← The Lord of Spirits
The Lord of Spirits
Pantheon and Pandemonium XXI: Asynchronous Q&A June 2026
The Podfathers reach down into the audio mailbag to answer your questions. You never quite know what people are willing to say into voicemail, so here we go!
Loading summary
Transcript712 lines
- [01:06]
A
Greetings, dragon slayers, giant killers. You are listening to the 141st episode of the Lord of Spirits podcast. I'm Father Andrew Stephen Damick and skunst in the palace of podcasting in Raleigh, North Kakalaki. And with me is father Steven DeYoung, chest deep in the swamps of Lafayette, Louisiana. We're not live because we're both at a conference. At the same conference, actually. Yes. Why would anyone do that? Why would they invite both of us? You have to be there.
- [01:34]
B
Some people, I think, assume that we travel together. Like we ride around on a bicycle built for two.
- [01:40]
A
That would be a pretty funny picture, actually.
- [01:43]
B
If they want one of us, they feel like they need to, you know, we are actually detachable.
- [01:49]
A
The way that that email usually goes is, yeah, Father Steven's not available, but I'm happy to come to your thing, which is really just kind of code for, yeah, he only does that, like, as a favor to people.
- [02:02]
B
Yeah, you gotta come to me on the day of my daughter's wedding and then maybe I'll come to you.
- [02:06]
A
Exactly, exactly. And since you don't have a daughter, then there it is.
- [02:12]
B
Yeah, that makes it rough. Exactly.
- [02:16]
A
Anyway, yeah, so this one's not live because we're both at the same conference. This is a mailbag episode wherein we will answer questions that you sent in via our speak pipe link. And I'm going to warn you all now that there are multiple Dutchmen whose voices are in the mailbag. And one, of course, being a little aggressive with his Dutchness. So I assume you're fully armed and ready.
- [02:36]
B
I do have a question about the new studio.
- [02:38]
A
Oh, yeah.
- [02:39]
B
In North Carolina.
- [02:40]
A
Yeah.
- [02:40]
B
Yeah.
- [02:40]
C
Yes.
- [02:41]
B
Have you installed the cheerwine spigot yet?
- [02:45]
A
There's a guy supposed to be coming next week, so. Yeah.
- [02:49]
C
Yep.
- [02:50]
B
This Cheerwine on tap.
- [02:51]
A
Yep. Well, and 10 minutes from here, relatedly related to the cuisine of this blessed region. 10 minutes from here is a place that is literally on the historic barbecue map of the Barbecue Society of North Carolina. And that is Stevenson's. And we have already tested the place out, and it is everything. Everything I tell you that it is cracked up to be. So, yeah, now people like pulling out their maps, trying to figure out where Stevenson is. Like, okay, he's somewhere in a 10 mile, 10 minute radius from here.
- [03:22]
B
We're going to track him down. A little compass circle.
- [03:24]
A
I know.
- [03:25]
B
Exactly. Nobody has one of those anymore, do they? Oh, man, that's waves of serious safety risk. To be fair. That is true.
- [03:35]
A
Give everyone this piercing weapon. Yeah. So yes, yes. Great to be back in the south, actually. I will say the Stevensons not only had glorious pit barbecue, but it also had the best hush puppies I've ever had. Um, so, yes, come on down.
- [03:59]
B
And he. He doesn't mean the shoes, ladies.
- [04:01]
A
No, no, no. Hush puppies are the most blessed way to make cornbread, really, is what it comes down to being. Although I do have a place in my heart for corn pone, which a lot of people have probably never even heard of.
- [04:14]
B
Texas would like to have a word about the cornbread too.
- [04:16]
A
Really? Texas cornbread?
- [04:18]
B
I'll leave that to them. Yes, I'll leave that to them.
- [04:20]
A
I will challenge any Texan to come to Stevenson's and have some hush puppies and walk away not in tears of joy, for what he has just experienced doesn't have them.
- [04:32]
B
Jalapenos.
- [04:33]
A
There are not jalapenos in traditional hush puppies. So. Yeah, yeah. Anyway. All right, well, we've got 21 calls lined up for this speak.
- [04:47]
B
21 savages, as it were.
- [04:48]
A
Indeed. Indeed. So let's get to it. Okay, well, our first one in this first half comes from a guy named Andrew. I mean, there's nothing wrong with that.
- [05:00]
C
Hello, fathers. My name is Andrew from Houston, Texas. I was reading 1 Kings 6:1 and starts with the in the 480th year after the Israelites came out of Egypt. This got me thinking about 490 years since close to 4 AD and how 70 of those years would have to be paid back in captivity due to not letting the land rest. However, 10 years from 1st Kings 6:1 and Solomon building the temple is not when Israel is taken into captivity. That happens much later. I've heard it mentioned on this show or whole council that Israel actually never managed to let the land rest for a Sabbath year. But if that's true, it seems like they would owe a lot more than 70 years because at the time they get exiled, it's been roughly 800 years since they got out of Egypt, not 490. So when or why does this 490 year clock start for Israel if not right when they first receive the command to let the land rest? And I know arguing Exodus dates is not of interest to the show. Not trying to touch that curious on yalls thoughts. Thanks.
- [06:11]
A
Okay, so Andrew's doing some math and the mathing is not mathing for him.
- [06:17]
B
Yes.
- [06:18]
A
What's the deal with this one? I have no idea of the answer.
- [06:22]
B
Yeah, so what gets destroyed in the exile is not the people, it's the kingdom. That's why before Christ ascends, will you now restore the kingdom to Israel? That's the real end of the exile, is when the kingdom is restored. So the kingdom is what falls, so that 490 years in Jeremiah is counted from the establishment of the kingdom. So Saul's coronation to the exile.
- [06:54]
A
Okay, so that would mean.
- [06:58]
B
So you're starting in the 11th century B.C.
- [07:01]
A
yeah. And the individual tribes were. I don't know, were they being expected to do, you know, the, the. The jubilee years or whatever? The, the once every seventh year?
- [07:11]
B
Yes, they were.
- [07:13]
A
Yeah, but God wasn't.
- [07:14]
B
I mean, everyone was supposed to be
- [07:15]
A
doing that, counting it against them, until they actually had a king who could have enforced that on everybody.
- [07:20]
B
Right, because it's the kingdom that's taken away.
- [07:23]
A
Yeah. Gotcha, gotcha. Okay. All right. That's pretty straightforward. I think that's the only math question. I can't remember, though. I have to look anyway. All right, this next one comes from Basil, who has a question about, well, basically death by holiness and the sacraments.
- [07:43]
C
Hello, Fathers, this is Basil from Serbia leaving a message. I've been wondering a lot about when St. Paul talks about those who have fallen ill or asleep from unworthy reception of the Eucharist and how that connects to the relationship between our experience of God and his grace and our disposition toward him.
- [08:10]
B
Is this something that is. Is this danger something that's unique to
- [08:15]
C
the Eucharist in that it is Christ's flesh and blood?
- [08:20]
B
Or is this something that we understand
- [08:22]
C
to be true to perhaps a lesser degree in other mysteries of the church and vehicles of God's grace? If someone were to receive holy unction, for example, in a way that is unworthy, whatever that might look like, would
- [08:38]
B
we also understand that to be potentially physically dangerous for them as well as spiritually?
- [08:47]
C
Perhaps that's a false separation of things
- [08:50]
B
that doesn't need to be made. Or if it's the former, would we also have an understanding of Chrismation being
- [08:59]
C
that it is the reception of one of the Trinity into our. Into our person, that that could be potentially dangerous if unprepared for or received in an unworthy manner? Thank you.
- [09:12]
A
Yeah. My thought about this is that, I mean, the short answer would be yes, that yes, other sacraments can be dangerous for you. And the reason why I think that is because, for instance, doesn't St. John say in one of his epistles, it would be better that someone had never been part of the body of Christ and that they came and then left, which wouldn't that Be essentially sort of denying the grace of baptism or turning away from the grace of baptism, better not to have had it at all, he says.
- [09:46]
B
And it also occurs to me there's all the apostasy passages in Hebrews too, that talk about the sacraments.
- [09:52]
A
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I mean, it also occurs to me, having seen, frankly, some clergy crash and burn, that the crashing and the burning is kind of more horrible for the ordination having happened not just on them, but also their families and their flock and the church generally. And also the other thing that supports this idea for me is that traditionally, at least a few of the sacraments should be preceded by prayer and fasting, which why would you engage in that purification if there wasn't that need, you know, that sense of danger because of the holiness of God. Right. So like there is the custom, for instance, that when a man is going to be ordained that he spends the night by himself, if he's married by himself, in prayer and fasting. Certainly there's plenty of encouragement if someone is able to pray and fast before receiving holy unction and even, you know, fasting before confession. So, yeah, I mean, it's definitely a thing, right? I mean, the whole purpose of that prayer and fasting is purification so that someone enters into the presence of God in a worthy manner. And I mean, we're never worthy. Like, you don't become worthy, but you can do it unworthily, you know, it's how you go into it. So, yeah, I think that's definitely true. I mean, obviously St. Paul is very explicit about this in First Corinthians, but. Yeah, so that would be my understanding based on our actual practice. What do you think, Father?
- [11:36]
B
Yeah, well, yeah, And I mean, the Eucharist being Christ himself. Yes, it's ratcheted up. Right. But if you understand how we understand the relationship between grace and wrath, right. That God's grace is actually God at work in his creation, and that if you are in cooperation with that, then that is transformative in a beneficial way. If you're acting against that grace, then it's actually destructive for you. And that's what we call wrath. Then a lot of this becomes clear, that if you sort of live against your baptism and Chrismation, then that's going to become destruction for you, not a blessing. Every sacrament like that that we receive makes us more accountable. So this is why priests who are able will not necessarily baptize someone's child if they have no evidence that that child is going to be raised as an orthodox Christian.
- [12:53]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [12:55]
B
Because it's not just that it's meaningless, it's that that could actually be harmful to that child.
- [13:02]
A
Yeah.
- [13:04]
B
If you make that child an Orthodox Christian and then they live their whole life in apostasy.
- [13:09]
A
Well. And even, you know, someone who's, you know, even for an adult. Right. Who comes to the church and there's an every indication that this person is not living a repent in a repentant way has no intention of living in a repentant way.
- [13:25]
B
Right. That's why we have a part of why we have a catechum in it. And this is why I've. I've actually been asked sometimes, so if holy unction and the anointing works and heals people, why don't you just go anoint everyone?
- [13:42]
A
Right.
- [13:43]
B
Right. Go to the hospital and anoint everybody. Why do you only anoint Orthodox Christians? Because if you're outside the church, we have no reason to believe you're prepared to receive the grace of God in a helpful and positive way.
- [13:58]
A
Yeah.
- [13:59]
B
And of course, yeah. Ordination could be an absolute disaster if that's not what God has called you to and if you're not prepared to live in the way you need to live. So.
- [14:14]
A
Yeah, yeah. I mean, there are all those commandments in the scriptures for the Levites and the priests, but then also, you know, in the New Testament. Right. Talking about the kind of life of purification required of clergy. Yeah.
- [14:28]
B
And do we even need. I mean, marriage? Kind of obvious how that could be a blessing or a curse.
- [14:37]
A
Yeah.
- [14:39]
B
Depending on how you receive it and how you approach could help your salvation. It could be one of the worst things you ever do.
- [14:47]
C
Yeah.
- [14:49]
A
All right, so we've got one from Anya who she wants to know about if. If Jesus experienced dreams. Kind of an interesting question.
- [15:00]
C
Father's Bless. This is Anya from New Hampshire. Although my baptismal name is Alexandra. And thank you for taking my question. I was wondering, did Christ dream. Because we see him sleeping in the Gospels, but presumably he was not unaware of everything that was going on, like how we become unaware when we're asleep. And since dreams are an activity, or receiving dreams are an activity of the noose, like how you guys have described, does Christ also receive thoughts and dreams from outside sources? Or does that not. Is that not how that works? I would just. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. So thank you very much. Take care.
- [15:55]
A
Yeah. I honestly, I had never even considered this question before. I did do a little bit of looking to see. I mean, obviously in Scripture it never says that he dreams. It never says that. And I did look to see if I could find, if any of the fathers address that question. And I could not find anything about that. I mean, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Because once again, to say, well, none of the fathers say is not a thing that I think I could ever say. Because that means a level of translated into English. Exactly. Reading comprehension, access to texts, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Like no patristic scholar I've ever met or read says. None of the fathers say. Yeah, they might say something like, I'm not aware of any of the fathers saying. Although, actually, on that vein, I should just mention that just the other day, the great patristic scholar Robert Lewis Wilkin just died. I think he was almost 90. So may God give him rest. But I mean, Christ being fully human kind of suggests that he may well have experienced dreams. And of course, she mentions the idea of the human mind, the noose, receiving thoughts. I, you know, one thought that I had as. I'm just trying to think about this because I. Like I said, I don't. I've never really looked into this question is, could our experience of thoughts and dreams and so forth be. Is that connected to or. Or influenced by or determined by the fact that our wills have become gnomic and that that's what makes us sort of subject to those things? I don't know. I. I'm just throwing stuff out there. I just want to hear what you had to say, actually.
- [17:40]
B
Yeah. Well, so part of this is a question we can't answer because part of it is contained within. The question is, what is it like to be Christ.
- [17:53]
A
Right.
- [17:54]
B
Which is not something we can understand. I mean, that in the sense that how would Christ experience a dream?
- [18:02]
C
That.
- [18:02]
B
That part of the thing. Right. And this is a problem because, of course, we. We teach that Christ, you know, in 26 A.D. a.D. 26, there's Jesus of Nazareth who is at one physical place at one particular time, but at the same time, according to his divinity, he's everywhere present.
- [18:38]
A
Yeah.
- [18:40]
B
And omniscient. And so our human mind and consciousness cannot comprehend what that would quote, unquote, be like. Right. And so that carries over to if we take a particular evening in AD 26, and we see Jesus of Nazareth sleeping, according to his divinity, he is not sleeping.
- [19:08]
A
Yeah.
- [19:08]
B
And the caller alluded to this, that he was aware. Right, right. As God, he is still awake. And so, I mean, we could even get granular about this, that the particular electrical activity in the brain associated with Dreaming is restorative and helpful to the physical organ of the brain. And so presumably Christ's human brain. Right, Human material brain, would experience that kind of electrical activity while he slept. But does that mean that he, in his consciousness was experiencing, having a dream?
- [19:55]
A
Yeah.
- [19:58]
B
Right. Like, we can't answer that question. And so the way in which dreams are related to the noose, the idea that people have visions and dreams, like frequently in the Old Testament, for example, in Genesis and Daniel, I mean, Christ didn't have any need of revelation as God. Things weren't revealed to him in that way. So the kind of noetic purposes of dreaming weren't something he needed. And we kind of can't get at his experience.
- [20:40]
A
Yeah, so, yeah, just kind of a.
- [20:43]
B
There's an unsatisfying answer.
- [20:45]
A
A question mark. Right, exactly. Just the way it is, Anya. But interesting question nonetheless. All right, this next one comes from Joe Jacob, who wants to know about the language of the liturgy being a bloodless or unbloody sacrifice.
- [21:03]
C
Hello, Fathers. I loved your episode on the scriptural understanding of blood, martyrdom and sacrifice. I wish I had a funny or witty pun, but I would just make a fool of myself. I just wanted to ask, in the liturgy, why do we say that it's a bloodless sacrifice? I know that we're not literally sacrificing blood at that moment, but my understanding, especially after listening your episode, is that there really was a blood sacrifice. And so what's the proper understanding? And thank you so much for all you do.
- [21:43]
A
Yeah, I mean, this is another thing that I've never really looked deeply into, but at least the way that it's always been explained to me, and maybe this is wrong. I don't know. There is. I've seen that translated as bloodless, unbloody, without the shedding of blood. I've seen all those translations in liturgical books. The way it's always been explained to me is essentially that because the sacrifice of the Eucharist is participating in Christ's sacrifice on the cross, that his blood has already been shed. And so it's not a new shedding of blood effectively. But I don't know, maybe that's just a kind of pedestrian explanation that's a little too time bound or whatever. I don't know what is with that? I mean, how does that relate to all the Levitical stuff and. And so forth?
- [22:36]
B
I mean, that's not wrong at its core.
- [22:38]
A
Okay, all right, right.
- [22:40]
B
The idea that we're not shedding any new blood, and the main point of that, and it's coupled often with noetic as a descriptor that the sacrifice is noetic and unbloody. And then noetic there gets translated into English with words like rational or reasonable or ideal.
- [23:05]
A
Even I.
- [23:06]
B
The ideal.
- [23:08]
A
And I love. My favorite is, you know, an ideal altar, like, oh, that's the very best.
- [23:12]
B
I don't know.
- [23:13]
A
It's just. I know what they mean.
- [23:14]
B
Platonic form of alters.
- [23:16]
A
I think we just need to say noetic and then just explain what that word means.
- [23:20]
B
Yeah, yeah. But so what that's pointing to is the fact that what we're doing, and no, esis here, is the sort of mechanism. Right. What we're doing is a participation in Christ's one sacrifice.
- [23:35]
A
Okay.
- [23:37]
B
That we're not. This is not a new sacrifice. This is not an additional sacrifice. We are not shedding more blood. Right. But we are participating noetically in Christ's one sacrifice through the means of offering the Eucharist.
- [23:56]
A
Yeah. Because, I mean, on its face, it seems kind of weirdly contradictory. You're talking about an unbloody sacrifice, and there is the blood in the chalice right in front of you, or is about to be. I can't remember.
- [24:06]
B
Here is the blood of Christ.
- [24:07]
A
Yeah, exactly. But, yeah, I think it's that notion that it's not. There's no shedding of blood, which I. Which explains that one. I'm not sure what the literal translation would be because I don't know what. I don't remember what the word is exactly. But that's the one that makes the most sense to me, is without the shedding of blood or without a new shedding of blood implied. So, yeah. All right. Okay. Well, this next one comes from a member of your tribe, and I'll just let him speak for himself. His name is Nicholas.
- [24:40]
C
Hello, Fathers. This is Nicholas from Holland. Before my question, Father Stephen keeps saying he's Dutch, but his Dutch is poor. He has probably never, ever been to the Netherlands. So I think it's safest to describe him as a wannabe Dutchman. My question is this.
- [24:56]
A
Wow.
- [24:57]
C
Does Christ ask us to simply attend church, or does he ask us to become an actual Christian community? Because the New Testament seems to describe salvation as being joined to a people, a body, a shared life, and not just showing up for services. So when the jailer asks, what must I do to be saved? Is the orthodox answer basically, go to church? Or is more expected to be united to Christ in his body, to live in repentance and to actually share a life of love? Services sacrifice and responsibility with our Christians. Can someone who merely attends services while remaining isolated still be sad to live a normal Christian life? Or does Christ expect something deeper? Not just a crowd in a room, but a real communion? We really, really need a definitive answer to this question. Thank you.
- [25:55]
A
So before you address his gauntlet throwing down of your Dutch osity, Dutchness, duchessness, I mean, honestly, it seems to me that the answer to this question is pretty obvious. Of course, Christian community is about much more than simply attending church services. I mean, that is the heart of what the Christian community does, is to worship Christ and to pray to Christ and to offer up the sacrifice of the Eucharist and incense and so forth. So I don't know if his question is like, you know, a bit of a sermon, you know what I mean? Like those, like those, you know, evangelical Protestant prayers, which you can tell the guy is actually preaching to the audience rather than so much talking to God. But, yeah, I mean, it's true. It's true that the. The implied rebuke that he's got there in his question, which is, you know, a lot of people just go to church, and that's the definition of their Christian life. But I would also add that I think there's a continuum. And I think that even if someone. If the only thing they do that's Christian is go to church, that that's not wrong. It's maybe, you know, needs to be improved upon.
- [27:12]
B
Better than nothing.
- [27:13]
A
Exactly. Way, way better than nothing. But then also sort of in between those things is, and this is probably where most people actually fall is the faithful orthodox Christian who goes to church faithfully. And the way that they live out Christian community is largely about their own homes, their husbands, wives, their kids, their parents living together and just trying to be nice to each other. You're just trying to be kind to each other and take care of each other to some extent. And that may be, at least here in the US I think that's true. And that may be a reflection, of course, of kind of our nuclear family culture or just the commuter culture of a lot of our parishes. You know, people driving an hour plus to church from any direction may well not even have a sense of the needs of the person who lives two hours in the other direction. And especially if it's like hundreds and hundreds of people going to church together, they may not even know a lot of the other people in their church. That said, I mean, I think the point that's kind of within that question, which is that we should be taking care of each other's needs and really having a common life. I mean, it's a good. Obviously, it's a good point, you know, but so, yeah, I mean, you know, point made. Nicholas, I think you have a definitive answer. That was a good thing you said at the end. We need a definitive answer to the question. I mean, it's pretty straightforward. I think you're. You're right, of course. So I don't know if you want to add or alter that or whatever, Father, but. But also there's, you know, the matter of what he said at the beginning.
- [28:51]
B
Yes, no, that's. That's fine. But I do need to tell about, you know, when I was a kid, at one point I asked my dad if he'd ever thought about, you know, taking the family and moving back to the Netherlands, and he said no, because all the good ones left. Oh. So.
- [29:11]
A
Wow.
- [29:12]
B
If the gauge of Dutchness is the current level of degradation of culture that goes on in the cities of Holland, I don't know that that's something I want to be.
- [29:23]
C
Wow.
- [29:25]
A
Yeah, Well, I mean, Nicholas, obviously.
- [29:28]
B
So back has been clapped.
- [29:29]
A
Perhaps. Perhaps your. Your. What's the word I'm looking for? Your admonition. There we go. Your admonition to your fellow Christians is one that could see some service in the Netherlands, as a matter of fact. So. Yeah. All right. Okay. This next one comes from Rachel.
- [29:57]
C
Hi, fathers. This is Rachel calling from Walnut Creek, California. My question is short and sweet, but might be a bit of a thinker. How is Christ the Lamb that was slain before the foundation of the world, if death entered through Adam's sin? Yeah, thank you.
- [30:17]
A
There you go. Some wibbly, wobbly, timey wimey stuff here. How is it that he can. How is it that that language from revelation about Christ being the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Although I know that there's like some quibbling over exactly how you should translate
- [30:32]
C
that,
- [30:35]
A
how is that possible when death doesn't enter in except through Adam's transgression?
- [30:42]
B
So part of the importance here is. Is the Lamb slain? So it's not talking about. Or the slain. You could translate the slain lamb. Right. Meaning that's an adjective. That's being used as an adjective describing
- [31:01]
C
the Lamb
- [31:03]
B
and talking about the existence of the Lamb in that state. So it's talking about Christ's sacrifice, his voluntary self offering as a sacrifice.
- [31:13]
C
That.
- [31:13]
B
That is an eternal reality. That is an eternal reality.
- [31:19]
A
Yeah.
- [31:21]
B
So it's not talking about him having been Christ dying in time before God created the World, because there was no time before God created the world in all senses in which you could take that sentence.
- [31:40]
A
Time is a creation.
- [31:43]
B
Yes. So the word before here is being used more like outside of. Outside of the temporal sequence. Just like we say that Christ was begotten of the Father before all worlds. By that, we're not saying expressly. Expressly. We are not saying that Christ came into existence before the creation. We are saying he did not come into existence. When we say he was begotten before all worlds, that means he was begotten outside of time, without respect to time.
- [32:23]
A
Yeah. I think one of the big difficulties is that when you're talking about Christ, who is God and therefore unbound by any created limitation or by any limitation at all, that on the one hand you can't simply. Right. Like, this is something that comes up every so often in certain circles on the Internet because, you know, especially talking about, as we have the Incarnation and its sort of eternal impact. Like, if I recall correctly, some of the Church fathers say it is not right to say that the flesh of Christ is infinite, but at the same time, it's also not correct to say that Christ's flesh is simply bound by creation in the way that say, yours and my flesh is bound by creation. You know, because there is no Eucharist version of you, Father Stephen, or of me.
- [33:24]
B
Right.
- [33:25]
A
You know that the un. You know, that Christ. Christ's humanity, having become deified, is no longer bound by the limitations of. Of the created flesh.
- [33:39]
B
A lot of the problem with people trying to proof text that stuff from the Fathers, though, that they don't take into account is when is it talking about the Incarnation and when is it talking about Christ's glorified body?
- [33:53]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [33:58]
B
And even then, things get a little bit tricky at the Mystical Supper.
- [34:04]
A
Right.
- [34:05]
B
Especially because the Fathers will tell you, even though Jesus is sitting there at the table when he says that it's his body and it's his blood, it is his body and his blood
- [34:19]
A
that
- [34:20]
B
he's handing to his disciples.
- [34:24]
A
Yeah.
- [34:25]
B
So even there, that gets tricky.
- [34:27]
A
Yeah. The difficulty is in trying to find language that. That conveys what it is, has been revealed, not in trying to come up with philosophical categories to define. This is what it means for Christ's flesh to interact with linear time.
- [34:44]
B
Right. And so usually the quotes that people point out that'll say Christ's flesh is inhibited or Christ only in one flesh is only in one place. This is talking about the Incarnation in the sense that the Fathers are trying to make the Point, point. That his human nature isn't absorbed into his divine nature.
- [35:02]
A
Yeah.
- [35:03]
B
A la certain heretics.
- [35:05]
A
Right, right.
- [35:06]
B
And this kind of thing, that his human nature is a real human nature. His human body is a real human body. That's the point they're trying to make. They're talking about the Incarnation. Where you get the other things is when you're talking about after Christ's glorification, which is the glorification of his humanity, it's his humanity that is glorified again with the glory he shared with the Father qua divine nature. He never lost that glory. Right, right. He never departed from that glory. The proof of that is holy theophany, where he reveals it.
- [35:46]
A
Yeah,
- [35:48]
B
but so his humanity. It's his humanity that is glorified and enthroned when he ascends into heaven. His divinity was always on the throne with the Father of the Spirit. It is his humanity that descends into the lower parts of the earth and then ascends into heaven so that he can fill all things according to Christ's divinity. He was always filling all things.
- [36:18]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [36:20]
B
Right. But that means after his glorification, his humanity is also filling all things, because his humanity after his glorification is fully participating in his divine nature. That's why. That's the whole theosis. Right. If you don't have that, you don't have theosis.
- [36:43]
A
Yeah, right.
- [36:45]
B
If Christ's human nature isn't partaking of his divine nature, then how does our humanity partake of the divine nature? Like, it all falls apart and that partaking of the divine nature involves the communication of attributes.
- [37:03]
C
Yeah.
- [37:04]
B
And the Fathers are not sort of miserly about what they're willing to say. Say Gregory Palamas will talk about becoming unbegotten and stuff.
- [37:12]
C
Right. Yeah.
- [37:13]
A
Or even, I mean, some of the Fathers, even when they talk about salvation, say it's about becoming God. And it's very clear that they don't just mean sort of lowercase G. Yeah, but.
- [37:24]
B
But you're gonna become a demigod.
- [37:26]
A
Yeah, like. But again. But again, like, it's. It's really about trying to simply convey what has been revealed in the Scriptures and is being, you know, executed by the Fathers. Not about, as I said, trying to come up with kind of philosophical systems for all of this.
- [37:45]
B
Yeah.
- [37:45]
A
Which is not the project.
- [37:46]
B
A lot of folks with a lot of, ooh, hey, I don't know.
- [37:49]
A
Right, right. Exactly. Exactly.
- [37:52]
B
Look at that language that Gregory Palmas uses. And certainly one could run too far with it.
- [37:57]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [37:58]
B
Or Try to take it too literally. He does use that in a poetic passage, so certainly you could. But we also don't have to be, like, super shy or embarrassed about our understanding of theosis.
- [38:11]
A
No. And also just remembering that the way that 21st century English speakers use English is not the same way that the various fathers in their many different centuries and their many different languages are talking as well. So, like, you can't say, well, if he says this, then it must mean this. Never, especially never having delved into the particular question within the original language and have expertise in that language and know how the language is used in that time and place, it's much better to have a restrained approach to these things.
- [38:46]
B
Yeah. Yes. And remember, the first thing to fall is always your interpretation.
- [38:52]
A
Yes. As it should be.
- [38:54]
B
So if your interpretation of a church father using the word finite about Christ's flesh is that that's after the glorification, and someone says to you, well, then how is his flesh present on every altar in the world every day? The correct response is not, you're contradicting this church father. The correct response is, oh, I guess I read him wrong.
- [39:22]
A
Right. We should always assume. That should really always be your first response when something seems like a contradiction is, I am wrong.
- [39:30]
B
Yes. I am reading this incorrectly. There's something here I don't understand.
- [39:34]
C
Yeah.
- [39:34]
A
I mean, you can never learn anything. You can never learn anything if you're not bringing that assumption with you in all your reading.
- [39:44]
B
Yeah.
- [39:44]
A
You know, so. Okay, we got one last question before we take our first break. This one comes from Levi.
- [39:53]
C
Hi, my name is Levi. I'm from Minnesota. I love the show and am calling in as a, well, not Eastern Orthodox person. So the whole logic doesn't entirely make sense to me yet. So I have a question about, like, praying for the dead. I'm under the impression it seems like from multiple episodes, I. I can't remember even exactly which ones, but that this life is given for us to. To repent. And. And like, we are given mortality so that we could repent. I remember, I think it was one of the episodes about the angels where, like, angels, like, can't repent because they are immortal, but humans were given mortality so that they could repent. If I. If I understood it right, like, so. So that, like, death is kind of a deadline for repenting. If that's so, what's. What would be the point of praying for the dead? Because it seems. That seems to me like it doesn't line up. But I'm sure there's Some answer. So just curious if you could give some insight on that. Thanks.
- [41:05]
A
Yeah, I love this question because I think this is such an important thing, because obviously the fact that we pray for the dead as Orthodox Christians is quite notable, particularly for Protestants who, you know, encounter the Orthodox Church, but also, you know, even for people with no religious background. Particularly because at least here in the United States, people have a sense of, when you're dead, you're dead, it's over for you. Right. So implied in Levi's question is why would you pray for them? Because they. They're not going to repent. Which to me. Which suggests to me that the point in praying for someone, therefore, must be so that they would repent. Like I'm praying that they'll repent. Which I think for someone in this life who can repent, that's a very good thing to pray for. Absolutely. To pray that someone would repent. Although, please try not to be vindictive about it. But even if you are better that you're praying than that you're not. But I think one of the things that is also hidden underneath this is this sense of. Of almost absolute human autonomy, which is, yes, I think it's correct to say on a certain level, especially if you're talking to the person in question, whether you partake of salvation or of damnation is ultimately up to you. I think that's a good thing to say to someone because the whole point of that, of saying that to them is so that they would repent. But I think in an absolutely technical sense, it's not actually true. Your ultimate destiny is up to God. It's up to God. And I think part of the reason why this is hard for us in the 21st century is we've achieved so much technological mastery over our world that the idea that we should just be able to get our way and not have someone impinge upon us or something impinge upon us is. Is it feels unthinkable. Which I think is part of why when people discover that governments are doing bad things, which actually, this will come up in a later question. When governments are doing bad things, they feel so angry and helpless because it's like, wait a minute, I thought that no one could do to me anything that I did not want them to do. But so anyways, the reason, ultimately why we as Orthodox Christians pray for the departed is because not because we hope that they can repent after their death in this life, because there is no hope for that, but rather that God would show mercy on them, which is actually the same thing that they're trying to achieve during their repentance in this life is that God would have mercy on them, not that they are presented with door one and door two. And you can just pick one. God is still the one opening the door. You know, you don't get to just open the door for yourself. It's still God opening the door. Now, he said, if you are faithful to me, then I will do this. That's what he said. But he also, of course, can choose to open the door to the kingdom, to anyone he desires. And he may well, likely well do that through the prayers of those who are still able to repent on behalf of those people. So, yeah, it's a tough concept, particularly if you're raised Protestant, the idea that you can repent on someone else's behalf, but it's really about making things right. So, I mean, not just praying for them, but also you could. You could repair things that they have broken. You know, that you can. You can make right what they have made wrong. And you could do that for someone that's living too. So, yeah, I mean, it's. I. I think it's a great question because it's got so many kind of layers underneath it that are really worth kind of teasing out, you know, Anything you want to add, Father? Yeah, so there's that pregnant pause. I was like, okay.
- [45:13]
B
I was waiting to be invited.
- [45:14]
A
Oh, okay. I mean, you could always jump in.
- [45:16]
B
Orange in.
- [45:16]
A
You can always jump in.
- [45:18]
B
So, yeah, there's also. There's a little bit of a skewed view of sin going on here, too, sort of presupposed in the question in that there's sort of the assumption that a sin isn't going to be forgiven unless you repent of it. And I hope that's not true, honestly. Thank God that that's not true.
- [45:38]
A
Yeah, I was gonna say I hope that's not true because, I mean, I'm trying here, but I know, I know I'm not like, I'm not being as thorough as I could.
- [45:46]
B
If we have to repent perfectly of every sin we ever commit, then it's going to be even worse than the Good Place where only that one guy made it right. Like, I don't think anybody is going to. Is going to jump through that hoop. So repentance is what we're given this life for. And repentance is one of the, if not the primary way in which we draw closer to God by repenting of our sins. Experience the transformation that comes with his grace, the healing that comes with forgiveness and then continue to advance. Right. Because we're on this journey toward God in life. So someone who has died does not have. Right until the resurrection. Right. When they have a body again, because they don't have a body and then it won't be a mortal body, does not have that sort of vehicle or that mode of drawing close to God. And so part of what we're doing when we're praying for the departed is asking God to draw close to them. And there's another sort of mystery here in that God makes it clear repeatedly in the Scriptures that his will is that all men be saved. And so you would think, or someone could think that. Well, then any departed person we pray for, God wants them to be saved. I'm praying for them. I want them to find salvation. So they should all be saved. Right. This is the mystery part.
- [47:33]
A
Yeah.
- [47:34]
B
Because the key thing, as we all know, with the God willing, all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, is that some don't, because God doesn't save people against their will. And so we don't quite. The mystery is that we don't quite understand what it means as a soul separated from a body in that state to have God draw close to you and how that interacts with your will. So that some people then are saved through the prayers of the church and God ran close to them, and then others are not. It's like the famous story with St. Gregory the Dialogist. St. Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, late 6th century, prays for all of the pagan Roman emperors who persecuted the Church. Prays for all of them. The list. Right. So every prayer, he's praying for all of them, Same number of prayers, same guy doing the praying, and one of them finds salvation.
- [48:43]
A
Yeah.
- [48:44]
B
Why that one?
- [48:45]
A
Trajan?
- [48:47]
B
Yeah.
- [48:47]
A
Why only one God knows.
- [48:51]
B
That's it. That's the mystery. But we know it's connected in some way with their will, their willingness to receive the salvation that God is offering, which is fundamentally the same as how it works in this life, but in the sense that God offers salvation to every human who comes into the world, but we have to accept and work that out. How exactly that acceptance or rejection or working out happens when you're a soul separated from a body. That's something we can't understand right now.
- [49:31]
A
Yep, yep. So, all right, great question, Levi. We're going to go ahead and take our first break, and we'll be right back with the next half of the Lord of Spirits.
- [49:46]
B
What are we to make of the unseen world and spiritual warfare. The Lord of Spirits book version is now available@store.ancientfaith.com written by Father Andrew Stephen Damick.
- [50:02]
A
To the modern mind, dragons and demons are just the inner demons of psychology and angels are often reducible to the better angels of our nature, that is to our better human impulses and virtues. Talk of spirits is really about psychology, but to the ancient mind of millennia ago, even up to the pre modern mind of just centuries ago, these are real beings with personal presence who inhabit our world and affect us. Father Andrew provides a distillation and explanation
- [50:37]
B
of the material in the popular podcast
- [50:40]
A
the Lord of Spirits, which he co hosts with Father Stephen DeYoung.
- [50:44]
B
Get this brand new book today at store.ancientfaith.com that's store.ancientfaith.com.
- [50:59]
A
Hey, welcome back, everybody. We're doing an all speak pipe episode of Laura Spears podcast because Father Steven and I are at a conference up in the wilds of northwest Arkansas. Have you been to Arkansas before, Father?
- [51:15]
B
I have been through Arkansas.
- [51:16]
A
Through Arkansas.
- [51:18]
B
And so I know pro tips. Oh yeah, you always buy gas in west Memphis, Arkansas because it's way cheaper than Memphis, Tennessee.
- [51:26]
A
Oh, okay, Duly noted, duly noted. Although I'll be flying in, so that won't be.
- [51:31]
B
Yeah, I was gonna say I don't think you're driving, but. But yeah. But yeah, I've never actually been coming through Tennessee.
- [51:37]
A
It's my. Arkansas is the only US State east of the Mississippi that I have not yet been to. And that'll change tomorrow. So I think I'll be down to.
- [51:47]
B
There you go.
- [51:48]
A
Maybe just four or five states left to visit and they're all out in the west somewhere. So.
- [51:54]
B
Yeah. Have I told you my theory about how the state got its name?
- [51:58]
A
What is your theory about how Arkansas got its name?
- [52:01]
B
My theory was they asked the settlers there, hey, what do you want to name your state? And they said Kansas. And they were like, that's taken. And they said, oh, well, this will be AR Kansas.
- [52:13]
A
Wow. I think there is some historical pronunciation where it is pronounced Arkansas. See, I'm just, I'm just shooting from the hip here.
- [52:23]
C
But.
- [52:24]
A
But yeah, yeah. Okay. All right, well, let's dive back in. We. This will be call number eight. This is from another one of your fellow Dutchmen, and I think this one actually is not quite as snarky at the beginning of the call. So here we go.
- [52:40]
B
Somewhat less aggro.
- [52:41]
A
Yes. A little bit.
- [52:42]
B
Maybe less Dutch for that fact.
- [52:46]
A
Tough but fair. Tough but fair. All Right, here we go.
- [52:50]
C
Hello, Fathers, this is Johannes from the Netherlands speaking. I had two questions about our current Christian monastic culture, so to say. In one of your episodes a long time ago, you mentioned that the monastic tradition comes somewhat out of the Nazirite tradition, that the Jewish people had. One distinction there is that there was also room for temporary Nazirite vows. Is there a specific reason that you know of that we don't take temporary monastic vows in these days? Secondly, the monastics are always pretty much settled in a specific space. And you've mentioned before that the ideal
- [53:40]
B
for Israel was that they should be
- [53:43]
C
at least somewhat nomadic. This is also where the feast of Booths comes in. Why don't we really have any monastic communities that are nomadic if there's a specific reason for that. Thank you.
- [54:00]
A
I have to say I love the way that he basically pronounced booths, the way that you very deliberately do when discussing that feast.
- [54:08]
B
Booths. Booths.
- [54:10]
A
Booths, yeah. Right. So, I mean, yeah, one thing actually probably a lot of people don't know is that one of the traditional vows of Orthodox monasticism is for stability. Stability, in other words, that you won't leave your monastery, you know, unless given a blessing or a command to go somewhere else. So, yeah, I mean, what is up with that? I mean, it's interesting because these things, I think that these are both related questions, not just because they're about monasticism, but it's about the sort of nomadic versus settled question. And I mean, I would argue actually that monks are functioning as kind of permanent nomads by taking on their non possessiveness. Like actually, once again, Orthodox monasticism doesn't have a vow of poverty, has a vow of non possessiveness. By doing that, by being removed from the world, by their appearance, setting them apart from the world, all of that kind of stuff. It's like sort of a permanent nomadic state, although not literally. So they're not usually wanderers, although we do have. Right. There are especially like in the Russian tradition, you've got saints called fools for Christ, who maybe, while they're not necessarily explicitly monastics in terms of having been tonsured as monks or nuns, they're living a very monastic kind of life in a lot of ways. And a lot of those fools for Christ do wander around and are, you know, homeless. Yeah. So I mean, what's up with that? I mean, how this sort of transformation. And by the way, kudos to you, Johannes, for actually focusing on the thing that that episode was really about.
- [56:05]
B
Yes. Not the one that gets all the press. Everyone else I know it's not the one that gets all the press.
- [56:10]
A
That episode was about monasticism, believe it or not. Yeah. I mean, so what's up with that? I mean, what is going on here? Like, there's. The church always has this sense of sojourning in this world. Here we have no continuing city. All of that is kind of baked into Christianity, and yet at the same time, we're building cities in the Byzantine period and all that kind of stuff. It's been a long time since I've read it, but a great essay about this question. I don't recall if he talks about the nomadic element from the Old Testament or not, or about Nazarites, but a great essay about this question is from Father George Flora Zarovsky called. The essay is called Empire and Desert Antinomies of Christian History, in which he talks about how the church has always both built civilization and run away from it at the same time, and that both things are part of. Part of Orthodox tradition, and they kind of held. I don't know if he calls it a tension, but it is a kind of tension, at least from a worldly point of view. But, you know. But both things are perfectly Orthodox, you know, and if you push one too hard, you end up breaking the community. I think so, yeah. What's up with that?
- [57:31]
C
Right. Well, that.
- [57:32]
B
I mean, that actually starts in the Old Testament, because as with the Feast of Booths. Right. Was a reminder to everybody. But there's the rechabites, who are praised because they always lived nomadically in the land. They never actually built cities up to the point of the exile. And, of course, the Levites didn't have land. And, you know, possibly because no one under the age of boomer will ever own a home in the United States.
- [58:08]
A
Don't say that. Right. When I'm trying to sell and buy a house, man.
- [58:12]
B
We don't. We don't. We don't. You know, we think about possessions and property without realizing, like, the main one was land.
- [58:24]
C
Right.
- [58:24]
B
Like. Like, that was the main possession because you brought forth food out of that land for most of human history to feed yourself and your family. Right. That's how you literally, not just how you lived in terms of making a living, but how you, like, survived upon the earth.
- [58:39]
C
Earth, right.
- [58:40]
A
Yeah.
- [58:42]
B
So, yeah, that's. That's. There was already these people who were unlanded either because they were Levites or because they were like the Revites or everybody at the Feast of Booths. And that's continued or should be continued. So one of the marks of corruption in the Orthodox Church at Various times and places has been, you know, monasteries having huge land holdings and even at some points, serfs. Yes. From which they profit. Right. And those are things that were reformed. So the Orthodox Church does not do doctrinal reform because we don't have to. But moral reform is a real thing. Right?
- [59:32]
A
Yeah.
- [59:33]
B
There are times where there are. I mean, well, there's not just times. We're all sinners in the Orthodox Church. Right. And there are times where things have been allowed to happen and things are allowed to get bad in various sinful ways, and then those have to be corrected through repentance. Right. And through those in authority taking action. So, yeah, in theory, Right.
- [60:03]
C
The
- [60:05]
B
monastics are that. Right. They are in that same position. But all the rest of the Israelites. God never commanded that none of the Israelites build houses and cities and stuff. In fact, quite the opposite. He said he was giving them those cities. Right. And giving them that land to settle on it and farm it. Right. So that was the general purview. And then there were other people who had a special calling. And part of that special calling is that they are a witness that is sort of a corrective to the rest of the community, and that's a function. Monastics. And monasticism still has an Orthodoxy today. Right. It's very easy for us to get caught up in materialism in the capitalist sense. Right. Living in the. In the Western world. Right. And just become convinced that we need seven figures in our bank account. Right. But that's not.
- [61:18]
C
We.
- [61:18]
B
We have this witness of the monastics against us to say, hey, here is a person who is living a Christian life more fully and completely than I am, and he doesn't even have one figure in the bank account, let alone seven. Right. He doesn't even have the bank account in sort of all of those ways. Right. So the intent was never that everyone in Israel would be a rechabite.
- [61:46]
A
Yeah.
- [61:46]
B
But God's intent was that there would be people like the rechabites and things like the Feast of Booths and the Levites to sort of testify to the fact that all of our earthly and material goods are fleeting and temporary and secondary to greater goods.
- [62:06]
A
Yeah. Yeah. All right. Okay. Our next question comes from Kim. She's asking about using psalms for particular sort of purposes.
- [62:21]
B
Father's Bless.
- [62:22]
C
This is Kim from the Rich Man's Kentucky, which is what my father always called it. My question is about the power attributed to the psalms by non Orthodox Christians and even non non Christians. I've run into something Father Stephen has probably seen in The Deep south with folks magic, specifically hoodoo practitioners using certain psalms as part of magic spells. For example, what they call the cursing psalms or the protective psalms. My first generation German American aunt, who had a traditional Lutheran background before she became interested in dispensationalism, once sent me a list of psalm verses. She wanted me to pray over my son when he was a baby, if he ever became sick. Some somewhat locally. There was a Catholic exorcism done on a young boy and in the basement of his family's home, they were told to open a Bible to a certain psalm on a table with a couple of other items. So what is the deal with the Psalms? Did Second Temple Jews believe that the Psalms had any special power? Did Protestants steal the idea from modern occultism? And how far back does this practice go? Thank you, fathers.
- [63:28]
A
Yeah, you know, if people are interested in a kind of a deep dive into this sort of folk magic use of the Psalms in the United States. Peugeot and Deacon Sarah from Rowland did a whole video about this. It was one of their universal history videos. I cannot remember the title of it offhand, but it's actually really fascinating. And they talk about the fact that actually a lot of this has basis in what we should call medieval Christian magic, effectively. I'm not saying it was aligned with Christianity and that's the way that it should be, but medieval Christians practicing magic using the psalms and that a lot of that gets basically just brought over, you know, in early immigration to. To the United States. But yeah, I mean, so she's asking, is there some kind of connection between that and Second Temple Judaism, which. I don't know the answer to that one.
- [64:28]
B
Well, it's sort of. Right. So for example, there were psalms that were used as exorcism psalms, meaning they're basically used as exorcism prayers.
- [64:40]
A
Yeah, right, yeah.
- [64:41]
B
So the psalms were certainly used as prayers. And there are obvious affinities that certain psalms have with certain types of prayer. Right. Like thanksgiving or exorcism or request for help in time of trouble. Right. Like you could broadly categorize certain psalms into certain categories like that. Right. And so they were used as prayers. I think the folk magic thing, I mean, we've talked about this a bunch of times that there is this distinction between prayer and magic, where magic is essentially the idea that if you do the procedure correctly, then God will do what you want.
- [65:33]
A
Yeah. Like when she talks about having the Bible open to a particular psalm with other items on the table, like, that's sounding like magical technique to me.
- [65:43]
B
Right. Because there's nobody, like, reading that psalm or praying that psalm or whatever. It's just having it open, the book open like it's a talisman, right? Yeah. And so that line gets crossed. That's the origin, I think, of most of the folk magic stuff. And especially if you throw in
- [66:09]
A
the
- [66:10]
B
Protestant view, like, if we're talking about German folk magic in particular. Right. In sort of its post Lutheran form, you get a lot of the idea because of the view of the Scriptures and Protestants, like, these are the. You know, these are the words of God. These are sort of sacred words. This is a sacred text. Right.
- [66:30]
A
Yeah.
- [66:31]
B
You can see how someone who's coming at it with a sort of magic occult mindset would say, oh, well, if these are sacred words, I could use these sacred words to do things. Right. Like, you could see how someone would make that.
- [66:45]
A
Yeah. Like mental flip, like kind of a Simon Magus sort of thing. Like, oh, give me this power, you know?
- [66:51]
B
Yeah, yeah, yeah. And so. Yeah. And so that's the sort of the Rubicon that got crossed right. Between, okay, this person is demon possessed. I'm going to pray these psalms to God over him. Right. As a way of requesting God to exorcise the demonic spirit versus, okay, we're gonna chant this psalm, light a candle over here, do this over there. Right. Do these things. And then if we do all of this correctly and we read it in the right tone of voice, then that will cast the demon out, like the act, the ritual, the act itself. Right. Will sort of compel God to do this thing that we want him to do.
- [67:39]
C
Yeah.
- [67:40]
A
Yep, yep. Great question. All right, this next one comes from Mike, who he's asking a question about. So this is very directed at you about the way that you chose to translate a particular passage in your St. Paul the Pharisee book in the section where you translate St. Paul's epistles.
- [67:59]
B
So she's going to do exactly what I told people in the foreword to that.
- [68:04]
A
Not to do, not to do. Anyway. Okay, here we go. This is from Mike.
- [68:10]
C
Hi, Fathers. This is Mike from Vermont. I'm a recently Chrismated member of a growing OCA parish, and both of you have been instrumental in my journey to Orthodoxy. I thank you for all of your books, podcasts, and other appearances. My question is for Father Stephen regarding his interpretive translation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews in his book St. Paul the Pharisee. I am aware of the reasons Father Steven stated for using, quote, fresh language in these translations, but I'D really like
- [68:37]
B
to know more about how and why
- [68:39]
C
he chose to translate Hebrews 1:5. As today I have given birth to you, instead of today I have begotten you.
- [68:46]
A
I would love to hear the implications
- [68:47]
C
of both of these terms unpacked, especially in the context of St. Paul quoting Psalm 2. Thanks very much. You're both in my prayers. Take care.
- [68:56]
A
All right. So what is up with that, Father?
- [69:05]
B
So essentially, I'm reading that in terms of the Book of Proverbs.
- [69:15]
A
Okay.
- [69:18]
B
So today I have begotten you. Right. There's the fresh language thing. Right. Of just. What is that actually saying? Right.
- [69:30]
C
Yeah.
- [69:31]
A
I think for most people, begetting is a. Is a Bible word.
- [69:34]
B
Yes. Right. Like it's a. And it's just a Bible words.
- [69:38]
A
Right.
- [69:39]
B
Where nobody uses it otherwise. Right.
- [69:41]
A
Yeah.
- [69:43]
B
Like, nobody who just had a baby has ever showed up at church. Behold, I have begotten a child. You know,
- [69:51]
A
I might have done that.
- [69:52]
B
I can see that. I can see that. Okay. Not nobody. Nobody but Father Andrew shows up. Yes.
- [70:02]
C
So.
- [70:03]
B
Yeah. And so that's why I'm trying to get away from that word. Right. And again, keep in mind the purpose for which the translation is, it's deliberately to make you think about the words. It's not for liturgical use. It's not for devotional reading of the Scriptures. Right.
- [70:20]
A
Yeah.
- [70:22]
B
It's just to make you think about the words. And so then I have a couple of options. Right. And so, I don't know. People might not like the given birth, because that may sound like it's applying feminine language to God. If you're worried about applying feminine language to God in the Bible, I got really bad news for you. That's. Yeah, But I mean, the other big option would be something like, today I have fathered you.
- [70:53]
A
Yeah.
- [70:55]
B
And that works. Okay. For the original context of the Psalm, because that was basically a coronation psalm referring to the Davidic king.
- [71:06]
C
Right.
- [71:06]
B
So today I have fathered you works because you're kind of talking about the King of Israel and later Judah as he's the Son of God in an adopted sense. Right. Like the coronation is like the adoption. But Hebrews is deliberately in using this language to talk about Christ. Like, the whole first chapter of Hebrews is distinguishing Christ from any human king, from an angel, from. Right. On and on and on. Right. It's deliberately talking about his uniqueness, that he is the Son of God in a unique sense.
- [71:50]
A
Yeah.
- [71:52]
B
And so to me, just saying fathered wouldn't convey any unique sense. Whereas today I have given birth to you. Right. That's not language that could be applied to anyone else within the context of someone being called one of the children of God or a son of God. Right. Like you couldn't say that about one of the angels who are called sons of God in Job, that God gave birth to them.
- [72:21]
A
Yeah, yeah, yeah, right.
- [72:24]
B
And therefore that phrase is fulfilling kind of the same purpose as begotten. Because begotten is being used. Right. To distinguish God's fatherhood of the Son from those other senses in which God is a father, to make it unique. And so this language serves to also make it unique. And if you look in proverbs about the begetting of wisdom, it also is using this kind of feminine language or feminine. Ish. Right, Feminine sounding language. So all that, that's the reason for.
- [73:08]
A
Got it. Yeah. That translation, all that just kind of emphasizes that translation is much more an art than it is a science.
- [73:16]
B
Yes. That is the level of overthinking on my part that went into things like.
- [73:20]
A
I bet I knew. Yeah, I was, I was pretty sure it was the case. I was like, oh, we'll, we'll do this. We'll do this question for sure. So. All right. Okay. This next call is from Zach, who actually has two questions together. And we're going to hear from Zach again later. He has some questions about demons and the devil and stuff.
- [73:40]
B
Double Zach attack.
- [73:42]
A
Yeah, yeah, exactly. All right, so this first. So let's hear from Zach. Here we go.
- [73:47]
C
Good evening, Father's Bless. So I have two questions, you know, possible heresies. First is, I have this hard time believing that someone who has never heard of Jesus is going to go to hell because the missionaries didn't spread Christianity far enough. And also that can extend to a person who is an atheist but lives and lives a righteous life. Does Christ sit at the seat of judgment on judgment Day? And do people have a chance to go to the Father through the Son at their final judgment? I want to believe that everyone gets that chance, even if they're an atheist or even if they're a different religion or they were never told about Jesus. Second, what does it mean to pray for the repentance of the devil and the demons? Is that something that is good or bad? Neutral? I thought, you know, Jesus said, you can move mountains and ye of little faith. What's the biggest, best thing you could pray for? It would be that the devil repents and turns from wickedness and is reunited with God in oneness as one of the angels. Is that crazy? I feel like that's kind of something. There's something there.
- [75:16]
B
Have a good one.
- [75:18]
A
All right. So, I mean, I feel like the first one is relatively easy to answer, which is, you know, that God. God judges people based on what they do with what they have. I remember growing up evangelical and basically Baptist, where there was this big emphasis on massive, Massive emphasis on missionary activity because, like, if people don't hear the gospel, then they can never make a decision for Jesus. And therefore. And since everybody by default is going to hell, like you're. You're conceived going to hell. If you never, you know, make that decision for Christ, then you know, that's just the way that it is. And then like, well, what about tribes who've never heard, People who, you know, never encountered a missionary? Whatever the answer was always was basically given. Like, well, God just kind of, maybe he didn't want them to be saved, you know, which, I don't know, I always found a little like, wait, wait, really? You know, But I think it's pretty clear in orthodox tradition that, as I said, that God judges everyone based on what they do with what they have. You know, to whom much is given, much is required. Also, you know, to whom less is given, less is required. Which means that, you know, becoming an orthodox Christian is one of the more relatively, you know, within this question, one of the more dangerous things you can do because you're given way more than that person that's in some uncontacted tribe will ever receive, right? So you're responsible for all that, but you've also been given it. So you have the tools in your hands to go ahead and use them. I mean, with regards to the whole praying for the demons thing, I mean, there's a couple of fathers who, who do that, but it's really this super duper minority thing. And it's like, I don't know, the bigger impression I've always gotten is like, don't mess with that. And also the other thing is like, well, they can't. They are not just incapable of repentance, but they're sort of fixed and crystallized in their evil. I mean, it seems to me that that's what the fathers say about them. Like, St. John of Damascus says that there's no hope for them, you know, so it's. I don't know, it's kind of an interesting what if question. But to me, it's always been like, unless you're one of these super advanced aesthetics, why are you even. Why would you even try that? You know, that's what I think, anyway.
- [77:54]
B
Yeah. I think I'll add too, on the first question, the fact that I think, for example, Metropolitan Hilarion is right on about this, that the harrowing of Hades is an ongoing thing.
- [78:13]
C
Right.
- [78:13]
B
Because again, think about it. We've already quoted this verse, but I think people haven't really thought about it. Christ descends into the lower parts of the earth and then he ascends into heaven so that he will be filling all things. Well, if he just put in an appearance and left, he wouldn't be filling all things, Woody.
- [78:33]
A
Yeah.
- [78:35]
B
In order to fill all things, he has to go there and stay in some sense. Right. So just like when Christ descends into heaven, he doesn't leave the earth.
- [78:44]
C
Right.
- [78:44]
B
We say in every liturgy Christ is in our midst. It's not that he goes off somewhere and to the realm of heaven and is now not on earth anymore. Right. In the same way, he remains in Hades. So everyone who dies, everyone who enters Hades, encounters Christ and this is how that understanding works.
- [79:09]
A
Right.
- [79:10]
B
We can say salvation is only through Christ.
- [79:14]
A
Right.
- [79:15]
B
And still extend the possibility that someone who dies not knowing about Christ could be saved by Christ. Right. And we're not doing some kind of magic. Woo woo. Like our Roman Catholic friends do since Vatican ii on this point where somehow everyone is Roman Catholic, whether they know it or not, but that they encounter Christ.
- [79:39]
A
Right.
- [79:40]
B
And however they have lived their life up until that moment when they encounter Christ is going to essentially end up being determinative of how they respond to encountering Christ.
- [79:55]
A
Yeah.
- [79:56]
B
And that's really ultimately what the, the judgment ends up being.
- [80:02]
A
Yeah.
- [80:03]
B
So, yeah, so that's, that's kind of what we're, what we're talking about there. And this is, this is an idea that's important to keep in mind when we. Sometimes we forget what we say about one topic, when we flip over to another topic when we start talking about there's no salvation outside the Orthodox Church. That part's important to keep in mind too.
- [80:29]
A
Yeah. Yeah. All right, rolling on to our next one. We have Daniel, who is asking a question about the throne of David being eternal.
- [80:43]
C
Hello, Lord of Spirits. This is a question that has caused me quite a bit of doubt over the years, and I've asked many people and haven't been able to get a satisfactory answer. And I think you're someone who might have a healthy perspective on it. It's about the promise of an eternal throne to David, namely, is laid out in Second Samuel or Second Kingdoms 7, verses 12 through 16. I'm time limited, so I won't read the passage. And that same understanding of an eternal throne is reflected in Psalm 89 or Psalm 88, if you're using Septuagint. And. And also in third kingdoms or first kings 11. In the Hebrew text, it's verse 36, which I will read. Yet to his son I will give one tribe, that David my servant may always have a lamp before me in Jerusalem, the city where I've chosen to put my name. And yet, you know, obviously in the exile, the Davidic throne ceased. And so I'm wondering, how on earth is this not a violation of God's promise? And I know there's certain passages that add a conditional to this, but any conditional seems precluded by the second kingdom 7 passage where God says, even if the Son sins, I will not punish him. Thank you. And I sure hope you are able to address this question.
- [82:11]
A
Yeah, so, I mean, my initial thought about that, but I mean, I'm sure there's a lot more to it, than this, is that the throne of David is eternal in Christ, that Christ is the one being the Davidic king in whom that throne is eternal. But is there something more going on there? And what about the stuff that he mentions?
- [82:32]
B
Yeah, so, yeah, there's a thing he didn't mention that is going to end up being the key to this whole thing. But yes. So what you see, first of all, you see the preservation of the line of David, which you don't see for any monastic line in the Northern Kingdom.
- [82:50]
A
Yeah.
- [82:51]
B
Right. And this is, in fact, the whole raison debt for Judah being exiled, as opposed to what happens to the Northern kingdom of Israel.
- [83:00]
C
Right.
- [83:03]
B
It's that because of these promises to David. And that's why you get at the end of Second Kings, it makes such a point of telling you, oh, hey, there's still this descendant of David who's still being treated by the Babylonians as sort of an ethnarch. Right. For the Jewish people and being treated like a king, you know, it is residents and in his support and stuff. So there's a continuation of the line. That line, of course, culminates in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Messiah, the king forever. Right. But the bit that was left out was from 1 Chronicles, and there's an important difference in wording between the promise David receives in 2 Samuel 7, 14, and in 1st Chronicles in that it says in 2nd Samuel or 2nd kingdoms that a son of his loins. Right. A descendant of his will sit on his throne forever. And in Chronicles, now remember, that's written at the time of the exile.
- [84:21]
A
Yeah.
- [84:22]
B
Verses 2 Chronicles is written after the exile, after the return.
- [84:26]
A
Right.
- [84:28]
B
And that verse says, a son of your loins will sit on my throne forever, my being God. So that promise is fulfilled. Not in the sense that it's predicted that this will happen. And it happens. It's fulfilled in the sense that it's filled full.
- [84:54]
C
Right.
- [84:55]
B
Because obviously the throne of God is greater than David's physical throne in Jerusalem.
- [85:04]
A
Right.
- [85:05]
B
In fact, David's physical throne in Jerusalem is an icon of God's throne.
- [85:10]
A
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right.
- [85:14]
B
And so it is the prototype.
- [85:17]
A
Right.
- [85:18]
B
And so a biological child of David's loins sits on God's throne eternally. And that's what we see in Christ.
- [85:32]
C
Right.
- [85:32]
B
That's how that ends up being fulfilled.
- [85:36]
A
Yeah, yeah, Cool.
- [85:39]
B
So this language of things being eternal does not preclude a fulfillment, meaning a transformation.
- [85:53]
A
Right.
- [85:54]
B
That's important when you're reading things like, well, wait, it says the Levitical priesthood is going to be forever. It says the Torah is going to be forever.
- [86:03]
C
Right.
- [86:03]
B
That doesn't preclude there being a change and a transformation of it. Right. Such that it continues in a fulfilled form.
- [86:12]
A
Yeah, yeah. Like circumcision being forever in Christ.
- [86:18]
B
Right?
- [86:19]
A
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [86:21]
C
Cool.
- [86:22]
A
All right, this next question comes from Paul, who's asking, best I can tell, about anti diluvian writing. So that's great.
- [86:31]
C
Blessed fathers, Paul from Romania here. I'm a bit behind with the show. Maybe someone already asked this question. Sorry for that.
- [86:41]
B
So I was listening to the flood
- [86:43]
C
episode and just watched the Fall of Civilization podcast episode on the Assyrians. I found something intriguing in it. So Ashurbanipal says that he read all the Sumerian texts from before the flood. So my question is, how should he interpret this?
- [87:00]
B
Do you think that there were really
- [87:01]
C
some texts preserved from before the flood? I know that the first pre writing tablets date from something like 8,000 years ago. So I myself am be skeptical to that. Incidentally, I live in the country which has the oldest pre writing tablets from Tartaria. Just a bit of national pride, I guess. Thank you so much for answering my question and for the this great show and I hope it lasts for many, many years. So it helped us. It helped me a lot. I'm a religion teacher in Romania. So this was really something extraordinary for us to be able to read and listen to you all this time.
- [87:48]
B
Thank you very much.
- [87:50]
A
How about that, Father? We're influencing the Romanian Orthodox catechesis. That's fun now. I mean, at Least a couple of
- [88:00]
B
my books are in Romania.
- [88:02]
A
Yes. Yes. And actually, I mean, and mine as well. Like the Romanians, they are the most enthusiastic about. It's true. The most enthusiastic about translating books from ancient Faith Publishing. So go Romania. I'm trying to remember. I don't think that we've said anything about writing from before the flood, but rather. I know. Correct me if I'm wrong, if I'm. If I'm not remembering well enough about writing from before the flood, but rather that the God kings of the ancient near east claimed to have wisdom from before the flood that they got because they were talking to spirits who came from before the flood. That's my understanding. Or is there something else that I'm not?
- [88:48]
B
Well, that. That was the form it took with the. The Amorites. Right. So like the first Babylonian empire.
- [88:54]
A
Okay.
- [88:55]
B
But the Assyrian claim he's reading is essentially the same claim.
- [89:00]
A
Okay, Right.
- [89:01]
B
I have the stuff that was lost in the Flood, but I have it.
- [89:06]
A
I see. But they're not showing it to anybody. They're not putting in a museum.
- [89:09]
B
Yeah. And only I have it.
- [89:12]
C
Right.
- [89:14]
B
Nobody else.
- [89:16]
C
So.
- [89:16]
B
Yeah, I mean. I mean, that's what's going on there. So. Yeah, there's. There's. I mean, he did mention Tartaria. I won't go down that rabbit hole, but say, I feel like there's pretty much nobody's estimation of the oldest writing we have, even on a young earth. Creationist model would put it before the flood. Yeah, right. Like all the Sumerian tablets we have with cuneiform on them, we're talking about, you know, 5,000 something years old.
- [89:49]
A
Yeah.
- [89:52]
B
So. Yeah, so that's on that count. The idea that anything we have now is antediluvian, kind of. No. The dog doesn't hunt. However, here's the minority report. A lot of church fathers and maybe even some church fathers who you wouldn't think would say this thought that at least part of the Book of Enoch was legit.
- [90:21]
A
Yeah. And therefore must be antediluvian.
- [90:25]
B
And therefore must have been written before the flood. And a copy must have been taken on the ark by Noah.
- [90:30]
C
Yeah.
- [90:31]
B
Like, they literally argue that.
- [90:32]
A
Who. Who. Just for the record, who says that?
- [90:37]
B
Well, Tertullian argues that.
- [90:39]
A
Okay.
- [90:40]
B
He argues that for the whole Book of Enoch, he's kind of a church. The whole Book of Enoch is legit.
- [90:43]
A
Church uncle, though. Church uncle.
- [90:45]
B
Yeah. Yeah. So not. He's not a father. Right. Yes. Let me be clear before someone clips it. He's not a church father. He's an early writer, but did you know St. Augustine thought that was true? Really?
- [90:58]
A
Wow. That must be the part of St. Augustine that no one's reading, which is like, what? Most of it.
- [91:02]
B
Most of it, yeah. So. Well, and it's counterintuitive for St. Augustine. Right. Because everybody thinks like he's. No, he's the one who rejected all that stuff from the Book of Enoch. Right. Kind of not though.
- [91:15]
A
Right.
- [91:17]
B
This is one of those things is I've once again gotten to experience everyone telling me that the stuff I say about the Nephilim has nothing to do with the Church Fathers and making it very apparent they have never read any of the Church Fathers on this, even the ones they think agree with them. But yeah, St. Augustine. And here's what it comes down to. And this is why I say St. Augustine is a good paradigm for this. Because this is what most of the other fathers who think part of the Book of Enoch is legit and comes from before the flood. It's for this reason. It's because of this, this argument that St. Augustine makes explicitly. It's that the Epistle of St. Jude quotes the Book of Enoch.
- [92:03]
A
Right.
- [92:04]
B
And when it quotes the Book of Enoch, it's not phrased as quoting a text. It doesn't say it is written. It says Enoch the seventh from Adam prophesied and then has a quote.
- [92:20]
A
Yeah.
- [92:22]
B
So these fathers, including notably St. Augustine, read that and said this is saying that the actual historical Enoch said this.
- [92:33]
A
Yeah.
- [92:35]
B
And the only place we have it preserved is in first Enoch, the Book of Enoch, Therefore, at least this line in chapter one. Right. And presumably the immediate context, and therefore possibly more parts of the text are actually from the historical Enoch.
- [93:00]
A
Yeah. And that would make it pre Torah.
- [93:03]
B
Yeah, yeah, yes, that would make it. And pre Flood.
- [93:07]
A
Right, right, exactly. Exactly.
- [93:09]
C
So.
- [93:09]
B
And it must have got. Been taken on the ark. Right. And so St. Augustine's reason for not accepting the Book of Enoch and its contents was he literally says, we don't know what parts other than that verse, we don't know what parts actually come from Enoch and what parts were added later. Because it's very clear when you read the Book of Enoch that it's a composite work. There's a bunch of pieces that have been brought together.
- [93:36]
A
Sure, yeah, yeah, yeah.
- [93:38]
B
Right. And so St. Augustine can see that too, even in the Latin translation. And he says, you know, we don't know what parts of this come from Enoch, but he affirmed that some parts came from Enoch.
- [93:49]
C
Right.
- [93:50]
B
And that's the answer to that whole Jude, Epistle of Jude Conundrum for most of the Church fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries.
- [94:01]
A
That's wild.
- [94:02]
B
Maybe there was some antediluvian writing.
- [94:04]
A
Yeah, that would make an interesting. That and maybe related stuff would make an interesting episode by itself or an article or. I don't know. I'm trying to remember. Did you put some of that stuff in your Apocrypha book in the section on Enoch?
- [94:18]
B
Yeah, I talk a little bit about the reception history.
- [94:21]
A
Gotcha.
- [94:22]
B
Right. Both like the early figures, like Tertullian and stuff, and who. Who are basically treating it as canonical.
- [94:32]
A
That's wild.
- [94:35]
B
And then the later figures who are like, pretty clear that it's not canonical as a whole text, but still have this because of St. Jude's epistle, have this, like part of it is legitimately from Enoch.
- [94:48]
C
Yeah.
- [94:49]
A
Yeah. Cool. All right, we're going to take one more before our second and final break. This comes from James John, who he's asking about Star Trek.
- [94:59]
C
Hello, Father Andrew. Hello, Father Stephen. My name is James John. I currently reside in Chicago. This is a pop culture based question primarily for Father Andrew. You've mentioned in public. I'm not sure if it was on the Lord of Spirits or another podcast or even some other context entirely. Your preference for Deep Space Nine among the series in the Star Trek franchise, given this is the first series without any direct involvement of Gene Roddenberry's particular flavor of humanism, at the center of which is the dream of the Enlightenment, humanity's transcendence of culture in all its forms, upon which the original.
- [95:31]
B
Wait, I'm going to pause.
- [95:32]
A
Okay, you just said false. What? What is it?
- [95:34]
B
You.
- [95:36]
A
What? What?
- [95:36]
B
Gene Roddenberry planned out the whole first season and was involved in the casting and was involved in.
- [95:42]
A
Yeah, which is probably why the first season is so goofy compared to the rest.
- [95:45]
B
Like the. The story about there's Duets. A great episode in the first season.
- [95:50]
A
Okay, okay. All right, let's keep going. Keep going.
- [95:52]
B
But anyway, so yeah, that's technically incorrect, but mostly true. Which is the worst. The worst form of incorrect.
- [95:58]
A
Right?
- [95:58]
B
Exactly.
- [95:59]
A
All right, I'm going to let him keep going here.
- [96:01]
B
Here we go. Actually.
- [96:02]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [96:03]
C
Aries was clearly founded. Do you have any thoughts on whether this enlightenment dream is in some way inherently antithetical to story because it is essentially anticulture? While I acknowledge there's a strong argument to be made that DS9 is indeed the better series, I admit that I prefer the original series in spite of its budgetary constraints and Next Generation in spite of its occasional pomposity, specifically because of Roddenberry's obsession with the question, are all rational beings persons, or are some of them genuinely monsters? Most of the best episodes from the original series and from Next Generation hinge on a first contact situation, which rapidly falls into a conflict of ethical frameworks. And the Enlightenment principle of plurality has to be weighed against general safety concerns. Is this being or race a person with whom we simply have not yet found common ground? Or is this being or race a monster with whom no common ground can be possible? Possible, in which case violence is justified? I think for Enlightenment style humanists like Roddenberry, there's no actual way to answer the question without abandoning the Enlightenment, which may be why I like watching him wrestle with it over and over across so many episodes. But I can also admit preferring Babylon 5 to any of the Star Trek series. And it's definitely anti enlightenment. And it came out around the same time as DS9. In fact, there were some accusations that it directly influenced DS9 and it shares a common capacity with DA. It shares a common capacity with DS9 to tell deeper, more complex stories because it has the advantage of promoting a specific culture as the one from which we can definitively adjudicate everything else. Given your love of storytelling in general and this series in particular, I'm curious your take on all this. Which is not to say that I'm not interested in Father Steven's take as well, if he has one. Thanks so much for listening.
- [97:50]
A
There you go. Well, I should say, I mean, to begin with, the reason that I love Deep Space Nine the most of all the Star Trek series that I have watched, because I actually have not watched Enterprise is the last one that I watched all the way through. I saw, I think, the first season, or maybe the first half of the first season of Strange New Worlds, but that's it in terms of the newer series. So I don't. Despite you, Father, urging me to watch below decks. Was that the one that you really. Lower decks, lower decks. See, there you go.
- [98:24]
B
Lower decks, lower decks, Strange New Worlds and Picard Season three.
- [98:30]
A
Yeah.
- [98:31]
B
Are worth watching. That's about it.
- [98:33]
A
Gotcha. Gotcha. Now, the reason that I like DS9 is actually not because of this,
- [98:42]
B
at
- [98:42]
A
least not consciously anyways, because this sort of Enlightenment question of persons and non persons and, you know, not regarding cultures in relative terms. I. There's a couple reasons why I like DS9. The best one is, well, a few reasons, really. The biggest one is I think that the characters are the most fleshed out and complicated they're not as. They're not, frankly, as stock and occasionally cartoonish as some of the. As particularly Next Generation sometimes can be. Don't get me wrong. I love Next Generation as well. Don't get me wrong. But also that the continuity of story across DS9, it was the least episodic of all the series at the time. And especially when they start getting into the Dominion War, it was, I mean, you know, like, I really wanted to tune into the next episode at the end of each episode. So I thought that that was really well done and asked some big questions that kind of, you know, in ways that Next Generation hinted at and I don't recall original series ever doing, but hinted at big questions of existential threats to the Federation itself. Kind of calling into question this whole way of life, this whole you don't deserve to wear that uniform sensibility that Picard always had. Someone needs to do a big supercut of him saying, you don't deserve to wear that uniform because he says that how many times in that series. I don't know which. I mean, don't get me wrong. I honor that, that sense of honor and tradition and all that sort of stuff that Picard represents. I like that. But I think that the. The way that DS9 shows that it's about personal character that really, truly wins the day in the end, I like that. And that's kind of. I would say that that's a big piece of what's going on in that series. But also, frankly, it is as far of the ones that I've seen, again, mentioning the ones I have not seen of the ones that I've seen. It is the series that takes religion the most seriously. And I think that's the reason that I like it the best. But not in a kind of ideological way. Right. Like, so I love the fact that there's this whole wrestling going on the whole series between, are these just wormhole aliens or are they gods? Right, the prophets. And there's several points in the series where it's kind of like, well,
- [101:30]
C
why
- [101:30]
A
does that distinction even matter? Which you can go a couple different ways on that. You could basically say, well, dumb people, stupid people have always worshiped bigger things as gods, which actually is not entirely true. Or you can go the other way and say, yes, this kind of integrated approach where the sort of anti gnostic approach to things is. Is much more congruent with reality itself. And so I appreciated that and I appreciated the fact that religious people could be good, they could be bad in that series. They could be neutral. That it was very much integrated into the fabric of Bajoran society. I appreciated that. So there was a lot about it I liked. And then also, honestly, I have occasionally used the kind of elevation of. Of Cisco that happens at the end. I know, big spoilers. But, I mean, the show has been, you know, over for how long now? Decades. The elevation of Sisko to become basically one of the prophets. I've actually used that in a couple times in talking to people as a kind of image of what. Of what Theosis is and that. And that, you know, his big, big final battle with Gul Dukat, who's basically being superpowered, charged by a demon. I mean, that's functionally what giants are, you know. So, anyway, that's all the reasons that I like it. Well, not all the reasons. Those are the big reasons that I like that series the best. Also, there's just some absolutely, just amazingly wonderful, memorable, memorable characters like Garak. Garak is probably my favorite Star Trek character ever. Just so fun. Like, whenever he's on screen, I'm. I'm. I'm there for it, as the kids say. But, yeah, I think the thing you point out about whether anything with a consciousness should be treated as essentially equal to human or whether it could be a monster, I think that's a really interesting question. And DS9 really makes us examine that closely, I think, actually, because, for instance, the Ferengi, who are basically just bad guys until Deep Space Nine, now, suddenly we get an inside look into their culture and actually find them sometimes sympathetic, sometimes horrifying, all of that kind of stuff. I love that. I think that's great. And what an unlikely race to do that with. What a strange, strange, weird, fun thing that they're doing with that. And you just gotta love Quark. I mean, Quark is great. So, anyway, yeah, that's what I think about all that. How about you, Father? Where do you stand on DS9?
- [104:22]
B
So, first, I have to say, the caller completely lost me. And I don't care who this ticks off in the audience with Babylon 5, J. Michael Straczynski is a hack. Oh, there you go. He is one of the worst writers in the history of everything he has ruined. So many comics he has ruined.
- [104:39]
A
Like I watched Babylon 5 through once. I found the first. I don't know, two or three seasons, really cringe. I kind of liked it at the end, but honestly, I have never watched it again after that.
- [104:51]
B
A lot of it is saved by the acting, like, where it's good because they had Some good actors, yes.
- [104:56]
A
Bruce, Brock, Sleuttner, he was good, in my opinion.
- [105:00]
B
It was well cast and there are some good actors in it, and so you get some goodness from that. But Straczynski's a hack, man. Like, it's awful. Some of the worst stories ever written. But, you know, that Shade Throned, and I know he cares about my opinion deeply.
- [105:22]
C
The.
- [105:23]
B
You know, I mean, certainly Roddenberry was, you know, the prophet of fully automated luxury communism in space.
- [105:33]
C
But.
- [105:38]
B
And it is true, even though he was involved in Deep Space Nine at the early level, the conceptual level and everything, and even some casting and stuff, because people don't realize how much it was set up on Next Generation. Not just that they introduced the Cardassians and the Bajorans, but originally, Major Kira was supposed to be Ensign Rowe, right?
- [106:05]
A
That's right.
- [106:06]
B
But Michelle Forbes backed out at the last minute, so it was really being set up on Next Generation while he was on Next Generation. So the concept was there. And I think a lot of the departures from Roddenberry's vision were on a much more mundane level than a lot of people would think, in the sense
- [106:31]
C
that,
- [106:33]
B
like, the serialization that you mentioned, that was one of his rules, and that was mainly because of syndication rights. You could get more money in syndication if you didn't have to show the episodes in order.
- [106:43]
A
Yeah.
- [106:46]
B
So he never wanted things syndicated. Like, they had to really, like, Ronald Moore had to super push him to get him to do, like, Two Partners and stuff on Next Generation. And so it was a lot of weird rules like that. And, like, he never wanted to have.
- [107:01]
C
He.
- [107:02]
B
He probably wouldn't have approved section 31 ever. Yeah.
- [107:07]
A
Yeah.
- [107:08]
B
Because he didn't want conflict within the Federation. He wanted all the conflicts to be external.
- [107:12]
A
Right. The Federation was supposed to be good. I. I mean, I think. I think in some ways, I think the ways that DS9 departed from Roddenberry, like, in the 1990s, we get two Star Trek series, right? We get DS9 and we get Voyager. And to me, DS9 is clearly the superior series in so many ways, but it's two different versions of doing Star Trek. Voyager, I think, was an attempt to do Star Trek the way the original Star Trek was done, but in the 90s and, like, let's throw them out.
- [107:49]
B
Let's try to go back to basics.
- [107:50]
A
Exactly. Let's go back. Whatever. But the thing is, it became so preachy that it was, you know. And, like, honestly, when Neelix finally left the show, I was cheering, Honestly, I just Found him so irritating, but I think. And then you get DS9, which is like, okay, let's say we've got the same universe here, but let's tell more complicated stories. Let's have it be way messier and on the edge of the galaxy and, you know, like the Federation is involved, but everyone doesn't love the Federation. Whereas, you know, like Voyager is like missionaries in space. You know, here they are out amongst these barbarians and look at these noble people, you know? Yeah, yeah. I mean, I don't know. We could talk about.
- [108:43]
B
We should have it. Well, that's more of a manifestation of 90s neoliberalism.
- [108:47]
A
Right. I think that's what it is, is in the 90s there was like, you get. In the 90s you both get like, you get grunge music. Right. So in some sense DS9 is sort of the grunge of, of, you know,
- [108:59]
B
the Star Trek franchise, if I may.
- [109:01]
A
But in the 90s you also get this kind of neo pop and, you know, so called alternative music, you know, which is sort of much nicer. And I think that, you know, I think that's what Voyager kind of is. I don't know, I'm just.
- [109:13]
B
Yeah, but so, but so when I said fully automated luxury communism, I was kind of serious.
- [109:17]
A
Yes, yes.
- [109:19]
B
Ron Barry has like legit Marxist presuppositions.
- [109:23]
A
Yeah.
- [109:25]
B
In that he thinks that human evil and strife and war and conflict is a result of material conditions.
- [109:34]
A
Right. In the future everyone is an atheist and better off for it. Isn't that like a quote from him?
- [109:39]
B
Yeah. As soon as all your material conditions are met.
- [109:44]
A
Right.
- [109:44]
B
Because you have replicators, so there's now total abundance.
- [109:48]
A
We just work to better ourselves, says Pompous.
- [109:52]
B
He had some really weird free love sexual politics that he never fully got to put on the show because of censors, thank God.
- [110:00]
A
Yes,
- [110:03]
B
yeah. Like, I mean, basically his original vision for Riker and Troy was that they were just always going to be friends with benefits and that that was fine.
- [110:13]
A
Right.
- [110:14]
B
In the future.
- [110:14]
C
Right.
- [110:15]
B
No one had any hang ups about sex because that was also a result of material conditions for him. Right, yeah. So correct your material positions and you have a godless utopia. That's his sort of Marxist presupposition. So it goes beyond enlightenment even that the caller. Right. Brought up and. Yeah. And so on one hand, having things like religion be a source of conflict on Deep Space Nine is not as far outside Ron Barry's view as you might think.
- [110:52]
A
Right, right.
- [110:53]
B
Because.
- [110:53]
A
Right.
- [110:54]
B
He would say that was part of the Right. The part of the problem. The. The. Or having the Ferengis, you know, be arch capitalists and be sort of base and evil. Right. Like, that even is also with it, like.
- [111:08]
A
Right.
- [111:08]
B
That's why I say Deep Space Night is not as far outside Rodbury as you think.
- [111:11]
A
Right, right.
- [111:12]
B
It's just instead of focusing on, like, the light side of his view, it's focusing on the dark side of his view. Yeah. Like the muddier part. People whose material conditions, in various ways, haven't been met, and so they're still base and evil and do these things.
- [111:32]
C
Right.
- [111:34]
B
Yeah. So I don't know if it's as far outside as people want to say. And so, like, with Voyager, I think that those Marxist ideas just get watered down a little bit, frankly. And you have, like, Chakotay doing his Native American spirituality stuff.
- [111:50]
A
Right.
- [111:51]
B
And there's no hint that somehow atheism would be better. Roddenberry's now been gone for a while.
- [111:55]
A
Right, right. Yeah.
- [111:59]
B
You know, and then. And then Enterprise is in this period, early in the Federation's history, so you can have the conflict and stuff, because everything hasn't been sorted out yet.
- [112:08]
A
Yes, yes. We may have to come up with some directives. Artur says at one point.
- [112:14]
B
Yeah. And so, you know, I won't go into the. The Nutrex stuff. That's all a mess.
- [112:19]
C
But.
- [112:19]
A
Yeah, yeah.
- [112:21]
B
But, yeah. So, yeah, there is a pretty basic. So, yeah, if you take out. I think the idea that, you know, it's harder to have good stories stems a lot from. Well, yeah, if you don't have conflict, it's hard to tell a good story.
- [112:41]
A
Yeah.
- [112:41]
B
Right. And so the best you get on the original series, which is pretty. My favorite and pretty good. Right. Like, so. But it's this internal conflict in the main characters and their own morality being morally conflicted or what have you. Right. Not. Not a sense of. Right. Competing viewpoints or ideologies or something.
- [113:05]
A
Yeah.
- [113:05]
B
It's just, you know, how do I apply, you know, this obviously correct understanding of the world? Right. In this particular instance.
- [113:14]
A
Exactly. Exactly. All right, well, thanks for that question. Fun to answer. We're going to take our second break and we'll be right back. Hi.
- [113:31]
B
Do you know me? I'm Fr. Stephen DeYoung. My new book, An Introduction to Extra Biblical Literature, is now available. A lot of Christians today divide ancient Jewish and Christian literature into two categories. What's in the Bible?
- [113:45]
A
What's not in the Bible.
- [113:46]
B
Christian east, however, has traditionally had a third category, a middle category. Books that are read privately in the home. The Greek word for that is Apocrypha. These texts from the centuries before and the centuries after the incarnation of Christ that go beyond even the larger canon of Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, reveal to us the religious world and theological framework of the Apostles and early Church Fathers. In this book, Apocrypha, I survey these works which connect elements of liturgy, scripture, iconography, patristic writings. Familiarity with these works will enhance readers understanding of the breadth and depth of the Orthodox Christian faith. Buy your copy of An Introduction to Extra Biblical biblical literature@store.ancient faith.com that's store.ancient faith.com.
- [114:43]
A
Hey, welcome back everybody. It's the third half of this all speak pipe episode of the Lord of Spirits podcast. This is not live, so you can't call in for this one. We won't be able to talk to you, as Father Stephen likes to mention. You can call, but probably no one will be there to talk to you. As a matter of fact, Mike Degan will be taking a nice night off instead of just sleeping in the studio there in Chesterton like he probably usually does. So yeah, we've got seven more calls to respond to and yeah, and that'll be it.
- [115:14]
B
Yes, this is split into three sevens.
- [115:18]
A
Indeed, indeed.
- [115:19]
C
Well, their father, enter Steven Damick, and their father, Steven Young. A question from the favorite country of Father Stephen Young, the Netherlands. So I always wondered, and I haven't heard anything in the previous episodes, but maybe I didn't listen to all of them. But my question is basically this, is that in Genesis 3 and following, the idea emerged is that the sons of God are in the image of God. Let us make in the plural. So the first question is, are the sons of God in the image of God like us? Secondly, Satan, although a angel, is he also among the sons of God like Job says? Or is he not? And probably not because he was envious of, well, human beings of Adam being in the image of God. So how does this all work? And if last question, I sneak in a third one and if the sons of God are fallen as sons of God, does that happen in Genesis 6? With other words, nothing related to the Satan. Is this a whole separate category? Well, those three questions about who the sons of God are, and that's where
- [116:49]
A
it cuts off, unfortunately, I'm not sure why. If he hit the button or he just ran out of time to record,
- [116:55]
B
but ran out of tape.
- [116:56]
A
Yeah, basically. So yeah, I didn't introduce this is Johannes, not to be confused with the Johannes that we had earlier calling from The Netherlands. I, obviously, I'm going to mostly just hand this one over to you, obviously. But, But I mean, St. John of Damascus says that angels are made in the image of God. But I think now this is the point where I'm saying my, my impression, my understanding, my opinion. I think the way in which angels are, you know, made in the image of God and the way in which humans are is not quite the same. Like, we're both definitely made to be imagers of God in the sense of doing his works. Right. But I don't think that we are created in the image of God in, in the same way. And then, so then he's asking, you know, are the sons of God, are they in the image of God? And then he connects that, and I'm not sure actually how he's connecting that with, let us make man in our image. Like, is he. Yeah, because he doesn't say. He doesn't outright say that the us there must include the whole divine council, which I don't. I don't think it does. Right. Help me with this, actually, because I've been thinking about this a little bit lately. Like, what exactly does that mean? Because. Because human beings are not made in the image of angels. Right. They're made in the image of God.
- [118:27]
B
So. Right. So if you're taking that to mean the angels are like the vehicle or something through which God created man, then no, that's wrong.
- [118:40]
A
Right.
- [118:41]
B
If you're saying that in the sense of who is God talking to when he says that? Right. As in, is he talking to himself when he says that?
- [118:53]
A
Right, right.
- [118:55]
B
Is this the Father talking to the Son and the Spirit, or is he saying that he. Or that the Holy Trinity is going to create man? But he's saying that to the angelic beings. This is what I'm about to do. And they're just the audience for him saying that. Right. That, to me, is not a problem. That, that understanding.
- [119:21]
C
Right, right.
- [119:22]
A
The humans are created exclusively by God, exclusively in the image of God. I think that's.
- [119:28]
B
Yes.
- [119:29]
A
That's completely, you know, uncontroversial.
- [119:31]
B
Right.
- [119:32]
A
Within traditional Christian theology.
- [119:33]
B
And that he's announcing what he is about to do to the angels. That I don't have a problem with that.
- [119:39]
A
Right, yeah.
- [119:40]
B
That understanding. Right. In the sense that that's who he says it to.
- [119:44]
A
Although I say it, at least for me, I don't feel like I need to hang my hat on that. But it makes sense to me.
- [119:51]
B
That's why I'm saying it's not a Problem.
- [119:52]
A
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
- [119:54]
B
Right. If it's understood that way. Right, yeah. So, yeah. So. And in terms of the third. The third part will refer you back to the 5ish falls of the Angels.
- [120:13]
A
Indeed. Yeah. One of our earliest episodes.
- [120:18]
B
Episode. Yeah. And yeah. And like Father Andrew said, angels are queer. St. John Damascus in the image of God in the sense that they do his works, in the sense that they're noetic or rational beings, as are humans, but not in the same sense. In that, obviously, the incarnation moves it into a whole different sense.
- [120:38]
A
Right, yeah, yeah.
- [120:41]
B
So, yeah, so that's that. Did we miss a middle question? He was asking was the devil one of the sons of God?
- [120:51]
A
Yeah, yeah, yeah. As Job says. I mean, it seems like Job says that.
- [120:56]
B
Well, he says the sons of God all came to present themselves and Satan also came.
- [121:01]
A
Okay.
- [121:02]
B
All right, so if we're talking about groups and classes of angelic beings, and some of this is slippery. Right. In terms of like, how does sons of God dovetail with the nine ranks?
- [121:19]
A
Yeah, because that's not the nine. Yeah, yeah, that's.
- [121:23]
B
And then you even have a term like archangel that's used in two different ways.
- [121:27]
C
Right? Yep.
- [121:29]
B
For one of the ranks and for sort of the top seven.
- [121:35]
A
So.
- [121:37]
B
Yeah, but I think it's not. I would say he is not. I would say, traditionally. Right. So Ezekiel describes him as a guardian cherub. The serpentine language surrounding him in Genesis lends itself to a seraphim. But like, he is a very high ranking angelic being. One of the top seven traditionally. Right.
- [122:01]
A
Who.
- [122:02]
B
Who falls and who falls in Genesis chapter three. And then the sons of God who fall fall in Genesis 6. And more about that in the 5ish calls of the angels.
- [122:13]
A
Yeah, yeah. All right. Okay. This next question comes from Jordan.
- [122:19]
C
Hi, Father's blessed. This is Jordan from Northern Virginia. I just listened to the Devil's episode and I'm curious. Who do you think has done the best acting job in a movie of the devil or Satan or Lucifer? And if it's not Peter Stormer from the movie Constantine, you're wrong.
- [122:46]
A
Well, there we go.
- [122:49]
B
Let me just say right off the bat, the color is right. Peter Stormire in Constantine is the correct answer to this question.
- [122:56]
A
I haven't asked it. Okay. I haven't actually seen that movie, but I know you. What is it you said the other day that as soon as I became Orthodox, that I completely checked out from all pop culture or something like that.
- [123:09]
B
Yes.
- [123:09]
A
Just been out of culture for now almost 30 years.
- [123:11]
B
You went into a sort of mental monastery retreating from the world. Exactly. With your Tolkien books.
- [123:17]
A
And I just keep rereading them. What can I say? I will say, though, my favorite. So having not seen, seen that film, and since the question is, what is your favorite, My favorite depiction of the devil, I had to look up actually the name because I didn't remember the name of the actor right off the top of my head. So my favorite depiction of the devil is played by Daniel Van Bargen, who played Sheriff Cooley in the film oh, Brother, Where Art Thou? And I mean, it's not explicit that Sheriff Cooley is the devil, but he's kind of the devil, you know? Yeah, I, I, I love, I love that movie so much. And, and his particular character in that is definitely kind of unnerving in a really great way. And then he's got that amazing line, you know, sweet summer rain, like God's own mercy, you know, but. And yet he's the one who's sort of sending the main characters into some kind of damnation and then a flood comes. I mean, it's just, I don't know, the film is just brilliantly done. One of my favorite movies ever. And yeah, if you don't believe he's the devil, there is that one scene where he's standing in front of a fire and he's just wearing these dark glasses and you see the flames reflected in his glasses, and it's like, I don't know, he's definitely the devil in that film.
- [124:48]
C
So.
- [124:48]
B
Yes, let me, since I just, you know, the caller gave the correct answer right in the call. Right. I will contribute.
- [124:57]
A
Who.
- [124:57]
B
The correct answer for first runner up to Peter Stormarin. Constantine is Viggo Mortensen in Prophecy.
- [125:06]
A
Oh, see, I haven't seen that movie. I mean, I know, obviously, I know who Viggo Mortensen is, but I haven't seen them.
- [125:13]
B
I said, you're a little familiar.
- [125:14]
A
Yeah, that's. Now I'm intrigued. I'd like to see Aragorn play the devil.
- [125:22]
B
Yeah, yeah. In fact, it's the, it's the first acting role I remember where he had the dark hair like he used for Aragorn, because he's doing a lot of blonde.
- [125:32]
A
I love another film that he was in that I loved was Hidalgo. I thought that was a great, fun movie. Yeah.
- [125:38]
B
And he had, he had the full beard, too. I think he had a more full
- [125:41]
A
beard, which is uncanonical. In the Lord of the Rings, Numenoreans should not be bearded at all. And that's to kind of emphasize their sort of Elvishness, so to speak. Just putting that out there.
- [125:57]
B
But yeah, he.
- [125:58]
A
They do give him a little. Little bit of a beard. He's just sort of like. He's not clean shaven the most of the films, but he's, you know, got perpetual five o' clock shadow. And then they actually start giving him something of a beard when they crown him king. And I'm just like, no, this is the opposite way that it should go. Anyway. All right.
- [126:15]
B
Yeah, so the movie prophecy is sort of an interesting historical relic of a certain time period of movies. The sequels are horrible.
- [126:24]
A
Okay.
- [126:27]
B
In fact, I think it ended up being straight to video sequels after a certain point.
- [126:30]
A
There you go.
- [126:32]
B
The premise of the movie is that the Archangel Gabriel has decided to rebel.
- [126:38]
A
Oh, all right.
- [126:40]
B
The Archangel Gabriel being played by Christopher Walken.
- [126:44]
A
Well, I mean, okay, now I'm really intrigued.
- [126:48]
B
Yes. Right. And so he decides to fall and he wants to, you know, do the second war of Heaven. Right. But him being an angel, he's not good at like, massacring and war and stuff.
- [127:05]
A
I. So I say to circle to tie all these together. The other day, I think it was our friend Michael Landsman who sent to me an Instagram reel of a guy doing a Christopher Walken impression and delivering all the lines from the Council of Elrond in Fellowship of the Ring.
- [127:25]
B
See, it does all tie together, which weirdly works. Yeah. So, yeah. So he decides the way to do this is he has to get the soul of this sort of ruthless dictator and warlord.
- [127:41]
A
Oh, okay.
- [127:42]
C
To get the.
- [127:43]
B
Know how to do a war, which has all kinds of levels.
- [127:47]
A
So goofy.
- [127:47]
B
But the best scene in the whole movie is the one where Viggo Mortensen shows up as the devil who is ticked off because he doesn't want any company in hell. And like, yes. It's like, bro, you're stealing my bit. Right.
- [128:04]
A
Haven't you read Paradise Lost? Better to rule in hell than the whole.
- [128:09]
B
The whole characterization, the whole interaction is just an amazing, like, duly noted extended scene in the movie prophecy.
- [128:18]
A
All right. Okay, well, this next one comes from Noel, who has a question about how do you respond to government corruption?
- [128:27]
C
How you doing, Father Stephen? Father Andrew, this is Noel calling all the way from New England. Thank you for your time. So my question is similar to a question that one of your other viewers has, which is how you deal with corruption in the government versus in the church. I was very moved by what Father Stephen said. He said one should always question themselves, assume that their move to speak up so to speak, is coming from a place of ego or pride, and I think that was right. So I wanted to know the difference when it comes to government corruption, however. So I'll give you my specific story as an example. So I was a police officer in my area, and I witnessed my department, other departments around me, they were using this new, very intrusive surveillance system that were tracking the vehicles of the citizens in the area, and they were keeping it hidden. They kept it hidden because they assumed there'd be a backlash or Fourth Amendment violation. So I was moved by my conscience. I eventually spoke up. And long story short, I lost my job for that. So what I wanted to know is what a Christian should do in those type of situations. What is the proper way? Is my situation a little unique because I myself was a government official or government agent, therefore it was my responsibility to address this problem and then accept the consequences of whatever happens. Does that look different for someone who's just a citizen where they're dealing with government corruption? How should they do it? What is the proper way to do it? If you can give some examples from church history of the Fathers, I really appreciate it. So, yeah, if you could just show that distinction and what a Christian should do in this type of situation. Thank you for your time.
- [129:55]
A
Yes, yes. He didn't mention it by my name, but this may be the first reference to probably flock cameras on the Lord Spirits podcast, I would guess.
- [130:06]
B
Yeah, I mean, I'm a little confused by the question because I live in Louisiana. So what do we do about government corruption down here is sort of like, what do we do about the humidity? Yeah, I mean, I like, it's just sort of always there.
- [130:23]
A
Yeah, yeah, exactly. I mean, that is kind of how I feel about government generally. I think you do the good that you can do. But I would also say don't mistake making statements for doing good. I mean, there may be some cases, some scenarios, certain contexts in which making a statement, standing up for something, whatever, can do some good. And maybe the only good that it does is that you remove yourself from a compromising situation, you know, where, like, you, like, he said he lost his job. But there may be also some cases in which that kind of thing can bring reform. But I think that, yeah, the key thing is to do the good that you can where you are. And don't think that just talking equals doing good, because it often doesn't. And we live in such a virtue signaling culture now that people think if you change your Facebook profile picture, that constitutes standing with whoever or Whatever. And it's just not true. Just not true. Not just because people who have power to do things don't care one little bit what your, your profile picture looks like. That's just another piece of data actually, to be aggregated by our techno lord masters. But, but yeah, you know, do the good that you can do with the people that are in front of you and especially don't neglect the people that are in front of you and think I did my, my good deed for the day because I said something on, on Twitter or whatever. So that's what I think. I mean, I think if you're in a place to change, to remove corruption from government, I mean, you should do that. You should do that even if it's just that you won't be corrupted by participation in whatever it is. I mean, the reality is we're all participating in systems that we can't get away from, which we're implicated in all of it. It's just like, for instance, the whole boycott culture. If you boycott every person, every business that is involved in some way with something that's unethical, then you pretty much just have to grow your own food on your own property and generate your own electricity. And I mean, if someone does that, I honor that. I respect that a great deal. But everybody's compromised to some extent. So just the question is in what ways and how consciously and whatever. So that's what I think about that.
- [133:10]
B
Yeah, it's. Yeah, you have to differentiate between. So like, sometimes you need to make a statement in the sense of like, hey, do you guys realize what's going on?
- [133:20]
C
Right.
- [133:20]
B
Which sounds like what you have information other people don't have.
- [133:23]
C
Right?
- [133:24]
A
Yeah.
- [133:25]
B
And there may be a situation in which in our quasi democratic system, everybody knowing about it and not liking it may be able to make some kind of change. Right. If they have enough access to the levers.
- [133:38]
C
Right.
- [133:39]
B
So in that case, making a statement is important. Right. That's different from, I just want to let everybody know I'm on the right side of this issue. Theoretically. Yeah, that's a whole other thing. Right. I'm one of the good guys, just so you all know. And that doesn't, doesn't actually accomplish anything. I mean, as with everything we were talking about the last judgment earlier, it's what, what you do with what you have. Right. And if you have to get fired rather than morally compromise yourself, then that's what you have to do. Right. But there's also, right, hey, if you have the right to vote on something and it's important. Right. From your perspective, from the perspective of Christian morality, then you should probably go vote on it. Right. If you don't have the capacity to do anything about it, then you don't have the capacity to do anything about it. Right. And you're sort of not responsible for it.
- [134:41]
A
Yeah.
- [134:44]
B
If you're. I mean, in terms of examples for the church fathers and stuff, you read St. John Chrysostom's homilies on the statues, which is basically him interceding with the emperor for mercy towards some people who did some stuff that offended the emperor. There's lots of examples of that. And that was St. John Chrysostom, as the archbishop of Constantinople, had a certain amount of influence with the emperor. Right. And so that's something he had, something he was given. And so he tried to use that to do. To do good. He also called out some corruption that ended up getting him exiled. And so he had to sort of accept the consequences of that. But he felt that responsibility because he had that position and that influence.
- [135:31]
A
Right.
- [135:32]
B
And you can read about other bishops and fathers who would penance emperors. Right. Because they were in the position to do that.
- [135:44]
A
Yeah, Right.
- [135:45]
B
They were in the position to deny the emperor the Eucharist and the emperor had done something particularly wicked. And so they used that power. And in some cases, bishops who did that, the emperor made their life not good and maybe short. Right. And they accepted that. So it's always a question of when you see something like this, like government corruption and stuff, am I in a position where I have influence or power or authority or something where I can affect this? If the answer is no. Right. Then you can always pray about it because God's always in a position to do something about it. But that's. Then the limit of what you have to do is to pray. And what's always off the table in terms of the government authorities is violence, is revolution as a solution to corruption?
- [136:44]
A
Because no matter how well meaning your revolution may be, it not only is it, you're taking into your hands what God says belongs to him, but revolution is a fire that once lit, is going to burn a lot down.
- [137:01]
B
Yeah. So as tempting as the guillotine might be, on occasion when you're watching C span, Christians cannot roll out the guillotine.
- [137:13]
A
All right, next question comes from Rachel, whom we heard from before, but this is another question that she sent.
- [137:21]
C
Hi, Father. This is Rachel calling from Walnut Creek, California. My question is in regard to. We just had in Holy Week. We heard about the Passion of Christ and how he suffered and was crucified. And it just got me thinking. Apologies if you've answered this before, but why is it important or appropriate or fitting or necessary that Christ suffered? We know that he died voluntarily from St. John's gospel. He bows his head and gives up his spirit. So I guess my question is, if he could die voluntarily, why was it? Why did he have to suffer if he could just decide to die? Is there something about that? That is the suffering that is important to salvation. Thank you. God bless.
- [138:21]
A
Yeah.
- [138:22]
C
Happy bright week.
- [138:23]
A
Yeah. You can tell when she sent that question in.
- [138:27]
B
I'm guessing, bright week.
- [138:29]
A
Yeah, yeah. Happy bright week. Oh, yeah. I. The thing that I tell people a lot, although usually going at it from the. From another angle, people will often ask about their own suffering or the suffering of innocent people. And the, you know, the question is often like, well, why can't. Why can't God? Or why won't God just snap his fingers and prevent innocent people from suffering? Or, you know, why won't he prevent or take away my suffering? And of course, I mean, on the one hand, there's nothing wrong with praying that God takes suffering away from yourself or from other people. Nothing wrong with that. Very good thing to do. But that God's response to human suffering was not to just make it go away, because I think that that would probably render it kind of meaningless. But his response to human suffering was to suffer himself. To suffer himself. That he entered into human suffering actually in a really horrific experience of human suffering. You know, his passion is crucifixion. And then what that does is it makes it so that if we suffer and join our suffering to his by repenting in the midst of it, by not complaining about it, then that suffering becomes salvific. Not meaning like, okay, if I experience a lot of pain, then that I'll get to go to heaven when I die. But rather, the experience of the suffering refines a person so that they become holier, so they become more like Christ, so they become more loving, more compassionate, wiser. Like, there's a lot of wisdom that you get only through suffering in this world. You know, it just doesn't come another way. So, I mean, that's what I think. I don't know how I would answer the question of why was it necessary? But that's my answer for the question of why is it. She also used the word important. And I would add, why is it meaningful that Christ suffered?
- [140:48]
B
Yeah, I mean, we have to take into our account understanding that atonement takes Place through the whole Incarnation, the whole economy of the Incarnation. Right. And so when we're talking about Christ's suffering, we're not just talking about Holy Week.
- [141:07]
A
Yeah.
- [141:10]
B
We're talking about everything. All of what we've described before the show is the voluntary passions. You know, getting tired, getting hungry, getting thirsty, dealing with the rejection of people. Right. All the things he suffered through his whole that he is. God had no reason to suffer other than voluntarily. And just like everything else about our humanity that Christ assumed, he purifies and makes meaningful our suffering. Our suffering happens because there's evil and sin in the world. Right. But it could very well just be meaningless. Right. Just. Yeah, people are all bad. They do horrible things to each other. End of. End of story. Right?
- [142:04]
A
Yeah.
- [142:05]
B
But Christ, by coming and suffering and how he endured suffering, the patience and obedience with which he endured suffering, like everything else about our humanity, he transforms that and gives it meaning. So now when we suffer. Right. Our sufferings can be like the sufferings of Christ. And as Father Andrew said, there are things we can learn, ways we can grow, ways we can be healed. Right. From our sinful passions through suffering. There are a lot of people who get struck by something. Sickness, disease, the death of someone they care about, and that's what causes them to think about their life and transform it.
- [142:57]
C
Right.
- [142:59]
B
So, yeah. Because of Christ's suffering, our life isn't just one thing after another.
- [143:05]
A
Yeah.
- [143:07]
B
What. What new, fresh hell is this? Right. But it is. Right. Meaningful. It is able to be meaningful. Right. When we suffer these things, when we accept them as part of our life following Christ.
- [143:24]
A
Yeah. All right. Okay. We have another question from another one of our earlier people, and that's Zach. So Zach is back.
- [143:34]
C
Hey, I'm not sure if you really answered this question before, because I've submitted another one similar to it, but it's basically Jesus says in Revelation, he mentions morning star a couple of times in the last book. And in chapter two, chapter two, he says, I'll give you the morning star. And then in the last one, he says, I am the morning star. And it's like, I just want to really flesh it out and understand, like, what's the point of the devil? Like, most of Christianity really seems to think that it's this paradoxical situation where God hates the devil and he rebelled, and it's also awful. But. But then again, God's all powerful and it's sort of been allowed. He lets Job be tormented by the devil in order to demonstrate to the forces of evil that Job is a Faithful servant. So, like, I just. And the last question I asked was. Was really designed to, you know, prompt a response to that. The praying for the devil question. It's like. It's just not clear to me what. What the whole purpose of it is. Is it. Is. Is he playing a sanctioned role? Like, I just. It doesn't seem clear.
- [145:03]
A
Yeah. So is the devil a kind of cosmic Judas, you know, an instrument through which something that needs to happen happens? I mean, my short answer to what's the deal with the devil? Is that his purpose is to bring us to repentance, that that's God's purpose for him. He's doing his own will. But what God lets him do is so that we will repent. Otherwise, he would just toss him to the abyss because he'd be, you know, just harmful and useless. And then how does that. It's interesting. I'm not super clear as to what Zach is asking about the morning star, because obviously there's this connection between the morning star image and the devil, but then Christ is the morning star, as he says. Right. So what. I mean, what is going on with all of that?
- [145:55]
B
Yeah. So the morning star thing, I think it's a metaphor that's being used in a couple of different ways.
- [146:01]
A
Okay.
- [146:03]
B
So when Christ is described as the morning star, the idea is that his rising is. Heralds the dawn, right?
- [146:10]
A
Yeah.
- [146:12]
B
He rose from the dead first, as the first fruits and heralds the coming of the dawn of, you know, the new heavens and the new earth, the resurrection of everyone and everything. Right. Sort of heralded by his. And that star resurrection language is obviously common in the Old Testament, especially in Daniel. Whereas when the devil is compared to the morning star, that's a direct astrological reference. In a couple of different ways, one of which people probably don't know about. But the morning star is actually the planet Venus.
- [146:58]
A
Yeah.
- [146:59]
B
As we would now call it. And so it has some features, being a planet from the perspective of ancient people. The word planet comes from the Greek word for wanderer.
- [147:13]
A
Yeah.
- [147:14]
B
Because unlike the fixed pattern of the stars that they could chart out, the planets seem to wander all over the sky from their perspective and follow these weird paths. And so wandering stars, you can look that up in your New Testament. Right. That's an image for false teachers. Because, of course, the stars in Jewish astrology communicate. So the wandering star communicates incorrectly, or in a disordered and chaotic way.
- [147:53]
C
Right.
- [147:56]
B
So there's that element. And actually, if you do as the ancients did chart out, this is the thing most People probably don't know if you did chart out from their perspective the course of Venus in the sky. It forms roughly an inverted star shape, which is where the whole inverted star is a symbol for the devil comes from.
- [148:19]
A
Hmm. The pentagram and the flips. Pentagram, yeah.
- [148:25]
B
So there's a fun fact. Right. And then they throw Baphomet's face in there. Right. If you're a 1970s Satanist. So there's that element. And then there's also trying to communicate the fact that. That he is. He was an angelic being and a high ranking angelic being, which is. How they saw Venus, because it's particularly bright.
- [149:05]
A
Yeah, right, right.
- [149:07]
B
Especially compared to the other. The other stars from their perspective. And so it was considered to be sort of a ranking. If they're associating these with heavenly beings, this particularly bright one would be a particularly high ranking heavenly being. There's that element and then there's also a piece of. In the famous Lucifer text in Isaiah. Hello, Ben Shikar there. I think there's a good argument. There's a journal article floating around about this, connecting that to the fall of the God Enlil in Mesopotamian theology, politics, history, that are all sort of warped together. And Enlil and therefore Helel Ben Shakar, which gets translated into Latin as Lucifer, son of the morning. That morning part Enlil was connected to the morning star to Venus in particular in astrology.
- [150:13]
A
Cool, Cool. All right, we got a couple more. This next one comes from Brian.
- [150:21]
B
Hi, Fathers, this is BR from Kansas.
- [150:27]
A
Hey, I was listening to some of your older podcasts because I'm really getting
- [150:32]
B
into everything and I think it was one on Babylon and then a few
- [150:40]
C
episodes later, I could be completely wrong,
- [150:43]
A
but it just made me think of Pentecost.
- [150:49]
B
So I was wondering about the relationship
- [150:51]
A
between the Tower of Babel and Pentecost
- [150:56]
B
because one seems to be dividing the nations in terms of
- [151:04]
C
thought and action
- [151:05]
B
and differences
- [151:08]
A
for confusion, and the other
- [151:10]
B
one seems to be bringing nations together in one kind of holy way towards Christ.
- [151:22]
A
So I was just wondering if there is a relationship, a dichotomy between the Tower of Babel and Pentecost and if
- [151:31]
C
so, what that means.
- [151:35]
A
It's probably been talked about before, but I just found it kind of interesting and it seemed to connect in some
- [151:41]
B
way, but I can't figure it all out.
- [151:44]
A
Anyway, yes, I've had one
- [151:48]
B
tequila tonight,
- [151:49]
A
but this question's been on my mind. Thank you very much for watching you do.
- [151:54]
B
I really appreciate it, even though I'm Not Orthodox yet, but you never know,
- [151:59]
A
because I just love all the.
- [152:01]
B
It just really coincides with a lot of my. My thoughts and. Anyway, take care, guys.
- [152:12]
A
All right. Well, I mean, the great thing is, Brian, that you don't need tequila to see. See the connection between Pentecost in Babel. Yeah. So we just celebrated the feast of Pentecost a couple of Sundays ago in the Orthodox Church. And what's amazing. So Brian says he's not Orthodox. What's amazing is that Brian was almost in some places, quoting one of the great hymns of Pentecost. Right. So the Kentuckian for the feast of Pentecost, it goes like this. When the High One descended confusing tongues. Tongues he divided the nations. And when he distributed the fiery tongues, he called all to one unity. Wherefore in unison, we glorify the most Holy Spirit. And so this idea that Pentecost undoes Babel is baked into our liturgical texts for Pentecost in the Orthodox Church. This is not the only example of that. That hymn that I just quoted. There's a number of references to Babel in the Pentecost hymns, but one of the things. Actually, I was having a conversation about this the other day about the question of Pentecost and language and all that kind of stuff. And if you've read the Book of Acts, you know that at the day of Pentecost, that happens at the beginning there, that the apostles are preaching, and through the presence of the Holy Spirit, everyone hears in his own language. Whereas, of course, at Babel, the story is that God comes down and everyone begins speaking in different languages. They don't understand each other. And what's interesting to me is that Pentecost, the miracle of Pentecost, is not everyone suddenly learns how to speak and understand Hebrew, which actually, there's a fun medieval tradition or legend or whatever. I don't know if this is in the east, but in the west, at least I know this. That there was this idea that before the Tower of Babel and before the Flood as well, that everyone spoke Hebrew. Hebrew was the. The worldwide language, which is not. I mean, it's not. That's not, you know, in the scriptures or whatever, but it's. Yeah, it's this. This legend, tradition. But what's interesting to me is that what happens at Pentecost is not that everyone now speaks this one language, but rather that the many languages endure. But everyone understands. Everyone understands the gospel in his own language. Right. That there's not a sacred language in the sense that everyone. That there's only one language you can use to worship in or to pray in or whatever. And indeed, actually, that was a controversy in the history of the Church. It was called the trilingual heresy because there was this idea that it was only in Hebrew, Greek or Latin that you could worship God, because those were the only sort of sanctioned languages. And they pointed to the titulus above Christ's head of the Crucifixion. See, you see Hebrew, Greek and Latin. But the Church ruled against that and said, no, no, you can use any language. Because why? Because of what happens there at Pentecost, which is that every language now can become the vehicle for the Gospel. Every language can become the vehicle for. For prayer. And it's not just limited to one in particular. So, Bryan, yeah, you are definitely tracking. I mean, you see the connection. And by the way, it should also be pointed out, I mean, most Orthodox churches do not have an icon of the Tower of Babel, but Orthodox icons of the Tower of Babel do exist. You can google them up, you can find them online. And in many cases where they are placed either in a church or sometimes like a monastic trapeza, that is the refectory, they are put in juxtaposition to Pentecost, like, so these two icons are paired together to indicate that there's a relationship between the two. So, yep, good job, Brian. You should definitely become Orthodox. I mean, obviously you're already beginning to think like Orthodox Christian. Anything I'm missing there, Father?
- [156:23]
B
I don't have to. I'm actually you on that one, I think.
- [156:25]
C
Oh, that's great.
- [156:26]
A
Thank you.
- [156:27]
B
Covered it, that pause.
- [156:28]
A
I thought you were maybe taking a little nap or.
- [156:32]
B
No, I unmuted my mic.
- [156:34]
A
Oh, okay. I do that.
- [156:36]
B
And then, of course, I started talking without unmuting.
- [156:38]
A
I know I've done that a bunch of times. Like sometimes you'll be like, father, do you have anything to say about that? And I will have been talking, like for 30 seconds. Yeah. All right, we're going to take one more. And this is another one from Anya up there in New Hampshire.
- [156:55]
C
Father's Bless. This is Anya from New Hampshire. Thank you very much for taking my last question. And thank you for taking this one. I was wondering, what is the imagination? How should we as Orthodox Christians define it? How does it relate to thoughts, ideas, or the nous? And what's the danger or the benefit of engaging with the imagination? And if I can ask some follow up questions, how does something like escapism fit into the Christian life, the spiritual life, or should it not at all. And also, how does the imagination play a role in creativity? And is action more important in the creative process than the imagination? That's all. Thank you very much, and I'm looking forward to hearing your answers.
- [157:52]
A
All right. Well, as you can guess, everybody, this one's definitely right up my alley. Yeah. I mean, at its most basic sense, right, the imagination is the human mind's ability to come up with images. Right. And there are certainly, like, there are patristic warnings against imagination, but it's not against imagination generally, which I think sometimes people take it that way, and you really should not. It's against imagination in particularly meditative prayer. And the reason why you should not take it generally, and it should be obvious, is that the church fathers who say these things all are praying in churches with icons. So when they talk about imageless prayer, they are not iconoclasts. So clearly that's not what they mean by it. And they're also not teaching against the imagination, generally speaking, because, once again, icons could not exist. Hypnography could not exist. A lot of things just could not exist if there were no imagination, if humans did not have the ability to come up with images that they then paint or write or whatever. You know, whether it's images, you know, that are in words if you're a writer, or images in pictures if you're a painter, iconographer. Yeah. So, you know, there is. It's often spelled with a ph. Fantasy fantasia. That's talked about by the church fathers in terms of something that's bad during meditative prayer. And that's the. That's the idea of, you know, trying to make your ideas of who God is kind of dominate, you know, which is problematic, obviously, as you can see. It's. It's dangerous because then you're not really interacting with God as he truly is. You're interacting with your idea of God. Whereas humility encounters God rather than coming in with sort of, this is who I think God is. And therefore, that's whatever. Yeah. So that's. That's the problem with that. But that's not the same thing as fantasy, like fantasy literature or anything like that. I actually did write a whole essay about this at one point. You can look it up on the Internet. It's free to read there. But, like. So you mentioned Anya about escape. Okay. So, you know, it's well known that one of my favorite writers is J.R.R. tolkien. He has a whole text, I think that's really worth reading. Which you have not. If you have not. Which is called on fairy stories. So he's talking about fairy stories or fairy tales. And he says that the benefits of. Of these kinds of stories are he gives it three things. He refers to recovery, escape, and consolation. But you mentioned escapism, you know, and this is often used as a kind of derogatory term. People who want to read stories to escape from the real world or whatever. But Tolkien actually makes the point in that essay where he says this is not the escape from reality. This is the escape of the prisoner. So there's nothing wrong with escaping if you're a prisoner. And what it is that imaginative stories that are in alignment with the truth, because obviously there's some that are not, but those that are in alignment with the truth are doing is enabling the escape from the delusions of this world. Right. So that we can see more clearly what the truth is. Right. And so even stories that exist within orthodox tradition that are not in any sense pretending, for instance, to be what we would think of as a historical account of something, but still exist as kind of. There are fictional stories within the orthodox tradition. Lots of them, actually. The point of them is obviously not to pull us away from the real world, but actually to kind of give commentary on the world and to tell us how we should really be seeing it. Right. Certainly saints lives also accomplish this, but so do kind of legendary stories that sometimes attach to saints and other kinds of things like this. Like, I would honestly put the text Joseph and Azenath within that category. Yes, it's about a set of real events. But no, no one thinks that most of what's written in Joseph and Azenith is an actual sort of historical blow by blow of the story of how those two got together. It's not. Right. So it is a fictional story. It's basically a kind of novel from the second Temple Jewish period. So. So, yeah, I think the question is not whether imagination is good or bad in and of itself. It's really how you use it. Are you using it in a way that's humble and beneficial and leading one towards Christ or in some other dark way? Like I said, there are stories that are good and lead us in those good directions, and there are stories that are bad and lead us in bad directions, and there are stories that are mixed. Like St. Basil the Great very famously has a lot whole. Whole treatise about how to read pagan literature. Not just fiction, but pagan literature. The stuff that. The stories that are attached to pagan religion. He says you can read it and gain benefit from it. You have to read it discerningly he doesn't just write it all off and say this is just all demonic pagan delusion. He says that there's actually good in it. And indeed, in his time, it was the basis for. For education. So, yeah, so those are my comments on that question. You get the last word, Father Stephen, and then we'll be done.
- [163:43]
B
Well, yeah. I mean, every time Christ tells a parable, that's a call to utilize your imagination.
- [163:51]
A
Yep, yep.
- [163:53]
B
I mean, that's a fictional story to exemplify a point. And any analogy is basically using your imagination.
- [164:05]
C
Right.
- [164:05]
B
It's like a. Well, now you're imagining A.
- [164:09]
C
Right.
- [164:10]
B
You're picturing A in order to understand whatever B is that it's an analogy for. Right. Any thought experiment, which is more common than you think. Right. So you're trying to explain anything to anyone. And so you set up an imaginary scenario. So that's. You can't think without utilizing imagination to a certain extent about anything. Right. So, yeah, as Father Andrew said, the danger is particularly related to prayer. And this is a particular point of distinction between Orthodox prayer disciplines and Roman Catholic prayer disciplines, because Roman Catholic prayer disciplines deliberately and purposefully engage the imagination. Like when praying the rosary and contemplating the mysteries, the different sets of mysteries with it and stuff. We don't do that because we think that's dangerous for, among other things, the reasons Father Andrew outlined.
- [165:18]
A
Yeah, yeah. All right. Great question. Actually, we had a lot of good questions this time around. So thanks, everyone, very much for.
- [165:26]
B
And one of them that was really bad. Figure out which one.
- [165:34]
A
Yes. Well, that's our show for today. Thanks for listening, everybody, and thanks for leaving messages. If we didn't get to your question this time around, we'd still like to hear from you. You can email us at LordOfSpiritsand AncientFaith.com you can message our Facebook page. You can also leave us a voicemail just like all these people did@speakpipe.com LordOfSpirits and if you have basic questions about Orthodox Christianity or you need help to find a parish, go to orthodoxintro.org and
- [166:01]
B
join us for our live broadcast on the second and fourth Thursdays of the month. Other than, you know, tonight.
- [166:06]
A
Yeah.
- [166:07]
B
At 6pm Eastern, 5pm or where are you?
- [166:11]
A
Where are you, Father?
- [166:13]
B
6pm Pacific. I don't know. I don't know what's happening. Time is a flat circle. Join us for our live broadcast on the second and fourth Thursdays of the month at 6pm Eastern, 3pm Pacific. In case you forgot or thought I fell off, I knock your shell off.
- [166:31]
A
And if you are on Facebook you can follow our page, join our discussion discussion group. You can leave reviews and ratings everywhere. But most importantly, share this show with a friend who will benefit from it no matter where they be.
- [166:43]
B
And finally, be sure to go to ancient faith.com support and help make sure we and lots of other AFR podcasters stay on the air. Ain't no way you breaking me I'm harder than nails Plus I keep it on lock like I'm part of the jail.
- [166:58]
A
Thank you, good night and may God bless you all.
- [167:07]
B
You've been listening to the Lord of
- [167:09]
A
Spirits with Orthodox Christian priests, Father Andrew
- [167:12]
B
Stephen Damick and Father Stephen DeYoung, a listener supported presentation of Ancient Faith Radio
- [167:18]
C
and I beheld and I heard the voice of many angels round about the
- [167:22]
B
throne, and the beasts and the elders and the and the number of them was 10,000 times 10,000 and thousands of
- [167:28]
C
thousands, saying with a loud voice, worthy
- [167:31]
B
is the Lamb that was slain to
- [167:33]
A
receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and Blessing.
- [167:41]
B
Revelation chapter 5, verses 11 through 12.