Interpretation of the vinegar given to Christ on the cross

[Anya]

Someone told me once that the vinegar that Christ was given while on the cross was was given to him as an anesthetic. Does that sound reliable?

[Andreas Moran]

I read that somewhere a long time ago.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Someone told me once that the vinegar that Christ was given while on the cross was was given to him as an anesthetic. Does that sound reliable?

I also have heard it was some sort of mildly narcotic (ie pain killing) concoction.

But remember that Christ did not accept to partake of this which also has real significance.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Herman Blaydoe]

Before He was crucified:
Matthew 27:34 they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He tasted it, He would not drink.

Mark 15:23 Then they gave Him wine mingled with myrrh to drink, but He did not take it.

On the Cross:
Matthew 27:48 Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink.

Mark 15:36 Then someone ran and filled a sponge full of sour wine, put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink...

Luke 23:36 The soldiers also mocked Him, coming and offering Him sour wine,

John 28-30 Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty." A jar of wine vinegar was there, so they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips. When he had received the drink, Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Gall is a rather generic word, in the OT it could also refer to other bitter things, like wormwood and myrrh.

Myrrh is used in eastern medicine to enhance the immune system and to ease pain, and is often mixed in a vinegar solution. "Sour wine" would be vinegar with some alcoholic content. Mixed with myrrh, it would help deaden the pain of His just received flogging as well as the torment He yet faced. Vinegar, added to water, actually quenches thirst much better than water alone, same as adding lemon would.

Some consider the flogging to be a kindness because it would have weakened Him to make His suffering shorter by making His death quicker. The vinegar and myrrh would have had the opposite effect, deadening His pain and providing strength, to make the whole horrible experience take longer.

[Owen Jones]

Numbers 5:24???

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

I was about to start a new thread on the question about vinegar and gall, when the computer directed me to this one from 2002.

I have also read mixed views about the vinegar and gall, namely either that it was an anaesthetic, or that it was part of the continuing mocking of our Lord, being offered instead of water. Herman makes it even more complicated, by suggesting the anaesthetic would have led to more suffering, in fact.

Did any of the Church Fathers comment on this 'sour wine'?

Why the difference between John and the other gospels?

Fr Raphael, what in your view is the significance of Christ refusing to take an anaesthetic?

Owen, I don't understand the relevance of the quotation from Numbers.

In Christ
Byron

[Kusanagi]

St. Theophylact says on the vinegar and gall:

The soldiers in their foul malice by offering Him vinegar to drink, which is what condemned criminals were given. Hyssop was added because it was poisonous. Others say hyssop is the name of the foilage produced by the reed mentioned in other gospels (see Mt 27:48 and Mk 15:36)

[Nina]

On the Cross He [Christ] accepted the taste of gall and vinegar instead of the sweet taste which Adam and Eve had when they tasted the forbidden fruit (St. Gregory the Theologian). Thus by the taste of vinegar He cured the taste of the forbidden pleasure. He accepted death in order to make death dead.Met. of Nafpaktos Hierotheos, The feasts of the Lord, p. 217

[Nicolaj]

Patriarch Kyril writes in his book about the fundamentals of our orthodox faith, where he only takes the gospels to explain what we believe and how the church understands the gospel, that it was taken at that time as an anaesthetic.
Well that sounds plausible because the vinegar considered for this purpose is surely not the fine balsamico from Modena. Vinegar can be made out of almost all juices, containing alcohol or not. And in Roman times this was medical practice as usual.

In Christ, Nicolaj

[Michael Woods]

I also read somewhere Hyssop that was used at the cross was Caper - plant or Caper Spurge. Ingested would cause burning of the mouth, nausea and dizziness. A poison. But then I read somewhere that Hyssop is Greek origin for Hyssopos Dioscorides a name for a holy herb. It was an herb used to clean. "Purge me with Hyssop and I shall be clean". I wonder, what was Hyssop this day. Healing or poison?

A new be,
Michael Woods


St. Theophylact says on the vinegar and gall:

The soldiers in their foul malice by offering Him vinegar to drink, which is what condemned criminals were given. Hyssop was added because it was poisonous. Others say hyssop is the name of the foilage produced by the reed mentioned in other gospels (see Mt 27:48 and Mk 15:36)

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

Mmm...lots of interpretations there, and each makes some sense. What I cannot doubt is that vinegar and gall were given for a reason, and that the gospel authors referred to these for a reason. In the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Cyril of Jerusalem is referred to as saying Christ was offered vinegar mixed with myrrh, which is very bitter, to symbolise the bitter fruit of the vine of Israel:
Are these things how you reward the Lord? Are these your offerings, O vine, for your Master? St Augustine, too, refers to it as "the vinegar of faithlessness" received from the Lord's own planted vine, as opposed to the sweet wine of faith it should or could have produced. This was the final humiliation, then which Christ received from us; Leo the Great says:
Having now tasted the vinegar, the produce of that vineyard that had degenerated in spite of its divine planter and had turned to the sourness of a foreign vine, the Lord says "it is finished," that is, the Scriptures are fulfilled. There is nothing more to endure from these raging people. I have endured all that I foretold I should suffer. The mysteries of weakness are completed. Let the proofs of power be produced. Taking these meanings together with Nina's quote from Metropolitan Hierotheos makes a lot of sense to me. Could this sour drink also be symbolic of the cup that Christ had prayed to be taken away from Him in Gethsemane (Matt 26:39)? I don't see where the idea of the anaesthetic fits into this understanding, though...

[Herman Blaydoe]

I don't see where the idea of the anaesthetic fits into this understanding, though...

Regardless of the symbolism, medically speaking, pure vinegar is considered a "healthy" and even "refreshing" drink (obviously it has preservative powers, why do you think we soak pickles and eggs and such in it?), and myrrh has long been believed to have analgesic properties. There is, of course, much room for interpretation and even confusion since the terminology used is less than precise, we are far removed from the time and culture, and translation does not help the situation at all.

If it causes consternation, feel free to simply disregard, but the simple facts do remain. There were no doubt people who took pity on the suffering Christ, and wanted to help, there were others who simply wanted to make Him suffer as much as possible, to prolong the show and all had their parts to play in God's great plan of salvation.

At least that is how it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh who loves pickled eggs

[Michael Woods]

Mmm... I like Byron's thoughts. Two small words such as vinegar or myrrh could symbolise the two verses that he shared. What Power God reveals from such small words.


Dear all,

Mmm...lots of interpretations there, and each makes some sense. What I cannot doubt is that vinegar and gall were given for a reason, and that the gospel authors referred to these for a reason. In the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture Cyril of Jerusalem is referred to as saying Christ was offered vinegar mixed with myrrh, which is very bitter, to symbolise the bitter fruit of the vine of Israel: St Augustine, too, refers to it as "the vinegar of faithlessness" received from the Lord's own planted vine, as opposed to the sweet wine of faith it should or could have produced. This was the final humiliation, then which Christ received from us; Leo the Great says: Taking these meanings together with Nina's quote from Metropolitan Hierotheos makes a lot of sense to me. Could this sour drink also be symbolic of the cup that Christ had prayed to be taken away from Him in Gethsemane (Matt 26:39)? I don't see where the idea of the anaesthetic fits into this understanding, though...

[Michael Woods]

Yes Herman, I think you are correct that vinegar is a liquid to heal. But possible, could not it have been a pictorial view outwardly, to symbolize a powerful, spiritual healing that day.


Regardless of the symbolism, medically speaking, pure vinegar is considered a "healthy" and even "refreshing" drink (obviously it has preservative powers, why do you think we soak pickles and eggs and such in it?), and myrrh has long been believed to have analgesic properties. There is, of course, much room for interpretation and even confusion since the terminology used is less than precise, we are far removed from the time and culture, and translation does not help the situation at all.

If it causes consternation, feel free to simply disregard, but the simple facts do remain. There were no doubt people who took pity on the suffering Christ, and wanted to help, there were others who simply wanted to make Him suffer as much as possible, to prolong the show and all had their parts to play in God's great plan of salvation.

At least that is how it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh who loves pickled eggs

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Herman, all,

The embarassing truth comes out: I've always hated pickles! Yuch! I certainly hope we are not in the business of interpreting the Gospel according to our culinary tastes...I do like fish and chips, though, with plenty of vinegar, thanks!


There were no doubt people who took pity on the suffering Christ, and wanted to help, there were others who simply wanted to make Him suffer as much as possible, to prolong the show and all had their parts to play in God's great plan of salvation.

This certainly sounds like the real world, even today. So to use symbols such as vinegar, sour wine and gall, implying hyssop, myrrh, wormwood, and invoking the processes of cleansing, sanctifying, healing as Michael suggests, anaesthetising, but also embittering, even perhaps poisoning - it is such a rich and evocative set of images! Of course our Saviour didn't need treatment of any sort, kind or cruel; but the ambivalent quality of what we gave Him instead of the wine of faith seems quite apt in a way (even if our limited scholarship is the problem here), and realistic.

It would be nice to know what 'vinegar and gall' really meant in that cultural and historical context...but who knows for sure?

In Christ
Byron

[Nina]

Why the difference between John and the other gospels?

Saint Chrysostom gives an answer to this question in the quote below as found in The Orthodox New Testament, p. 129 - Endnotes - Matthew:



The inceptive or conative imperfect implies he was in the act of offering or about to give Him to drink (ἐπότιζεν). The attempted action was interrupted and not completed.

Saint Chrysostom: "They offered Him gall to drink, and this to insult Him, but He would not. Another (evangelist) says that, having tasted, He said, 'It hath been finished [Jn. 19:30].' But what is, 'It hath been finished'? The prophecy has been fulfilled concerning Him: It says, 'They gave Me gall for My food, and for My thirst they gave me vinegar to drink [Ps.68(69):26(21)].' But neither does that evangelist indicate that He drank, for 'simply to taste' is not at variance with 'not to drink,' but it has one and the same signification." [Hom. 87, P.G. 58:819 (col. 770).]

[Michael Woods]

Okay, here is a Western thought. I could be off here, so correct me if I am. I was thinking along Nina's last post, but completed it a little differently. I think St. John 19:14 fulfilling the Passover was in between St. Matthew 27:34. Which was an insult, so he would not drink. But later fulfilling the Passover Exodus 12:22, by mixing vinegar with Hyssop as St. John 19:29 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is Finished:".

So the first offer of vinegar was an insult, fulfilling Psalms 69:21. And the second offer of vinegar was to fulfill the Passover St. John 19:14 and Exodus 12:22, by mixing it with Hyssop.


Saint Chrysostom gives an answer to this question in the quote below as found in The Orthodox New Testament, p. 129 - Endnotes - Matthew:

[Antonios]

Dear friends,

Extraordinary observations here! Thanks to all who have contributed.

The event regarding the wine given to the Messiah was prophesied centuries earlier and therefor may suggest it is one of great importance and meaning in regards to Christ's saving work on the Cross.

It also gives even greater understanding to the Holy Gifts.

A few observations I have found helpful:

1. Here, the wine which He offered in celebration in Cana is offered back to Him at His execution as sour vinegar. A despoiled, deficient, corrupted alternative to what Christ created and freely shared in joy and happiness.

2. The outer torments and insults and thrashings and humiliations were not enough. Corruption and death was to enter His innocent mouth as well- to be tasted, to be literally consumed. It could be no other way.

3. As described in the final plague of Exodus 12:21-22, the sacrificial blood of the passover lamb was applied on the wooden doorposts using stalks of hyssop in order to repel death.

These are some interesting things to consider.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

As Antonios suggests, the scriptural symbolism involved is quite amazing, and it involves both the OT and NT.

Michael, I'm not sure I understand what you mean where you write:
I think St. John 19:14 fulfilling the Passover was in between St. Matthew 27:34. Could you clarify your 'Western thought' a little further? :-)

In Christ
Byron

[Michael Woods]

Byron,

Antonios has such brilliant penmanship, which I do not. He states very clearly what I was trying to say. Just as "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures:" The scriptures must be fulfilled. And the outwardly signs show us, man-kind a pictorial view of the beauty and glory of the spiritual occurrences at that moment in time. Just as we were so thankful for that day looking back. They in the Old Testament looked forward, for good signs to come. Which was that day. Not that they understood what they truely were looking for.

Now the touchy part. A western thought. Christ was the sacrificial lamb. The in between if you will. To connect the Old to the New, to give us back harmony, the union of God and man. So when I state in between. This is God joining The Old Testament and The New Testament together as one.

[Antonios]

Just as "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures:" The scriptures must be fulfilled. And the outwardly signs show us, man-kind a pictorial view of the beauty and glory of the spiritual occurrences at that moment in time. Just as we were so thankful for that day looking back. They in the Old Testament looked forward, for good signs to come. Which was that day. Not that they understood what they truely were looking for.

We must also remember that the prophecies of the Old Testament were not fulfilled for the sake of the prophesy, but rather it's fulfillment is why it is a prophecy.

St. John the Baptist, the last of the Old Testament prophets, said to Jesus just prior to baptizing Him in the River Jordan: "I need to be baptized by You, and are You coming to me?” and Jesus responded: "Permit it to be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness". The Church's understanding of this singular and momentous event is that Jesus was not the One Who was changed as He rose from the water, but rather that the River Jordan itself, and expanding from it, all of creation was changed. A new covenant, if you will. A baptismal preparation of all of creation for the ministry of the Incarnate Son of God.

Something similar occurred during Noah's time. All the earth was 'baptized' in the flood during Noah's time and 'rose' out of the water as the levels rescinded cleansed from sin and filth in a new and greater relationship of righteousness with God, (a new covenant stamped with the sign of the rainbow in the heavens). In like manner, though one with no death or destruction or calamity towards creation and the children of God, Jesus 'floods' all of creation with grace at His baptism, and for the first time in history, the Holy Trinity is fully revealed. Instead of a rainbow, the Light of God. Instead of a dove coming back with a sign of salvation holding an olive branch, the Holy Spirit is revealed in the form of a dove carrying the Grace of God. And what preceded this epiphany? Jesus emptying Himself in the waters; God substituting Himself rather than creation to undergo immersion, becoming as such a 'victim' (or better yet, a participant) in the Flood of old, and thereby bringing a new righteousness and new covenant with all His children. This is how the earthly ministry of Christ began- the same way it ended- becoming sin for our sake and bridging true, greater, and complete righteousness with God in ways we, the sinners, could never do.


Now the touchy part. A western thought. Christ was the sacrificial lamb. The in between if you will. To connect the Old to the New, to give us back harmony, the union of God and man. So when I state in between. This is God joining The Old Testament and The New Testament together as one.This is not a western thought. This is an orthodox thought no matter which side of the Prime Meridian one thinks it!

[Michael Woods]

Antonios,

Thank you. I hope I can continue to quicken your spark, for with your spark comes much spiritual widsom. I have learned much today. I have meant no harm and I know no harm was given.

Michael

[Antonios]

Antonios,

Thank you. I hope I can continue to quicken your spark, for with your spark comes much spiritual widsom. I have learned much today. I have meant no harm and I know no harm was given.

Michael

Dear Michael,

Any spiritual wisdom you perceived I attribute to the teachings of the Saints of the Church from which I borrowed.

Any foolishness you read in my words I attribute all to myself!

In Christ,
Antonios

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Antonios and Michael,

Antonios writes:
Something similar occurred during Noah's time. All the earth was 'baptized' in the flood during Noah's time and 'rose' out of the water as the levels rescinded cleansed from sin and filth in a new and greater relationship of righteousness with God, (a new covenant stamped with the sign of the rainbow in the heavens). In like manner, though one with no death or destruction or calamity towards creation and the children of God, Jesus 'floods' all of creation with grace at His baptism, and for the first time in history, the Holy Trinity is fully revealed. Instead of a rainbow, the Light of God. Instead of a dove coming back with a sign of salvation holding an olive branch, the Holy Spirit is revealed in the form of a dove carrying the Grace of God. And what preceded this epiphany? Jesus emptying Himself in the waters; God substituting Himself rather than creation to undergo immersion, becoming as such a 'victim' (or better yet, a participant) in the Flood of old, and thereby bringing a new righteousness and new covenant with all His children. This is how the earthly ministry of Christ began- the same way it ended- becoming sin for our sake and bridging true, greater, and complete righteousness with God in ways we, the sinners, could never do. This isn't directly related to the 'vinegar', symbolism, but reading this paragraph I'm wondering - does God 'improve' in His relations with His creatures from the OT to the NT? If so, the perhaps pointless question also arises: why?

On another thread we discussed the apparent cruelty and barbarity of the Flood as a measure against human decadence. Contrasting that with the beautiful and peaceful image of Christ's regenaration of the whole of creation through His baptism in the Jordan, I can't help thinking: what a 'different' approach from His Father! I sense, however, that this way of thinking probably leads into heresy, and is based on my own definitions of kindness, good etc.. I know I'm not the first person to contrast the OT and the NT! :-)

In Christ
Byron

[Michael Woods]

Byron,

I think what you are saying, does have to do with vinegar. But not just vinegar. Vinegar given to Christ on the cross. For I feel all leads to Christ on the cross.

I was thinking in contrast or a totally opposite thought. But I think both lead to the same conclusion. It was a conversation I had Tuesday with a church Father. He was telling a story of a big brother who left his little brother, the anchor. And when he did the snake curled back in reaction to such an action. "Bad coming out of Good". I then questioned and all week I have been thinking on his reply. It went something like this. You think only bad can come out of evil? Interesting! Everything has good in it. So I think maybe God does not improve. But creation improves by its relationship with its Creator, from the NT to the OT.

Michael

[Michael Woods]

Okay, Let us get back to study at hand. I would like to talk now about "Interpretation of the vinegar given to Christ on the cross". Not from the lens of the Old Testament, but from the Lens of the New Teastament. Looking back at that day mixing vinegar with hyssop. Also, I would like to build off of what Antonios had stated: quote, "2. The outer torments and insults and thrashing and humiliations were not enough. Corruption and death was to enter his innocent mouth as well - to be tasted, to be literally consumed. It could be no other way." WHY?

I will start with my thoughts coming from Hebrews 9, please add to or put in your thoughts. Hebrews 9:1 "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of Divine Service, and a worldly sanctuary." My mine is focused on worldly sanctuary. Then I go to Hebrews 9:11 "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building." And then I see clearly them looking back at the cross. The same way we do 2000 years later, threw the lens of the New Teastament in Hebrews 9:15. And then vinegar and hyssop being it together in Hebrews 9:19.

Which brings us full circle back to what Antonios had brilliantly written. With Hebrews 9:26; " For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

[Antonios]

Okay, Let us get back to study at hand. I would like to talk now about "Interpretation of the vinegar given to Christ on the cross". Not from the lens of the Old Testament, but from the Lens of the New Teastament. Looking back at that day mixing vinegar with hyssop. Also, I would like to build off of what Antonios had stated: quote, "2. The outer torments and insults and thrashing and humiliations were not enough. Corruption and death was to enter his innocent mouth as well - to be tasted, to be literally consumed. It could be no other way." WHY?

I will start with my thoughts coming from Hebrews 9, please add to or put in your thoughts. Hebrews 9:1 "Then verily the first covenant had also ordinances of Divine Service, and a worldly sanctuary." My mine is focused on worldly sanctuary. Then I go to Hebrews 9:11 "But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building." And then I see clearly them looking back at the cross. The same way we do 2000 years later, threw the lens of the New Teastament in Hebrews 9:15. And then vinegar and hyssop being it together in Hebrews 9:19.

Which brings us full circle back to what Antonios had brilliantly written. With Hebrews 9:26; " For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: But now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself."

Dear Michael,

The center of the sacramental life of a Christian leads before the altar of God in the partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Mystery of Divine Communion. Herein is the mystery of the vinegar on the Cross fully revealed.

In the Divine Liturgy, the priest prays:

Together with these blessed powers, merciful Master, we also proclaim and say: You are holy and most holy, You and Your only begotten Son and Your Holy Spirit. You are holy and most holy, and sublime is Your glory. You so loved Your world that You gave Your only begotten Son so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. He came and fulfilled the divine plan for us. On the night when He was delivered up, or rather when He gave Himself up for the life of the world, He took bread in His holy, pure, and blameless hands, gave thanks, blessed, sanctified, broke and gave it to His holy disciples and apostles, saying:

Priest: Take, eat, this is my Body which is broken for you for the forgiveness of sins.

People: Amen.

Priest (in a low voice): Likewise, after supper, He took the cup, saying:

Priest: Drink of it all of you; this is my Blood of the new Covenant which is shed for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.

People:Amen.

Priest (in a low voice): Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that came to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming,

Priest: We offer to You these gifts from Your own gifts in all and for all. -==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==--==-

What are these gifts that we are offering Him? Not vinegar, heaven forbid! Nor gall. Neither insults nor lashings nor condemnation. But rather bread, and wine, and praise and glory! These gifts, which the Lord has first gifted to us, we offer back in thanksgiving and love so that He, in His power, can sanctify and fulfill them and infuse them with His Grace ,and in His great mercy feed us with Life via His Body and Blood.

On the night of the Last Supper, the final time the Lord sat and gave instructions to His disciples before His passion and death, and just hours before He is given vinegar and gall to drink, He sanctifies bread and wine and offers it to them as His Body and Blood. And these disciples, Jews in every way, students of the Old Testament and the laws of Moses, consumed and were filled with Christ Himself. These Jews who were restricted by the law from touching blood are not just touching it, but consuming it! That is, becoming it. And so, the dietary laws find their fulfillment in the Holy Eucharist.

And how is He repayed? He Who gives life? He is offered vinegar and gall upon the Cross. And what happens next? He says his final words 'It is finished' and immediately dies. What a sight to behold for St. John the Beloved, watching from the foot of the Cross! He Who just hours earlier gave them His Body and Blood to consume dies at the very moment He drinks of the vinegar. What irony and sadness this disciple of Christ must have experienced watching this! The final act of human judgment against the Lord was neither a nail, nor a spear, nor a lash, but of vinegar to the lips of the Annointed One of God.

How fitting that the greatest healing that His Church offers is what He Himself initiated: the communing of Christ with the His own Body and Blood in the mystery of Holy Communion.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Antonios]

Dear Michael,

I should amend something from my previous post, though more may need correcting and I hope to be corrected for any thing I have said which is in error.

The choice of the word 'consume' may be misinterpreted as the word has several meanings, such as 'to do away with completely' and 'to spend wastefully'. In fact, during the Divine Liturgy, after the sacred Bread is broken, the priest says in a low voice:

The Lamb of God is broken and distributed; broken but not divided. He is forever eaten yet is never consumed, but He sanctifies those who partake of Him.

When I did use it in the previous post, I meant to use it's other meanings: 'to eat or drink', and 'to engage fully'.

I hope to have cleared up any misunderstanding and I look forward to more of your insights as we further this discussion of this important and mysterious event in the life of our Savior Jesus Christ.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Michael Woods]

Dear Antonios,

The Holy Communion, such a beautiful and glorious, Heavenly Food. My thoughts were going with attentiveness and preparation. But I think that to be another post.

I think I will go back to vinegar. I may be stepping (ouch) on my tongue. So bear with my rock hard head. As the vinegar was the way the hyssop touch the mouth of Christ. Should not the hyssop be with the blood and the water. As in Hebrews 9:19 : Did not Moses take the blood, with water and hyssop and sprinkle both the book, and all the people? WHY?

It was said in a earlier post, corruption and death was to enter Christ innocent mouth. I wonder! Where by the blood of Christ, with the water of Christ, with the hyssop. And I think of the words "It is finished:" So I read on: St. John 19:33-34 "But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:" 34 "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water." And I think why!

Antonios, I know you and others can fill in the gaps or correct where I miss the mark. These are only thoughts.

"After the wiping of the mouth, kiss the side of the Chalce, as Christ's very side, from which flowed Blood and Water."

Michael







I hope to have cleared up any misunderstanding and I look forward to more of your insights as we further this discussion of this important and mysterious event in the life of our Savior Jesus Christ.

[Michael Woods]

Dear Antonios and Others,

Self Study is very hard, but Orthodox Christians are very kind.

Is it not strange how grown men and women can take so much pleasure and comfort talking about one small word vinegar. I think it not the vinegar, nor gall, nor hyssop, nor the blood, nor the water, or even the thoughts of the healing that day. No I think it is more.

The immediate consciousness of the indwelling of God, Christ in man. The knowledge of knowing, what the world calls the unknown. I will try to explain in words, though I know I can not. The joy, peace, and comfort, the small wind blowing inside. Which with a small voice saying, all is well. All is as it should be. And then we realize this, The Holy Spirit is given to us and this is what we take with us on our daily walk in life. It is the Holy Spirit which allows us to pray without ceasing. To cry from joy, from good thoughts on our daily walk. And God once again walks with us in the cool of the day. This is what vinegar means to me.

I had a conversation with a church Father and in the conversation, he said something like this, "If the soul truly thought it could die. The soul would not sin." I thought on this all week and I say, What do we teach the soul?

Michael


Dear Michael,

I look forward to more of your insights as we further this discussion of this important and mysterious event in the life of our Savior Jesus Christ.

In Christ,
Antonios

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Michael,

Your comments make me think of Julian of Norwich's famous and very beautiful words from her Revelations of Divine Love
"...All shall be well and all shall be well and all manner of thing shall be well" It's amazing how God gives us the gifts we can offer Him, for our own well-being, and at the same time takes on the burden of our sins, and still has comforting words to say! To me, all this suggests we really are interacting with the divine. He needs nothing and gives everything.

The church Father (do you mean a priest?) you spoke to, sounds as if he was pointing out that, even in our choices to sin, we are unconsciously acknowledging that we believe in immortality - since presumably, if we really believed we would die from sinning - or perish eternally, or even live on in some way, but in eternal punishment, such that this condition cannot really be called 'living' - then we would not sin; but we do sin, therefore at some level it must be true that we hope also to be redeeemed. I think this must be true, though unfortunately when we sin we are more likely to deny all knowledge of a connection between sin and death in our conscious minds, telling ourselves lies such as "there is no connection between sin and death, I won't die from it" (sound familiar? The serpent said it to Eve). If we didn't really believe, deep down, however, that sin has grave spiritual conequences, we wouldn't need to go around denying God either. Atheists, I therefore suspect, would still need to invent atheism if there weren't any Christians around telling them God exists. It isn't so much religious superstition that they are fighting (though they may well believe this is the name of their struggle for the improvement of society), as their own deep-seated fear that maybe, just maybe, Christianity might be true.

But fortunately, I trust Julian is right: all shall be well. Even for atheists perhaps? I wouldn't risk it!

In Christ
Byron

[Michael Woods]

Dear Byron,

If the Moderator will allow a small amount of leeway in regards to the topic, I think the conversation could become very fruitful for all.

I will take it somwhat slow as I feel there is a powerful message here. And I do not want to miss anything. Comments to your first thought.


It's amazing how God gives us the gifts we can offer Him, for our own well-being, and at the same time takes on the burden of our sins, and still has comforting words to say! To me, all this suggests we really are interacting with the divine. He needs nothing and gives everything.


Your statement: If I could say it a little differently, to see if our thoughts are on the same page.

Christ gifts on the cross:
To put an end to the non-connection to God by the Father's permission. As the Son to the Father appeasing or making peace with. Bring back harmony, the union of God and man. Where by Christ sacrificed himself, the only perfect sacrifice. This sacrifice is offering a part of creation, the most perfect part of creation, back to the Creator God. As the very essence of worship to glorify God in acknowledgement of his ownership over and dominion over all that is. Where by removing the obstacles and once again making it possible to freely worship.

By Christ giving us our freedom from sin, the very enmity towards God. And Christ's Resurrection made it possible for us to take part in the ascending to God or resurrect to God. The same freedom given to us in love by Christ, we freely give back to God. By offering this gift, (freedom to worship). The greatest gift to man, the ability to worship one on one with the Creator. By this offering which unites us with Christ through the Holy Ghost. Which gives us Grace: Approval, the gift of God. Which is a interaction with the Divine. He needs nothing, but gives everything.

Michael

[Michael Woods]

The church Father (do you mean a priest?) you spoke to, sounds as if he was pointing out that, even in our choices to sin, we are unconsciously acknowledging that we believe in immortality - since presumably, if we really believed we would die from sinning - or perish eternally, or even live on in some way, but in eternal punishment, such that this condition cannot really be called 'living' - then we would not sin; but we do sin, therefore at some level it must be true that we hope also to be redeeemed. I think this must be true, though unfortunately when we sin we are more likely to deny all knowledge of a connection between sin and death in our conscious minds, telling ourselves lies such as "there is no connection between sin and death, I won't die from it" (sound familiar? The serpent said it to Eve). If we didn't really believe, deep down, however, that sin has grave spiritual conequences, we wouldn't need to go around denying God either. Atheists, I therefore suspect, would still need to invent atheism if there weren't any Christians around telling them God exists. It isn't so much religious superstition that they are fighting (though they may well believe this is the name of their struggle for the improvement of society), as their own deep-seated fear that maybe, just maybe, Christianity might be true.

Dear Byron,

I never really ask Father Jimmy openly face to face, whether he was a Orthodox Priest. I just assumed. He takes confession and he did state that he is a spiriual Father for the church. For true respect, I probably will never ask him. As far as the true meaning of his statement he made. I can not answer. As he dropped that golden nugget on me as I was going out the door. Though I was thinking along the same chain of thoughts as you were Byron. No disrespect. But the next time I see him and he expounds on his statement. I think his answer will be far more in depth than my thoughts or your statement.

In Christ
Michael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Michael and other thread subscribers,

Thank you Michael for your latest posts. Regarding Father Jimmy, I'm not there, so I haven't really got anything else to say; it does sound odd to me, however, that you are not sure if he is an Orthodox priest, and that he has not made that clear to you in some way. Would it really be disrespectful to ask him? Doesn't he have a certain church, a parish? When he takes confession, does he wear a stole (petraxyli)? I'm not writing this to pry or cast doubt in any way, just wondering from the perspective of a complete outsider. Let us know, too, if he says anything further about his fascinating comment on the soul 'not sinning if it knew'.

Your comments on Christ's gifts on the cross offer much food for thought. In particular I was interested by one statement you make:
Christ sacrificed himself, the only perfect sacrifice. This sacrifice is offering a part of creation, the most perfect part of creation, back to the Creator God. I haven't really studied atonement theology, but I wonder - this goes out to everyone - is this a standard Orthodox interpretation of Christ's sacrifice?

In Christ
Byron

[Michael Woods]

Thank you Michael for your latest posts. Regarding Father Jimmy, I'm not there, so I haven't really got anything else to say; it does sound odd to me, however, that you are not sure if he is an Orthodox priest, and that he has not made that clear to you in some way. Would it really be disrespectful to ask him? Doesn't he have a certain church, a parish? When he takes confession, does he wear a stole (petraxyli)? I'm not writing this to pry or cast doubt in any way, just wondering from the perspective of a complete outsider. Let us know, too, if he says anything further about his fascinating comment on the soul 'not sinning if it knew'.

Dear Byron,

I have only seen Father Jimmy twice. I stated he is a spiritual Father. Bear in mind I was very nervous the two appointed times we were together. He does have a parish. And I feel assured he is an Orthodox Priest. As far as confession. I can not say if he wears a stole. As I have never had confession with him.

On Father Jimmy's defense. I disclose that he has never talked with me about the statement I made in regards to post #32, Christ gifts on the cross. I have know idea if this is Orthodox or not. As I stated, I wanted to see if we were on the same page. Am I thinking correctly?

As far as Father Jimmy's statement. As I stated earlier, he said something like this. Not sure of his exact words. He dropped the statement on me as I was going out the door.

In Christ
Michael

[Father David Moser]

his fascinating comment on the soul 'not sinning if it knew'.



As far as Father Jimmy's statement. As I stated earlier, he said something like this. Not sure of his exact words. He dropped the statement on me as I was going out the door.

I think that this statement is indeed very much within the tradition of the Church. If we really were aware of the spiritual reality in which we live, if we really saw the effects of sin on the soul, if we really perceived and understood the presence of God and the joys of paradise - there would be no possible way we could sin. But as the apostle says we "see in a mirror darkly" - that is the perception of these things is clouded by our sinful nature and we do not truly understand what we do when we sin. As we aquire more of the Holy Spirit we see these things more clearly and thus the saints in their lives saw not only the glories of paradise but they also saw their own sinfulness in a light which those of us just beginning the spiritual life could never understand - where even the slightest of sins is revealed in the bright and ever burning light of Christ (but which to us now living in darkness are unnoticeable from the deeper blackness surrounding us). Another way of saying the same thing might be to say that if we really loved God with all our heart and soul and mind and strength, then sinning would be impossible to us as it would be so out of character with that love.

Fr David Moser

[Michael Woods]

Dear Father David Moser,

Thank you very much Father for your words of thought. I do see more clearly now what the Father was saying. With your clear explanation.

Thank you,
Michael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr David and Michael,

Thank you both for clarifying. Fr David, regarding seeing 'in a mirror, darkly': in a way I feel sometimes faith tells us "this is the way [Christ and the Apostles and the Church, Holy Scripture, the Church Fathers, Tradition etc. tells us] things are; now go ahead and find out for yourself". Could there be two kinds of faith involved, I wonder? When it comes to interpreting what Christ gave us on the cross, or what the meaning of the vinegar and gall is, is there a de facto limit to what our faith can tell us about such mysteries, depending on the clarity of our perception?

In Christ
Byron

[Father David Moser]

Could there be two kinds of faith involved, I wonder? When it comes to interpreting what Christ gave us on the cross, or what the meaning of the vinegar and gall is, is there a de facto limit to what our faith can tell us about such mysteries, depending on the clarity of our perception?

I think that it is necessary here to recall that the scripture, the gospels especially, are heavily layered with meaning. There are no doubt an infinite number of equally 'right' meanings included in this detail of the crucifixion. I think that "going and finding out for yourself" involves the process of finding the aspect of the meaning that is personal to you in the situation in which you find yourself. And tomorrow there may be another layer of meaning that addresses your new situation and so on.

Fr David Moser

[Michael Woods]

Your comments on Christ's gifts on the cross offer much food for thought. In particular I was interested by one statement you make: I haven't really studied atonement theology, but I wonder - this goes out to everyone - is this a standard Orthodox interpretation of Christ's sacrifice?

In Christ
Byron

Dear Byron and all that have helped,

I think I will be right, but I will be wrong. To my statement, "Christ sacrificed himself, (that is true), The only perfect sacrifice, (that is true). This sacrifice is offering a part of creation, (partaking of the body and blood of Christ in Divine Communion) (that is true), the most perfect part of creation (that is true), back to the Creator God (that is true)."

Byron are we now on the same page?

In Christ,
Michael

P.S. I had help, a Father told me I would be wrong today, in a very nice way. Thank you again Father.

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Michael,


Byron are we now on the same page? Well, almost! The part of your statement I am having some difficulty with is the following:
This sacrifice is offering a part of creation, (partaking of the body and blood of Christ in Divine Communion) (that is true)the most perfect part of creation (that is true), back to the Creator God (that is true) What is puzzling me, is that I understood the words "We offer Thee that which is Thine", to refer to the bread and the wine, which only subsequently becomes the flesh and blood of our Lord. Your sentence, however, seems to be suggesting that it is Christ Himself we are offering to God the Father. I would like some clarification about this, because where the prayer goes "You are the Offerer and the Offered", I thought this referred to Christ's once-for-all sacrifice, not to a repetition of that sacrifice at every Divine Liturgy...

In Christ
Byron

[Michael Woods]

Well, almost! The part of your statement I am having some difficulty with is the following: What is puzzling me, is that I understood the words "We offer Thee that which is Thine", to refer to the bread and the wine, which only subsequently becomes the flesh and blood of our Lord. Your sentence, however, seems to be suggesting that it is Christ Himself we are offering to God the Father. I would like some clarification about this, because where the prayer goes "You are the Offerer and the Offered", I thought this referred to Christ's once-for-all sacrifice, not to a repetition of that sacrifice at every Divine Liturgy.

Dear Byron,

I may need an eraser on some of my pass statements. I have two chains of thought. One: If I only think of moral correctness linking righteousness to holiness. I would obey! Which creates a unconscious mis - rendered likeness or image of God. Which I think would create a need of punishment. This I think is not a correct way of looking at Christ sacrifice. Because it would need to give something back to God a perfect sacrifice for humanity as payment for the punishment rendered from sin. But, my second thought. Number Two: If I think of man - kind or humanity or being as a image or likeness of God. And then infuse Grace by being energized by Christ, though Christ's flesh and blood. God's gift: Life. The De Facto / Fact is, that Holy Communion is life itself.

Christ gives life at the cross. The whole time Christ was dying, he was giving and giving and always giving. never ending. He died once, but gives life everytime one accepts correctly Holy Communion. The bread and wine is real and not a symbol. The bread turns to spirtual flesh and wine turns to spiritual blood. Which truly fuses to our soul.

So I guess Christ's gift to the Father was, all of Humanity. And his gift to Humanity was, all of God.

How much Christ do we want? My thought, how much zeal do we have.

I wonder, is this right?

In Christ,
Michael

[Paul Cowan]

Christ gives life at the cross. The whole time Christ was dying, he was giving and giving and always giving. never ending. He died once, but gives life everytime one accepts correctly Holy Communion. The bread and wine is real and not a symbol. The bread turns to spirtual flesh and wine turns to spiritual blood. Which truly fuses to our soul.

I wonder, is this right?

In Christ,
Michael

Just learning myself here; but the bread and wine are not spiritual blood and body, but the actual blood and body of christ changed mystically to condescend to our weaknesses. True it is not a symbol, but they are also not spiritual.

Paul

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Michael, all,


So I guess Christ's gift to the Father was, all of Humanity. And his gift to Humanity was, all of God. I think we need to call the Liturgics dept! I'm in over my head here, I'm afraid...what you write sounds about right, Michael, but I still wonder about Christ "giving something" to the Father. In my simple mind, it seems to me that if Christ Pantokrator is of one will with His Almighty Father, then He can't really "give" the Father anything which is not already in the possession of both! Fr Raphael, Fr David, Rev Dcn Matthew, can you offer us any clarity on this perhaps?


True it is not a symbol, but they are also not spiritual. This seems quite a complex notion, Paul. Can you perhaps expand on it a little? If the Sacrament is not a symbol, and is not spiritual, what is it? Of course, you answered in the first part of your statement by saying - correctly from an Orthodox perspective - that it is the actual Body and Blood. But how do you differentiate between the 'spiritual' order of reality, and the 'actuality' of the Body and Blood? What is the "mystical change to condescend to our weaknesses", if not a point of interaction between spiritual and material levels of reality?

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I havn't been following this discussion so closely so I hope I'm not missing the point.

However from my understanding the anaphora prayers all of the way through "Thine own of Thine own..." is our prayer offered to God the Father as set in a Trinitarian context.

Looking at the prayer that immediately precedes Thine own of Thine own we see:


Remembering therefore this saving commandment and all that came to pass for our sake- the Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection of the third day, the Ascension into Heaven, the Sitting at the Right Hand, the Second and glorious Coming again...

This obviously from the wording is our prayer (or rather the prayer which the clergy pray on behalf of the people). From my understanding it still is addressed to God the Father but concerning the dispensation of the Son- especially His sacrifice and then what follows.

So it is only natural that at this point there follows Thine of Thine own, we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all. For this stresses our sacrifical participation- we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all- in the sacrifice of the Son both to God the Father and on behalf of all created things.

Thine own of Thine own also well expresses how what we offer is not our own but rather what God has already bestowed on us.

There is then I think a circular movement in these words: God-man-God.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Paul Cowan]

True it is not a symbol, but they are also not spiritual.

This seems quite a complex notion, Paul. Can you perhaps expand on it a little? If the Sacrament is not a symbol, and is not spiritual, what is it? Of course, you answered in the first part of your statement by saying - correctly from an Orthodox perspective - that it is the actual Body and Blood. But how do you differentiate between the 'spiritual' order of reality, and the 'actuality' of the Body and Blood? What is the "mystical change to condescend to our weaknesses", if not a point of interaction between spiritual and material levels of reality?



Byron,

I am no theologian so my thought processes are vey basic and I may have spoken poorly. Protestants use the crackers and grape juice as a symbol to represent but not BE the body and blood of Jesus. "do this in remembrance of me" if I recall the verbage. they consume these items to 'remember' Jesus. If you recall scripture said when Jesus said if you do not eat my flesh and drink my blood you have no part in me. Many abandoned Him on account of this saying of apparent cannibalism.

Everything has a spiritual aspect to it, but as I just wrote; what He is asking us to do is "physical" not necessarily "spiritual". There have been lives of the saints that doubted the transformation (that's not the word I want to use, but close enough) of the bread and wine turning into the body and blood of Jesus. They were witnesses to the priest cutting up the baby Jesus and His flesh and blood dripping into the chalice and when they went to partake of this, they freaked out because of their "weaknesses" to actually eat and drink Him. So once Christ "proved" to them this was actually the real stuff, He allowed His flesh and blood to once again appear as bread and wine. He condescended to our weakness and allows us to "see" what we are able and not what it really is.

I think there is also a story of a Khan who stormed into a temple and saw the priest hacking up a baby in the manner above and condemned the Christians as cannibals but later converted seeing the truth of what we taught.

Is this a better explanation?

Paul

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

Thank you Fr Raphael, for your input on this topic. I understand that the anaphora prayers, indeed the enire Liturgy, is a sacrifice performed purely for the benefit of man and creation; what I am having difficulty grasping, is what exactly is being offered to God (Who I thought needs nothing). In particular, the issue of
the sacrifice of the Son [...] to God the Father seen from an Orthodox perspective confuses me (not that I expect divine mysteries to bow to cold reason). As far as we humans are concerned, the 'sacrifice' part of the Liturgy was - I thought - a 'sacrifice of praise', by which we mean the love, worship, readiness and obedience for our lives to be sanctified. But what the Son possibly gave to the Father in sacrificing himself for humanity - here my mind boggles!

Paul, I entirely agree that Holy Communion is not a memorial service (I liked the "crackers and grape juice" quip!). The gruesome story of saints witnessing the infant being cut up and eaten during the Liturgy, is edifying as well as chilling. But when I hear accusations of cannibalism, I think of impiety more suited to Voltaire than to Christians. To a 'clever' godless mind, it's cannibalism. But what my question was really about was not whether Holy Communion is the real Body and Blood, but what distinction we can make between 'symbolic' and 'spiritual'. Your approach seems to render these things as being the same, but are they? Do we in fact have physical reality on the one hand and a symbolic/spiritual reality on the other, or can we also differentiate between the symbolic and the spiritual? If we can, then it may be correct to say that there is a spiritual 'aspect' to Holy Communion (as well as a physical one), and yet Holy Communion is not just symbolic. What do you think?

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron,

I think the indication of the answer is provided by your words:


As far as we humans are concerned, the 'sacrifice' part of the Liturgy was - I thought - a 'sacrifice of praise', by which we mean the love, worship, readiness and obedience for our lives to be sanctified.

In other words as the prayer of the Liturgy itself conveys during the anaphora, the Liturgy is an act of thanksgiving and love to God for all that He has done for us in terms of the dispensation of the Incarnation.

So:

But what the Son possibly gave to the Father in sacrificing himself for humanity - here my mind boggles!

Yes certainly. For the the Liturgy is also a participation in the offering in love of the Son of God both for us and to God the Father.

Thus the Son of God provides an image for us of offering of Himself- in a way the primordial liturgical action-whether in terms of the Incarnation or creation or the overall divine dispensation. We then at the Liturgy participate in this same love of Christ offering ourselves as we can in image of Christ's offering of Himself.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Michael Woods]

Christ "giving something" to the Father. He can't really "give" the Father anything which is not already in the possession of both!

Dear Byron,

To your statement on Christ giving to the Father. At first sight, it looks as if this can not be done. But I wonder, Can Christ give something that is not in his possession. Christ gift to the Father was all of Humanity. But there is one part that is not Christ to give. And that is freewill.

So the freedom given to us in love by Christ, we freely give back to God. There by, Christ gives all of humanity to God by way of Holy Communion.

"There is then I think a circular movement in these word: God - man - God."

Is this a correct thought?

In Christ,
Michael

[Antonios]

Dear Byron,

To your statement on Christ giving to the Father. At first sight, it looks as if this can not be done. But I wonder, Can Christ give something that is not in his possession. Christ gift to the Father was all of Humanity. But there is one part that is not Christ to give. And that is freewill.

So the freedom given to us in love by Christ, we freely give back to God. There by, Christ gives all of humanity to God by way of Holy Communion.

"There is then I think a circular movement in these word: God - man - God."

Is this a correct thought?

In Christ,
Michael


Dear Michael,

Here is a prophecy from Malachi which may be applicable to your statement.



For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts. (Malachi 1:11)


In Christ,
Antonios

[Michael Woods]

Here is a prophecy from Malachi which may be applicable to your statement.

Dear Antonios,

I see where man - kind has polluted the offerings to God. And Christ is purifying the offering once for all. But, could you go into the prophecy of Malachi 1:11 in more detail.

In Christ,
Michael

[Antonios]

I see where man - kind has polluted the offerings to God. And Christ is purifying the offering once for all. But, could you go into the prophecy of Malachi 1:11 in more detail.

Dear Michael,

There is a wonderful book I recommend to you entitled "Experiences During the Divine Liturgy" which you could purchase here (http://www.stanthonysmonastery.org/ccp6/index.php?app=ccp0&ns=prodshow&ref=3EXPERDIVLIT). It has recently been translated from the original Greek. This is quoted from page 359:


________________________________________________



<<Thine own of thine own we offer unto thee in behalf of all and for all>>


With this exclamation, the Celebrant Priest holds the Precious Gifts in cross-wise fashion (his right hand over the left), elevates them slightly and makes the sign of the Cross; at the same time, he says "Thine own of thine own..."

In the past a certain commentator who was interpreting the exclamation and the words of the Holy Anaphora's Prayer that are said inaudibly prior to this exclamation, said the following: "Having constantly in mind this saving commandment and all that has been done for us, for our salvation, that is the Cross, the Passion, the Burial, keeping all of these in mind, we offer You, Lord," "all Thine own that belong to Thee". <<In behalf of all>> that is to say, in relation to those which are commanded by You and according to the Apostolic Injunctions, <<and for all>>, that is for all that you have done for us." This interpretation is simpler and more comprehensive.

Many Fathers, however, relate the words <<Thine own of thine own>> to one of Malachi's Messianic Prophesies that is, with the undefiled and clean Sacrifice of the Holy Table, which the Holy Spirit consummates, confirms, and seals. At precisely that moment when the priest invokes the Most Holy Spirit, to convert the Precious Gifts that are being offered into the Body and Blood of Christ, he associates and unites the earthly Altar with the most heavenly One, the Triumphant with the Militant Church.

Thus, the many and numerable Altars of all the Holy Orthodox Churches, throughout the world, are gathered into the same heavenly Altar; and their many offered Sacrifices of the Same Lamb, "which taketh away the sins of the world" become ONE and only, clean and undefiled! Therefore, this is why we praise, bless and give thanks to God the Father, as the people chant it, when we offer our bloodless Sacrifice.

All this divine banquet of heaven and earth also becomes our own conquest and nourishment, divine taste and life! Through the Celebrant Priest and along with the priest, all of the faithful, striving Christians in the Church reach the heavenly Altar. In Divine Worship all of us so long as we are partakers of Holy Communion, receive the Grace of the Most Holy Spirit, and therefore become the Body of Christ! We become Christ bearers, god bearers, spirit beareres. Nevertheless, the ones who are not communicants still receive Grace.

These inconceivable, awesome and strange Mysteries become known through certain events. If we are living them, fine. Because, however, we are not experiencing them, we refer to certain stories to see how real the things that take place in the Divine Worship are...


________________________________________________


In Christ,
Antonios

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

Fr Raphael, thank you for the further clarification:
the Liturgy is also a participation in the offering in love of the Son of God both for us and to God the Father. Thus the Son of God provides an image for us of offering of Himself- in a way the primordial liturgical action-whether in terms of the Incarnation or creation or the overall divine dispensation. We then at the Liturgy participate in this same love of Christ offering ourselves as we can in image of Christ's offering of Himself. Of course, the whole of Christ's earthly sojourn is an act of offering. I forget this sometimes, as it's 'easier' for me to see the sacrifice on the cross as 'sacrifice', than it is to see the Incarnation as an act of kenosis, or indeed creation itself as generosity. Yet paradoxically, it is the sacrifice on the cross I also find most incomprehensible. What could the Father possibly gain from the crucifixion of His Son? Michael suggests Christ is offering humanity to the Father. I suppose he means here that Christ as the New Adam, as the sinless victim, dies for all humanity to be recapitulated in Him. This itself is 'mind-blowing' enough as a possibility; but what the Father may stand to gain from this process, I find truly bewildering. Perhaps it is the Father's joy to see humanity forgiven and restored; but immediately I think of how God is not second to some irrevocable Law beyond Him: He could forgive and restore without the cross. So once again I return: Christ died for us, to show us a Way - but is it even correct to imagine that His death 'did something for' the Father?

Thank you Antonios, for the book recommendation and the apt explanation of what goes on during the anaphora. I wonder: what is the significance of referring to an Old Testament text (Malachi 1:11) at this most sacred moment in the Christian Liturgy?

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Byron,

The Son's sacrifice is not so that the Father can gain something from this or that this does something for the Father.

It is rather an act of pure love towards the Father.

The greater context though is that Trinitarian relationship of continual love between the three divine Persons. So that giving in love and reception of this are essential to this relationship. In other words we shouldn't only look at how the Son offers Himself eternally to the Father; we also should look at how the Father in turn receives this love completing the relationship. And this of course is the whole point: the Three persons giving and receiving eternally among each other.

I haven't much thought of this before in terms of Christ's sacrifice for us. However could it be that this also is not primarily so that we gain something but rather as an act of pure love for us?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Antonios]

I wonder: what is the significance of referring to an Old Testament text (Malachi 1:11) at this most sacred moment in the Christian Liturgy?

Dear Byron,

Here is a compilation of quotes from the Church Fathers regarding Malachi 1:11 and the Eucharist which I found from this site (http://lumengentleman.blogspot.com/2004/10/malachi-111-and-church-fathers.html).

The Didache, 70-90 AD

But every Lord’s day do ye gather yourselves together, and break bread, and give thanksgiving after having confessed your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one that is at variance with his fellow come together with you, until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice may not be profaned. For this is that which was spoken by the Lord: In every place and time offer to me a pure sacrifice; for I am a great King, saith the Lord, and my name is wonderful among the nations. (Didache, 14)

Apostolic Constitutions, 80-120 AD

Instead of a bloody sacrifice, He has appointed that reasonable and unbloody mystical one of His body and blood, which is performed to represent the death of the Lord by symbols. Instead of the divine service confined to one place, He has commanded and appointed that He should be glorified from sunrising to sunsetting in every place of His dominion. (Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, Book VI, cap. 23)

. On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that is, the Lord’s day, assemble yourselves together, without fail, giving thanks to God, and praising Him for those mercies God has bestowed upon you through Christ, and has delivered you from ignorance, error, and bondage, that your sacrifice may be unspotted, and acceptable to God, who has said concerning His universal Church: “In every place shall incense and a pure sacrifice be offered unto me; for I am a great King, saith the Lord Almighty, and my name is wonderful among the heathen.” (ibid., Book VII, cap. 30)

St. Justin Martyr, 150-160 AD

God speaks by the mouth of Malachi, one of the twelve [prophets], as I said before, about the sacrifices at that time presented by you: ‘I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; and I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands: for, from the rising of the sun unto the going down of the same, My name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure offering: for My name is great among the Gentiles, saith the Lord: but ye profane it.’ [So] He then speaks of those Gentiles, namely us, who in every place offer sacrifices to Him, i.e., the bread of the Eucharist, and also the cup of the Eucharist, affirming both that we glorify His name, and that you profane . ([I]Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, 41)

Accordingly, God, anticipating all the sacrifices which we offer through this name, and which Jesus the Christ enjoined us to offer, i.e., in the Eucharist of the bread and the cup, and which are presented by Christians in all places throughout the world, bears witness that they are well-pleasing to Him. But He utterly rejects those presented by you and by those priests of yours, saying, ‘And I will not accept your sacrifices at your hands; for from the rising of the sun to its setting my name is glorified among the Gentiles (He says); but ye profane it.’ (ibid., 117)

St. Irenaeus, 180-190 AD

Again, giving directions to His disciples to offer to God the first-fruits ... He took that created thing, bread, and gave thanks, and said, “This is My body.” And the cup likewise ... He confessed to be His blood, and taught the new oblation of the new covenant; which the Church receiving from the apostles, offers to God throughout all the world ... concerning which Malachi, among the twelve prophets, thus spoke beforehand: “I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord Omnipotent, and I will not accept sacrifice at your hands. For from the rising of the sun, unto the going down [of the same], My name is glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to My name, and a pure sacrifice; for great is My name among the Gentiles, saith the Lord Omnipotent” - indicating in the plainest manner, by these words, that the former people [the Jews] shall indeed cease to make offerings to God, but that in every place sacrifice shall be offered to Him, and that a pure one; and His name is glorified among the Gentiles. (Against the Heresies, Book IV, cap. 17, 5)

Those who have become acquainted with the secondary constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, “from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;” ... And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus, 37)

The Divine Liturgy of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist Mark, ante 200 AD

We offer this reasonable and bloodless sacrifice, which all nations, from the rising to the setting of the sun, from the north and the south, present to Thee, O Lord; for great is Thy name among all peoples, and in all places are incense, sacrifice, and oblation offered to Thy holy name. (Liturgy of Mark, 3:13)

Tertullian, 197-220 AD

Now the Greek letter TAU and our own letter T is the very form of the cross, which He predicted would be the sign on our foreheads in the true Catholic Jerusalem, in which, according to the twenty-first Psalm, the brethren of Christ or children of God would ascribe glory to God the Father ... with this agrees also the prophecy of Malachi: “I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord; neither will I accept your offerings: for from the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place sacrifice shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering” - such as the ascription of glory, and blessing, and praise, and hymns. Now, inasmuch as all these things are also found amongst you, and the sign upon the forehead, and the sacraments of the church, and the offerings of the pure sacrifice, you ought now to burst forth, and declare that the Spirit of the Creator prophesied of your Christ. (The Five Books Against Marcion, Book III, cap. 22)

St. Augustine 354-430 AD

Malachi, foretelling the Church ... says most openly to the Jews, in the person of God, “I have no pleasure in you, and I will not accept a gift at your hand. For from the rising even to the going down of the sun, my name is great among the nations; and in every place sacrifice shall be made, and a pure oblation shall be offered unto my name: for my name shall be great among the nations, saith the Lord.” Since we can already see this sacrifice offered to God in every place, from the rising of the sun to his going down, through Christ’s priesthood after the order of Melchisedec, while the Jews, to whom it was said, “I have no pleasure in you, neither will I accept a gift at your hand,” cannot deny that their sacrifice has ceased, why do they still look for another Christ, when they read this in the prophecy, and see it fulfilled, which could not be fulfilled except through Him? (The City of God, Book XVII, cap. 35)


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Malachi.jpg

Russian Orthodox icon of the prophet Malachi, 18th century

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear all,

What a beautifully displayed icon of the Prophet Malachi Antonios, thank you! Jews stopped offering animal sacrifices to God in 70 A.D., the year of the destruction of the second Temple of Solomon. The temple was the divinely appointed site for such sacrifices, and so when it was destroyed, animal sacrifices ceased; instead of animal sacrifices, prayer, repentance and contrition of the heart has since been regarded as the acceptable sacrifice to God by Jewish people, and so this is what goes on - or should go on, I suppose - in Synagogues until today. Of course, Malachi delivered his prophecies around 420 B.C., before the destruction of the temple, so in Malachi 1:11 he was taking the Jewish people of his era to task for their lack of faith and weak application; it seems indeed striking, to me, that his comment on the sacrifice of Gentiles being accepted over those of God's own chosen people, should eventually have come to pass in the Christian dispensation. Malachi also prophesied that before God (Christ) came to the temple, He would send His servant (John the Forerunner) to prepare the way. It's hard to doubt the authenticity of a continuity between the OT and the NT in the light of such prophecies.

It's interesting, too, that the Apostolic Constitutions refer to Holy Communion as
performed to represent the death of the Lord by symbols Elsewhere Irenaus refers to the bread and wine as 'antitypes' of the Body and Blood. Could someone tell us what is meant by 'symbols' and 'antitypes' here?

Fr Raphael, your perspective is very helpful. Christ's sacrifice as an act of love, both towards the Father and towards us. Of course, this sacrifice did involve specific gifts for us, such as the payment of debt. If it was an act of pure love towards the Father, which I believe it was, then could it be seen as a sort of gesture from the Son to the Father? I apologize for trying to put a label on something I clearly don't understand!

In Christ
Byron

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Byron wrote:


Christ's sacrifice as an act of love, both towards the Father and towards us. Of course, this sacrifice did involve specific gifts for us, such as the payment of debt. If it was an act of pure love towards the Father, which I believe it was, then could it be seen as a sort of gesture from the Son to the Father? I apologize for trying to put a label on something I clearly don't understand!


Perhaps you could explain more fully what you mean by "gesture from the Son to Father"?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Fr Raphael,

Well, I'm just thinking spontaneously that, if we do not consider the Father as 'gaining something' from the Crucifixion of His Son, then perhaps we can understand Christ's sacrifice as a sign of devotion to His Father, of obedience to the Father's Will, unto death, though death per se was neither owed nor demanded? (The Father's Will here being perhaps for His Son to complete His earthly mission in the way Christ knew to be true to mankind and creation, in other words to have a Son of integrity?)

I don't know what the above notion implies though, from the perspective of defeating death by death. If it's 'just' a gesture, then it isn't necessary; but if it's an act with cosmic consequences, then it's very necessary indeed. But perhaps what is necessary to the creation is not necessary to the Creator...

In Christ
Byron

[Michael Woods]

Well, I'm just thinking spontaneously that, if we do not consider the Father as 'gaining something' from the Crucifixion of His Son, then perhaps we can understand Christ's sacrifice as a sign of devotion to His Father, of obedience to the Father's Will, unto death, though death per se was neither owed nor demanded? (The Father's Will here being perhaps for His Son to complete His earthly mission in the way Christ knew to be true to mankind and creation, in other words to have a Son of integrity?)

I don't know what the above notion implies though, from the perspective of defeating death by death.

Dear Byron,

The question you ask Father Raphael, seems to me in my small mind. That if one looks at the sacrifice of human life, and thinks of what is really being given for that life. Than you would probably think of giving to the love of good, which is the Creator God. Not to the the evil one, or the one's that crucified Christ. But as I have read somewhere, that the devil crying and howling out for a death for sin. Where by God gave the devil what he ask for. Which in return conquered death, hell and the grave.

"Christ took the sting away from death when he died on the cross. 'O Death, where is the sting? O grave, where is thy victory' (1 Corinthians 15:55) He was almost telling us to challenge death to show his teeth. Death has none. Because Christ's death on the cross for us"

Where by defeating Death by Death. So in reality Christ gave in many ways, but I don't think Christ gave to the Father. Which goes back to your statement "(God), He needs nothing and gives everything."

In Christ,
Michael

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Michael,

I'd like to give a more profound response, but all I can say is - I think you're probably right!

In Christ
Byron

P.S. As for the devil, I give up. It seems a lot more creative to be wondering what God wants! ;-)

[Hieromonk Aidan]

One thing that never seems to have been resolved in this thread, is whether or not Our Saviour actually drank of the final offered drink of "vinegar about hyssop." He "tasted," He "received." But if someone poked that contraption with vinegar against my own mouth, I might be forced to take a little into my mouth (taste or receive) but I might yet choose not to swallow it.

My impression is that the Lord did not swallow, or drink, but "tasted" and passively "received" a trickle into His mouth from it.

Would this be wrong to understand?

Fr. Hieromonk Aidan+
a sinner

[Paul Cowan]

This is what I had always thought. He told His disciples He would not partake of it again until He was with them in His kingdom. So that there tells us he did not swallow.