’t meaningfully changed since antiquity. Regular incense.6

• Prosphora - offering bread - which is brought forward by the faithful on a weekly basis, stamped with a specific seal and which will be consecrated and distributed later in the service. Continually renewed offering bread.

Perpetual light. Continually renewed offering bread. Regular incense. Continually offered in perpetual liturgical patterns. The three furnishings of the Holy Place of the Temple, still burning and still offered.

The Hebrew Bible has a word for this kind of worship: tamid. It is usually translated “continual” or “perpetual,” but it does not mean “literally burning every second.” It means unceasing in pattern - offered at the appointed times, without interruption, generation after generation, never abandoned. The Menorah was lit every evening and tended every morning. That was tamid. The Showbread was replaced every Sabbath. That was tamid. The incense was offered morning and evening, morning and evening, century after century. That was tamid.

And this is what an Orthodox parish is doing, right now, today. The lamps are tended. The bread is offered. The incense rises. Not literally every second - but in the unbroken liturgical pattern that Israel kept for fifteen hundred years, and that the Church has kept for two thousand more. Light. Bread. Incense. The three furnishings of the Holy Place of the Temple, still kept in their appointed times, in a parish eight thousand miles away from Jerusalem and twenty centuries after the Temple was destroyed.

Now look toward the front of the church.

You will see a wall.

It is covered in icons. Large ones of Christ and the Theotokos (the Mother of God), smaller ones of various saints, and above them, often, a row of icons depicting the major feasts of the Church year. The wall has three doors in it. The center door is the largest and most ornate, and it has a specific name: it is called the Royal Doors, or in some traditions the Holy Doors, or the Beautiful Gates. This wall is called the iconostasis - from the Greek words for “image” (eikon) and “to stand” (stasis). Literally, “a place where images stand.”

You cannot easily see what is behind this wall.

Occasionally, during certain parts of the service, the Royal Doors will open, and you will catch a glimpse. There is a space behind there. In it is an altar table, covered in cloth, bearing specific objects whose names you probably don’t know yet. (We will get there in Article 5, when we look into the anaphora.) Only one class of person enters that space during the service.

men who have been blessed or ordained for liturgical service. This can include:

• Bishops, priests, and deacons (the three orders of major clergy)

• Subdeacons (the highest of the minor orders, formally tonsured and blessed)

• Readers (minor order, tonsured)

• Altar servers / acolytes (often boys or young men, blessed by the bishop or priest to serve, but not ordained to any order)

Women do not enter except for specific, limited purposes (nuns cleaning in a convent church, for example). Laymen off the street do not enter. The altar is not off-limits as a matter of exclusion - it is set apart, for those set apart.

If that sounds familiar, it should. The Jerusalem Temple worked the same way. Graduated access. The High Priest alone entered the Holy of Holies, and only once a year. The priests (the sons of Aaron) entered the Holy Place daily to tend the lamps, the bread, and the incense. The Levites assisted in supporting roles - music, gatekeeping, carrying the sacred vessels. Israelite men could stand in their court, Israelite women in theirs, Gentiles in the outer court. It was not one wall between priests and everyone else. It was a series of thresholds, each one marking a deeper level of consecration and a greater proximity to the Presence of God.

An Orthodox church preserves that graduated structure, in modified New Covenant form. The Holy of Holies behind the iconostasis is entered by those whom the Church has set apart for altar service. The nave is the place of the faithful - the baptized, the communing members of the Body. The narthex is the place of preparation, of catechumens and penitents. Three zones, graduated access, thresholds that matter.

And now I want you to stop.

I want you to look around the church you are standing in, and I want you to count zones.

Zone one: the Narthex. The place of preparation. The place where those not yet fully initiated stood. The outer court.

Zone two: the Nave. The place of the faithful. The place of perpetual light, continually renewed offering bread and Regular incense. The Holy Place, the place where the lamps are tended, the incense rises, and the offering bread is brought forward - kept in tamid pattern.

Zone three: behind the iconostasis. The sanctuary proper. The place where those who have been blessed or ordained for liturgical service enter, where the sacrifice is offered, where the Presence dwells. The Holy of Holies.

And between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, there is a wall.

There is a wall with a specific architectural function of separating the holy from the most holy. There is a wall that has a door in the middle of it that opens only at specific moments. There is a wall decorated with the figures of saints and angels - the christian equivalent of the cherubim embroidered on the ancient veil.

The Iconostasis Is the Veil

This is not an analogy. This is not a clever comparison. This is not “oh, how interesting, it’s metaphorically similar.”7

This is a direct inheritance: architectural, theological, and liturgical.

The iconostasis of every Orthodox church on earth is the veil of the Temple. It is the veil performing its original theological function in the New Covenant context. It is the same architectural object, given a new name and a new artistic vocabulary, doing the same work.

“But wait,” I hear you say. “Didn’t the veil tear at the crucifixion?”

Yes. It did.

“Doesn’t that mean the veil is gone?”

No. It means the veil has been opened.

This is a critical distinction.

When Christ died, the veil tore. From top to bottom. From heaven’s side down. That tearing accomplished something specific: it made the way into the Holy of Holies accessible through Christ. The book of Hebrews - possibly the most liturgically sophisticated book in the entire New Testament - spells this out. In Hebrews 10:19-20, the author tells us that we have boldness to enter the holiest “by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.”

Through the veil. Not around the veil. Not past an abolished veil. Through.

The veil is NOT gone. The veil has been identified with the Body of Christ8. Which means the veil has not been destroyed but transfigured. It is now the means of access to the Holy of Holies rather than the barrier to it. And this is why, in Orthodox worship, the Royal Doors of the iconostasis open and close at specific points during the Liturgy. Because the way is now open in Christ. The High Priest has passed through. He has opened the way. And He beckons us to follow.

The Orthodox iconostasis does something that the Temple veil could not do: it opens. It opens at specific moments. It opens so that the Eucharist can come out to the faithful. It opens at the Great Entrance, when the gifts are carried from the Table of Preparation to the Altar. It opens when the priest emerges to preach or to bless or to commune the faithful. The Temple veil was a barrier. The Orthodox veil is a threshold. Because in Christ, the Holy of Holies is no longer off-limits. It is where the faithful are being drawn.

And here is the thing that should absolutely wreck you.

The Apostles saw the veil tear. They were in Jerusalem when it happened. They walked past the torn Temple veil for the next forty years, until Rome destroyed the Temple in 70 AD. They could have concluded, “well, sacred space is over, let’s just meet in whatever building is available and call it good.” They did not conclude that. Instead, they took the principle of the Temple and built it into every Christian worship space they planted. Three zones. A veil. Incense. Priesthood. Vestments. Perpetual light. Continually renewed offering bread. Regular incense. Continually offered in perpetual liturgical patterns.

They didn’t abolish the blueprint. They fulfilled it.

Because that is what Christ does. He does not destroy. He fulfills.9

The Other Inheritances

The three zones and the veil are the big ones. But once you start looking, you cannot stop finding the Temple inside every Orthodox church. Let me give you a rapid-fire review tour.

The Priesthood. Under the Law of Moses, God established a specific order of priesthood: the sons of Aaron, from the tribe of Levi, ordained by the laying on of hands, vested in specific garments, offering specific sacrifices (Exodus 28). This Aaronic priesthood did not die with the Temple. It was fulfilled in Christ - the true High Priest “after the order of Melchizedek,” as the book of Hebrews works out in elaborate detail. And the Apostles, to whom Christ gave the authority to forgive sins and to offer the Eucharist, ordained successors by the laying on of hands. Those successors ordained further successors. That unbroken chain has never been broken in the Orthodox Church. The priest standing behind your iconostasis this Sunday was ordained by a bishop who was ordained by a bishop who was ordained by a bishop, in a direct chain back to the Apostles.10

The Vestments. Exodus 28 describes in exhaustive detail what the Aaronic priest wore. A linen tunic. An outer robe with pomegranates and bells on the hem (the bells made sound so that the priest could be heard moving in the sanctuary; the pomegranates were a symbol of abundance). A breastplate with twelve stones. A sash around the waist. A turban. Now look at what an Orthodox priest wears at the Divine Liturgy: the sticharion (a long linen tunic), the epitrachelion (a stole that hangs down the chest, equivalent to the ephod), the zone (a sash), the epimanikia (cuffs), the phelonion (an outer robe), and, for a bishop, the mitre (a crown-like headdress that is directly derived from the High Priest’s turban). It is not a coincidence. It is not a made up costume. It is a continuity. The vestments of an Orthodox priest are a conscious, deliberate, theological continuation of the vestments God specified on Mount Sinai, adapted to the New Covenant reality, but in unbroken descent.

The Incense. Psalm 141:2: ”Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense, and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.” In the Temple, incense was offered on a dedicated altar - the Altar of Incense - which stood directly in front of the veil. Morning and evening, every day, the priest offered it. Orthodox worship preserves the offering but moves it from a fixed altar to a portable vessel: the censer, a small bowl on chains that the deacon or priest swings throughout the service, censing the altar, the icons, the Gospel book, the clergy, and the people. The tamid offering of incense is not gone. It has been taken up and carried throughout the whole house of God. Which is fitting, because in Christ, the whole Church has become the Holy Place.

The Lamps. The Menorah in the Temple was tended daily by the priests - lit every evening, cleaned and trimmed every morning, oil refilled before it failed. The Orthodox Church keeps lamps in the same tamid pattern. A sanctuary lamp burns before the altar of every Orthodox church I know, kept lit and refilled as a matter of standing liturgical practice. Additional lamps burn before the major icons. The faithful light candles when they enter. In many monasteries, the sanctuary lamp has been tended in unbroken succession for centuries. It is not magical never-extinguishing fire. It is faithful, patterned, never-abandoned fire. Which is exactly what God commanded.

The Bread. The Table of Showbread held twelve loaves of unleavened bread, one for each tribe of Israel, replaced fresh every Sabbath, with the old loaves eaten by the priests in a holy place. The Bread of the Presence sat before the face of God all week long, never absent from the Table, renewed weekly in unbroken pattern for fifteen hundred years. When the Orthodox priest prepares the bread for the Eucharist - a service called the Proskomedia, which takes place before the Liturgy itself - he cuts commemorative particles out of specific loaves for the Mother of God, the saints, the departed, and the living. The single loaf that becomes the Body of Christ is placed at the center, with the other particles arranged around it. When the Eucharist is complete, the priest places all those particles into the chalice with the Body and Blood, saying words that mean, roughly, “let the Lord remember all of these.” Twelve loaves, made one Body, containing all the faithful. The showbread is not gone. It has been fulfilled.

Eastward Orientation. Every synagogue from the time of Christ onward faces Jerusalem - for diaspora Jews, this almost always means east. Orthodox churches are built with the altar on the eastern wall, so that when the priest offers the Eucharist, he faces east with the people, toward the rising sun, toward Paradise (which Genesis 2:8 places “in the east”), toward the direction from which Christ is expected to return Matthew 24:27. The architectural orientation is not cultural. It is eschatological. It is theology made of compass points.11

But Didn’t Jesus Abolish All This?

This is the question that many Protestant readers have been holding in the back of their minds since about the fourth paragraph, and I want to address it head-on.

The argument goes like this. Jesus’s whole ministry was in some sense a critique of Temple religion. He drove out the money-changers. He predicted the Temple’s destruction. He said “destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up,” referring to His own Body (John 2:19). The book of Hebrews spends eight chapters arguing that the Levitical priesthood has been superseded by Christ. Paul says the middle wall of partition has been broken down (Ephesians 2:14). Doesn’t all of this add up to “the Temple is over, sacred space is over, priesthood is over, ritual is over”?

No. It adds up to “the Temple has been fulfilled.”

And there is a crucial difference between “abolished” and “fulfilled,” and the New Testament is ruthlessly consistent about which one Christ is doing.

Christ himself said: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” Matthew 5:17). The Greek word is plerosai - to fill up, to complete, to bring to its intended end. Christ is not the eraser of the Old Covenant. He is its completion. The Temple is not abolished by Christ; it is the blueprint that Christ came to embody and perpetuate in His Body, the Church.

So when the veil tore, it was not an act of demolition. It was an act of opening. When the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, the blueprint did not die - it had already been transplanted into the architecture of every Christian church being planted across the Roman Empire by the Apostles and their successors. The Jewish priesthood did not end; it was taken up into the priesthood of Christ and extended through the laying on of hands to the Apostolic succession. The sacrifices did not end; they were fulfilled in the one sacrifice of Christ, which is re-presented (not re-performed, re-presented) in every Divine Liturgy.

The pattern did not go away. The pattern was filled with Christ.

And here is what I want my Protestant readers to sit with, honestly and without defensiveness. If your tradition has stripped the continuous lamps out of the sanctuary, removed the incense, thrown out the vestments, torn down the iconostasis, abolished the priesthood, and replaced the altar with a stage, then - by the same principle Eusebius and Maximus and Germanus articulated, that what you build to worship in is what you believe about worship - your tradition has, at some point in its history, stopped believing that the Temple blueprint matters. It has concluded, somewhere along the way, that God’s seven chapters of instructions to Moses were a temporary arrangement that Christ made obsolete. And the architectural evidence in your worship space is evidence of that belief.

I am not saying this to condemn. I am saying this to invite you to ask the question.

If God Himself specified a pattern, and the Apostles Themselves preserved it, and unbroken Christian practice has continued it for two thousand years in the oldest continuous Christian tradition on earth, why does your worship space not contain it? And if it does not, what does that mean?

Those are questions worth sitting with.

What Article Three Will Cover

We have walked through the Temple. We have walked into an Orthodox church. We have seen that the architecture of the second is a direct, deliberate, theological continuation of the first.

But architecture is only half of the Jewish inheritance.

Next week, we are going to sit down in a first-century synagogue, not the Temple but the synagogue, because by the time of Christ most Jews no longer lived near Jerusalem, and Jewish worship had developed an entire secondary form for Sabbath mornings in a thousand towns across the Empire. The synagogue had Scripture readings. It had chanted psalms. It had fixed prayers. It had a specific posture of standing, a specific orientation facing east, a specific weekly cycle of readings. And it had all of this before the Temple was destroyed, which means Christ Himself attended synagogue services, as did Peter, James, John, and Paul. They prayed these prayers. They sang these psalms.

And the first half of every Divine Liturgy - the part called the Liturgy of the Word, or the Liturgy of the Catechumens - is structurally that synagogue service, baptized into Christ.

If you thought the Temple connection was uncomfortable, wait until we sit down next to Jesus in Nazareth and watch Him open the scroll of Isaiah.

Lex orandi, lex credendi

You have now seen the building. Next week, we listen to the service inside it. The pattern is there. It has always been there.

Subscribe, so you don’t miss it. And if this article resonated with you, share it with somebody who still thinks sacred space is a style preference.

The Apostles were there first. It is time we caught up.

Subscribe now

Primary Sources

Every claim in this article can be verified against the following documents themselves. Disagree with something? Go read them.

• Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History, Book 10 (c. 315-325 AD) - The oration Eusebius delivered at the dedication of the rebuilt basilica at Tyre, the earliest surviving extended Christian theology of sacred architecture. He calls the bishop Paulinus a new Beseleel, a new Solomon, and a new Zerubbabel - explicitly positioning the Christian church as the continuation of the Tabernacle-Temple lineage. Read it here.

• St. Maximus the Confessor, Mystagogia (c. 630 AD) - The seventh-century systematic theological commentary on the meaning of the church building and the Divine Liturgy. The nave, the sanctuary, the screen between them - each part carries doctrinal weight. Standard English translation is by George Berthold in the Paulist Press *Classics of Western Spirituality* series; portions are also available online at various patristic archives.

• St. Germanus of Constantinople, On the Divine Liturgy (c. 730 AD) - Originally titled Ecclesiastical History and Mystical Contemplation, this eighth-century commentary became the quasi-official explanation of the Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine world for the next six hundred years. The opening line “The Church is heaven on earth where the transcendent God dwells as if in his own home” is the working definition of what an Orthodox church is. Published in English by SVS Press in the Popular Patristics series.

• The Tabernacle and Temple Blueprint (Exodus 25-31, 35-40) - The original construction specifications. Start with Exodus 25 on Bible Gateway and read through chapter 31. Then read 35-40 for the execution. This is where the entire blueprint is.

• The Vestments of the Priesthood (Exodus 28) - The full specification for the Aaronic priestly garments. Read it here

• The Veil of the Temple (Exodus 26:31-33) - The specification. And for the tearing: Matthew 27:51, Mark 15:38, Luke 23:45

• The Theology of the Veil in Christ (Hebrews 9-10) - The New Testament’s fullest theological treatment of what the Temple meant and what its fulfillment in Christ looks like. Read Hebrews 9 and Hebrews 10

• Josephus, Wars of the Jews, Book 5, Chapter 5 - The most detailed first-century eyewitness description of the Herodian Temple in existence. Josephus was a Jewish priest and historian who saw the Temple with his own eyes before Rome destroyed it in 70 AD. Read it here.

• St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews - The greatest preacher of the fourth century working systematically through the book of Hebrews, which is the New Testament’s sustained argument about the Temple, the priesthood, and Christ. Read the homilies here.

• A general resource for the curious: New Advent’s Fathers of the Church library hosts the complete Ante-Nicene Fathers and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers in English. Early Church Texts provides further primary sources with Greek and Latin originals for readers who want to verify at the textual level. Neither is an Orthodox site. Both host the sources I am citing throughout this series.

Close your eyes and picture this….

Its fifty years ago on a small country farm, Johnny McMasters Place, and its Friday Night… You've just finished ten hot days of back breakin' labor,… and the hay... the hay is finally in. You're sitting around the kitchen table, under the dim light of the kerosene lantern. Everyone is laughing, and joking, and telling storiessssss...about their neighbours. You're half way through a bottle of.…. uh….. moonshine

err STOP, SORRY, wrong article! (ADD brain ran away with me!) I almost gotcha’ though! Were you paying attention? That song is one of my all time favorites, go check it out.

<shifts gears> Ok, Seriously now…..

Close your eyes and picture this in your mind’s eye.

You are sitting in a living room somewhere in the Roman Empire. The year is 155 AD. The Apostle John has been dead for just over fifty years. The Apostle Peter has been dead for just under a hundred. You cannot get a copy of the New Testament, because the New Testament has not yet been formally assembled into a book — the canon will not be settled for another two centuries. But the writings are there. They are circulating. People are copying them and passing them around.

It’s Sunday morning. And because you are curious, because you want to know what the grandchildren of the Apostles are actually doing, you follow a group of people through the streets of Rome, past the temples of Jupiter and Mars, past the shops and the bakeries, and into a private house. The door closes behind you. You have been invited to a Christian worship service.

What do you see?

Most Christians would probably give an answer that sounds like a slightly older version of whatever tradition they grew up with. If they grew up in a low-church Protestant tradition, they picture a sermon with some hymns, maybe some extemporaneous prayer, maybe a shared meal. If they grew up in an Evangelical tradition, they likely picture something loose and informal, a gathering of fellow christians, some teaching, perhaps some singing, perhaps someone sharing a prophecy or a word of encouragement.

• Almost nobody pictures an altar.

• Almost nobody pictures incense.

• Almost nobody pictures vestments.

• Almost nobody pictures anything that looks even remotely like Orthodoxy.

And here is the thing! We do not have to guess!

We have a letter. A letter from that exact decade. A letter written by a Christian philosopher named Justin, later called Justin Martyr, because he was martyred, addressed to the Roman Emperor Antoninus Pius himself.

The letter is an appeal. Justin is trying to explain to the Emperor what Christians actually do on Sunday morning. Why would he need to do that? Because at this time roman pagans are circulating ugly rumors that Christians engage in cannibalism and incest1. Rumors designed to justify the persecution that was busy turning Christians into lion food all over the Empire. Justin writes to the Emperor and says, in effect: *let me tell you what we actually do. Send someone to check if you want. Here is the truth.*

And the description he gives is devastating because the service Justin Martyr describes — written fifty-five years after the death of the last Apostle, to a pagan Emperor who could have had the entire claim verified by a single centurion with a notebook — is not the service that most Western Christians have been shown as the “early Church.”

It is not a sermon with some hymns. It is not an informal gathering. It is something much older, much more structured, much more deliberate, and much more familiar to about three hundred million people living in the world today. Just not the three hundred million you might think.

This series is my attempt to walk you through that evidence. Patiently, carefully, and with as much documentation as I can carry. By the time we are done, my hope is that you will not be able to unsee what I cannot unsee.

Let’s begin.

Why Worship Is Never Just “Style”

Before we get to Justin Martyr’s letter, I need to establish a principle that is going to do some of the heavy lifting for this entire series. It comes from a fifth-century theologian named Prosper of Aquitaine, who was a disciple of Augustine. Prosper coined a Latin phrase that has been the inheritance of serious theology ever since:

Lex orandi, lex credendi2 - loosely translated the way you worship is the way you believe.

Sit with that for a minute. Because it sounds too simple to be important, but it is actually hugely consequential. Here is what Prosper is saying. The way a church worships is not decoration. It is not aesthetic. It is not a style preference that can be swapped out the way you swap out the upholstery on a couch. The way a church worships is the load-bearing structure of what that church actually believes. Worship is doctrine in action. Worship is theology made visible, audible, tangible, incarnate.

Let’s make this concrete.

If you pray directly to the Son of God, you believe the Son of God is God. If you pray directly to the Holy Spirit, you believe the Holy Spirit is God. If you do not do these things, you probably don’t believe these things — or at the very least, you haven’t actualized them in your spiritual life. The doctrine of the Trinity I laid out in an earlier article of this series is not something the Fathers defined at Nicaea and then shelved.

The trinity is something that gets prayed every Sunday in an Orthodox church, dozens of times, with specific addresses to specific hypostases. If you never pray that way, you will eventually drift from believing that way.

If you ask the Saints to pray for you, you believe the communion of the Body of Christ extends across the boundary of physical death. You believe the saints are alive. You believe they can hear you. You believe the bond of love between you and them, the bond of the body of Christ is stronger than demonic forces and the grave. If you do not ask them to pray for you, you probably do not believe those things — or at least, you have not let yourself believe them enough to act on them.

If your worship centers on a pulpit and a sermon, you believe the primary act of Christian gathering is the proclamation of the Word. If your worship centers on an altar and the Eucharist, you believe the primary act of Christian gathering is the offering of the Body and Blood of Christ. Neither of these is a neutral architectural decision. They are theological claims built into the “furniture” of the edifice, so to speak.

Now, let’s run the principle in reverse, because this is where it comes home.

If a church’s worship is radically different from the worship of the ancient undivided Church, then by the same principle of lex orandi, lex credendi that church’s beliefs are probably radically different from the beliefs of the ancient undivided Church. Not maybe, probably, because you cannot worship one way for generations and believe the other way for generations. The worship always wins.

Let that sit, because it is the diagnostic framework for everything that follows.

We are not going to spend the next six articles being antiquarians. We are not going to dig up old Greek texts because old Greek texts are cool. We are going to dig up old Greek texts because if lex orandi, lex credendi is true, then the shape of the worship of the first Christians is evidence, hard, documentary, unfalsifiable evidence, of what the first Christians actually believed. And if their worship has been preserved somewhere, intact, across twenty centuries, then their belief has been preserved with it.

That is a claim worth testing. Let’s Gggggggggooooooooooooooo.

The Question Nobody Asks

This is something that has always struck me as strange. There is an anthropological principle (in the academic discipline of anthropology) called the Narcissism of Small Differences. It describes the phenomenon where communities with adjacent territories and close cultural relationships engage in constant feuds and ridicule because of the hypersensitivity caused by their similarities and small differences.3 i.e. the closer groups of people are in identity, values, norms, the less any disagreement or difference is tolerated. Hence the bitter enmity between Sunni’s and Shiites, between Catholics and Protestants, rivalries between neighboring countries like Canada and the USA, political purity tests within political parties, rivalries between competing technologies due to consumer tribalism (Apple vs Android) sports rivalries, even between teams from the same city (i.e. Manchester City vs. Manchester United or Inter Milan vs. AC Milan.) And as the saying goes, "Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small." You could say that this entire publication is in some way motivated by this principle.

This is in nowhere on better display than in Christianity. Christians have a long history of fighting about doctrine (reference all the years since the reformation.) We argue about the canon of Scripture; which books belong and why. We argue about predestination. We argue about sacraments. We argue about eschatology, i.e. the end times. We argue about baptism (how much water, how old, administered by whom). We argue about whether women can be ordained, whether priests can marry, whether the elements of the Eucharist are really the Body and Blood or just a symbol, whether the Pope has universal jurisdiction; I had quite a bit to say about that one in *Why I really Chose Orthodoxy Over Rome* — go read it if you haven’t!)

We argue about all of it. Vigorously. Sometimes bitterly, for centuries.

But here is the question that almost never comes up, and that almost nobody asks with any seriousness: how did the Apostles actually worship?

Isn’t that strange?

When it comes to every other Christian question, we demand evidence. We demand sources. We demand texts and translations and historical context and early witnesses. But when it comes to the question of how we are supposed to worship — how we are supposed to gather as the people of God on the first day of the week and offer to Him the thing He has asked us to offer — the question mostly doesn’t get asked, and when it does, the answer is often some version of: “well, we don’t really know, and anyway the New Testament doesn’t prescribe a liturgy, so probably it doesn’t matter.” and probably the very worst one “it’s a matter of individual choice” Why do I say this is the worst one? because it basically says that worship is whatever I want it to be, whatever I am comfortable, in essence re-orienting worship of Christ and subjugating it to the self, and the ego (the western mind’s true God.) How prideful, and yet, how American!

I want to push back hard on the thought that “we don’t really know, and anyway the New Testament doesn’t prescribe a liturgy, so probably it doesn’t matter.”

The claim that “we don’t really know” how the Apostles worshiped is not true. We know a great deal. The claim that “the New Testament doesn’t prescribe a liturgy” is a claim that needs examining, because the New Testament presupposes a liturgical context so completely that you almost don’t notice it until someone points it out. And the claim that “it doesn’t matter” is, by the principle we just laid out, isn’t just wrong, it’s catastrophically wrong. In fact, it matters more than almost anything else.

Let’s rewind and consider what we actually know so we can set the stage.

Christ Himself worshiped. Luke tells us that He went to the synagogue in Nazareth “as was his custom” on the Sabbath day (Luke 4:16). He did not improvise. He did not go to some new start-up mega-synagogue with a laser light show, a cool new Jewish band and a hip new preacher. He went to the established places of public worship of Israel where he participated in the reading of the Law, the chanting of the Psalms, the fixed prayers that had been prayed for centuries, because that was the worship His Father had given to His people. He sang the Hallel4 psalms (Psalms 113–118) with His disciples at the Last Supper, as every observant Jew did at Passover. He went up to the Temple in Jerusalem for the appointed feast days. He prayed the Psalter, which is why so many of His words from the Cross are quotations from it.

The Apostles worshiped. The book of Acts describes Peter and John going up to the Temple “at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour” (Acts 3:1). That is not a casual reference. That is a technical reference to one of the fixed hours of Jewish daily prayer, what the Temple called the hour of the afternoon sacrifice, and what the Christian Church would eventually call the Ninth Hour. Acts describes the early Christians “breaking bread” on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7) This is in face Eucharistic language that every ancient reader would have recognized. Paul preaches so long at one such gathering that a young man named Eutychus falls asleep in a window, falls out, and has to be miraculously raised. This is, incidentally, the patron story of every parish that runs long.

The early Christians worshiped. A Roman governor named Pliny the Younger, writing to the Emperor Trajan around 112 AD, about a decade after the Apostle John died, describes the Christians in his province as gathering on a fixed day before dawn to sing hymns to Christ “as to a god.” Pliny is a pagan magistrate writing an administrative report to his Emperor. He has no reason to embellish. He is describing what he found when he interrogated Christians who were about to be executed. Don’t just take my word for it though, go read this Epistula (Letter 10.96) for yourself. It’s on the internet (see the 4th paragraph.)

So we have testimony. We have texts. We have sources, pagan sources, Christian sources, apostolic sources, patristic sources. The materials for answering the question are available. They have been available for nearly two thousand years.

The question is not whether the Apostles worshiped, or whether we can know how. The question is why has nobody been showing you the evidence?

Let me show you (keep the narcissism of small differences in mind as we go.)

The Letter to the Emperor

Let’s set the scene properly, because the context matters.

Rome. The middle of the second century. The Emperor is Antoninus Pius, one of the so-called “Five Good Emperors,” the golden age of imperial Rome, the world that Edward Gibbon would later call the happiest period in the history of the human race (a claim that depends very much on not being a Christian at the time.) Christians are being executed sporadically throughout the provinces. The charges vary. Atheism, because they refuse to sacrifice to the gods of Rome. Cannibalism, because the pagan rumor mill has been working overtime on the whole eat my body, drink my blood language and producing the lurid conclusion that Christians devour infants in their secret meetings. Incest, because Christians call one another “brother” and “sister” and then give each other the kiss of peace, and pagan observers could not think of any other explanation.

Into this maelstrom walks a man named Justin. A Gentile. A convert from paganism. A philosopher by training, he had gone from school to school, studying Stoicism and Platonism, before a conversation on a beach with an old man (he never names him) had turned him toward the prophets of Israel and, through them, to Christ. Justin now lives in Rome. He has a school. He teaches philosophy in the open air. And he writes.

Around 155 AD, Justin writes what we now call his First Apology. An apology in the ancient sense is not a “I‘m sorry about that,” it is a formal defense in the form of a reasoned argument addressed to a specific audience. Justin’s audience is the Emperor himself. He is writing over the heads of the provincial magistrates directly to the throne. He is saying: stop killing us. At least understand what we actually do before you kill us.

This is why the First Apology is one of the most valuable documents we have for understanding early Christian worship. Link with Pliny’s letter, you don’t have to believe what I’m telling you about it, you can go read it for yourself (ref Chapters 65-67.)

Let’s think about the context a little bit. Justin is writing to a pagan Emperor. He has every reason to describe Christian practice accurately. If he embellishes, if he exaggerates, if he invents rituals that don’t actually happen, the document is worse than useless. It is dangerous. A Christian caught lying to the Emperor about Christian practice would be handing Rome an excuse to multiply the persecutions tenfold. So Justin is careful. He is precise. He is describing what he has seen with his own eyes, what he has participated in, what every Christian in Rome and across the Empire was doing on Sunday morning. He is writing for a pagan magistrate who could, and Justin knows this, send a centurion with a notebook to the nearest Christian assembly to verify every word.

And he is not writing long after the Apostolic generation. The Apostle John died around 100 AD. Justin is writing just fifty-five years later. He is writing in a world where the grandfathers of his neighbors could have shaken the of the Twelve.

Now. Let me walk you through what he describes.

In chapters sixty-five through sixty-seven of the First Apology, Justin gives a sequential description of the Sunday gathering. I am going to paraphrase, because Justin’s Greek is far more elegant than my English and because copyright law gets iffy about long quotations, but the structure is exactly what he says. And if you have an doubt in your mind at all about my accurate representation of the text, please go read it! (in fact I encourage you to verify what I am saying.) Here is the shape of Christian worship on a Sunday morning in the middle of the second century.

First, on the day called Sunday, Justin’s word is literally hēmera tou hēliou, “the day of the Sun,” which is the pagan name for the day, which he uses so that the Emperor will understand which day he means, all Christians who live in the cities or the countryside gather together in one place.

Then, the memoirs of the Apostles, which is Justin’s term for what we now call the Gospels, are read aloud, along with the writings of the prophets, for as long as time permits.

When the reader has finished, the one who presides over the gathering, a bishop or a presbyter, stands up and delivers a discourse, exhorting the people to imitate what they have just heard. A homily. A sermon, if you like, but bound to the text.

Then all of the people rise together and offer prayers.5 (Today we call this portion of the services the Liturgy of the Word, or the Liturgy of the Catechumen’s, those who are being instructed in preparation for baptism. This portion of the liturgy will be the most familiar to western protestants and LDS.)

When the prayers are finished, bread and wine mixed with water are brought forward to the one who presides. This begins the liturgy of the faithful, which you can also read online.

The one who presides then offers up prayers and thanksgivings to the best of his ability this is a technical phrase, and it indicates that the exact wording of the Eucharistic Prayer was not yet rigidly fixed in every detail, though the structure was, and when he has finished, the whole congregation responds with the single word Amen, which Justin takes the time to explain to the Emperor is a Hebrew word meaning “so be it.”

After the Amen, the deacons distribute the consecrated bread and wine-and-water to everyone present. And, they carry portions to those who are absent. The sick. The imprisoned. Those who could not make it.

Finally, a collection is taken up for those in need: widows, orphans, the sick, those in prison, strangers who have come through the city, anyone for whom the community is responsible.

That is Justin’s description. That is what Christians were doing on a Sunday morning in 155 AD according to a man who had every reason to describe it accurately and no reason to embellish.

Now let’s take a pause and look at that list again.

1. Scripture readings from the Gospels and the prophets.

2. A homily.

3. Intercessory prayers offered standing.

4. Bread and wine brought forward.

5. A Eucharistic Prayer.

6. The people’s Amen.

7. Communion distributed by deacons.

8. Communion carried to those absent.

9. A collection for the poor.

Every single one of those elements is present, in exactly that order, in the Orthodox Divine Liturgy celebrated this past Sunday morning in a parish near you.

Not a suggestion of it. Not an embryonic form of it. Not a primitive first draft. Not just selectively chosen parts of it. It, the entire thing.

The readings from the Epistle and the Gospel. The homily delivered from the bishop’s chair or the ambo. The Litany of Fervent Supplication. The Great Entrance bringing bread and wine to the altar. The Anaphora, the great Eucharistic Prayer, which we will explore in detail in Article Five of this series, followed by the congregational Amen that has been shouted in every ancient liturgy on earth for two thousand years. Communion distributed by the deacon. Communion carried to the sick and the home-bound, which Orthodox priests and deacons still do to this day, every week, with a small portable communion set designed for exactly that purpose. And the collection box by the door for the poor.

Justin Martyr, writing in 155 AD, describes the service that happened in my parish three days ago.

This is a lot to take in. I acknowledge that. When I first attended an Orthodox Liturgy - after months of diligent, detailed research into the history and the theology -6 I felt as though I had been transported to another world entirely. One ancient, and firmly rooted in the milieu of the Near East, not the American frontier.7 I was more than a little overwhelmed. I understood almost nothing of what was going on. I was totally lost. But it was so compelling that I did my best to follow along8 — to sing the hymns, to join in the responses with the faithful around me. I left feeling as though I had been drawn into a higher realm, as though I had participated in something ancient and otherworldly and, if I am honest, even a little bit alien. Heavenly love and power, mixed with a slight discomfort because it felt so foreign that I wasn’t sure I belonged there. But, I showed up again the next Sunday, and this time, instead of trying to process everything intellectually, I just followed the cantors and the other parishioners as best I could, learning from them as I went. I had spent months digging into history trying to validate the truth claims of Orthodoxy. Now I was confronted with an experience of worship totally alien to me, and one of my impulses was to do the same thing — to validate and verify the things that had initially felt so foreign. They no longer feel alien. They feel like home. They feel like heaven. And that is the moment I started to ask where all of this came from.

Two Roots, Both Ancient

Justin Martyr describes a Christian Liturgy that is already fully formed by 155 AD. Fully formed. Not developing. Not experimental. Not regional. The service he describes is not “what we tried last Sunday and liked.” It is the pattern. It is what is done. It is what has been done for as long as he and his readers can remember.

Which raises the obvious question: where did this pattern come from?

It did not appear out of nowhere. The Apostles didn’t just sit around in the Upper Room on Pentecost and make something up on a whim because it seemed good to them. They didn’t invent Christian worship from a blank page. That’s not how these things work. They had been worshiping the God of Israel their entire lives. Christ didn’t come and teach them a completely different religion, like Buddhism or Hinduism, he came to fulfill what they have already lived, what they already knew and were promised. They had been raised in the liturgical world of Second Temple Judaism; the world of the Temple in Jerusalem, the world of the synagogues of the Diaspora, the world of fixed hours of prayer, the world of chanted Psalms, Feast Days, holy incense, orders of priesthood, priestly vestments, eastward orientation and the reading of the Law. When they gathered to break bread in the name of the risen Christ, they were not starting from scratch. They were taking everything they already knew about how the people of God are supposed to worship and filling it with Him.

This is the thesis of the entire series. I want to state it as plainly as I can.

The Orthodox Divine Liturgy has two roots. Both are ancient. Both are provable. Both are older than most people have ever been told.

1. Second Temple Judaism. The worship of Israel as it was practiced in the Temple in Jerusalem and in the synagogues of the Diaspora when Jesus Christ walked the earth. The worship the Christ himself participated in. Every element of Orthodox worship that an LDS or Protestant visitor finds “foreign,” the incense, the altar, the priesthood, the vestments, the eastward orientation, the chanted Psalter, the fixed hours of prayer, the architectural screen between the holy place and the most holy place, every one of these is an inheritance from the worship of Israel.

   1. None of them was invented by medieval Byzantines. None of them was invented at all. They were received.

2. Apostolic institution. The Eucharist itself, the center of gravity of all Christian worship, the Body and Blood of Christ given for the life of the world, was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper, handed down by the Apostles to their disciples, and preserved in documents that are older than parts of the New Testament canon. The shape of the Eucharistic Prayer. The words of institution. The calling down of the Holy Spirit upon the gifts. The mixing of water with the wine, which Justin explicitly mentions and which every ancient liturgy retains. All of this bears apostolic fingerprints that we can still read.

The Anaphora - an Aside

Let me take an aside to introduce one technical term here, because we will need it later. The word is anaphora.

Anaphora is Greek, and it means “offering up” or “carrying up” — from the verb anapherō, to bring up or to lift up. The anaphora is the Great Eucharistic Prayer that sits at the heart of every ancient Christian liturgy, and by that I mean; Every one. Eastern and Western. Byzantine and Coptic. Syrian and Armenian and Ethiopian. They all have an anaphora and despite the fact that these liturgies were separated from each other by centuries and by the collapse of empires and by theological schisms that broke communion between them, their anaphoras all share the same essential architecture. They all go back to a common apostolic root. When we get to Article Five of this series, we are going to take that root apart and look at it piece by piece. For now, just remember the word. Anaphora. The prayer that carries the offering up to God. (LDS would know this as the sacramental blessing.)

The rest of this series is going to walk through these two roots, one element at a time, and show you exactly where the fingerprints are.

Here is what I am planning to cover. (We know how good I am at sticking to a plan. I say 6 articles total, but it could easily end up more.)

In Article Two, we are going to walk into the Temple in Jerusalem. Not the Temple as it is imagined in most Christian sermons, but the Temple as it actually was: its architecture, its furniture, its priesthood, its sacrifices, its veil. And I am going to show you that every Orthodox church on earth is a deliberate, conscious architectural memory of what stood on Mount Zion. The iconostasis is the veil. The altar is the altar. The sanctuary is the Holy of Holies. Again, and I can’t emphasize this enough, it’s not an analogy, it’s an inheritance.

In Article Three, we are going to sit down in a first-century synagogue and discover that the first half of every Divine Liturgy, what we called above the Liturgy of the Word, or the Liturgy of the Catechumens, is something that Jesus Christ Himself would have recognized from Nazareth. The readings, the Psalter, the intercessions, the standing posture, the eastward orientation, all of it.

In Article Four, we are going to dive deeper into the documents. Justin Martyr is not the earliest source we have. He is the earliest pagan-facing source. There is an even older document, called the Didache (for LDS readers, think of this as an early priesthood manual) that some scholars date as early as the middle of the first century, which would make it older than parts of the New Testament itself. The Didache gives us a Eucharistic Prayer. We will read it together.

In Article Five, we will examine the anaphora itself and show you why every ancient Christian liturgy sings the song that the prophet Isaiah heard the Seraphim singing in the Temple in the year that King Uzziah died.

In Article Six, we will meet two men: John Chrysostom and Basil the Great, two of the greatest bishops and theologians of the fourth century. And I will show you that neither of them invented the liturgies that bear their names. They were editors. The liturgies were older than they were.

And in Article Seven, we will walk through a single Orthodox Sunday Divine Liturgy together, from the first prayer to the last, and I will attempt to name the pedigree of every movement. This is Temple. This is synagogue. This is Apostle. This is Didache. This is Isaiah. This is Basil. This is Chrysostom. When we are finished, I do not think you will ever sit through a Divine Liturgy the same way again. And I do not think you will ever look at non-liturgical worship the same way either.

What We Are Really Asking

The question that runs underneath this entire series is not really a question about liturgy. It is a question about legitimacy.

When Christ ascended to the right hand of the Father, He did not leave His Church without instructions. He left the Apostles. He left the Holy Spirit. He left the Eucharist. He left the pattern of worship that they had already been taught in Israel and that He had fulfilled with His own Body and Blood the night before He died. And He commanded them to go and teach and baptize and do this in remembrance of Him.

They did. And they taught their disciples to do it. And those disciples taught their disciples to do it, and so forth. And the pattern was handed down, century after century, in an unbroken chain of bishops and presbyters and deacons and faithful people, through persecution and peace, through the fall of empires and the rise of new ones, through schisms and councils, languages, peoples, cultures and continents. The pattern was translated. The pattern absorbed local music and local architecture and local genius. But the pattern did not break.

And the pattern that did not break is still being prayed, every Sunday morning, in every Orthodox parish in the world. It is being prayed in Greek, in Slavonic, in Arabic, in English, in Spanish, in Swahili and in a hundred other tongues. It is being prayed in cathedrals with gold domes and in storefronts with folding chairs. It is being prayed by people who have no idea how ancient it is and by people who know exactly how ancient it is. It does not matter. The pattern holds.

The question I want you to sit with, as we begin this series, is not whether the Apostles worshiped. They did. The question is not whether we can know how. We can. The question is only this:

Lex orandi, lex credendi. The law of prayer is the law of belief.

Find out how the first Christians prayed. You will find out what they believed. And you will find out what “the Church” truly is.

• Next week, we are going to walk into the Temple in Jerusalem. Not the version you were shown on a Sunday school flannel-graph. The real one. The one the Apostles knew. And I am going to show you — from the architecture of Solomon’s Temple itself, from the Old Testament, from the testimony of Josephus, and from the witness of the Fathers — that the great icon-covered screen at the front of every Orthodox church is not a medieval Byzantine innovation. It is the veil of the Temple. The same veil that tore in two at the moment of the crucifixion is the veil we still pass through every Sunday.

• If you want to read that article when it drops, become a paid subscriber now. The series only works as a whole. The Apostles were there first. It is time we caught up.

  Subscribe now

Primary Sources

Every claim in this article can be verified against the documents themselves. Don’t take my word for any of it. Go read them!

• Justin Martyr, First Apology (c. 155 AD), chapters 65–67: The full text of Justin’s description of the Sunday Liturgy, in the standard Ante-Nicene Fathers English translation, hosted by New Advent:
  https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm Scroll to chapters 65, 66, and 67 for the specific passages on the Eucharist and the weekly worship of Christians.

• Pliny the Younger, Letter to Trajan (Epistle 10.96, c. 112 AD): Pliny’s administrative report to the Emperor, describing what he found when he interrogated Christians in Bithynia. Hosted by Georgetown University’s Jod Project: https://faculty.georgetown.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html
  For readers who want to see the original Latin alongside the English, Early Church Texts presents both: https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/pliny_letter_to_trajan_about_christians.htm

• Scripture citations: Luke 4:16, Acts 3:1, Acts 20:7. Any reliable translation. If you don’t already have one in reach, Bible Gateway https://www.biblegateway.com has them all. LDS readers know where to find their standard works.

• A general resource for the curious: If this series sets you off on a longer journey through the primary sources of the early Church https://earlychurchtexts.com) is one of the best-curated free libraries available online. The New Advent’s Fathers of the Church library is even larger, hosting the complete Ante-Nicene Fathers and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers collections in English. Neither is an Orthodox site. Both host the texts I will be citing throughout this series. The evidence is not in hiding. It never has been.

Attribution

Preamble, this article owes most of it’s content to Dr. Nathan Jacobs and his podcast episode on this same topic. Before listening to his lectures I didn’t fully understand the Trinity in detail. I had some understanding but it was still clouded by western confusion. Hopefully, I’ve boiled this down into something understandable and digestible. If you are interested in this stuff I highly suggest that you listen to his most excellent podcast (which can be found HERE) and this episode specifically, which can be found at the link provided at the end of this article.

Dr. Jacobs is a scholar of philosophy and religion, the host of The Nathan Jacobs Podcast, and writer/co-Executive Producer of the Amazon Original series House of David. His academic work on the Trinity, particularly his 2008 paper “On ‘Not Three Gods’ — Again” in Modern Theology, is essential reading for anyone who wants to go deeper. You can find his SubStack at Theological Letters.

Personally I find that Dr. Jacobs is the Orthodox Christian version of Dr. Jordan Peterson.

In this article we are going to examine the fundamental concepts of the Trinity and how they should be understood in the context of the Begetting of the Son, the procession of the Spirit, how the doctrine is monotheistic and how the Latin understanding of Augustine created a whole lot of confusion that led to todays present situation of misunderstanding.

Understanding the Trinity

There are a great many myths and misconceptions about what happened at Nicae and how the doctrine of the Trinity came into being. I’ve heard everything from “Constantine made it up”, to “Platonic philosophy infected and destroyed Christianity,” which was a Mormon favorite when I was young, with the doctrine of the Trinity being held up as the chief evidence of a Great Apostasy. This correlates with the LDS church’s Temple Endowment ritual in which Satan, on multiple occasions, asserts that he’s going to teach Adam and Adam’s posterity, the Philosopies of Men, mingled with scripture. (Which is still in the Endownment presentation today AFAIK.)

Is any of this true? Oh heavens NO! I don’t know how many times I have to repeat this but real history is not a Dan Brown book, and if you still choose to believe the Dan Brown version of history, well, then, as we say in the South, “Bless Your Heart!”

The doctrine of the Trinity comes from a very close/careful reading of the Bible. This is nowhere on better display (for a modern video centric audience) than this video where Sam Shamoun (a Roman Catholic apologist) dismantels the anti-trinitarian arguments and objections of Jacob Hansen (a popular YouTube LDS apologist.)

Ultimately the Trinity is an articulation of not only what is in the Bible, but also what Christians had always believed up until that time. The articulation of the Trinity and the “Nicaean Creed” began at Nicaea as a way to combat a heresy called Arianism1, but it was not completed or fully worked out until after Nicaea. There were questions that needed to be answered which were worked out after the council largely by three men we call The Cappadocian fathers (Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil of Caesarea) (aka the Fathers of Orthodoxy.) We still have their writings today, many are even translated into English, meaning that we can all go back and read their writings on the subject to see the issues/challenges they were working through and the conclusions they came to. That’s real history, not some made up pop culture conspiracy theory mumbo-jumbo.

Few understand the Trinity, nor can they communicate it.

Discussions of the Trinity invariably get rolling with someone asking, “Okay, so what is it? What does it mean? How does it work?” And the answer usually comes back like: “Well, it’s three persons. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And they’re one God. One essence. Something like that.” And then the follow-up question lands: “But what does that actually mean?”, “If they are three persons, how can they be ONE God of ONE essence?”

And that is where the wheels usually come off. Because the next thing you hear, almost without fail (according to Dr. Jacobs), is some version of: “It’s a mystery. You can’t really explain it. If you try to explain it, you’ll fall into heresy. Best to just affirm it and move on.”

In my experience growing up Mormon many LDS leaders described the Nicene / classical doctrine of the Trinity in explicitly negative, even mocking, terms, often linking it to “apostasy” and “false doctrine.”2 This misunderstanding of the Trinity has led to some pretty extreme views and conspiracy theory type hypotheses, which in my opinion, at one time or another were all on stark display within Mormonism. Here is a quick summary of only some statements from LDS leaders regarding the trinity (suffice it to say, Mormons, like Jehovah’s Witnesses, are decidedly not Trinitarian. Anti-Catholic and Anti-Trinitarian sentiments were all the rage during the Second Great Awakening period, so this should be no surprise as the LDS Church and the Jehovah’s Witnesses were both born in this period of American history.)

• Joseph Smith reported that in his “First Vision” that the existing Christian “creeds” were an “abomination in [God’s] sight” and that their “professors were all corrupt,” which early LDS writers explicitly connected to post‑Nicene theology about God.3 (We’ll see this opinion pop up again from later LDS leaders like McConkie..)

• Later LDS apologists and historians (including James E. Talmage, LDS apostle and author of the book “The Great Apostasy”) accepted this language and used it as a framework for criticizing Nicene Trinitarianism as a corruption of primitive Christianity.

  • Talmage framed Nicene Trinitarianism inside a sweeping indictment of post‑biblical Christianity.

    • A contemporary summary of his work notes that Talmage defends Joseph Smith’s declaration that the creeds of Christendom are an “abomination” and that their “professors were all corrupt,” and then argues that later “corruptions of Christendom” (with particular emphasis on Catholicism) “perverted” primitive doctrine.

    • In his rhetoric about the “long night of apostasy,” Talmage depicts the dominant historic church as “thoroughly apostate and utterly corrupt,” which in context includes its conciliar, Trinitarian theology.

• Bruce R. McConkie (LDS apostle and known blowhard) was one of the most forceful LDS voices against the traditional Trinity. He described the Nicene/Athanasian/Apostles’ creed view of God as “a three‑in‑one nothingness, a spirit essence filling immensity, an incorporeal and uncreated being incapable of definition or mortal comprehension,” and then added that “by a clergy chosen definition” this would “rule [Mormons] out of the fold of Christ.” (correct-a-mundo dude!)

  • The first edition of McConkie’s book Mormon Doctrine (which is now out of print as the LDS church has halted reproduction of this work due to it’s highly bigoted nature.) took passages in 1 Nephi (from the Book of Mormon) about the “great and abominable church” and applied them to the Roman Catholic Church, calling it a “satanic organization” that “took away from the gospel of the Lamb many covenants and many plain and precious parts” and “perverted the right ways of the Lord.” 4

  • This same framework is used in LDS discourse to locate Nicene and later Trinitarian creeds within a larger system of corrupt post‑apostolic theology that God supposedly rejected and had to restore in the latter days.

  • In a BYU devotional he said that the “adoption of this false doctrine about God effectively destroyed true worship among men and ushered in the age of universal apostasy.”

  • In another address he caricatured the Trinity as “a god who neither hears, nor speaks, nor appears, as did the one worshiped by the ancients,” and lumped traditional attributes such as omnipresence together with “legends of sectarianism.”5

• More recent LDS leaders usually avoid the harshest language but still explicitly reject the Nicene formulation.

• In their bi-annual general conference, LDS apostles have said that “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings,” in contrast to “the holy trinity as defined and set forth in the Nicene, Athanasian, and Apostles creeds.”6

• Contemporary LDS apologists underscore that the Church “does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost” and that Latter‑day Saints “break with post‑New Testament Christian history” in order to return to what they claim is the doctrine taught by Jesus.

• I think that one good summary of the LDS view of the Trinity can be found at the LDS apologetic site “FAIR Latter-day Saints” https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Criticism_of_Mormonism/Books/Do_Christians_Believe_in_Three_Gods/Origins_of_Nicene_Trinitarianism

  • In one section of the FAIR document on the Trinity they have:

    What were early Christian beliefs about God?

    If Nicene trinitarianism was not Biblical and not part of the early Christian message, what did early Christians believe about God?

    We do know that Christian orthodoxy before Nicaea was not the trinitarian creeds now popular:

    ‘Subordinationism’7, it is true, was pre-Nicean orthodoxy.8

    • LDS apologists are essentially asserting that the heresy of subordinationsim was the common belief of all Christians before Nicaea. Interesting. If that’s true then we have a problem with history (that’s a reoccurring LDS issue.) You see, the council of Nicaea was called to deal with the teachings of a priest named Arius who was teaching a subordinationist view of Christ that was causing a lot of uproar within the Christian world. If the pre-Nicean orthodoxy was subordinationism, how come 316 of the 318 bishops in attendance at Nicaea condemned Arius and his subordinationist views and 314 signed anathemas against him? Only 2 bishops, both from Arius’s home province dissented. Arius and the two dissenting bishops were both deposed, excommunicated and exiled to Illyricum.

      • To put a further point on it, Constantine later on allowed Arius and his supporters to return from exile and Arianism spreads for a time. At one point Athenasius (his main opponent at Nicaea) is even unseated from his episcopal seat in Alexandria and Emperor Constantius II appointed an Arian bishop in his place. You’d think that if subordinationism was pre-Nicean Orthodoxy that the common people who (according to LDS apologists - believed in a subordinationist view of Christ,) would have appreciated a subordinationist bishop, and not a trinitarian one. But this was not the case. In fact, the people of Alexandria viewed him as a heretic. He was hated and the common christian people of Alexandria later rose up and murdered him 5 years later.

      • St. Athanasius (De Decretis 3) wrote “the whole Church had always worshiped the Son as true God; Arius was the innovator.” If subordinationism was really ‘pre-Nicene orthodoxy,’ why did the overwhelming majority of bishops — including men who had known the apostles’ own disciples — immediately reject it?

    • The apologists view does not align with history, but you know what it does align with? The LDS view of the God Head. I have long maintained that LDS apologetic is not about fending off external attacks as much as it is about keeping believers in the faith, and I think that’s well illustrated here. In the LDS view of what they call the GodHead, The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three separate beings of different natures and substances. The spirit body of the Son is considered to have been created by the father in a “pre-existence” and his physical body at the annunciation, but the belief implies that there was a time when the Son as we think of him, was not. (That’s not totally technically true, an LDS person will object that his Intelligence (basically his consciousness) - would have been co-eternal with the Father as is everyone’s, but that does not make them of a similar nature or substance.) But to translate this back to christian language, in the LDS view, the Son is a creature that is subordinate to the father and is not co-eternal with the father in the way that Christians would normally profess. On some level, Mormons end up having more in common with Arianism than Trinitarianism; and McConkie is thus correct, from a Trinitarian perspective, it essentially rules Mormons out of the fold of Christianity.

Ironically, when it comes to the Creed itself, LDS would affirm MUCH of The Nicene Creed. A discussion of this can be seen in the following video. I suppose we are going to see much more of this as the LDS church continues it’s efforts to be seen as Christian despite denying the fundamental beliefs that define traditional Christianity.

For most of my life, I heard all of the Mormon arguments against the Trinity. Most of this opinion came from my Mother (who was a Jehovah’s Witness before she became Mormon, quel suprise.)

And then I encountered the work of Dr. Nathan Jacobs, a scholar of philosophy and historical theology at Vanderbilt, and a man who has spent nearly two decades in deep research of the Greek Church Fathers. I discovered that the early Church not only explained the Trinity, they explained it clearly, precisely, and in a way that makes sense once you understand what the words actually mean and some of the reasoning behind the concepts.

My hope is, in this article to pass on a much better understanding of this doctrine.

First, Let’s Kill the Bad Analogies

Most attempts to explain the Trinity begin with bad analogies. Every Christian has heard at least one of these:

• The water analogy. H2O can be a solid, a liquid, or a gas — but it’s still H2O! Three forms, one substance! That’s the Trinity!

• The egg analogy. An egg has a yolk, a white, and a shell — but it’s still one egg! Three parts, one thing! (Just like the Shamrock analogy)

• The man-with-three-roles analogy. A man can be a husband to his wife, a father to his children, and a son to his parents — all at the same time! One guy, three roles!

Here is the bad news. Every single one of these is an ancient heresy.

The water analogy is Sabellianism (also called Modalism). That is the heresy that says God is one person who shows up wearing three different masks. Sometimes he’s playing the Father. Sometimes he’s playing the Son. Sometimes he’s playing the Spirit. But there’s only one guy behind the masks. The early Church condemned this, repeatedly.

The egg analogy is a form of compositionism — the idea that God has parts. Nobody in the ancient Church believed that God, being incorporeal, was made up of separable components the way an egg is. The closest historical parallel is a heresy from John Philoponus involving a lump of clay cut into three pieces. Not flattering company.

The man-with-three-roles analogy is just Sabellianism again with a different outfit. One person, multiple job titles. The Church condemned this too.

When pointed out in conversation, people often laugh and say, “Well, of course they’re all heresies because the Trinity can’t be explained. It’s a mystery.”

That response sounds humble. It sounds pious. But it is actually a philosophical disaster that not only leads to confusion, it leads to heresy.

LDS Aside: Joseph Smith Didn’t Understand the Trinity Either

Here is the great irony. The Book of Mormon contains one of the clearest examples of Sabellianism/Modalism in all of Christian literature. In Mosiah 15, the prophet Abinadi declares: “God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God... being the Father and the Son. The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son. And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.”

Read that carefully. Abinadi is not describing two distinct subjects who share a common nature. He is describing one subject who plays two roles — Father when considered as spirit, Father and Son when considered as flesh. That is textbook Sabellianism/Modalism. One God wearing two masks depending on the angle you view him from. The early Church condemned this exact theology when Sabellius taught it in the third century.9 LDS apologists have spent decades trying to reconcile Mosiah 15 with the later Nauvoo-era King Follet theology of separate, embodied beings, but the text says what it says: “they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.” Joseph Smith, when he dictated the Book of Mormon in 1829, clearly did not understand the Trinity. What he understood was the most common misunderstanding of it at that time; the one that collapses three subjects into one subject with multiple roles. Later on, in his “First Vision” published in 1832 he rejected what he thought was the Trinity. What he actually rejected was Sabellianism, after writing it into his own scripture.10

The Two Greek Words You Need to Know

The entire doctrine of the Trinity hangs on two Greek terms. Once you understand them, the rest of the doctrine unfolds with remarkable clarity.

The terms are ousia and hypostasis.

• Ousia is the common nature identified by a general noun. When I look at this room and I say “Tom is human, Richard is human, Harry is human” — “human” is the ousia. It is the species term. The type of thing something is. This is an ontological term (i.e. it’s concerned with what type of being you are.)

• Hypostasis is the subject identified by name (LDS would likely say Personage.) Tom. Richard. Harry. Each one of them is a hypostasis — an existing subject who has a certain nature.

That is it. That is the basic distinction. Ousia answers the question “what is it?” Hypostasis answers the question “who is it?”

So when the Nicene Creed says there are three hypostases and one ousia, it is saying: there are three separate subjects (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) who share one common nature (God). Just like Tom, Richard, and Harry are three subjects who share one common nature (Human).

Now I know what you are thinking. “That sounds like three Gods.” LDS are thinking, that sounds just like the Mormon version of the GodHead I heard in Sunday School. And in each case thinking that would be understandable, but it’s not necessarily the case.

But… you are not the first person to think this! A man named Ablabius asked Gregory of Nyssa exactly that question in the fourth century, and Gregory wrote a famous letter called “On Not Three Gods” to address it. We will come back to Gregory’s answer. But the important thing to understand right now is that Ablabius asked that question because he understood what the terms meant. He understood correctly that ousia means the common nature and hypostasis means the individual subject. And the fact that the question made sense to him is a strong indication that we are on the right track.

Why “Person” Is a Misleading Translation

Let’s pause here and explain why Dr. Jacobs uses the term “subject” instead of “person” or even “personage” The English word “person” is a commonly used translation of hypostasis, but Dr. Jacobs argues (and I agree) that it is misleading for two reasons.

First, the closer Greek equivalent to the English word “person” is actually prosopon — and that is the word the Sabellians used. Prosopon literally means “face” or “mask,” which is why the Sabellians loved it. It fit perfectly with their heresy that God was one subject wearing three masks. The Fathers deliberately chose hypostasis over prosopon precisely to avoid that implication.

Second, when modern people hear the word “person,” they immediately think of a center of consciousness and a notion of self-hood centered on Human ontological understandings of what it means to be a “person” - invariably this mixes up concepts of person / identity and being (nature.) This is not what hypostasis means. A hypostasis is broader than that. Anything that exists and has a certain nature is a hypostasis. A chair is a hypostasis. A blade of grass is a hypostasis.

The specific qualities of any given hypostasis; whether it is rational, whether it is relational or whether it is conscious, are determined by its nature (its ousia), not by the fact that it is a hypostasis. Humans are rational because human nature is rational. Dogs are not rational because dog nature is not rational. But both are hypostases — existing subjects with a certain nature.

For those LDS who are thinking the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, or those still clinging to a Dan Brown version of Nicaea where the Trinity is a product of Greek philosophy, you should know that this is actually a uniquely Christian contribution to philosophy. The pagan Greeks never figured out what makes an individual an individual. Aristotle basically shrugged and said, “I guess it’s where we run out of general nouns.” The Stoics guessed maybe it was some idiosyncratic property like Plato’s snub nose. The Christians, because of the doctrine of the Trinity and then Christology, were the first to insist that the individual subject is its own existing reality that gives concrete stability and existence to the underlying nature. Saint Maximus the Confessor also identifies this as a distinctly Christian doctrine.

Nicaea was a fight, what was it all about?

As mentioned above in the section on Mormon objections to the Trinity, the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD was convened because of a dispute with a priest named Arius who has been spreading the heresy of subordinationism. Ultimately Nicaea ends up as a contest between Athanasius of Alexandria (who was a deacon at that time and later goes on to become the patriarch) and a priest named Arius.

The question they were trying to answer was deceptively simple: Is the Son of the same nature as the Father?

• Athanasius said yes. Homoousios — same nature.

• Arius said no. Homoiousios — similar nature. Very godlike. But not the same type of thing as the Father.

The philosophical framework underneath this dispute is something called realism. Realism is the position that the general nouns we use — “human,” “dog,” “circle,” “square” — refer to real structures in the world. When you take a child to a zoo and they ask “What is that?” they are asking a realist question. They want to know what type of thing it is. Realism says the mind does this because that is how the world actually is. Things really do have natures.

So when Athanasius says the Father and the Son are homoousios, he is making a realist claim. He is saying: the Father and the Son are the same type of thing. They share the same nature. Just like Tom and Richard are the same type of thing — they are both human. The Father is God. The Son is God. Same nature. Different subjects.

He is not saying they are the same person. He is saying they are the same type of thing.

Nicaean Fallout

After Nicaea, a massive confusion erupted. The primary reason was linguistic. At the time of Nicaea, the Greek words ousia and hypostasis were functioning in common every day usage as synonyms. Both could mean either “individual” or “nature” depending on context. Aristotle had the same problem — he had to distinguish “primary substance” (the individual) from “secondary substance” (the nature) just to make clear which meaning he intended.

This created chaos. Some people were walking around talking about “one ousia” and some were talking about “three ousiai.” Some were talking about “one hypostasis” and some about “three hypostases.” Nobody knew what anyone was talking about.

To make matters worse, Nicaea focused on the nature of Jesus Christ, the Son, it didn’t address the Holy Spirit and it didn’t anticipate some of the questions that would later arise. The question of the Holy Spirit wasn’t cleared up until another council in Constantinople - which is why what people call the Nicaean Creed is really the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

But, there were three church Fathers who went to work to resolve the confusion and the issues created or left unaddressed at Nicaea. These three men were Saint Basil of Caesarea, Saint Gregory of Nyssa and Saint Gregory of Nazianzus; these three are also known as the Cappadocian Fathers. (because they were from Cappadocia, in modern-day Turkey.)

Basil of Caesarea fixed the linguistic confusion. He wrote a letter that basically said: from now on, we only use ousia for the nature and hypostasis for the subject. No more interchangeable usage. And that is the terminology that stuck. When we say “three hypostases, one ousia,” we are using the language Basil standardized.

While Nicaea provided the foundation, it was Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa who ultimately resolved lingering ambiguities and objections that threatened to tear the post-Nicene Church apart. Gregory of Nazianzus, often called “The Theologian,” tackled the “missing link” of the Council of Nicaea: the full divinity of the Holy Spirit. At this time he is combating another heresy that began to rear it’s ugly head and would trigger the next council at Constantinople. He was fighting the Pneumatomachians (i.e. the “Spirit-fighters”), who accepted the divinity of the Son but denied it to the Holy Spirit. Gregory argued forcefully that if the Spirit was not truly God, the entire process of human sanctification was invalid. Meanwhile, Gregory of Nyssa provided the philosophical rigor needed to distinguish between substance (ousia) and personhood (hypostasis) and dealt with accusations of polytheism. By defining God as one single “what” (essence) existing in three distinct “whos” (persons), they solved the logical riddle of the Trinity. The combined efforts of the Cappadocian Fathers ensured that the divinity of the Spirit was formally recognized at the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD, effectively refining the Nicene Creed into the definitive statement of faith used by millions of Christians today.

Begetting Requires Continuity of Nature

One of the arguments Athanasius and the pro-Nicene Fathers made against Arius was based on the word “begotten.” The scriptures and the creed call Christ “the only-begotten of the Father.” And begetting always involves continuity of nature.

What is amazing to me is that the apostle John in writing the New Testament seems to foresee this issue and uses language that would guide future church leaders to the right answer. e.g. John 3:16, John 1:14, John 1:18, John 3:18, 1 John 4:9.

Somewhat ironically, the language of the “only begotten” is used even more frequently in LDS scriptures than in the New Testament. It shows up in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

Abraham begot Isaac. Isaac begot Jacob. Jacob begot his twelve sons. Humans beget humans. Dogs beget dogs. Cats beget cats. If your friend announces that his wife is pregnant and you ask “What is it?” he would take that as a question about the child’s sex because he implicitly knows his wife is pregnant with a human child. If he says “I’m hoping for a horse, but it’s going to be a rough birth” you know that something with your friend has gone horribly wrong. Because begetting always produces the same type of thing.

That is why the Creed insists on the word “begotten.” If the Son is truly begotten of the Father, then the Son must have the same nature as the Father. The Father is God. Therefore the Son is God. Not a godlike creature. God. Same nature, different subject.

And this is the critical distinction between the Son and every other being the Bible calls a “son of God.” The angels are called sons of God. Believers are called sons of God. But those are adoptive or analogical sonships. Christ alone is the only-begotten — the one who is generated from the very nature of the Father.

The Eternal Begetting

But wait. If the Father begets the Son, was there a time when the Son didn’t exist?

This was Arius’s trump card. He famously declared: “There was a time when the Son was not.” And it sounds devastating — until you understand the distinction between two types of causation.

Per accidens (accidental) causation is sequential. You roll a billiard ball, it strikes another ball, and the second ball keeps rolling even if you destroy the first one. The cause and effect are separable in time. Eric has children. There was a time when he did not. If Eric dies, his children continue to exist. That is per accidens causation.

Per se (essential) causation is ongoing. If I hold up a ball, the suspension of that ball in the air is coterminous with my holding it. The effect is not separable from the cause. The moment I stop holding it up, it falls.

Human begetting is per accidens. Abraham begat Isaac, then Abraham died, and Isaac continued to exist.

Divine begetting is per se. The Father is always begetting the Son. It is an eternal, ongoing, co-terminous causal relationship. There was never a “time when the Son was not,” because the begetting has no beginning and no end. It is not a sequential event. It is an eternal reality. Here is a helpful analogy (courtesy of St. Athanasius’ Contra Arianos II32-33) Let’s Imagine that the sun has always existed — no beginning, stretching back infinitely. If that were the case, you would also have to imagine that its light and its heat also stretch back infinitely. No matter how far back you go, you would find the sun generating light and heat. The sun’s light and heat are causally dependent on the existence of the sun. So, there was never a moment when the sun existed without its light or the warmth it provides. It also makes no sense to say that there is sunlight and radiation from the Sun, without the Sun existing. That is per se causation. And that is what the eternal begetting of the Son is like.

What Makes the Three Distinct?

If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all share the same divine nature, how do you tell them apart? Well, Tom, Richard and Harry all share a human nature, how can we tell them apart?

With human beings, you differentiate by what are called “accidental” traits — location, size, color, beard (or lack thereof). But when you are talking about three invisible, immaterial, omnipresent spirits, no physical markers are available.

The answer is found in their names and each name is a relational identity.

• The Father is the one who begets. That is what makes him the Father.

• The Son is the one who is begotten. That is what makes him the Son.

• The Holy Spirit is the one who is “outbreathed” or proceeds from the Father. The Greek word for spirit, pneuma, is connected to breath and wind. The language of procession or “spiration” literally means “breathing out” from which we get the English word Spirit (via the Latin Spirare which means “to breathe.”

These are not arbitrary labels. They are causal descriptions. The Father causes the Son by begetting. The Father causes the Spirit by out breathing. Two different modes of causation. And the Father himself is uncaused.

Distinct But Not Separate

This is where we begin to get into the territory that has cause so many misunderstandings about the trinity being One God. One of the most important qualifications the Fathers add is this: the three hypostases are distinct but not separate.

This can get a bit confusing because with human beings, we are both distinct and separate. I know where Tom ends and Richard begins. We are material bodies with boundary lines. The Greek word for this is perigraphos — you can draw a line around Tom. You can circumscribe him.

God is aperigraphos — you cannot draw a line around God. He has no boundary. And if you cannot draw a line around the Father, and you cannot draw a line around the Son, and you cannot draw a line around the Spirit, then you cannot separate them the way you separate material bodies.

Gregory of Nazianzus uses a stunning image. Imagine three suns in the sky. Three distinct hypostases, one common nature (sun). But if you looked up, you would be so blinded by the intermingling glory of the three celestial bodies that you could not tell where one ends and the other begins. That, he says, is something like the Trinity — three who are absolutely distinct, but so interpenetrating that they cannot be divided.

This is what the tradition calls perichoresis — a mutual indwelling, sometimes described as a divine dance where each makes room for the other.

But the Fathers are equally insistent on the other side of the coin. The three are unconfused. They do not get mashed together into one subject.

“The three are one in Godhead, and the one is three in hypostases.” - St. Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 31.14)

Some people are so anxious to affirm monotheism that they collapse the three persons back into one — and that is just Sabellianism returning through the back door. The hymns of the Church address the Father. They address the Son. They address the Spirit. Distinctly. Because they are distinct.

One Will — But Not a Hive Mind

The three share a common will. But this does not mean what most people think it means.

Will is a faculty of the nature. Just like reason is a faculty of human nature. Every human has a rational faculty (because that is part of what it means to be human.) Similarly, every possessor of the divine nature has a divine will (because that is part of what it means to be God.)

So the Father has the divine will. The Son has the divine will. The Spirit has the divine will. One type of will, because one nature.

But how they use that will is idiosyncratic — that is, specific to each hypostasis. The Son uses the divine will to obey the Father. Two different subjects using the same faculty differently. But they always operate in perfect harmony. The Son delights in doing the will of the Father. Not because he is forced to, but because they are perfect. This makes these scriptures make more sense. “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me” - John 6:38 and John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”

This, by the way, is why we pray “Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” In heaven, perfect beings operate harmoniously in accord with the will of God. On earth, we don’t.

What Monotheism Actually Means (and Doesn’t)

This is where Dr. Jacobs drops what I consider the most important bomb in the entire lecture. And it is a point that will unsettle Protestants and fascinate Mormons in equal measure.

The modern concept of monotheism; the idea that there is one “optimal being” and anyone who believes in that being is a monotheist; is not how the early Church understood the term.

In modernity, this concept of monotheism emerged from what is called “perfect being theology.” The idea is: God is a being greater than which none can be conceived. He is the optimal being: omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. And once you define God that way you create a framework where Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Deists are all supposedly talking about the same thing. They just disagree about what he has done.

That is the modern concept of monotheism. And it is not what the Eastern Church Fathers meant.

When Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa said they were monotheists, they meant something very specific. We believe there is only one nature worthy of the name God. Not a genus. Not a category of types of beings. Not the pantheon of “immortals.” One divine nature. Saint Basil said - “We confess one God not in number but in nature.” And that is what distinguishes Christianity from the polytheism of the pagans, who believed divinity was a broad category containing many different types of beings.

But, and this is crucial, Gregory of Nyssa also says that in contending with the polytheists and denying a multiplicity of divinities, “we do not sink to the level of the Jew who denies that God has a Son.”

Let me repeat that so it lands. Gregory is saying: monotheism means there is one divine nature. It does not mean there is only one divine subject. There are three subjects who have that one nature. And if your version of monotheism requires you to deny that God has a Son, you have left Christianity for something else.

Sounds like you believe in Three Gods

Ironically, this is a common objection that Mormons hear all the time when they explain their version of what they call, the “God Head.” This is also an objection that the early Christian church had to deal with after Nicaea. Ironically, misunderstanding the answer to this objection is probably what Joseph Smith and other protestants of his day also objected to, leading him to reformulate his own articulation of the GodHead from his own understanding of scripture that brought him full circle, but still without a satisfactory answer to this objection.

Gregory of Nyssa recognizes the gravity of this objection and deals with it head on. This objection was initially brought to him by a man named Ablabius. He responds in an epistle of Ablabius titled on “Not Three Gods.”

“In truth, the question you propound to us is no small one, nor such that but small harm will follow if it meets with insufficient treatment. For by the force of the question, we are at first sight compelled to accept one or other of two erroneous opinions, and either to say there are three Gods, which is unlawful, or not to acknowledge the Godhead of the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is impious and absurd.” - on “Not Three Gods” St. Gregory of Nyssa

Here is how Gregory handles the “three gods” objection. Tom, Richard, and Harry are not “three humans” in the sense that there is one human nature. They are three subjects of that nature. So too the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not “three gods.” There is one divine nature. They are three subjects of that nature.

If we were to say to Gregory “You know, I see Tom, Richard and Harry, but what I really see are three humans.” Gregory would say, “I know you do, but you really shouldn’t [say that.] That’s a very sloppy and imprecise way of speaking. I know you’re not a metaphysician and that happens with non-metaphysicians, but it’s not true that that’s what you see here; because human is a species term and there’s only one type of thing. You see three human singular persons plural. The number of subjects having that nature is not the same as three different natures. To speak that way is a common abuse of language.”

What Went Differently in the West - And how the Three Persons, one Essence/Substance confusion came to be

I want to touch on this briefly because it explains why most Western Christians — both Catholic and Protestant — have such a hard time understanding and explaining the Trinity. The difficulty is not inherent to the doctrine. The difficulty is inherited from Augustine.

Augustine of Hippo wrote a treatise on the Trinity. In the english translation there is an introductory essay by WIlliam G.T. Shedd, and within it he mentions the following:

The treatise of Augustin’s Upon the Trinity, which is here made accessible to the English reader, is one of the ablest produced in the patristic age. The author devoted nearly thirty years of his matured life to its composition (A.D. 400 to 428). He was continually touching and retouching it, and would have delayed its publication longer than he did, had a copy not been obtained surreptitiously [it was apparently stolen by those who were very excited to read it] and published. He seems to have derived little assistance from others; for although the great Greek Trinitarians — Athanasius, the two Gregories, and Basil — had published their treatises, yet he informs us that his knowledge of Greek, though sufficient for understanding the exegetical and practical writings of his brethren of the Greek Church, was not adequate to the best use of their dialectical and metaphysical compositions. Accordingly, there is no trace in this work of the writings of the Greek Trinitarians, though a substantial agreement with them.

Dr, Jacobs paraphrases the situation in what he sees as a remarkable admission:

“the Greek writers probably have the answer to every question you might ask about the Trinity, but most of us in the Latin-speaking West don’t read Greek well enough to know what they’re talking about. So I am going to have to rely on God and work this out myself.”

And when he gets to the term hypostasis, he is lost. The proof is in Chapter 8 of book one. The heading title is:

CHAP. 8.—WHATEVER IS SPOKEN OF GOD ACCORDING TO SUBSTANCE, AS SPOKEN OF EACH PERSON SEVERALLY, AND TOGETHER OF THE TRINITY ITSELF. ONE ESSENCE IN GOD, AND THREE, IN GREEK, HYPOSTASES, IN LATIN, PERSONS.”11 (See footnote for link to referenced document.)

At the end of this chapter, just before chapter 9, he admits that he is confused by the difference between Ousia and Hypostasis.

For inasmuch as to God it is not one thing to be, and another thing to be great, but to Him it is the same thing to be, as it is to be great; therefore, as we do not say three essences, so we do not say three greatnesses, but one essence and one greatness. I say essence, which in Greek is called οὐσία (Ousia), and which we call more usually substance.

10. They indeed use also the word hypostasis; but they intend to put a difference, I know not what, between οὐσία(Ousia) and hypostasis: so that most of ourselves who treat these things in the Greek language, are accustomed to say, μίαν, οὐσίαν, τρεῖς, ὑποστάσεις, or, in Latin, one essence, three substances.

He admits he does not really know what it means. He eventually decides that what the Latin West has been calling persona is something like a relational identity — the way he is a teacher to his students and a student to his mentor. And from there he develops a view where the Trinity is basically the divine essence relating to itself: it relates to itself paternally (producing the identity of “Father”), it relates to itself filially (producing the identity of “Son”), and it loves itself (producing the identity of “Spirit” — the love between Father and Son).

The relational identities part is correct — the Fathers do say the persons are identified by their relations. But Augustine goes further and says a hypostasis is a relation. And that is not what the Eastern Fathers taught. A hypostasis is an existing subject. The relation tells you which subject you are talking about. Those are different claims.

This, combined with Augustine’s commitment to a Platonist doctrine of divine simplicity (the idea that God’s essence and existence are identical, and all of God’s attributes collapse into one simple thing -see the quote above that mentions gods greatness and being great), created a fundamentally different starting point. For the East, the Father is the ground of the Trinity — he exists, has the divine nature, and gives it to the Son and Spirit. For the West, the divine nature itself is the ground — it exists, and the persons are relational identities layered on top of it. That difference is the seed from which the filioque controversy, and ultimately the Great Schism of 1054, would grow.

For LDS Readers

Some of this will feel strangely familiar to you. The idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct subjects — not one subject wearing three masks — is something that, today, Latter-day Saints insist on. And on that specific point, you are closer to the Eastern Church Fathers than some Protestants.

But here is where it diverges. In LDS theology, the Father and the Son are two separate beings with two separate bodies. In the Nicene understanding, they are distinct but not separate — they share one divine nature, they interpenetrate one another, and there is no separation between them because God is not a material body. And because they are perfect, have one will, and interpenetrate one another (remember the analogy of three suns above.) You could say, and the ancient Greek fathers would agree, that they are united in purpose.

And in LDS theology, there is a plurality of gods — an entire cosmology of exalted beings. In the Nicene understanding, there is one divine nature, and exactly three subjects possess it. Not a pantheon. Not an open set. Three. And the reason there are three and only three is because the Father has only one Son and outbreathes only one Spirit. The number is determined by the Father’s eternal action, not by an ongoing process of exaltation that evolves one into the divine nature.

If you were to distill the LDS view of the GodHead down to it’s most simplistic and superficial articulation of “three persons united in purpose.” (Which is something we taught when I was an LDS missionary.) It’s not wrong. Where it goes off the rails is when you drill down to talk about the nature of those three persons. Then the limitations of this overly simplistic viewpoint become apparent, and you realize that it is incomplete and has a confused understanding of divine nature. In my opinion this confusion has very much to do with trying to apply human concepts about categories like what a person is or what a being is, and the assumptions that come with each, e.g that each different person must be a different being. These are human ontological categories and understandings. We cannot project this onto God as God has already told us in the scriptures that he is beyond our understanding (Isaiah 55:8-9, Job 11:7-9, Job 36:26, Romans 11:33-36, 1 Corinthains 2:16)

Then in discussions with exaltation the LDS version of the God Head goes too far in ways that would have been considered deeply heretical to the early original church. In review it seems to me that what Joseph Smith and other Mormon leaders were really against, was the confused Latin/Western understanding of the Trinity, not the actual doctrine of the Trinity as rightly understood.

So the Trinity is neither a 19th century Protestant collapse of three into one (which always trends toward Sabellianism) nor the LDS expansion of three “persons” into three individual natures, (which the Fathers would call paganism).

ADD Tangent

As I write this, the ADD part of my brain is going on a tanget that seeks to apply McConkie’s logic back on him12 (and I know most people ignore McConkie these days so don’t be offended just take this as a thought exercise. Those who know me know that I really strongly dislike McConkie. I think his book Mormon Doctrine was atrocious.) He says, the “adoption of this false doctrine about God effectively destroyed true worship among men and ushered in the age of universal apostasy.”

Now I completely agree with the principle of the argument that a false doctrine about God will destroy true worship and makes Theosis (salvation) extremely difficult if not impossible. (How can you align your likeness to God’s if your understanding of who and what God is, is distorted? That would be like trying to shoot an archery target with a bow at 60+ yards while wearing dirty glasses of the wrong prescription.) Different areas of theology are not separate and disconnected from each other. Each naturally has implications/consequences for other areas of belief. So, if you get the fundamentals wrong, the rest go quickly awry.

Holding to McConkie’s principle above, what does it mean for the LDS faith if the LDS understanding about God also happens to be false doctrine? (at least in the perspective that it is incomplete, confused about divine nature, and limited?)

McConkie taught that the Trinity ‘effectively destroyed true worship among men and ushered in the age of universal apostasy.’ But the actual Fathers who fought the real heresies saw it the other way around. St. Irenaeus warned that every false doctrine about God — every invention of another God or a subordinate Creator — renders its followers ‘apostates from Him who made them’ and ‘wounds men unto death.’

Aside to the Aside: Why should we pay any attention to Irenaeus? Irenaeus was the spiritual grandson of the apostle John. He was a disciple of Polycarp who was a direct disciple of the apostle John. St. Polycarp didn’t just know John in passing — he sat under his teaching for 10-15 years. Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp personally, recalls him vividly recounting ‘his familiar intercourse with John’ and the words of those who had seen the Lord. That’s not a lost apostolic faith, that’s a direct transmission, one generation removed from the eyewitnesses.

St. Vincent of Lérins, writing centuries later, watched the same pattern repeat with Arian novelties and declared: ‘Shun profane novelties… if novelty is profane, antiquity is sacred.’ The Nicene doctrine didn’t cause apostasy. It was the ancient bulwark against it. The real innovation — the one that actually shipwrecks the faith — is the one that turns the eternal Trinity into a committee of exalted beings with separate bodies and natures and an open path to godhood. That’s not restoration, that’s polytheism. That’s exactly what the Saints said would make a shipwreck of the faith.

A Word to My Protestant Readers

If you have always found the Trinity confusing, the confusion is not your fault. You inherited a theological framework from the Roman Catholic (Latin) church, ultimately derived from Augustine, that made the doctrine of the Trinity confusing; Largely b/c Augustine wasn’t totally clear on it himself.

The Eastern Fathers explained the Trinity with remarkable clarity using the tools of moderate realism: a common nature and three subjects who possess it, distinguished by their eternal causal relations, indivisible because they are immaterial and omnipresent, harmonious because they are perfect. It is not a contradiction. It is not a paradox. It is not a mystery in the modern sense of “I don’t know what this means.”

If you want to dig deeper to understand the Trinity, do not start with Augustine. Start with Basil. Start with the two Gregory’s (Saint Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus.) Start with Athanasius. Start with the people who actually wrote the Creed and formulated this articulation of revealed truth.

Share

Conclusion

Joseph Smith didn’t restore an original christian view of the God-Head, he rejected a flawed 19th century protestant misunderstanding of it (derived from a confused Roman Catholic misunderstanding, and replaced it with something the Cappadocian Fathers would have called paganism with extra steps. The real restoration happened at Nicaea and Constantinople, when the Church simply articulated, with rigor, what it had always believed.

Regardless of who you are, your religious background, or current affiliation you hopefully have a much clearer understanding of the Trinity. Hopefully, now, if someone tells you the Trinity cannot be understood; that all analogies fail, that it is beyond explanation, that you just have to affirm it and move on. You now know that the Church Fathers who defined the doctrine would have disagreed with every word of that sentence and that there is a way to communicate and understand it; you just need to know a little Greek…

(I find that in understanding Christianity, there are innumerable benefits to being in a Greek church!)

As mentioned above, This article draws heavily on a lecture by Dr. Nathan Jacobs on Nicene Trinitarianism. Dr. Jacobs is a scholar of philosophy and religion, the host of The Nathan Jacobs Podcast, and writer/co-Executive Producer of the Amazon Original series House of David. His academic work on the Trinity, particularly his 2008 paper “On ‘Not Three Gods’ — Again” in Modern Theology, is essential reading for anyone who wants to go deeper. You can find his Substack at Theological Letters. A recording of this episode can be found on YouTube HERE.

If this article resonated with you, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

I’ve had a number of discussions over the past couple of years with friends and family who struggle to understand why I did not choose the Roman Catholic church.

When asked this question my normal answer is that I just could not get on board with the papacy. They usually take this to mean that I don’t like the current Pope and seek to reassure me that the Pope changes and one might come along that I would like better, but that’s actually not it at all. I cannot get on board with the institution of the papacy. Maybe this is just a holdover from my many years of being Mormon, where they basically have a Pope, they just call him a prophet or the president of the church. Maybe it’s a form of ecclesiastical trauma? I don’t know…

Usually this question comes from my Father and my cousins who are all Roman Catholic and seem to feel somewhat hurt that I chose Orthodoxy over Roman Catholicism. So here is a much lengthier discussion that goes into much more detail that I hope they can understand. At the very least, even if I’m missing things or my conclusions are debatable, I hope that it’s an illustration of the fact that I spent some time on this subject and put some thought into it rather than dismissing Roman Catholicism out of hand.

Hello!! McFly!! This is your Mormon Trauma Speaking! Why don’t you make like a tree and get outta here!

When I finally admitted to myself that the LDS Church was most likely not true, I became very wary of any organization that claimed authority it couldn’t fully account for. So when I set out to find the ancient Church, the one that actually stretches back to the Apostles, I had a decision to make.

Two traditions stood before me with serious historical credentials: Eastern Orthodoxy (AKA The Orthodox Catholic Church) and Roman Catholicism (The Roman Catholic Church.) Both claim apostolic succession. Both have ancient liturgies, sacramental theology, and unbroken episcopal lineages stretching back centuries. Both are serious. I don’t say that lightly. Coming from a tradition that was invented in 1830 in upstate New York, I had enormous respect for both Rome and the East.

But I chose the East. And I want to explain why in a detailed manner that I hope my friends and family can accept. Please note that this is not an anti-Catholic hit piece. Very large portions of my extended family (really all of it) are Roman Catholic, and I have deep respect and affection for many elements of the Roman tradition — the beauty of its cathedrals, the rigor of its intellectual heritage, the courage of its saints. When my father visits I take him to mass (and participate - to a degree) and I have often attended midnight mass.

But I could not, in good conscience, submit to the papacy as an institution. Not the ancient version of it. To be fair, the ancient version, pre 4th century, I probably could have lived with. The modern version, the post-Vatican 1 version, you know the one that demands you believe the Bishop of Rome has “full, supreme, and universal power” over every Christian on earth, and that when he speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals, he is infallible. That one I could not get behind. I spent 50 years in an organization led by infallible “prophets” of God and saw first hand how that goes.

The papal claims are rather specific, and when I traced it back through history, I found the entire argument, well, wanting.

The Ratzinger Admission

Let me start with a concession that comes from inside the Roman Catholic house.

Joseph Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, wrote something remarkable in his 1982 book Principles of Catholic Theology. He said - and I want you to sit with this, because I certainly did:

“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.”

So, the man who would go on to become Pope is admitting that the current form of the papacy goes beyond what the first thousand years of Christianity understood or practiced. He’s saying that if reunion with the Orthodox East is ever going to happen, Rome has to dial it back to what existed before the Great Schism of 1054.

This is not an obscure footnote. This is page 198 of a book written by one of the most brilliant Roman Catholic theologians of the 20th century. It is known in ecumenical circles as “the Ratzinger Formula” and has been cited in Catholic-Orthodox dialogue documents now for decades.

AND here is where it gets interesting. In 1997, after he had become a Cardinal and Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger co-signed a Pontifical Council letter that effectively walked this back. The letter stated that the doctrine on the Roman Pontiff “must be accepted in its entirety which incorporates the origins down to the present day.” i.e. never mind what I said earlier, you have to accept all of it, including the parts that didn’t exist for the first thousand years.

Notice what just happened. The same man, wearing different hats, gave two contradictory answers to the same question. As a theologian, with no skin in the papal game, he admitted the papacy overreached. As a Vatican official, he insisted you accept everything anyway. In my opinion, this is not a sign of a healthy institution. This is a sign of an institution that knows it has a problem and can’t figure out how to fix it without undermining its own authority claims. (Hmm where have I seen that before? Traumatic flashback ensues.)

And that, for me, became an issue with the papacy. It painted itself into a corner. It can’t go back to the first millennium model without admitting that Vatican I was wrong. (This is all sounding kinda familiar to me at this point. Case in point, have a gander at this article)

And the papacy can’t stay where it is without continuing to demand things from the rest of Christendom that didn’t exist for the first thousand years of the Church’s life.

Rome knows this is a problem (just like BYU scholars know the great apostasy/restoration argument is a problem.) In June 2024, the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity published (with Pope Francis’s approval) a 130-page study document titled The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in the Ecumenical Dialogues and in the Responses to the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint. This is the first Vatican text since Vatican II to lay out the entire ecumenical debate on papal primacy in one place. The document acknowledges that ecumenical dialogues have raised serious questions about papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. It notes that some dialogues “highlight the ambiguity” of the term “rock” in Matthew 16:18, suggesting it may refer to Peter’s faith, or even to Christ Himself, rather than to Peter as a person — and the document treats this as something to be “respected,” not corrected.

Let me repeat that so it lands. The Vatican’s own ecumenical document is now entertaining the possibility that the foundational proof-text of the entire papacy might not mean what Rome has claimed it means for the last thousand years. And they published this with the Pope’s approval.

The fact that they titled it The Bishop of Rome — not “The Vicar of Christ” or “The Supreme Pontiff” — tells you everything you need to know about which direction the wind is blowing. But here is the problem: you can soften the language all you want, but Vatican I’s Pastor Aeternus is still on the books. The dogma of papal supremacy and infallibility has not been retracted. It cannot be retracted without the entire theological system collapsing (hence my comment about painting yourself into a corner.) So what you get instead is a Vatican that talks one way to the Orthodox (first millennium, primacy of honor, synodality) and another way to its own faithful (full, supreme, and universal jurisdiction). Two scripts. Same institution.

I decided I wasn’t going to pretend that corner didn’t exist. So I started doing what a man with Autism and ADHD does, digging deeper, looking into the historical evidence.

What Did the First Millennium Actually Look Like?

If Ratzinger himself admitted that Rome should only ask of the East what was “formulated and lived in the first millennium,” then the obvious question to me was: what was formulated and lived in the first millennium?

The answer is the Pentarchy. (At least that’s the answer I accepted.)

The Pentarchy (from the Greek pente, five) was a system of church governance in which five great patriarchal sees — Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem — shared authority over the universal Church. We discussed this a bit in a previous article:

Rome held a primacy of honor. It was recognized as “first among equals” (primus inter pares). But it did not hold the kind of unilateral, universal jurisdiction that Vatican I would later claim.

Now, I should be cautious and make sure I’m not overstating my case. The formal Pentarchy as a system wasn’t codified until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. The earlier ecumenical councils at Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381) established the basic framework by ranking the major sees — Rome first, then Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and eventually Jerusalem. The point is that the governance of the early Church was conciliar and synodal (LDS should read - the church was governed through councils or, if you will, quorums) It was not monarchical. The Bishop of Rome had a primacy — nobody disputes this. But it was a primacy of honor and a court of appeal, not a primacy of universal jurisdiction. (i.e The Roman bishop could not go into another patriarchate and meddle in their affairs, e.g. he couldn’t appoint bishops or priests, etc.)

The ecumenical councils of the first millennium make this clear. Not a single one of the seven ecumenical councils recognized by both East and West defined the kind of papal supremacy that Vatican I would later dogmatize. As the Orthodox scholar Protopresbyter Gavrilo Kostelnik put it, the canons of the ecumenical councils “not only know nothing about the jurisdictional primacy of the Roman bishop based on Peter’s legacy, but in their canons, they most clearly assert that the primacy of the Roman bishop is grounded solely in custom — namely in the historical fact that Rome was the capital of the empire.”

That is a devastating observation. The highest authority of the undivided Church — the ecumenical councils — grounded Rome’s primacy in geography, not in theology. Rome was first because it was the imperial capital. When Constantinople became the new capital, Canon 28 of Chalcedon immediately elevated it to second place, using exactly the same reasoning: political importance, not Petrine succession.

The Peter Problem

Roman Catholic papal theology (as I understand it) largely hangs on some very specific claims: that Jesus, in Matthew 16:18 (”You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church”), established Peter as the supreme head of the Church, and that this authority passes to every subsequent Bishop of Rome in an unbroken chain.

These claims are, however, not without issue.

Issue #1: Peter was the Bishop of Antioch first (before Rome)

This is not disputed by anyone, including Rome. According to ancient tradition accepted by both Catholics and Orthodox Catholics, Peter established the Church in Antioch and served as its first bishop before he ever went to Rome. Antioch was no backwater — it was the third largest city in the Roman Empire, and it was in Antioch that the followers of Christ were first called “Christians” (Acts 11:26).

Here is a question that no Roman Catholic has ever adequately answered for me: If the Petrine succession is what gives the Bishop of Rome his supreme authority, then why doesn’t the Patriarch of Antioch have the same claim? Peter sat in Antioch before he sat in Rome (if he sat in Rome at all, which we will get to). By Rome’s own logic, Antioch should be the supreme see, because it was Peter’s first chair. To this day, the Patriarch of Antioch considers himself a successor of Peter, and in my judgment, he has just as much right to that claim as the Pope does. Maybe more, at least the people of Antioch didn’t kill him!

The Roman Catholic response is usually that Peter left Antioch for Rome, and that Rome was his final see, and that this is what matters. But this is special (logical) pleading. There is no theological principle in the New Testament or in any early Church Father that says “the last city an apostle visits gets permanent supremacy.” If that were the rule, then whatever city John the Apostle died in should have supremacy over every see that Peter founded, because John outlived Peter. The logic doesn’t hold. Not only that they narrow it so that it only matters for Peter. I understand why, but it just seems, well, convenient.

Issue #2: The earliest sources don’t call Peter the first Bishop of Rome.

This is the part that really opened my eyes.

Irenaeus of Lyon, writing around 180 AD, provides the earliest formal succession list of Roman bishops. Irenaeus is a towering figure — a student of Polycarp, who was himself a student of the Apostle John. He is as close to the apostolic generation as any writer we have outside the New Testament. And here is what he says:

“The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.”

Read that carefully. Peter and Paul founded the Church in Rome, and then they handed over the office of bishop to Linus. Irenaeus does not say Peter was the first bishop. He says Peter (and Paul — Rome always forgets about Paul) founded the Church, and then Linus became the first bishop.

This distinction matters. In the early Church, the office of Apostle and the office of Bishop were understood as two different things. An Apostle was itinerant — he traveled, planted churches, and moved on. A Bishop was sedentary — he stayed in one place to govern the local church. Peter was an Apostle. Linus was the first Bishop. These are different roles.

Eusebius of Caesarea, writing his Church History in the early 4th century, confirms the same thing: “After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome.” Not Peter. Linus. After Peter died.

Now, I can already hear the (weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth) of Catholic apologists reaching for Irenaeus’s other statement, the one where he says every church must agree with Rome “on account of its preeminent authority.” Fair enough. I am not denying that Irenaeus recognized Rome’s importance. Of course he did. Rome was the imperial capital and the site of the martyrdom of both Peter and Paul. No one in the early Church denied that Rome held a special place of honor. But a “special place of honor” is a very different thing from “universal jurisdiction and infallibility.” Irenaeus himself is the one who lists Linus, not Peter, as the first bishop. You cannot use Irenaeus to prove papal supremacy when Irenaeus himself doesn’t describe Peter as the Bishop of Rome.

Issue #3: The “Peter was the first Bishop of Rome” tradition is likely a later development

The first document to explicitly place Peter at the head of the list of Roman bishops and assign him a specific length of time in office is the Chronography of 354, also known as the Liberian Catalogue. This document, compiled roughly 30-40 years after Eusebius wrote his history, states that Peter headed the Roman church for 25 years, 1 month, and 9 days.

Twenty-five years, one month, and nine days. Down to the day, that’s awfully specific for a man whose whereabouts the New Testament deliberately conceals after Acts 12 ”he departed and went to another place”. Most historians, including Catholic historians, see this level of precision as a “pious invention” — a polite way of saying someone made it up to make the succession look more established than it actually was.

And….. it gets worse.

Pope Leo I, in the 5th century, is the one who fully develops the theological doctrine that the Pope inherits Peter’s authority in a direct, juridical sense. Leo’s Petrine Theory is the foundation upon which everything else gets built. After Leo, the Liber Pontificalis (compiled in the 6th century) takes the names from Irenaeus, the dates from the Liberian Catalogue, and adds specific decrees Peter supposedly issued, details about his burial, and a narrative that made the papacy look like an ancient, functioning government from Day One.

But, in my estimation, having seen shenanigans like this before, having run into the Forgeries see below, as well as understanding the politics of the Roman Empire at the time they weren’t discovering that Peter was the first bishop. They were constructing it, retroactively, to serve the institutional needs of a 5th and 6th century papacy that was rapidly accumulating political power. And I’m not the only one to have this view, not this isn't just my Orthodox reading of the evidence. Peter Lampe, in his landmark study From Paul to Valentinus, demonstrated that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until the late second century, and that the succession list was "projected back into the past." Robert Eno, a Roman Catholic priest and professor at the Catholic University of America, asked the obvious question:”“If there were no bishop of Rome, then how can one speak of a Petrine Succession?" Even Eamon Duffy, a practicing Catholic historian at Cambridge, admits that the earliest evidence does not support the idea that Peter established a succession of bishops in Rome.1

The Forgeries

This brings us to the part of the story that apologists really don’t like to talk about. In the 8th and 9th centuries, the papacy produced, or at least benefited enormously from, two sets of documents that were used to justify its claims to supreme authority over all of Christendom.

The first is the Donation of Constantine (Constitutum Constantini). This document purported to be a decree from Emperor Constantine himself, granting Pope Sylvester I and his successors spiritual authority over all the churches of the East and temporal authority over the entire western Roman Empire. It was the primary legal basis for the Papal States and for the Pope’s claim to crown emperors (like Charlemagne in 800 AD). It was used for centuries as a foundational legal document of papal authority.

Unfortunately, it was a forgery. Lorenzo Valla proved this definitively in 1440, using philological analysis to show that the Latin in the document contained words and constructions that did not exist in the 4th century. The document was fabricated, almost certainly in the 8th century, to serve papal political ambitions.

The second is the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. This was a massive collection of approximately 100 documents, including “letters” from 1st-century Popes (like Clement and Anacletus) that described a highly centralized church hierarchy — one where bishops could appeal directly to the Pope, bypassing local archbishops, councils, and secular authorities. These forged decretals were enormously influential in shaping medieval canon law. They were used for centuries to advance the power and authority claims of the Roman bishop.

They were also forgeries. This is not disputed by anyone, including Catholic scholars. The New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals are fabrications.

Now, to be fair, the Roman Catholic Church did not officially commission these forgeries (at least, there is no surviving evidence that it did). And the Church has long since acknowledged that they are not authentic. But here is what matters: these forged documents were used for centuries to build up the theological, legal, and political infrastructure of papal supremacy. The papal claims that were eventually dogmatized at Vatican I in 1870 did not spring from the New Testament or the early Fathers. They were built, brick by brick, on a foundation that includes forged documents, retroactive hagiography, and theological innovations that would have been unrecognizable to the Church of the first millennium.

Let me say that again so it lands.

The doctrine of papal supremacy and infallibility, as defined at Vatican I in 1870, was the culmination of a process that leaned, at critical junctures, on documents that were fabricated. The forgeries were eventually exposed, but the doctrines (not to mention canon law and dogmas) they supported were never rolled back. The scaffolding was removed, but the building stayed.

For a former Mormon who left the LDS Church in part because of demonstrable problems with Joseph Smith’s historical claims, this left a very bad taste in my mouth. I had just walked away from one institution that demanded I accept its authority claims despite serious historical problems. I was NOT about to walk into another one.

Paul’s Silence

Here is one more piece of “evidence” that, while not earth shattering on it’s own, is one of those things that makes me go hmmm?

In Paul’s Letter to the Romans, written around 57 AD, Paul greets over two dozen individuals by name. These are people he knows personally or knows of by reputation in the Roman church. He greets Prisca and Aquila, Epaenetus, Mary, Andronicus and Junia, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Stachys, Apelles, and on and on.

He does not mention Peter. Not once. Not in passing. Not as a greeting. Not as a superior he’s deferring to.

If Peter were the reigning Bishop of Rome at this time — which is what the later tradition claims, since the Liberian Catalogue has Peter ruling in Rome from roughly 30 AD onward — this would be an enormously spectacular omission. Paul is writing a lengthy theological letter to the church in Rome. He greets everyone he can think of. But the supposed supreme head of that church? Silence. That’s not just an omission, if papal claims are true, that would be a huge slap in the face that very likely would/should have produced waves we likely would have heard about, but we never do.

The simplest explanation is the one that both Irenaeus and Eusebius support: Peter was not functioning as the Bishop of Rome in the way that later tradition would claim. He certainly visited Rome and he almost certainly died there. But the office of a monarchical bishop in Rome (i.e. and by monarchical I mean a single man governing the Roman church with supreme local authority,) did not yet exist in the way it would later develop.

Where I Planted My Flag

Ultimately, I decided that the Pentarchy — the conciliar system of five patriarchal sees governing the Church together had much more historical support, legitimacy, and justification than a monarchical papacy.

This was not a decision I made lightly. I studied the Fathers. I read (some of) the conciliar canons. I looked at the development of papal claims over time against the backdrop of roman politics and events. And what I found was a pattern: the Bishop of Rome started as first among equals, was gradually elevated by imperial politics and the prestige of martyrdom, was retroactively rewritten as the supreme ruler of the Church by 5th and 6th century papal biographers, propped up by 8th and 9th century forgeries, and was finally dogmatized in the 19th century at Vatican I. A council that many bishops opposed and that the Eastern churches have never accepted, and never will.

The Orthodox Catholic Church has never accepted any of this. Not because they were obstinate, and not because they didn’t respect Rome. They didn’t accept it because it wasn’t what the Apostles taught and it wasn’t what the Fathers practiced, and it wasn’t what the ecumenical councils defined.

And when I looked at it honestly as someone who had already learned the hard way what happens when you submit your conscience to an institution that demands unquestioning loyalty despite historical problems, I could not, in good conscience, support the institution of the papacy.

So I planted my flag on the side of the Pentarchy. On the side of the Fathers. On the side of the first millennium.

And in doing so, I became Orthodox.

A Word to My LDS Readers

You will notice some familiar themes here. An institution that claims exclusive divine executive authority resting on one man. Historical evidence that doesn’t support the claim. Later documents were produced to retroactively justify the authority. A leadership structure that demands loyalty (nay, not loyalty, fealty) despite the problems.

I’m not saying the Roman Catholic Church is the LDS Church. They are very different institutions with very different theologies. But the pattern of institutional authority claiming more than the evidence supports — that pattern, you already know. You’ve lived it. Trust that instinct. There is only one person in whom that ultimate infallible authority lies, Jesus Christ.

And if you’re looking for an ancient Church that takes history seriously, that doesn’t require you to check your brain at the door, and that worships the same God with the same liturgy that Christians have used for nearly two thousand years, look East.

The Apostles were there first.

If this article resonated with you, consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Subscribe now

Picture the scene. A 747 is cruising at thirty thousand feet somewhere over the Atlantic. The cabin lights are dimmed. Passengers are sleeping under thin blankets, watching movies, picking at reheated chicken. A flight attendant pushes a beverage cart down the aisle. The captain announces that they are making good time and should arrive at Heathrow ahead of schedule.

And then, without warning, half the passengers vanish. Not gradually. Instantly. One frame they are there, the next frame they are not. Clothes collapse into empty seats. A wedding ring clinks against an armrest. A child’s shoe sits on the floor with no child in it. The beverage cart rolls forward and hits a pile of empty clothing where a businessman used to be. The copilot is gone. The plane begins to pitch forward. Somewhere below, cars are crashing on highways because their drivers have disappeared. Surgeons have vanished from operating rooms. Mothers have vanished from kitchens. The world is screaming.

This is the Rapture, as imagined by the Left Behind franchise, the most commercially successful depiction of the evangelical conception of the “end times” in American history. Sixteen novels. Four films. Tens of millions of copies sold. And behind it, a theological framework so thoroughly embedded in American Protestantism that most churchgoers assume it comes straight from the Bible.

It does not.

Read more

This is the third article in the Eighth Day series. If you are just joining us, the first two articles:

• and Holy Ground Everywhere

Lay the theological foundations for everything discussed here. You can find them in the archive.

Somewhere outside Moscow, on the sixth of January, a priest in gold vestments is walking across a frozen river.

He is followed by a procession of the faithful. Some carry icons. Some carry candles, the flames stuttering in the wind. Babushka's who have done this many times, carry little lanterns to protect the candles from blowing out. A deacon swings a censer, and the smoke of frankincense hangs in the air at about shin level because the cold is so severe that it refuses to rise. The temperature is well below zero. The birch trees along the bank are black against a white sky. The only color for miles is the priest’s vestments and the red and gold of the icons, and these look almost violent against so much winter.

They have come to bless the river.

At the center of the ice, someone has cut a hole in the shape of a cross. The water beneath is black and slow, and the hole is already beginning to refreeze. The priest stands at the edge of this opening and begins to chant. The prayers are long and ancient. They invoke the creation of the world, the parting of the Red Sea, the baptism of Christ in the Jordan. They command every unclean and invisible spirit to withdraw from these waters. They ask that this water become, in the language of the rite, “a fountain of incorruption, a gift of sanctification, a loosing of sins, a healing of diseases, a destruction of demons.”

Then the priest takes a large brass cross and plunges it into the black water three times, singing each time the great hymn of the Feast: When You, O Lord, were baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was made manifest.

And then people begin to jump in. Not all of them. Not everywhere. But in Russia, in Serbia, in Greece, in Alaska, even in Florida and communities scattered across the Orthodox world, men and women young and old strip down to their undergarments and lower themselves into the blessed, often freezing, water. Some go fully under. Some gasp and immediately scramble out. Some are serene. A grandmother crosses herself and sinks to her shoulders and stays there for a moment. It's a picture that seems to belong in a different era.

In Greece, a Priest throws the cross into the newly blessed waters of the Mediterranean. As soon as it leaves his hands, faithful young men and young women dive into the sea, competing to be the first person to recover it and with it blessing for the coming year.

It can be festive, but this isn't a contest to prove how tough you are. What they are doing has been done for centuries in Christianity. They are immersing their bodies in the Eighth Day.

If you have been following this series, you know what that means. The Eighth Day is the day beyond the seventh, the day that dawned when Christ rose from the dead, the era where humanity can finally achieve its original purpose and the material world is being pulled out of its bondage to death and decay, being renewed and regenerated, just like we are in baptism. In the first article, we laid the theological foundation. In the second, we saw how Orthodox Christians extend the Eighth Day into domestic space through the blessing of houses, animals, cars, and fields.

Now we go to the source.

Because the Great Blessing of the Waters at Theophany is not one blessing among many. It is, in the Orthodox understanding, the archetype of all blessing, the annual moment in the Liturgical year when the Church reaches into the most fundamental substance on earth and reclaims it for God. And the theology behind it begins not in the Jordan River two thousand years ago but at the very first moment of the world’s existence, when there was nothing but darkness and water and the breath of God.

Share

The Oldest Element

Before there was daylight, there was water.

This is what Genesis says. “The earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.” Before the sun existed. Before land. Before plants, animals, or human beings. Before God said “Let there be light.” There was water, and the Spirit of God was moving over it.

The Church Fathers noticed this. They noticed it with the kind of intense, sustained attention that modern readers rarely bring to any text, let alone the first three verses of the Bible. And what they saw in that image, the Spirit brooding over the primordial waters, was not the narrative imagery of the opening of a creation myth, but a revelation about the nature of matter itself.

St. Basil the Great, writing in the fourth century in his treatise On the Holy Spirit, argued that the Spirit’s presence over the waters at creation established a permanent relationship between the Spirit and the material world, with water as the first and most intimate point of contact. The Spirit did not hover over the rocks, it did not hover over fire or air, it hovered over the water. For St. Basil, this was not arbitrary. Water was the first material substance to receive the Spirit’s creative touch, and that primordial contact left a mark. Water, you might say, has a memory. It was the first element to know the breath of God, and it has never entirely forgotten.

Tertullian, a fierce North African theologian of the early third century (and the author of the oldest surviving treatise on baptism in all of Christian literature), made the point even more forcefully. In On Baptism, he wrote that water possesses a kind of “special dignity” among the elements because of its primordial encounter with the Spirit. “The Spirit of God was carried over the waters,” Tertullian wrote, before being “carried over” anything else. The waters were, in his phrase, “the first to produce that which has life.” They were the womb of creation. And this, Tertullian argued, is precisely why God chose water as the medium of baptism. Not because water is convenient or because it makes a good visual metaphor. Because water is, at the molecular level, prepared for the Spirit. It was built for this.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, instructing his catechumens (new converts preparing for baptism) in the fourth century, made the same connection from a different angle. In his Catechetical Lectures, Cyril taught that the waters of baptism are not merely a symbol of cleansing. They are the same waters in which the Spirit moved at the beginning of time, called back to their original purpose. Baptism is not an invention. It is a recollection. The water remembers what it was made for, and the Spirit reminds it.

I want you to sit with that idea for a moment, because it is far stranger and far more beautiful than anything most Western Christians have been taught about baptism. The water is not a prop. It is a participant. It has a history with the Holy Spirit that predates the existence of the sun. And when the priest blesses it, he is not performing a magic trick. He is calling the water back to its first love and original purpose.

What Happened at the Jordan

All of this is prologue. The real event, the one that changed the nature of water forever, happened on the banks of the Jordan River when a man named Yeshua, Jesus, of Nazareth walked into the current and asked a wild eyed prophet to push him under.

Every Christian tradition acknowledges the baptism of Christ. Most treat it as the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, a kind of inauguration ceremony. Some treat it as an act of humility, God stooping to identify with sinners. These readings are not wrong, but they are incomplete, and the early Church knew it.

The Orthodox understanding of Christ’s baptism is not primarily about Jesus demonstrating humility, setting an example, or launching his career as a rabbi. It is about the sanctification of matter and the renewal of all creation.

St. John Chrysostom, the golden tongued archbishop of Constantinople, put it with his usual directness in his Homily on the Baptism of Christ: Christ did not enter the Jordan because He was dirty. He entered the Jordan because the Jordan was dirty, because all water on earth had been caught in the same cycle of corruption and decay that trapped the rest of the material world after the Fall. The waters of the Flood had drowned humanity. The waters of the Red Sea had swallowed armies. Water, for all its primordial dignity, had become an instrument of death as often as an instrument of life. The memory of the Spirit’s first touch was still there, buried deep, but the surface had been scarred by centuries of violence and curse.

Christ walked into that scarred water and He healed it.

St. Gregory the Theologian, preaching his magnificent Oration 39 on the eve of the Theophany Feast, captured the cosmic scale of what was happening: “Christ is illumined; let us shine forth with Him. Christ is baptized; let us descend with Him, that we may also ascend with Him.” For Gregory, the baptism was not a spectacle to observe from the riverbank. It was a door. Christ descended into the waters, and by descending He opened a passage for the entire material world to follow Him back up. To me this is what the scripture really means when they say that his baptism fulfilled all righteousness. Not that it was merely setting a good example, like I was taught when I was LDS.

The Psalmista, centuries earlier, had already seen this coming. Psalm 114, which the Orthodox chant at Theophany, describes the Exodus in language that sounds unmistakably like a prophecy of baptism: “The sea looked and fled; the Jordan turned back. The mountains skipped like rams, the hills like lambs.” The whole natural world recoiling and leaping at the presence of God. And the Orthodox liturgical tradition read this Psalm as a description of what happened when Christ stepped into the Jordan: the river itself recognized Him. The water remembered its Creator. And it shuddered. “Tremble, thou earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob"

St. Ephrem the Syrian, the great fourth century poet and theologian, wrote about this moment in imagery so esoteric that it have been reverberating through Orthodox worship ever since. In his Hymns on the Epiphany, Ephrem described the Jordan as a kind of womb: “Fire and Spirit were in the womb that bore You; fire and Spirit were in the river in which You were baptized. Fire and Spirit are in our baptism also.” The river that received Christ’s body became pregnant with divinity. The water did not merely get wet with holiness. It conceived. It became generative. Something was planted in the water itself that day on the Jordan, and it has been growing and spreading ever since. This is the event that the Great Blessing of the Waters commemorates. Not as a memory. As a continuation.

Baptismal Regeneration - An Aside

This has me thinking about Baptism and baptismal regeneration. I recently had a discussion with a southern baptist pastor agreed that something special happened at baptism, but he couldn't say what or why and denied that it wast the act itself or the water that was special. (How Zwinglian of him, his theology is, after all anabaptist in origin and a product of Ulrich Zwingli's pre-enlightenment ideas.)

I find it interesting that as Orthodox we are one of the few in Christendom who still believe that baptism is regenerative. This helps me understand why that is, and why baptism is said (even in mormonism) to remove the ancestral curse of “original sin.” In case you are confused here is a bit of an explanation of what this means. Baptismal regeneration is the teaching that baptism is not merely symbolic or declarative but actually does something to the person being baptized. It effects a real change in our ontological status and our relationship to God. The water of baptism, through the action of the Holy Spirit, genuinely regenerates us, meaning that it brings about a new birth, a real participation in the death and resurrection of Christ, not just a public announcement that you have decided to follow Jesus.

In John 3:5 Christ tells Nicodemus: “Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” Groups that hold to baptismal regeneration read this as a straightforward statement that water baptism is the instrument through which the Spirit effects new birth. Groups that reject it read “water” as metaphorical, or as referring to natural birth, or as separable from “Spirit.”

The Eastern Orthodox Church holds to the strongest version of this belief. Baptism genuinely unites a person to Christ’s death and resurrection, removes the ancestral curse of the Fall (what the West calls “original sin”), imparts the Holy Spirit (which is completed in Chrismation, which immediately follows baptism), and ontologically changes us.

You also receive the Holy Spirit. In Orthodox practice this is completed through Chrismation (anointing with holy oil), which immediately follows baptism. The Spirit is not an abstract blessing. He is the power source of the new life. Baptism and Chrismation together plant the seed of a new spiritual reality inside a body that is still running on the old biological fuel.

We are made members of the Body of Christ and temples of the Holy Spirit. We become participants in what 2 Peter 1:4 calls “the divine nature.” Not that we become God in essence (the creature always remains a creature), but that we are granted real participation in God’s energies.

St. Mark the Ascetic, a fifth century Father, put it in a way that captures the tension perfectly: baptism gives us “perfect grace,” but we must discover what we have received through the ongoing struggle of the Christian life. The gift is total. The realization of the gift is gradual.

St. Nicholas Cabasilas, the fourteenth century Byzantine theologian, wrote in his work The Life in Christ, that baptism gives us new birth, Chrismation gives us new energy (the capacity to move and act in the new life), and the Eucharist gives us new food (sustenance for the journey). The three together constitute full initiation into the Eighth Day. But initiation is not completion. We have been born into the new life, but we have not yet grown up.

Baptism is thus not a symbol of something that has already happened internally. It is the event itself. Here is one way I think about it… We, are in a way, through baptism “rebooted.” This is both similar to and different from the pre-fall state Adam was in in Eden. Similar in that we are no longer being severed from the life of God, we have the ability to choose to grow in the likeness of God like Adam was able to before that likeness was lost, and we have open to us the road to Theosis. But different in that we still have the garments of skin, we still age and our bodies still die. We still experience disordered passions and biological instincts. Yet it is also something more. Baptism doesn’t graft us onto Adam, it grafts us onto Christ, and Christ is not merely an un-fallen version of Adam. He is not the starting point Adam occupied, He is far more, and achieved what Adam was supposed to achieve.

Romans 6:3-4 “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.”

That “newness of life” is not Adam’s pre-Fall life. It is resurrection life. It is the life of the Eighth Day planted as a seed inside the ongoing reality of the Seventh.

The Jordan Typology

There is one more layer to this that most Western readers miss entirely, and it has to do with the geography of the Jordan.

In the Old Testament, the Jordan River was considered the boundary between life and death. On one side lay the wilderness, forty years of wandering, a whole generation dying in the desert. On the other side was the Promised Land, the land flowing with milk and honey, the destination that God prepared for His people. When Joshua led the Israelites across the Jordan, the waters parted (just as the Red Sea had parted before them), and the people walked through on dry ground into their inheritance. The crossing of the Jordan was the crossing where they left exile and came home.

The Church Fathers saw in Christ’s baptism a deliberate and devastating reversal of this typology.

Joshua crossed the Jordan going into the Promised Land. Christ crossed the Jordan going out of it, into the wilderness. Or rather, He went down, into the waters themselves. He did not pass through the Jordan as Joshua did, with the waters conveniently held aside. He went under. He let the waters of death close over His head. The icons of the Theophany1 make this startlingly clear: in the traditional iconographic depiction of Christ’s baptism, the Jordan is painted as a chasm, and Christ stands inside it, the waters forming a kind of tomb around His body. The visual connection to the burial is unmistakable and intentional.

Christ entered the waters of death not to avoid death (as Joshua did by walking on dry ground) but to destroy death from within. He brought His divine life into the place where death reigned, and in doing so He poisoned death at its source. The waters that had been instruments of judgment became instruments of healing. The Jordan, which had been the boundary between death and life, became the place where death and life met and life won.

This is why Orthodox Christians do not view baptism as a symbolic reenactment. It is a real participation in what Christ did in the Jordan. And the Great Blessing of the Waters is the annual renewal of that participation on the largest possible scale.

The Rite

I want to walk you through the Great Blessing because there is something about this rite that no amount of patristic commentary can fully convey. You have to get a sense of the weight of it.

The service takes place either inside the church (where a large vessel of water is blessed) or, in many traditions, outdoors at a natural body of water: a river, a lake, a spring, or the sea. The outdoor form is the older and more dramatic of the two, and it is the one that most vividly enacts the theology.

The priest and the faithful process from the church to the water. Icons are carried. Hymns are sung. The procession itself is a liturgical statement: the Church is leaving the building. It is going out into the world. This is not an interior, private, “spiritual” event. It is an act of cosmic reclamation.

At the water’s edge, the prayers begin. They are among the most theologically rich prayers in the Orthodox liturgical tradition and they deserve to be heard slowly.

The priest begins by recounting the history of water in salvation. He recalls the Spirit hovering over the waters at creation. He recalls the Flood. He recalls the parting of the Red Sea. He recalls the Jordan. This is not a mere listing Bible stories, instead the priest is reactivating the spiritual history embedded in every molecule of water on earth. He is calling the water to remembrance.

Then the tone shifts. The prayers become exorcistic. The priest addresses the demonic powers directly, commanding every “aerial and invisible enemy” to withdraw from these waters. This is not a polite request. The language is commanding, even aggressive. And it reflects the Orthodox conviction, discussed in the first article of this series, that the fallen angelic “watchers” did not limit their corruption to human societies. They corrupted the material world itself. The waters of the earth, like the nations of the earth, were occupied territory. And they were and are being liberated.

After the exorcism comes the great invocation. The priest asks God to send the Holy Spirit upon these waters, just as the Spirit hovered over the waters at the beginning of the world. He asks that the water become “a fountain of incorruption, a gift of sanctification, a loosing of sins, a healing of diseases, a destruction of demons, unapproachable by hostile powers, filled with angelic might.” Every phrase is teaching Christian theology.

• Incorruption: the reversal of entropy, the signature achievement of the Eighth Day.

• Sanctification: the restoration of the water’s original purpose as a bearer of divine life.

• Healing: the medicine of immortality extending beyond the Eucharist to the most basic element of physical existence.

• Destruction of demons: the Great Displacement applied to the molecular level.

And then the cross goes into the water 3 times. Each time accompanied by the singing of the Theophany troparion: When You, O Lord, were baptized in the Jordan, the worship of the Trinity was made manifest; for the voice of the Father bore witness to You, calling You His beloved Son, and the Spirit in the form of a dove confirmed the truthfulness of His word.

In Genesis 1:2, the Spirit of God is portrayed as a bird. The word used in Hebrew to describe his movement over the waters, usually translated in English as ‘hovering’ or ‘brooding’ is a word used to describe a mother bird brooding over her young. The presence of the Holy Spirit over the waters as a dove is a deliberate recalling of the original creation of the world. The first creation culminates, at its climax, in the creation of Adam (Gen 1:27). The new creation follows the reverse order and begins with the re-creation of man through the incarnation of Christ. This is the first main liturgical theme of Theophany: the re-creation and setting free of Adam by Christ in the waters of the Jordan. It should be remembered that the celebration of Theophany in the East preceded the celebration of the Feast of the Nativity by nearly three centuries and it was Theophany which functioned as the celebration of the incarnation of Christ.

Theophany and River Gods: What Are the Strange Figures on the Theophany Icon? - January 6, 2020 / Fr. Stephen De Young

Three immersions. Just as in baptism. Because this is a baptism. Not of a person, but of the water itself.

When the cross emerges the third time, the water is changed. Not chemically (though Chrysostom made an observation in the fourth century that has been repeated by the faithful ever since: Theophany water, properly stored, does not spoil; it remains pure and uncorrupted for months, even years, in a way that unblessed water does not). The change is ontological, a word we have been using throughout this series to mean a change in the mode of being itself. The water has been recalled to its primordial purpose. The Spirit that hovered over it before the creation of the sun is hovering over it again. It has been pulled out of the Seventh Day and into the Eighth.

LDS Tangent 1

(don't worry it's nice)

To use LDS language for a moment, when I talk about the Eight Day, that it's coming and how elements of it are being pulled into our current reality, you could say that this is part of the process by which the earth is being celestialized. Not at some later event 1000 years into the future after a 3rd or 4th coming of Christ, but ongoing since the Incarnation and in the Here and Now as we are in and approach The Last Days (to me the phrase The Last Days now takes on a new meaning. It's not the Last Days as in the end of all life on Earth in some apocalyptic sense, it's the Last Days as in the end of the 7 Day creation, and moving to an 8th and truly Last day.)

The Capillary System

What happens next is, to my mind, one of the most quietly radical things in all of Christian practice. The first time I experienced this I found it very strange. Because I didn't understand it it seemed almost like almost superstitious or magical thinking. The faithful line up. They drink the water. They fill bottles and jars and thermoses and whatever vessels they have brought with them. And then they take the water home.

They sprinkle it in their houses. They give it to the sick. They anoint their children with it. They sprinkle it on their gardens, their animals, their cars. In rural Orthodox communities, the priest will walk through village fields with the Theophany water, blessing the soil before planting season. In coastal towns, he will bless the boats in the harbor. In cities, people keep a bottle of Theophany water on their icon shelf all year and use it whenever illness strikes, whenever anxiety descends, whenever something in the household feels wrong in a way that is hard to name but impossible to ignore.

This is what I'm calling the "capillary system” of redemption.

Think about how blood works in the body. The heart pumps. The great arteries carry the blood outward. But it is the capillaries, the microscopic vessels that reach into every tissue, that actually deliver the oxygen to the cells. Without capillaries, the heart’s work would be pointless. The blood would never reach the places that need it.

The Great Blessing of the Waters is the heart pumping. Christ’s baptism in the Jordan is the event that oxygenated the blood. But the bottles of holy water carried home to apartments in Queens, farmhouses in Romania, Ranches in Texas, and fishing villages in Crete: those are the capillaries. They are how the Eighth Day reaches the ordinary tissues of every day life. The cosmic event becomes domestic. The river becomes the kitchen table. The Jordan reaches your doorstep.

Fr. Alexander Schmemann, in his Of Water and the Spirit, described blessed water as the “matter of the new creation.” He meant this with full ontological seriousness. Just as the bread and wine of the Eucharist become, through the Holy Spirit, the Body and Blood of Christ (the ultimate union of the material and the divine), the water of the Great Blessing becomes a fragment of the world to come. When you drink it, you are taking the Eighth Day into your body. When you sprinkle it on your home, you are extending the Jordan into your hallway. When you pour it on the soil, you are doing, in miniature and by grace, exactly what Adam was supposed to do with the entire cosmos: pulling the material world back toward its Creator.

St. Paisios of Mount Athos, the beloved twentieth century Greek elder whose counsel was sought by thousands, used to tell his visitors to use holy water with faith, not as a charm. He insisted that the water’s power was not mechanical but relational. It worked because it was a vehicle of the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit responds to the faith of the one who receives Him. “The water is holy,” Paisios would say, “but your heart must also be open.” The capillary system works only if the tissues are alive enough to receive the blood.

What the Protestants and Mormons Are Missing (and What They Already Have)

I want to pause here and speak directly to the two audiences who make up most of this publications readership, because I know that what I have described so far either resonates deeply or sounds like baptized paganism, and there is probably not much middle ground.

If you come from the LDS tradition, you already believe in the sacredness of water. Baptism by immersion is essential to salvation. You believe the physical act matters, that the water matters, that the authority of the one performing the baptism matters. You are closer to the Orthodox understanding of the Great Blessing than you might think. Where the divergence comes is in the scope of the claim. In the LDS framework, water is sacred when it is used for a specific ordinance by a specific priesthood holder for a specific person. In Orthodoxy, the claim is wider. All water is sacred, or rather, all water is meant to be sacred, and the Great Blessing is the Church’s annual act of reminding the water (and the world) of this fact. The priesthood is not conferring a status that the water does not naturally possess. It is restoring a status that water has always possessed but that has been obscured. The river does not become holy at Theophany. It remembers that it was holy all along.

If you come from a Protestant tradition, I suspect the Great Blessing sounds like exactly the kind of thing the Reformation was supposed to correct. Superstition, mythology. Works based righteousness. Magical thinking masquerading as faith. I understand the instinct. But I would first ask you to consider two things:

• First: the Christians who wrote these prayers, who developed these rites, who believed that blessed water could heal diseases and drive out demons, were not medieval peasants fumbling in the dark. They were the same men who gave you the Nicene Creed, the scriptures of the New Testament, the canon of the Bible (and hence the Bible itself as a compiled canon,) and the doctrine of the Trinity. St. Basil, St. Gregory, St. Chrysostom. If you trust them on the nature of Christ, why would you dismiss them on the nature of water?

• Second: the Protestant suspicion of material holiness rests on an assumption that the Reformers inherited from late medieval nominalism, not from the early Church. That assumption is that the spiritual and the material are fundamentally separate categories, and that God acts on the soul directly, without needing the “middleman” of physical matter. But this is an almost gnostic (heretical) idea and precisely the assumption that the Incarnation shattered. Let's think this through shall we. God did not save the world through an idea, a sermon, or a feeling. He saved the world by entering into it and becoming flesh (physical matter.) By eating fish. By sweating blood. By dying on wood and being buried in stone. And by walking out of a tomb with a body that could be touched. The material world is not a middleman between you and God. It is the place where God chose to meet you. And the Great Blessing of the Waters is the Church’s insistence, year after year, century after century, that His entering into physical/material creation was the greatest event in the history of mankind, and that God has not stopped choosing.

The Water Does Not Spoil

One more detail before we close, and it is the sort of thing that makes rationalists uncomfortable and makes the faithful go quiet.

St. John Chrysostom, in his Homily on the Baptism of Christ, made an observation about the Theophany water that has been repeated by Orthodox Christians for sixteen centuries: “It does not decay over the course of time, but the water drawn today remains whole and fresh for a year, and often for two or three years, and after a great passage of time, it rivals the waters just drawn from the springs.”

This is not a medieval legend. This is a claim made by one of the most brilliant and empirically minded teachers in the history of the Church, and it has been tested, informally but persistently, by Orthodox Christians ever since. Bottles of Theophany water stored on icon shelves, unsealed, exposed to air and dust, and yet remaining clear and odorless and free of algae or decay for periods that far exceed what ordinary water would endure under the same conditions.

I am not going to tell you this is a scientifically verified miracle. I am not going to tell you it is not. What I will say is that if the theology outlined in this series is true, if water really does have a logos that orients it towards incorruption, if the Great Blessing really does recall water to its primordial purpose as a bearer of the Spirit, then incorruptibility is not a strange side effect. It is a signature. It is what happens to Saints and it is what the water was always supposed to do. Decay is a feature of the Seventh Day. The Eighth Day does not decay, for in Christ, there is no death.

"I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die."

John 11:25-26 is Christ’s own statement. And it doesn't just apply to us, it applies to all of creation.

LDS aside 2 (also nice)

This is not only an Orthodox Christian belief, it is also, if you think about it, an LDS belief. It is the work of Christ that celestializes the earth. The Doctrine and Covenants teaches that the earth itself will die and be “quickened again” through the same redemptive power that raises human bodies (D&C 88:25-26). “Not one hair, neither mote, shall be lost, for it is the workmanship of mine hands” (D&C 29:25). It is the work of Christ that celestializes the earth. Not a different program running alongside salvation. The same program, applied to everything He made.

“The earth abideth the law of a celestial kingdom, for it filleth the measure of its creation, and transgresseth not the law — Wherefore, it shall be sanctified; yea, notwithstanding it shall die, it shall be quickened again, and shall abide the power by which it is quickened, and the righteous shall inherit it.” D&C 88:25-262

Now pay attention, the earth dies and is quickened again. That’s resurrectional language being applied to the planet itself. And the mechanism is the same mechanism that quickens human bodies: the power of Christ. Verses 14-16 of the same section make the connection explicit: “Now, verily I say unto you, that through the redemption which is made for you is brought to pass the resurrection from the dead. And the spirit and the body are the soul of man. And the resurrection from the dead is the redemption of the soul.” Then verses 17-20 immediately apply this to the earth: “And the redemption of the soul is through him that quickeneth all things... Therefore, it must needs be sanctified from all unrighteousness, that it may be prepared for the celestial glory; for after it hath filled the measure of its creation, it shall be crowned with glory, even with the presence of God the Father.”

The earth’s celestialization and humanity’s resurrection are presented as the same act of redemption operating at different scales. It is not two separate programs. It is one work of Christ.

D&C 29:22-25 extends this beyond the earth to all living things. “And the end shall come, and the heaven and the earth shall be consumed and pass away, and there shall be a new heaven and a new earth... and all old things shall pass away, and all things shall become new, even the heaven and the earth, and all the fulness thereof, both men and beasts, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea; and not one hair, neither mote, shall be lost, for it is the workmanship of mine hands.”

The reason nothing is lost is not that matter is indestructible, it’s that creation is God’s workmanship, and He doesn’t abandon what He makes. That’s the same theological logic Orthodox theology uses when Irenaeus says “God is not so poor” as to need a whole new creation.

Joseph Fielding Smith made this connection explicit in his 1928 General Conference address: “The Lord intends to save, not only the earth and the heavens, not only man who dwells upon the earth, but all things which he has created. The animals, the fishes of the sea, the fowls of the air, as well as man, are to be recreated, or renewed, through the resurrection, for they too are living souls.” He’s drawing on D&C 29 and 88 together, and the phrase “through the resurrection” is doing heavy lifting. It is the resurrection power of Christ that renews all creation. Not a separate act. The same act.

D&C 77:1-2 adds the detail that in its celestialized state, the earth will be like “a sea of glass and fire,” and that the animals seen in John’s Revelation are real creatures: “They are in the likeness of that which is in the heaven of God... beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air; that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual.” Animals aren’t metaphors they are participants in the glorification.

D&C 130:9 adds that “this earth, in its sanctified and immortal state, will be made like unto crystal and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon.” Translation, the earth doesn’t get replaced. It gets transfigured. Same matter, new glory.

Protestants, make of this what you will. The water does not seem to care whether you believe it or not.

The River Keeps Flowing

I started this article with the image of a priest standing on a frozen river in Russia. Let me end it by widening the frame.

On the same day, in the same hours, the same rite is being performed across the Orthodox world. In Thessaloniki, a priest throws the cross into the Aegean and young men dive after it in a tradition that goes back centuries. In Tarpon Springs, Florida, the largest Theophany celebration in the Western Hemisphere draws tens of thousands to the bayou. In Ethiopia, the ancient Orthodox community gathers at rivers and lakes in a celebration called Timkat that preserves some of the oldest forms of the rite in existence. In Bucharest, in Tbilisi, in Beirut, in Anchorage, in a hundred small parishes in a hundred small towns where nobody is watching and nobody is filming and the priest is standing on the ice with five parishioners and a thermos, the cross goes into the water, the troparion is sung and the Eighth Day breaks through.

The Great Blessing is not performed in one place. It is performed everywhere. And in Orthodox theology, the blessing of any water is the blessing of all water, because all water is connected. The ocean that receives the cross in Thessaloniki is the same ocean that laps at the shore in Jakarta. The river blessed outside Moscow feeds into tributaries that eventually reach the sea. The theology is not sentimental. It is hydrological. Water moves. It circulates. It evaporates and falls as rain. And wherever it goes, it carries the Eighth Day with it.

This is what Adam was supposed to do with the whole material world. Take it. Bless it. Offer it to God. Receive it back, sanctified, and distribute it to every corner of creation. The Great Blessing of the Waters is the Church doing Adam’s job. Taking the most fundamental, most ancient, most intimate element of the physical world and lifting it to God, and receiving it back charged with the life that the world was always meant to carry.

The Priest of Creation is back at his altar. And the river remembers.

Share

Subscribe now

The final article in this series, “No Rapture, No Escape: Orthodox Eschatology and the Eighth Day’s Final Dawn,” will be published for paid subscribers only. It is the article where all four threads of the series converge: creation, the fall, the redemption of matter, and the ultimate fate of the cosmos. If you have read this far and the Eighth Day framework has begun to reshape how you see the world, that last article is where the full picture comes into focus.

It is also, frankly, the article I am most looking forward to writing because Orthodox eschatology, the teaching about how this all ends, is the most hopeful, most beautiful, and most terrifyingly ambitious claim in the history of Christian thought. And almost nobody in the Western world has ever heard it.

Paid subscribers make this work possible. Become one.

The Eighth Day is not coming. It is already here. The question is whether or not you can see it yet.

Father Dimitri is standing in a one-bedroom apartment in Astoria, Queens. He is wearing full vestments. He is holding a bundle of basil stalks in one hand and a brass bowl of holy water in the other. Behind him, a young couple stands, hands folded. The wife is holding a candle. The husband is holding their cat, who looks bewildered.

Father Dimitri dips the basil into the water and flings it across the kitchen, chanting in Greek. He sprinkles the refrigerator. He sprinkles the stove. He walks into the bathroom and sprinkles the shower. He opens the closets and sprinkles the coats. He makes his way to the bedroom, to the bookshelf, to the desk with its tangle of charging cables. He pauses at the living room window, which looks out over the elevated train tracks and sprinkles that too.

The cat receives a direct hit… and does not appreciate it.

When it is over, Father Dimitri turns to the couple and says a final prayer. He asks that the Lord send His angel of peace to guard this dwelling and all who live in it, that every evil spirit would withdraw, and that the grace of the Holy Spirit would fill this place.

Then he leaves. He has three more apartments to bless before lunch.

If you have never seen this before, your first reaction is probably somewhere between charmed and confused. Sprinkling holy water on a microwave? On a closet? On a cat? It looks like superstition wearing a cassock. It looks like something out of the Middle Ages that somehow survived into an era of smartphones and subway lines.

But there is something going on behind that brass bowl of water that goes all the way back to Genesis. And if you read the first article in this series, you already know the outline: the Eighth Day, the unfinished destiny of the human race, the Priest of Creation who was supposed to pull the material world into the life of God and failed. The whole framework of creation, fall, and redemption is built around the idea that the physical universe is not a backdrop to the spiritual drama but a participant in it.

The house blessing is where that theology gets concrete. Literally concrete, drywall, tile, plumbing, etc.

To understand why an Orthodox priest would bless an apartment in Queens, or a home in Texas, you need to understand something that most of Western Christianity has quietly forgotten: the ancient Christian conviction that space is not neutral.

There Is No “Middle Secular Ground”

In most modern Protestant thinking, and in a fair amount of Mormon thinking too, the physical world is essentially a stage. It is where the action happens, but it is not itself part of the action. The real drama is spiritual: your soul, your faith, your relationship with God. The material world is either a testing ground (the LDS perspective) or a passing shadow (the Evangelical frame). Either way, it is not the point. The point is somewhere else. Up. Out. Beyond.

We reject this completely.

In Orthodox theology, the material world is not evil or merely a stage. It is a character in the story. Every rock, every river, every room in your house has what St. Maximus the Confessor called a logos, an inner principle, a divine intention built into its very existence by the Creator. The word logos here is deliberately chosen. It is the same word used in the Gospel of John: “In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.” Every created thing carries within it a tiny echo of the Word who spoke it into being. Every atom has an orientation, a direction, a purpose that points back toward its Maker. LDS people recognize this idea as the Light of Christ, and it applies here, too.

Maximus, writing in the seventh century, described the entire cosmos as a kind of liturgy. Not metaphorically. The sun, the rain, the turning of the seasons, the growth of a seed into a tree: all of these are the material world doing what it was designed to do, which is to move toward God and reflect His glory. The problem is not that the world has stopped doing this. The problem is that the one creature who was supposed to lead this cosmic procession abandoned his post.

That creature is you. (Well, to be fair, Adam started it.)

This is the Priest of Creation concept from the first article. Humanity was created as the Microcosm, the living link between the spiritual and the material. Our job was to take the world’s natural worship (the logos in every created thing) and consciously offer it back to God. We were the voice of the voiceless. The bridge between the wordless praise of the mountains and the articulate praise of the angels.

And when the priest fell, the parish (i.e., creation) suffered.

St. John of Damascus, the great eighth century theologian who defended the veneration of icons and physical matter against those who wanted to spiritualize Christianity into pure abstraction1, put it bluntly: “I do not worship matter, but I worship the Creator of matter, who became matter for my sake, who willed to take His abode in matter, and who through matter accomplished my salvation.” For John, the Incarnation itself was proof that the material world is sacred. If God Himself took on flesh, then flesh (and by extension all physical reality) is capable of bearing the divine presence. Matter is not opposed to spirit. Matter is waiting for spirit. The whole physical world is like a house with the lights off, waiting for someone to come home and turn them on.

The Fall turned the lights off. A Blessing turns them back on.

The World Between Orders

To grasp what a blessing actually does, you need to understand what happened to the material world at the Fall. And here is where things get both more precise and more strange than what most Western Christians expect.

The material world did not become evil at the Fall. Orthodoxy is very insistent on this point. The Gnostics (the ancient heretics who believed matter was inherently corrupt) got it wrong, but the idea seems to persist, even in modern Christian circles. The Puritans, with their suspicion of beauty and the body, got it wrong in a different way. The modern secular materialists, who believe matter is “just stuff” with no spiritual dimension at all, have it perhaps the most wrong of all.

What happened at the Fall was not that matter became evil. It’s that it became disordered.

Remember the “garments of skin” from the first article. After Adam and Eve fell, God clothed them in these garments. St. Gregory of Nyssa, one of the brilliant Cappadocian Fathers of the fourth century, read this not as a story about leather clothing but as a description of the human condition after the Fall: mortality, animal instinct unmoored from spiritual direction, the body’s desires and passions running ahead of the soul’s wisdom, the whole apparatus of biological survival (hunger, fear, aggression, reproduction driven by survival instincts rather than love) that now defines our experience of physical life.

But the garments of skin are not limited to the human body. Because humanity is the Microcosm, the link between heaven and earth, when the human person became disordered, the environment became disordered too. The logoi (those inner principles that orient every created thing toward God) didn’t disappear. But they became, so to speak, muffled. The world’s natural movement toward its Creator was disrupted. Things still exist according to their design, but they no longer know they do. The signal is jammed. The connection is frayed.

St. Symeon the New Theologian, writing in the eleventh century, took this further. He taught that the material world participates in the spiritual state of the human beings who inhabit it. This seems mystical, but it is not mysticism or mythology. Symeon makes an ontological statement about the nature of reality itself. A home where prayer is offered becomes, over time, a different kind of place than a home where prayer is absent. The walls, the air, the quality of silence in the room: all of it is affected. This is not because the drywall has feelings, but because the material world is porous to spiritual realities2. It always has been and always will be. After all, that is what it was designed for.

Unfortunately, this goes both ways. If you’ve ever listened to the Exorcist Files podcast, one of my personal favorites, this just makes sense. Think about if you’ve ever gone into a place and either felt light and love, or oppression and heaviness.

If sustained prayer and love can gradually reorient the material environment toward God (which is what the logoi were always trying to do), then sustained sin and spiritual disorder can push the environment in the other direction. We take very seriously the idea that places can become spiritually “heavy,” saturated with the residue of violence, despair, or demonic activity.

lol, I can see Zwingli over in the corner making a sour face. Chillax, Ulrich. This is not superstition. It is the logical consequence of taking the Microcosm seriously. If humanity is the bridge between the spiritual and the material, then what flows through the bridge flows into the environment on both sides.

This is why a blessing is not a meaningless ritual meant to just satisfy human emotions. It’s not performative or decorative. It is medicinal. Spend time around Orthodox folks, and you'll hear a lot of that kind of talk. Talk about healing, medicine, and the great physician. I mentioned a bit in the last article how our view of salvation and the Atonement is not about legal or juridical ideas, but instead about healing. Salvation, if viewed through the lens of Theosis, must by necessity be about healing. You will, at some point, inevitably hear an orthodox priest describe the Church as a Hospital for sinners. If you get squeamish about everyone in the communion line using the same spoon, you’ll hear an explanation that the eucharist (body and blood of Christ) is healing and cannot possibly make you sick.

<ADHD tangent> In fact, there were priests in Canada during COVID who used separate spoons for each person. It caused a bit of a stir, not only b/c it was mandated by the government, which has no business poking its head into how sacraments are administered (especially far left marxist secular liberals), but also because bending to this type of thing implies that you think the body and blood of Christ could in some way harm you, or you are tacitly admitting that the bread and wine does not have the real presence of Christ within it. Either way, that’s just straight-up heresy and blasphemy of the worst sort!

On the flip side of this, I have seen an 80-year-old priest at the end of every liturgy, consume every last drop of bread and wine left in the chalice week over week for years, and I swear, he’s the healthiest, spryest 80-year-old I’ve ever seen in my life. I get sick more often than he does, he has more energy than I do, and I’m approximately 30 years his junior! </ADHD tangent>

What the Priest Is Actually Doing

Let’s go back to Father Dimitri and look at what is happening when he walks through that apartment with his basil and his holy water.

The Orthodox house blessing, especially in the form used after the Feast of Theophany (which we will explore in depth in the next article), is not a ritual of good luck or a “positive energy cleanse.” The priest is holding basil, not sweetgrass or sage. It is a precise liturgical act with a specific theological purpose: to reconnect a piece of the material world to its Creator by reestablishing the link that the Fall severed.

The prayers of the blessing, drawn from the Euchologion (the priest’s service book, one of the oldest collections of liturgical texts in Christian history), are remarkably specific.

First, they exorcise. The prayers explicitly instruct that every evil and unclean spirit withdraw from the place. The Orthodox understanding, rooted in the Deuteronomy 32 worldview discussed in the first article, holds that the fallen spiritual powers (the rebellious “watchers” who accepted worship as pagan gods) do not confine their activity to temples and battlefields. They operate in the ordinary spaces of daily life, exploiting the disorder of the garments of skin, amplifying fear, anger, and despair wherever they find a foothold. The blessing is a formal notice of eviction. The space being blessed is being reclaimed.

Second, they invoke. The priest asks God to send His angel of peace to guard the dwelling and all who live in it. Angelic guardianship is not a fairy tale idea about cute little fairies sitting on your shoulder. It is a continuation of the Divine Council framework. Just as the Saints replace the demonic watchers over nations and territories, the angel of peace replaces whatever disordered spiritual influence may have taken root in the home. A new regime is installed. A new guardian takes his post.

Third, they sanctify. The holy water that the priest sprinkles is not symbolic (still listening Ulrich?3) It is water that has been blessed in the name of the Trinity and has received, through the prayers of the Church, a participation in the grace of Christ’s own baptism in the Jordan (more on this in the next article). When this water touches the walls, the floors, the furniture, and, yes, the cat, it pulls the reality of the Eighth Day forward into the Seventh. It is applying the medicine of the new creation to the corrupted surfaces of the old.

St. John Chrysostom, the great fourth-century bishop of Constantinople, urged his congregations to make their homes into “little churches.” He did not mean this only in the sense of moral behavior, of being kind to your spouse and praying before meals (though he meant that too). He meant it architecturally, ontologically. The home should be a space where the Eighth Day is breaking through. Where the garments of skin are being gradually loosened. Where the logoi of every material thing in the household are being gently turned back toward their Creator.

The house blessing is the liturgical kick start of that process.

Blessing Cars, Animals, Fields, and Rivers

Once you see the logic of the house blessing, the rest of the practice of blessings stops looking strange and starts looking inevitable.

Orthodox Christians bless their cars. The prayer for the blessing of a vehicle asks specifically for the safety of all who travel in it, invoking the journey of the Holy Family into Egypt as the archetype of sacred travel. The car is not just a machine. It is a space in which human life unfolds. It is part of the material world that the Priest of Creation is called to offer back to God. Leaving it unblessed would be like leaving one room of your house in darkness while the rest is filled with light.

Orthodox Christians bless their animals. And this connects directly to the deepest layer of the Eighth Day theology. Remember: the animals suffer not because of their own sin but because the one creature meant to help bridge them into eternity failed in his vocation. When a priest blesses a dog, a cat, a horse, or a flock of sheep, he is exercising the priesthood that Adam abandoned. He is, in that moment, doing what humanity was always supposed to do: standing between the animal kingdom and its Creator, lifting the voiceless into the presence of the One who made them. The stories of the saints and their animals (St. Gerasimos and his lion, St. Seraphim and his bear, St. Kevin and the blackbird nesting in his open palm) are not fairy tales or pious exaggerations. They are previews of the Eighth Day, moments when a human being so fully recovered his original vocation that the animals recognized him as their priest and were at peace.

Orthodox Christians bless fields and crops. In the agrarian traditions of Greece, Russia, Serbia, and the broader Orthodox world, the blessing of the land before planting and after harvest is not a superstitious act of magic dressed up as religion. It is the Priest of Creation doing his job. The earth itself has a logos, a divine intention, an orientation toward God that the Fall disrupted. The blessing is the reassertion of that orientation. It is the Church saying to the soil, “You were made for more than this. You were made to participate in the life of God. And through this water, through this prayer, the Eighth Day reaches you.”

Orthodox Christians bless water. Rivers, lakes, springs, the ocean itself. This is the most dramatic form of the blessing, and it happens once a year at the Feast of Theophany, when the Church commemorates Christ’s baptism in the Jordan. We will dedicate the entire next article to this event, because it is the moment when everything we have been discussing becomes visible on the largest possible scale. But for now, note the pattern: house, car, animal, field, river. The scope keeps expanding. The Eighth Day does not stay confined to a church building. It radiates outward. It claims more and more of the material world, pulling the Seventh Day toward its intended destination.

Fr. Alexander Schmemann, one of the most influential Orthodox theologians of the twentieth century, argued in his masterwork For the Life of the World that the fundamental sin of secularism is not atheism. It is the belief that the material world is “just stuff.” That bread is only calories. That water is only molecules. That your apartment is only square footage. Secularism does not deny God so much as it denies the sacramentality of creation. It insists that the physical world is closed, self-contained, and spiritually inert. It is the final and most complete victory of the garments of skin: a humanity so deeply trapped in the biological mode of existence that it can no longer even imagine the material world as a vehicle of the divine.

The brass bowl of holy water in Father Dimitri’s hand is the Church’s answer to that lie.

The Displacement in Miniature

Now let me connect this back to the larger arc of the series, because this is where the house blessing becomes not just a lovely tradition but a battle strategy in an ongoing spiritual war.

In the first article, we discussed the Great Displacement: the cosmic process by which the rebellious angelic “watchers” who enslaved the nations under the old order (the Seventh Day system) are being replaced by the Saints, the friends of God, the Eighth Day humans who take their seats in the Divine Council. We talked about how a territory once ruled by a demon of war or a local pagan deity is reclaimed by a patron saint who offers intercession instead of demanding sacrifice.

The house blessing is the Displacement in miniature.

Every home, every apartment, every room exists within the material world that became disordered at the Fall. The air itself is, in the Orthodox understanding, a contested space. St. Paul calls Satan “the prince of the power of the air” (Ephesians 2:2), and the Orthodox Fathers took this with real seriousness. The atmosphere of ordinary life, the invisible spiritual environment in which we go about our daily business, is not empty. It is inhabited.

When a priest enters your apartment, he is not performing a quaint ceremony. He is executing a change of governance. The old spiritual disorder, whatever form it takes in that particular place (residual grief, habitual conflict, ambient anxiety, or more overt demonic oppression), is formally addressed and told to depart. The angel of peace is installed. The holy water carries the grace of Christ’s baptism into every corner. The space is no longer contested. It has been claimed.

St. Basil the Great, writing in the fourth century in his treatise On the Holy Spirit, taught that it is the Holy Spirit who “perfects” creation, bringing to completion what the Father initiates and the Son accomplishes. In every blessed space, the Spirit is doing exactly this: completing the work of the Eighth Day in one specific location. Making one more room in the cosmic house livable. Turning the lights on in one more corner of the darkened world.

And this is where St. Seraphim of Sarov, the beloved nineteenth-century Russian saint, comes in. Seraphim’s most famous teaching is this: “Acquire the Spirit of peace, and thousands around you will be saved.” The logic is staggering in its simplicity. A person who has been internally healed, whose own garments of skin are being transfigured by the Holy Spirit, whose inner hierarchy (spirit over body, soul oriented toward God) has been restored, does not merely benefit himself. He transforms his environment. The material world around him begins to reorient. The logoi of the trees, the animals, the very air begin to turn back toward God, because the priest is finally back at his altar.

This is why Seraphim could feed a wild bear from his hand. Not because he had a gift for animal training. Because his presence was a walking house blessing. The Eighth Day radiated from his person into the material world, and the bear responded to it. The ancient peace of Eden returned, if only in a clearing in the Russian forest, if only for a moment, because one man had become what Adam was always meant to be.

The house blessing is the liturgical extension of this principle. Most of us are not St. Seraphim. Most of us are still very much wearing the garments of skin, still struggling with the animal instincts, still caught in the loop of the Seventh Day. But the Church, in her mercy, provides a way for the Eighth Day to enter our spaces even when it has not yet fully entered our persons. The priest comes. The water is sprinkled. The prayers are chanted. And the apartment in Astoria becomes, in some real but perhaps still incomplete way, a colony of the world to come.

What This Means for You

If you grew up Mormon, you already have a powerful sense of consecrated space. The temple is, for you, the place where heaven and earth meet, where sacred ordinances connect the living and the dead, where the material world (altars, water, oil, clothing) is charged with spiritual significance. That instinct is correct. Where Orthodoxy differs is in the scope of the claim. The apostolic church’s vision is that the entire world is meant to become a temple. Not just one building in Salt Lake City or one in each major city, but every house, every field, every river, every square inch of the material cosmos. The house blessing is the Church’s way of extending the temple’s logic to the whole of creation, because that is what the Eighth Day demands. LDS also have a view of this in their eschatology. So if you are LDS/Mormon, you should have heard that in the last days, at the end of time, after the “second coming,” that the earth will be Celestialized. You could call that, in a way, a similar concept to the 8th Day. We are not waiting for some far-off future time for that to happen; we are starting that process now.

If you grew up Protestant, especially in the Reformed or Evangelical traditions, you may have been taught that the physical world is spiritually neutral. That what matters is your heart, your faith, your personal relationship with Jesus. The material stuff, the buildings, the water, the bread, are just a delivery mechanism. Props for the real show, which is entirely interior. I would say, with great respect, that this is precisely the lie the garments of skin want you to believe. The whole point of the Fall was to convince humanity that the material world doesn’t matter, that the body is a prison, that “spiritual” means “nonphysical.” But the Incarnation destroyed that lie. God took on matter. He sanctified water. He multiplied bread. He rose in a body. And He sent His Church into the world to continue the work of pulling the material universe back into the life of God, one apartment, one car, one bewildered cat at a time.

The Scope Keeps Expanding

There is a pattern in the Orthodox life of blessing, and it moves in one direction: outward. It begins with the person: baptism, chrismation (anointing with holy oil), the Eucharist. The individual is claimed for the Eighth Day.

It moves to the home: the house blessing. The person’s immediate environment is reclaimed.

It extends to the means of daily life: the car, the animals, the tools of one’s labor, the food on the table. The ordinary infrastructure of the Seventh Day is gradually re-sanctified.

And then, once a year, it explodes outward to the most elemental level of the material world itself: water. On the Feast of Theophany, the Orthodox Church does not bless a baptismal font or a bowl or a pitcher. It blesses a river. It plunges the cross into the living water and claims the most fundamental substance on earth for the Kingdom of God. And through that river, the blessing radiates to every body of water on the planet, because all water is connected, and the Eighth Day does not recognize the boundaries that the Seventh Day imposes.

That event, the Great Blessing of the Waters, is the subject of the next article. It is the most dramatic, the most beautiful, and the most theologically audacious act of blessing in all of Christendom. It is the moment when the Priest of Creation does not just bless a room or an animal but reaches down into the molecular structure of the world itself and says: This too belongs to God. This too is being made new. This too is entering the Eighth Day.

If Father Dimitri splashing holy water on a cat in Astoria seemed strange, wait until you see what happens when the Church blesses the ocean.

Conclusion and looking forward

This is the second article in the Eighth Day series. The first article, “You Were Never Meant to Be Saved. You Were Meant to Be Finished,” is available to all subscribers. The next article, “The River Remembers: The Great Blessing of the Waters and the Eighth Day’s Power Over Matter,” will be available only to paid subscribers.

If this series is opening doors you did not know existed, your paid subscription is what makes it possible to keep walking through them. Every article in this series requires hours of research, engagement with patristic sources, liturgical texts, and the theological tradition of the oldest Church in the world. Your support is not charity. It is a partnership in the work of making this ancient faith accessible to a world that has largely forgotten it exists.

The Eighth Day is still dawning. Come further in.

Subscribe now

What if I told you that the earliest Christians didn’t believe you needed to be “saved” in the way you’ve been taught? They didn’t go around trying to get you to be saved or say a sinner’s prayer.

Neither were they concerned with rescuing you from a divine courtroom, nor with being acquitted by a celestial judge focused on justice and handing out punishment. Nor were they overly concerned with being whisked away to some disembodied heaven where you float on clouds and sing hymns forever.

What if the original Christian vision was far stranger, far more ambitious, and far more beautiful than any of that? What if these things: plain, precious, and basic, have been lost in the Christian traditions of the West but are just as valid today, maybe even more important, than they were 2000 years ago?

What if the whole point of the Gospel, the actual, ancient, pre-denominational point, was that you are an unfinished creature, and that, in the words of Saint Athanasius, “God became human so that humans could become God?“

I know. That sentence probably made half of you lean forward (LDS readers likely heard in this an echo of the (in)famous Lorenzo Snow couplet) and the other half reach for the “unsubscribe” button. Stay with me. What I’m about to lay out for you is not some fringe theory. It is the beating heart of the oldest continuous Christian tradition on earth. And it will reframe everything you think you know about the plan of salvation, creation, the fall, redemption, and the end of the world.

It all starts with a day that doesn’t exist on your calendar.

Share

This is the first part of a series on the Eighth Day. In upcoming posts for paid subscribers only, we’ll explore how Orthodox Christians “hallow” physical space through blessings and holy water—and why they bless not just houses and churches, but cars, animals, fields, and rivers. We’ll look at the specific prayers of the Great Blessing of the Waters at Theophany and what they reveal about the Eighth Day’s power over the material world. And we’ll go deep into the Orthodox understanding of the “end times”—an eschatology so different from Left Behind that it will feel like discovering a new religion.

This is the kind of theology that doesn’t get written about in most places, and your support makes it possible to keep going deeper.

The Day After the End of the World

Read more

In the sacred tapestry of Holy Scripture, the Old Testament is not a collection of interpreted history, isolated tales, or moral lessons, but a divine symphony orchestrated by the Holy Spirit. These ancient narratives are seeds—foreshadowings planted by God Himself, awaiting the fullness of time when Christ would make them bloom into eternal truth. The Holy Fathers of the Church, and Christians, from the earliest centuries, beheld these typologies not as human inventions or clever allegories, but as God’s deliberate pedagogy (a method of teaching): shadows cast forward, finding their substance only in the incarnate Logos and His Body, the Church.

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, that great second-century defender of the faith against heresies, teaches us in Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 19) that Christ is the “recapitulation” of all things—the One who sums up and fulfills the entire human story. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures (Lecture 13), urges the faithful to see the Old Testament as a schoolmaster leading to Christ. St. John Chrysostom, the golden-mouthed preacher of the fourth century, echoes this in his homilies, proclaiming that every shadow in the Law and Prophets points to the radiant reality of the Gospel. And St. Gregory of Nyssa, in his mystical writings like The Life of Moses, reveals how these types elevate our souls toward theosis—our divine union with God.

These typologies are not intellectual exercises; they are living mysteries, woven into our hymns, icons, and sacraments. In the Orthodox Church alone, they find their unbroken fulfillment, without the subtractions of minimalism or the additions of innovation.

In the first article in this series, we explored some of my favorites, but those are far from the only types in the scriptures. Below, we will cover additional types that prefigure Christ, so that we can see them as the earliest Christians did.

Sadly, you’ve reached the end of the free preview. What follows is reserved for those who hunger for the deeper mysteries. The hidden manna that the world rushes past, but the Church has guarded and savored for two thousand years.

If the typologies we explored in part 1—the manna as prefiguring the Eucharist, the bronze serpent lifted up as Christ exalted on the Cross (John 3:14–15), the Exodus through the parted Red Sea as our passage through the waters of Baptism (1 Corinthians 10:1–4), and the Passover lamb whose blood shields us from death stirred something in your soul, remember: these are not mere historical curiosities or clever parallels. They are living revelations, breathed by the Holy Spirit through the Prophets and fulfilled in the Person of our Lord Jesus Christ.

The Fathers call us to go further. St. Basil the Great, in his treatise On the Holy Spirit, reminds us that treasures of divine wisdom are not scattered carelessly on the surface but hidden, awaiting those who seek with humility and perseverance: “Truth is always a quarry hard to hunt, and therefore we must look everywhere for its tracks.” St. John Chrysostom, that tireless preacher of the depths, urges the faithful not to stop at the outer court but to press into the Holy of Holies: “The Scriptures are not to be read superficially... but with great attention, for in them are hidden the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”

Behind this paywall, I share what the free portion only hints at:

• Patristic explanations of 7 typologies, drawn from the homilies and writings of the earliest Fathers (St. Irenaeus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. John Chrysostom, and others)

This is not content for the casual browser. This is nourishment for the pilgrim who senses that Orthodoxy is not a museum of old ideas but a living ark carrying us through the floodwaters of this age to the promised land of union with God.

If your heart is kindled, if you long to taste more of the hidden manna that sustains the saints, then please consider becoming a paid subscriber to unlock this content today. Your support doesn’t just unlock words on a screen; it sustains this work.

The deeper mysteries await. Will you step through the veil?

Jonah in the Belly of the Great Fish: Descent into Death and Triumphant Resurrection

The story of Jonah (Jonah 1–2) stands as one of the clearest typologies, proclaimed directly by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. As the Apostle Matthew records in his Gospel (Matthew 12:39–40): “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” Here, the Holy Spirit speaks through the Savior, unveiling the prophetic depth of Jonah’s ordeal.

Jonah, fleeing God’s command to preach repentance to Nineveh, is cast into the sea and swallowed by a massive fish. For three days and nights, he prays from the depths, a living burial in the abyss. Then, miraculously, he is vomited onto dry land, alive and renewed, to fulfill his mission. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures (Lecture 14), expounds this as a vivid type of Christ’s descent into Hades: “Jonah was cast into the belly of the whale, but another Jonah, the Lord, willingly descended into Hades to loose the bonds of death.” The fish’s belly prefigures the grave, the three days echo the time between Crucifixion and Resurrection, and Jonah’s emergence heralds Pascha—the victory over death.

In Orthodox hymnody, especially during Holy Week, we sing of this: “As Jonah was delivered from the belly of the whale, so Christ from the tomb.” This typology teaches us that death is not the end but a passage to life, swallowed up in Christ’s triumph. It is no coincidence that icons of the Resurrection often depict Christ harrowing Hades, pulling Adam and Eve from the tombs, just as Jonah was pulled from the depths.

Joseph in Egypt: The Betrayed Son Who Saves the World

The life of Joseph (Genesis 37–50) unfolds as a profound type of Christ’s Passion and exaltation. Beloved son of his father Jacob, Joseph is envied by his brothers, sold for pieces of silver, stripped of his coat of many colors, falsely accused, and cast into prison; yet he rises to become the ruler of Egypt, dispensing bread to a famine-stricken world.

St. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (Book IV, Chapter 21), draws this parallel with apostolic clarity: “Joseph was sold into Egypt by his brethren, and he who was thought to be dead was exalted; so too Christ, sold by Judas for thirty pieces of silver, was crucified and buried, yet rose to save all nations.” Joseph’s “death” in his father’s eyes, Jacob mourning him as lost, mirrors the sorrow of God the Father at the Cross, only for joy to follow in the resurrection and glory. Joseph’s provision of bread during the famine foreshadows Christ as the Bread of Life (John 6:35), feeding the spiritually hungry.

This typology resonates in Orthodox exegesis as part of the divine economy: Joseph’s forgiveness of his brothers (Genesis 50:20: ”You meant evil against me, but God meant it for good”) prefigures Christ’s mercy on the Cross, turning betrayal into salvation. In our liturgical readings during Great Lent, Joseph’s story prepares us for the Paschal mystery, reminding us that suffering leads to exaltation for those faithful to God.

The Sacrifice of Isaac: The Father Offering His Beloved Son

In Genesis 22, Abraham’s trial—the binding of Isaac (Akedah)—stands as a heart-wrenching foreshadowing of the Father’s sacrifice of His Only-Begotten Son. Abraham, commanded by God to offer his beloved Isaac, ascends the mountain with wood for the burnt offering. Isaac himself carries the wood, asking, “Where is the lamb?” Abraham replies prophetically: “God will provide Himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son” (Genesis 22:8). A ram caught in the thicket is substituted, sparing Isaac.

St. John Chrysostom, in his Homilies on Genesis (Homily 47), illuminates this: “Isaac carrying the wood is a type of Christ carrying His Cross; the ram provided by God points to the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” This early patristic insight, rooted in apostolic tradition, sees the entire event as a divine rehearsal: Abraham’s obedience mirrors the Father’s love, Isaac’s submission prefigures Christ’s voluntary Passion, and the ram anticipates the Eucharist—Christ’s Body offered in our place.

The Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans (8:32), echoes this: “He who did not spare His own Son but delivered Him up for us all.” In Orthodox iconography, the Sacrifice of Isaac is depicted alongside the Crucifixion, emphasizing that God’s provision is not mere substitution but incarnation—the Word becoming flesh to die and rise for us.

Noah and the Flood: Baptism and the Salvation of the Church

The account of Noah and the Flood (Genesis 6–9) prefigures the sacrament of Baptism and the ark as the Church. Amid a corrupt world, God instructs Noah to build an ark of wood, saving his family and creation through the waters of judgment. The old world perishes, but Noah emerges to a renewed earth, sealed by God’s rainbow covenant.

The Apostle Peter, in his First Epistle (1 Peter 3:20–21), directly unveils this typology: “When once the Divine long suffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water. There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.” Here, from the first century, Peter teaches that the Flood’s waters destroy sin (the “old man”) while saving the faithful, just as Baptism buries us with Christ and raises us to new life (Romans 6:4).

St. Irenaeus expands in Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 29): “The ark prefigures the Church, which saves us from the flood of sin.” In Orthodox baptismal rites, we invoke this: the font as the ark, the waters as cleansing judgment, leading to illumination in Christ.

Melchizedek: The Eternal Priest Offering Bread and Wine

Melchizedek, the enigmatic king of Salem (Genesis 14:18–20), appears without genealogy, offering bread and wine to bless Abraham. The Epistle to the Hebrews (Hebrews 7:1–3, 17), attributed to apostolic tradition, declares: “You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.” This prefigures Christ as our eternal High Priest, without beginning or end, offering the true Bread and Wine in the Eucharist.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, in Catechetical Lectures (Lecture 23), connects this to the Divine Liturgy: “Melchizedek blessed Abraham with bread and wine; Christ blesses us with His Body and Blood.” This typology underscores Christ’s priesthood as superior to the Levitical order, as eternal and sacramental, and fulfilled in the Orthodox Eucharist, where we partake of immortality.

The Tree of Life in Eden: Restored Through the Cross

In Eden (Genesis 2–3), the Tree of Life granted immortality, but after the Fall, it was guarded by cherubim. St. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 23), ties this to recapitulation: “By the obedience rendered on the tree [the Cross], He healed the disobedience committed on the tree [in Eden].” The Cross becomes the new Tree of Life, its fruit the Body of Christ, restoring what was lost.

Orthodox Paschal hymns proclaim: “Through the Cross, joy has come to all the world,” echoing the Tree’s promise of eternal life.

A Harmonious Chorus: Fulfilled in the Orthodox Church

These typologies are not isolated hints—they form a harmonious chorus across Scripture, sung in our Troparia, depicted in icons like the Resurrection, and lived in sacraments like Baptism and Eucharist. Only in the Orthodox Church do they reach their unbroken fulfillment, as the Fathers handed down: a living tradition where shadows become substance in Christ.

As St. Paul writes in Colossians 2:17: “These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.” May these divine foreshadowings draw us deeper into the mystery of our salvation.

If this resonates, share your favorite typology in the comments. And if you’re journeying from other traditions toward Orthodoxy, know that here, the Scriptures bloom in their fullness. Subscribe for more reflections on the patristic faith.

Imagine the chaos of the Red Sea: waves towering like judgment, Pharaoh’s chariots thundering behind, and a ragtag nation of slaves marching straight into the abyss on dry ground. The waters part, death swallows the oppressors, and Israel emerges alive on the other side, free, thanks to a divine miracle. Here’s the lightbulb moment: this wasn’t just a rescue op for ancient Semitic wanderers who found themselves trapped and enslaved by an evil empire. No, it’s part of a blueprint for something eternal. When those waves crashed back, drowning evil, did you see the font of Holy Baptism? Sin and the old man buried in water, the new man rising to life in Christ? If not, you’re reading Scripture with the lights off.

The Old Testament isn’t a dusty history book or a collection of moral fables. It’s a divine mosaic, every tile a shadow cast by the Light of the World. Typology, God-ordained prefigurations, prove it. Persons, events, rituals: all planted by the Spirit to point to Christ, His Church, and the sacraments.

Here’s the unyielding truth: only the Orthodox Church, the one holy catholic and apostolic Church founded by Christ through His Apostles, holds the key to unlocking it all.

Typology isn’t optional poetry; it’s the proof that God was always whispering the Gospel, from the beginning. Ignore it, and you miss Christ Himself. But grasp it in Orthodoxy, and the shadows become flesh.

What Is Typology? Secret Orthodox Keys to Scripture

Typology is no mere interpretive trick, no clever allegory spun by human fancy. It is the divine economy at work: historical realities in the Old Testament, sovereignly ordained by God to foreshadow the mysteries of the New. As St. Irenaeus of Lyons declared with apostolic fire: “For the law was a pedagogue to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith” (Against Heresies, drawing from Galatians 3:24). The Holy Spirit didn’t scatter hints haphazardly; He embedded them as seeds that bloom only in the soil of the true Church.

Consider the Apostles themselves. St. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, thunders: “Our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” This isn’t a metaphor; it’s divine pedagogy, proving the Old prefigures the New. St. Cyril of Jerusalem echoes this in his Catechetical Lectures: “The Old Testament is a sketch, the New the full picture; the Law is shadow, the Gospel the reality.”

The Fathers wield typology as a hammer against error. St. Athanasius the Great, defender of the Godhead, insists in *On the Incarnation*: “The Scriptures proclaim Christ from beginning to end.” St. Basil the Great, in his Hexaemeron, sees creation itself typifying the sacraments: the waters of Genesis prefiguring the waters of regeneration. Why? Because God is not capricious, He prepares His people step by step for the fullness in Christ.

Now, contrast this with the heresies that splintered from the Church. Some, in their zeal for “sola scriptura,” spiritualize away the sacramental reality—turning baptism into a mere symbol, the Eucharist into a memorial snack. They drain the types of their power, leaving shadows without substance. Latins, meanwhile, add layers foreign to the Fathers: papal infallibility, immaculate conception—innovations that distort the pure fulfillment found in Orthodoxy. As St. Gregory of Nyssa warns in his Life of Moses: “One must not remain in the shadows but advance to the truth they signify.”

Only in the Orthodox Church do these types find unbroken continuity. Our Liturgy breathes them: the Theotokos as the burning bush unconsumed, the altar as the true tabernacle.

“What was prefigured at that time in the flame of the bush was openly manifested in the mystery of the Virgin… Just as on the mountain the bush burned but was not consumed, so also the Virgin gave birth to the light and was not corrupted.”- St. Gregory of Nyssa - On the Birth of Christ (aka In diem natalem Christi) circa approx. 370-380AD.

Depart from her, and you grope in partial light. Typology demands the whole Church—the sacraments administered by apostolic bishops, the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). Anything less is diminution, a tragic veering from the path. Do you see it yet? The Spirit wrote the Old to reveal the New, but only in Orthodoxy do we read without blinders.

The Exodus Example

Dive into Exodus, and typology erupts like manna from heaven. Moses stands as a radiant type of Christ the Deliverer—flawed yet chosen, leading captives to freedom. The burning bush? St. Gregory of Nyssa in The Life of Moses reiterates, “The bush that burned yet was not consumed prefigures the Virgin who bore the fire of divinity without corruption.” The Theotokos, ever-virgin, holds God Incarnate. Moses’s staff strikes the rock, water gushes for the thirsty (Exodus 17:6). St. Paul identifies it: “That Rock was Christ.” The Cross strikes death, and living water flows—the font, the sacraments, eternal life.

The Red Sea crossing is this typology’s most visual jewel. Israel, enslaved in Egypt (Egypt here represents sin and an existence in sin, their enslavement, sin’s tyranny), passes through waters from death to life. Pharaoh’s army drowns in the waters, and the old oppressors are buried as are our sins in the waters of baptism. St. John Chrysostom preaches with fierce clarity in his Homilies on Romans: “The Red Sea was a type of baptism; as they passed through the water, so we pass through the font, drowning the Pharaoh of our sins.” Not allegory, brothers—divine foreshadowing. The cloud leading them? The Holy Spirit overshadowing the waters. The dry ground? The path to resurrection.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem drives it home: “You descend into the water bearing your sins, but the invocation of grace seals your soul... You come up a new man” (Catechetical Lectures). This is part of the Spirit’s instruction manual for salvation. In Orthodoxy, we live it: triple immersion, chrismation sealing the gift. Protestants reduce baptism to obedience without regeneration—a heresy that ignores the type. Catholics baptize infants validly, but delayed confirmations are alien to the original, undivided Church.

Every separation from Orthodoxy leaves the reader half-blind. Why? Because the types demand sacramental fulfillment in the true Body of Christ. Miss that, and Exodus becomes a nice story, not the Gospel in embryo. But in the Church, it thunders: Christ is here, delivering now.

But the most devastating and beautiful types—the Manna that prefigures the true Bread from Heaven, the Passover lamb slain for the life of the world, and Joshua’s crossing into the Promised Land, how these point unmistakably to the Eucharist and the Orthodox altar—are behind the paywall. If you stop here, you will have seen shadows. Subscribe now, and step into the light that has never been extinguished. Don’t leave the fullness of Christ on the table.

I left a tradition that claimed a new revelation but missed the ancient types and misunderstood small details like Christ’s exclamation from the Cross, “Why hast thou forsaken me?” Failing to recover truly lost divine plain and precious things with 19th century protestant speculations. A true prophet possessing legitimate revelation should be able to recover these details.

Don’t make the same mistake. Upgrade today—eternity is not a spectator sport.

Diving Deeper into the Mysteries: Manna, the Serpent, the Promised Land, and the Paschal Lamb

Now we plunge deeper, where the types blaze with sacramental fire. The manna in the wilderness (Exodus 16): bread from heaven, sustaining Israel, yet perishable. St. Cyril of Jerusalem proclaims in his Catechetical Lectures: “The bread that came down from heaven was a type; now the true Bread is given in the mystery of the Eucharist.” Christ Himself declares, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven” (John 6:51). In Orthodoxy, this finds reality: not symbol, not transubstantiation’s philosophical overlay, but the very Body and Blood through the epiclesis of the Spirit. Protestants call it remembrance—draining the type of power, reducing heaven’s gift to a cracker or loaf of bread. Heresy. The Fathers knew: manna pointed to divine communion, uniting us to God.

The brazen serpent in Numbers 21, lifted up by Moses, healed those bitten. Ever wonder why a bronze serpent? Isn’t the serpent an image of evil? Why Bronze? The serpent echoes the ancient enemy—the devil in Genesis 3, who brought sin and death (also understood as sickness and death) into the world through deception. Yet here, God commands Moses to fashion one and raise it high, so that gazing upon it brings healing. St. Cyril of Alexandria thunders in his Commentary on John: the serpent represents sin itself, the curse we bear, but elevated on the pole, it becomes the antidote. Christ, sinless, takes on the likeness of sinful flesh (Romans 8:3), becoming “sin for us” (2 Corinthians 5:21) on the tree of the Cross. He who knew no sin hangs there like the serpent—accursed (Galatians 3:13)—to conquer the sting of death. In Orthodoxy, this is a sacramental mystery: we venerate the Cross not as an idol, but as the weapon that slays the dragon, healing our wounds through confession and the Eucharist.

And why bronze? The metal itself has layers of meaning. Bronze (an alloy of copper, as the Hebrew nehoshet suggests) was the material of the tabernacle’s altar of sacrifice (Exodus 27), symbolizing judgment and atonement—enduring, unyielding, forged in fire. Bronze, as an alloy, is stronger than pure copper, much more resistant to corrosion, and far more valuable because of its tin content. While copper was abundant in the Sinai Peninsula and the Levant, tin was incredibly rare. In the time of the Exodus, tin often had to be traded from as far away as modern-day Afghanistan, Turkey, or even Cornwall (UK). This made bronze a high-status material. When the biblical texts describe the construction of the Tabernacle—mentioning bronze for the “brazen” altar, the basins, and the sockets—they are describing a material that was technologically advanced and valuable for its time.

I, the author (Lee), might see an analogy in this alloy an echo of the two natures of Christ, fully Man and fully God. There’s even a divine wordplay: nahash (serpent) sounds like nehoshet (bronze). St. Gregory Palamas touches on the concept of endurance in his homilies, seeing bronze as a type of Christ’s incorruptible humanity (bronze is far more resistant to corrosion than copper), shining yet strong enough to bear divine fire without consumption. In Orthodox iconography and hymnody—like the services for the Exaltation of the Cross—we honor this: the serpent of brass prefigures the Wood that gleams with glory, unconsumed by death. It’s not arbitrary, love; it’s the Spirit’s brushstrokes, painting salvation from Eden’s fall to Calvary’s triumph.

Christ owns this imagery: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” (John 3:14). St. Athanasius thunders: “The Cross is the sign of victory over death.” In Orthodoxy, we venerate the Cross—not as an idol, but as the tree of life fulfilling the type. This is tied to confession: the serpent’s bite (sin) is healed by looking up in faith. The sacrament restores, as the Fathers taught, not Sola Fide “faith alone that skips repentance.

Now, the full blossoming of this Type in the Exodus arc: Moses (who in Christ’s time represents the Mosaic Law) brings Israel to the edge of the Promised Land but cannot himself enter (Deuteronomy 34). Only Joshua can cross them over (Joshua 3). St. Irenaeus hammers this point home: “Moses, the Law, could not save; Joshua, whose name is rendered in Greek as Jesus, leads to inheritance.” Christ’s Hebrew name? Joshua (Yeshua). The Law tutors and instructs but cannot justify or save (Galatians 3:24); only Christ, the new Joshua, conquers death, leading us into the promised land of our heavenly rest (Hebrews 4). Scripture rams the point home: “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17). Orthodoxy lives this—no legalism, no antinomianism, but synergistic ascent.

The Paschal Lamb

Finally, the Passover lamb. Many Protestants view this as evidence for penal substitutionary atonement theory. But first, what was the Passover sacrifice used for, and why was it necessary? A pure, spotless lamb, slain, its blood painted on doorposts. Specifically, the lamb’s blood had to be painted on the doorposts. Why? To save people from death (Exodus 12). It was the blood of the lamb that saved the people from death. Christ is “our passover... sacrificed for us” (1 Corinthians 5:7). St. John Chrysostom preaches: “The lamb was a shadow; the reality is the Lamb of God.”

Christ is the true Passover Lamb, slain not to appease an angry God hellbent on judgment, justice, and satisfaction, but to deliver us from the bondage of death and sin, just as the lamb’s blood marked the doors in Exodus, sparing Israel from the destroyer. St. John Chrysostom proclaims in his Paschal Homily: “Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed for us!” This isn’t a judicial transaction swapping sin for mercy; it’s divine conquest and healing through reconciliation. The Crucifixion saves us by shattering the power of death. In the Harrowing of Hell (no longer taught in the West), Christ descends into Hades, binds the devil, and rises victorious, trampling down death by his death. We are freed not through punishment diverted, but through union with Him who destroys our enemies.

Therefore, Orthodox atonement? not some Latin-derived legalistic punishment/ransom narrative, but Victory over death and the recapitulation of creation (St. Irenaeus). God punishing Himself in substitutionary wrath? Hogwash. The Fathers instead see a ransom from corruption and death, and the healing of all creation. The Cross conquers Hell, Resurrection tramples death. In the Eucharist, we partake of the slain yet risen Lamb through his blood. His blood isn’t painted on our doorposts; his blood is painted on our souls. His flesh is not mere food, but together with the blood, a vessel for divine grace, which, when consumed, transforms us from the inside out. It’s not a mere symbol, and it never was; it’s a divine sacramental mystery.

These are but a taste

Other types we have not covered that foreshadow Christ and deepen our understanding of his mission and accomplishments. We will cover these in a future Part 2.

• Jonah in the belly of the great fish (Jonah 1–2)

• Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 37–50)

• The sacrifice of Isaac (Genesis 22)

• Noah and the Flood (Genesis 6–9)

• Melchizedek, king of Salem (Genesis 14:18–20)

• The Tree of Life in Eden (Genesis 2–3)

Lee’s Parting Aside

This continuity, largely forgotten in the West, indicates to me that the Orthodox Church alone is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). Every heresy ignores, misunderstands, or subtracts from it. Protestants, and their derivatives, empty the sacraments of any real power, making them symbolic only. But here, the types become flesh.

Subscribe now

In the quiet hush of an Orthodox church, as the incense rises and the faithful stand before the altar, I often reflect on the words of Psalm 501, a cry from King David’s heart after his great fall: “Offer to God a sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay your vows to the Most High; and call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you, and you shall glorify me... The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. […] Then shalt Thou be pleased with a sacrifice of righteousness, with oblation and whole-burnt offerings. Then shall they offer bullocks upon Thine altar.” (Psalm 50:14-15, 17, 21). These verses pierce through the veil of outward religion, reminding us that true worship isn’t about grand gestures or fleeting emotions, but about offering our sick and broken selves to a merciful God. It’s a theme that has reshaped my own spiritual journey—from the structured, testimony-driven meetings of my LDS upbringing, where emotional highs often served as epistemic witness to divine presence, to the ancient rhythms of the Orthodox liturgy, where worship demands humility and sacrifice.

My path from Mormonism to Orthodoxy wasn’t a rejection of sincere faith but a deepening hunger for something more rooted, more authentic, and more eternal. In LDS services, I appreciated the focus on family, community, and heartfelt sharing—much like the vibrant energy in many Evangelical gatherings, where contemporary music and relatable preaching draw people in with accessibility and zeal. After all, both traditions spring from a shared love for Christ and a desire to live out His gospel. Evangelicals bring an infectious enthusiasm that makes faith feel immediate and personal, while Orthodox Christians emphasize the unbroken continuity of the apostles’ teaching. Even Brigham Young, a foundational LDS leader, echoed this inward focus when he taught that “true religion is to save souls,” emphasizing not just outward ordinances but the transformation of the heart. Yet, as Psalm 50 warns against superficial offerings—“I will accept no bull from your house, nor he-goat from your folds” (v. 9)—it urges us to examine whether our worship truly honors God or caters to our own ego and comforts.

Following the spiritual themes of Psalm 50, which rejects empty sacrifices in favor of a contrite heart. It seems to me that Modern American worship often features a stage that elevates man while catering to individualism and entertainment.2 In contrast, the Orthodox liturgy centers on an altar for all participants, which demands a humble offering to Christ. As we’ll explore, this shift in worship styles arose from cultural pressures such as American consumerism and revivalism, creating emotional experiences that simulate—but cannot replace—the Holy Spirit’s true work.

Saint John Chrysostom, in his profound homily on this psalm, reminds us: “God seeks not the outward act, but the inward disposition of the heart.” Similarly, A.W. Tozer, a revered Evangelical voice, cautioned: “Worship is no longer worship when it reflects the culture around us more than the Christ within us.”

In the sections ahead, we’ll delve into the symbolism of Stage versus Altar—how the former, born of 19th-century revivalist techniques and modern seeker-sensitive models, prioritizes attraction and emotionalism through lights, music, and comfort, while the latter echoes Psalm 50’s call to stand in vigilant sacrifice.

We’ll trace the altar’s ancient roots in Scripture and patristic tradition, contrasting it with the consumer-driven evolution of modern American worship. Finally, we’ll consider sermons as TED-talk style inspirations3 rather than homilies that serve the Eucharistic mystery, while weaving in Psalm 50’s timeless plea for authenticity. Through this lens, may we rediscover worship not as something we consume, but as the offering of our broken hearts to the One who heals them.

Read more