The Ascension of Isaiah and the Assumption of Moses

Summary

---

The Lord of Spirits

Episode: The Ascension of Isaiah and the Assumption of Moses

Hosts: Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick & Fr. Stephen De Young
Date: June 14, 2024
Theme: The Seen and Unseen World in Orthodox Christian Tradition

---

Episode Overview

In this rich and sprawling discussion, Fr. Andrew and Fr. Stephen explore two pivotal Second Temple Jewish texts: the Ascension of Isaiah and the Assumption of Moses. These texts inhabit the blurry borderland between late Jewish and early Christian apocalyptic thought, offering deep insight into how the ancient faithful understood the mysteries of heaven, holy people, and the overlap between the seen and unseen worlds. The fathers also examine how these traditions influenced the understanding of figures such as Enoch, Elijah, Moses, and the Theotokos (Virgin Mary), and how these ancient traditions continue to inform Orthodox theology and liturgy today.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Ascension vs. Assumption: Definitions & Distinctions

[09:12–11:11]

• Ascension: A living person is bodily taken up into heaven—exemplified by Enoch and Elijah.
  • “Enoch and Elijah...are still alive, bodily taken up into heaven.” (Fr. Stephen, 10:26)
• Assumption: Someone dies, and then their body is taken up into heaven—ultimately reuniting body and soul ahead of the general resurrection; e.g., Moses and the Virgin Mary.
  • “An assumption is sort of an early resurrection, meaning their body…is reunited with their soul in advance of the general bodily resurrection.” (Fr. Stephen, 10:40)

2. Biblical and Second Temple Context

[11:12–21:06]

• Enoch (Genesis) and Elijah (2 Kings) serve as the foundations for traditions about holy ascension.
• Moses' death (Deuteronomy 34) is less obviously ambiguous, but interpreted as bodily assumption in later Jewish tradition.
  • “God took his body, meaning he took it into heaven.” (Fr. Stephen, 28:10)

3. Apocalyptic Literature: Visions, Heaven, and Prophets

[13:25–18:23]

• Ascents are linked to apocalyptic visions: “Here's a person being taken up into heaven…what did you see while you were there?” (Fr. Andrew, 13:31)
• Role of Enoch and Elijah in later apocalyptic/prophetic literature—seen as messengers or even angelic beings.

4. The Devil, Death, and the Resurrection

[34:30–42:42]

• Contest over Moses’ body between Michael and the Devil (Jude 9) is about the bodily resurrection, not the soul.
• “The devil is the eater of the dead… the devil is trying to claim Moses’ body and corrupt it.” (Fr. Stephen, 37:45)
• Uncorrupted relics of saints serve as evidence of this resurrection.

5. Assumption of the Theotokos: Orthodox and Catholic Differences

[44:00–69:20]

• Orthodox: Dormition (falling asleep/death) and then assumption of the Virgin Mary’s body, following the Mosaic model.
• Roman Catholicism: Dogmatized “Assumption of Mary” (1950) includes ambiguity—she "may or may not have died."
• Substantial theological divergence over immaculate conception and the nature of Mary’s humanity and death.
• “We’re not denying the title ‘Queen of Heaven’ for the Theotokos… but we think there’s something fundamentally different going on.” (Fr. Stephen, 67:55)

6. Dogma, Tradition, and the Question of Authority

[69:41–78:40]

• Orthodox vs. Roman Catholic dogma: Orthodox do not make Dormition/Assumption of Mary a “de fide” dogma but regard these as received tradition.
• Dangers of minimalism in belief highlighted: “This kind of argumentation slides in only one direction: fewer and fewer things get important with each generation.” (Fr. Stephen, 75:09)

7. The Ascension of Isaiah: Contents & Composition

[89:05–137:52]

• Three sections: Martyrdom of Isaiah (Jewish), Vision/Ascension (Christian Apocalyptic), Testament of Hezekiah (Christian).
• Key elements in Christian sections:
  • Early, explicit Trinitarian language and schema—remarkable for its first-century provenance.
  • “You see some detail and some depth into the doctrine of the Trinity as it will be… at the Council of Nicaea.” (Fr. Stephen, 125:05)
• New Garments, Thrones, and Crowns for saints—depicting resurrection and glorified humanity.
• Humans replace fallen angels—an ancient Jewish-Christian notion.

8. The Assumption of Moses: A Testament and a Missing Piece

[147:29–176:33]

• Version survives as a Latin palimpsest; possibly only 2/3 complete.
• Literary Testament: Moses’ final words to Joshua, recounting history up to 1st c. BCE/CE.
• Evidence of anticipation of bodily resurrection and fierce critique of corrupt priesthood (possibly Sadducean).
• The final prophecy paints an eschatological vision of God’s victory and the glorification of the righteous (echoing Psalm 82 and Daniel).

9. Underlying Theme: The Exaltation of Human Nature

[176:33–186:51]

• Resurrected, glorified humanity—not merely “going to heaven” as disembodied souls, but joining the heavenly council, “equal to the angels.”
• “The hope of the resurrection is not the key vector of the way people think about the afterlife...it is actually going to eventually happen for the righteous.” (Fr. Andrew, 179:30)
• The ultimate promise is the transfiguration of the whole person, body and soul.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

“An assumption is sort of an early resurrection—meaning their body, since it’s been taken up, is reunited with their soul in advance of the general bodily resurrection.”
— Fr. Stephen, [10:40]

“Apocalyptic does not mean end of the world per se, it just means a revelation. Something is revealed, something is unveiled.”
— Fr. Stephen, [13:50]

“The devil is the eater of the dead… this is talking about the devil as the one who corrupts the dead bodies—in contrast to God, who preserves them.”
— Fr. Stephen, [37:48]

“The Dormition icon is very clear that she (the Theotokos) physically dies.”
— Fr. Andrew, [66:07]

“There’s a core element of Nicene Trinitarianism here in a Jewish Christian work in the first century… the Ascension of Isaiah, incontrovertibly.”
— Fr. Stephen, [135:17]

“The core of it is that it’s not a question of what you believe, it’s a question of WHO you believe.”
— Fr. Stephen, [81:28]

“Assumption into heaven is not about a change of place… this is about, as St. Paul says, being caught up to be with Christ in the clouds—which doesn’t mean hovering rapture-style into the air.”
— Fr. Andrew, [181:44]

“Part of what we submit to... is that when people say ‘I agree with a lot of stuff of the Orthodox Church but I’d have to pretend I believe other things,’ that’s not what the Orthodox Church calls you to do… It calls you to not make that decision for yourself—it’s about faithfulness.”
— Fr. Stephen, [85:15]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

| Segment | Timestamp | |----------------------------------------------------------|-------------| | Opening banter, distinctions between ascension & assumption| 01:04–11:12 | | Apocalyptic visions & functions in Second Temple literature| 12:11–18:23 | | Biblical witnesses to ascension & assumption | 19:57–40:00 | | Devil, death, relics, and resurrection | 34:30–42:42 | | Dormition vs. Assumption of Mary (Orthodox/Catholic) | 44:00–69:20 | | Dogma, tradition, & authority in Christian life | 69:41–78:40 | | [Break/Ad] | 86:29–88:10 | | The Ascension of Isaiah: structure, theology, Trinitarianism| 89:05–137:52| | The Assumption (Testament) of Moses: composition & themes| 147:29–176:33| | Final reflections: Resurrection, exaltation, orthodoxy | 176:34–end |

---

Tone & Style

This episode blends scholarly rigor with levity, deep scriptural exegesis with personal and pastoral insight. The hosts' affection for both serious theology and comic books, as well as their willingness to challenge dearly held positions across confessional lines, contribute to a lively and engaging (often humorous) discussion. They gently rib one another and their respective audiences, but always in service of moving listeners deeper into the mystery of God’s work in creation—seen and unseen.

---

For Further Listening

• Enoch, Elijah, and Divine Council episodes: Explore more on apocalyptic literature and the heavenly council.
• Dormition of the Theotokos episode: Deep dive into Orthodox Mariology.
• Relics and Resurrection episode: More on bodily resurrection and Orthodox relics.

---

This summary is intended as a thorough guide and primer for those who wish to understand the episode’s flow, core theology, and scriptural engagement without listening to the full three hours. For scriptural citations, mystical digressions, and delightful Marvel/X-Men banter, the full episode remains highly recommended.

Transcript

[Narrator]

He will be a staff for the righteous with which for them to stand and not to fall. And he will be the light of the nations and the hope of those whose hearts are troubled. All who dwell on the earth will fall down and worship him. And they will praise and bless and celebrate with song the lord of spirits. First Enoch, chapter 48, verses 4 through 5. The modern world doesn't acknowledge, but is nevertheless haunted by spirits, angels, demons and saints. In our time, many yearn to break free of the prison of a flat secular materialism, to see and to know reality as it truly is. What is this spiritual reality like? How do we engage with it? Well, how do we permeate everyday life with spiritual presence? Orthodox Christian priests, Father Andrew Stephen Damick and Fr. Stephen DeYoung host this live call in show focused on enchantment in creation, the union of the seen and unseen as made by God and experienced by mankind throughout history. Welcome to the Lord of Spirits.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Greetings giant killers, dragon slayers, mashers of monsters. Christ is risen. He truly is risen. Although when you hear this episode, it'll be the Ascension actually.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Already. Yeah, you psyched yourself out on that one.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I know, I know, I know. But it's, you know, it's Christ is risen and where we are here in the past.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You are listening still be risen on Thursday.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That is true. That is true. And ascended. You are listening.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That's technically correct. Which is the best kind of correct.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It's the kind that endears you to all your friends and family when you're technically correct. Yeah. And that's how you know you're listening to the Lord of Spirits podcast. My co Host, the Very Reverend Doctor Almost Double Doctor Multi Master Steven DeYoung is with me from Lafayette, Louisiana, out there in the swamp. And I'm here from the much drier and much less humid Emmaus, Pennsylvania. My name is Father Andrew Stephen Damick and we're not live today. This is a prerecorded episode as already referenced because Father Stephen is traveling when this one airs. In fact, this is going to be pre record month here in 2024 because for the second episode of June, I'm going to be traveling. So, you know, we're not abandoning you, we're preparing.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

There's an outside chance I will actually be live on YouTube doing something else while this is airing.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That could.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That almost feels like I am not going to look at the comparative streams because I refuse to believe that I am better than me.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I feel like there's a. I feel like there's a William Shatner reference in here somewhere, but it's just not coming to me.

Oh, oh, oh, there it is. There it is. Yeah, yeah. Mirror universe. Okay, audience, work on the joke throughout the episode. All right, so in this episode, we're continuing to talk about apocryphal Second Temple Jewish texts, and this time we're talking about the Ascension of Isaiah and the assumption of Moses. Don't mix them up. These texts straddle the time of the birth of Christ and very much blur the conventional distinctions a lot of people have in their heads between Jewish and Christian texts. And for those of you who've listened to this podcast for a long time, these texts will include some elements that we have mentioned many times, so it should be a lot of fun. But even if this is your very first episode, because we know for a lot of people, for every episode, some episode is their first episode. This should still be fascinating, I think. So you don't have to have listened for a long time in order to get this one. So this is actually really the Enoch episode finally, right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I mean, we still have to do the show for a while, I guess.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Still forthcoming.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes. And even fifth coming.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It might worry people. Like, when the first Enoch episode actually comes out, people will probably panic thinking it's the last episode.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It'll be a sign of the apocalypse. But this is an apocalypse.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It will be. Yeah. It could end up being the last episode.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

This is an apocalyptic episode. This is an episode about Apocalypse as well, right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. Not like the Egyptian mutant dude.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

No.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You know, there are podcasts about him.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

The movie version of that was very disappointing.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes. Especially since Oscar Isaac is actually a good actor.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You could tell it was him.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I know.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But yes, that was the lamest El Salvador. But I have to say, he is not the best X Men villain in the first place.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, Apocalypse. No.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Like, I mean, he has an awesome backstory and stuff and everything.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But he has his four horsemen, who are, like, cool and all very cool and, like. But I don't know, I may be the only one who, back in the day was reading, you know, Walt and Weezy Simonson's X Factor, where they were introducing him, and he was, like, this lurking evil in the background. I remember that his name is Apocalypse.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And, like.

You know, is set up all this stuff. He's. This guy's going to be super awesome, you know, and everything. And then they finally go to fight him, and, like, he turns his fists into giant blue mallets.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, man. I had blocked that out. And it's like, come on, this is Sandman level stuff. But Sandman did it better.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes, yes. Like, come on, this is X Men, dude. We already had, like, Magneto.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right?

Who is the greatest X Men villain of all time, Period.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, yeah, and. But one of the greatest villains of all that. Right. And then, like, you know, oh, here's gonna be the new Big Bad, and it's, you know.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Plastic Man. I don't know.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Man. You're bumming me out here. At the beginning of the episode.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Ancient Plastic Man.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes, but this is an apocalyptic episode. Things will be revealed.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But, I mean, at least he looked better than. Than Mr. Sinister, who kind of looks like Arnold Schwarzenegger cosplaying is Robert Smith.

Anyway, we're slightly off topic.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I think this is the second episode in a row where we've led off.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

With Marvel Comics references with X Men in particular. X Men in particular. Yeah. Well.

X Men 97 just came out. Nostalgia craze.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I say. It kind of makes you wonder.

Whether a lot of these classic X Men writers were reading Second Temple Jewish literature, and that's where they're getting all their ideas from.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Pretty sure Chris Claremont never read any Second Temple Jewish literature.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Chris Claremont. Is he still living?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

If you're listening, Chris, write in.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

He's not Right in.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

We want to hear from you. What do you think about the Book of Jubilees? Is that where you got. I mean, come on. Come on, man.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So I've met a ton of classic comic creators. The only one who was ever rude to me in person was Chris Claremont.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Wow.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I'm not going to tell the whole story here because it's way off topic, but he's the only one who was ever, like, rude to me.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Maybe I'll get you to do that when you appear someday on my YouTube channel.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Maybe.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, we can talk about whatever we want there. Well, here, too.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But I met him a couple times. One time, he was just kind of abrupt and curt with me. And I'm Dutch, so I'm used to that.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The other time, he was actually rude.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Especially because half the guys who are Dutch are named Kurt. Anyway, just put it out there.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

There's more Berts than Kurtz, I think. In the Netherlands. Dutch listeners let us know.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That's right, write it.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

This is the problem with pre tapes. We feel no sense of urgency. I know, I know, because we're not live. Right?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Just Trudy's lurking somewhere in the background in the studio, like, putting on her headphones once in a while.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Oh, they're still Going, yeah, we hear a foot tapping or something.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Exactly. Bobby wanders by.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

When am I going to get to use that line?

[Narrator]

Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So what are we talking about again? Ascensions, Assumptions, hints and allegations.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

All of the above.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Incidents and accidents.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

All the above. So we want to make some here at the beginning. We want to make some distinctions.

In terms of this overall area. Right. So.

What, for example, is the difference between an ascension and an assumption?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

You can make an assumption, but not. You can't just make an ascension. It's grammatical right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, you could make an ascension.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

You could do an ascension.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You could do that by ascending, you ascend.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

But I don't think you make an ascension. Like, that's not the word. That's not. You could say, I'm going to do an ascent. See, that's a little awkward. I don't know. You have to just say, I ascend.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, yeah. But then after you've done that, you can refer to your ascension.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. Okay. Okay, Right.

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So trying to get me on a technicality here.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It's not working. Because the best kind of correct is technically correct.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Technically correct, yes. Ascensions and assumptions. Right.

Are two different related things. Right. So when we talk about an ascension, we're talking about a bodily ascent. Allah in the Old Testament, Enoch and Elijah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So these guys are key distinction. Still alive.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Still alive, bodily taken up into heaven. Now, we didn't include.

Christ in that. We will be talking about Christ ascension actually at a certain point later on, which is good. A little bit here.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

This episode will air on the feast of the Ascension.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. But that goes sort of way beyond what happens with Enoch and Elijah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Indeed.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And we did a whole episode about it. Yes, you can go and look that one up if you want to hear us go on and on about that one in particular. But here we're talking about.

Humans, Right. Regular humans.

So that's a bodily still living ascend into heaven. Enoch and Elijah are examples. And then there are assumptions. And when we talk about an assumption like the assumption of Moses that we're talking about tonight.

We'Re talking about someone who has died and then their body is taken up into heaven.

So in a way, an assumption is sort of an early resurrection, meaning their body, since it's being taken up, is reunited with their soul sort of in advance of the general bodily resurrection of everyone.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And so of course, there's a long setting tradition that we're going to talk about tonight about the assumption of Moses that is sort of recorded in the text that we call the Assumption of Moses. We'll get more into that.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And there's of course also.

That tradition regarding the Theotokos within the church that after her death her body was assumed into heaven. The mother of Christ, who is also the mother of God. Come at me with your story. And not because Christ is God. Yes.

So these are sort of slightly different. Right. One is they're still alive, taken up into heaven. The other is.

A person dies and then their body is taken up, meaning taken up and reunited with them. So the question, the key distinction is has the person died or not? Right, Right.

So we're not going to spend a ton of time because it's not totally germane to the.

Two texts that we're talking about tonight. Talking about Enoch and Elijah in detail. We have in the past talked in more detail about them and their ascents to heaven, especially in our episodes about saints.

And we'll be coming back to obviously Enoch, maybe less obviously to folks, Elijah later on as we continue this series on and off, talking about Second Temple texts. Because of course, Enoch, as you know, has a number of them named after him and a whole genre of literature named after him. Indeed. But there's also an apocalypse of Elijah, for example. Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And that sort of leads into what we more want to talk about. If you want to read, I mean, Those texts, Genesis 5, verses 21 through 24, talks about Enoch's being taken up into heaven and 2 Kings 2 or 4th kingdoms, 2, 1, 14 talks about Elijah.

But in terms of how those ascents sort of come to function, in terms of later Jewish and Christian tradition and Second Temple Jewish literature.

Those ascents are seen as occasions for apocalyptic visions.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. Because if you think about it like, here's a person who's being taken up into heaven. It's a very natural question like, so what did you see while you were there?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right, right. And so, and as we've talked about, apocalyptic does not mean end of the world per se.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Just unveiling it means a revelation. Something is revealed, something is unveiled. Right. And so if they're going up into heaven, not only are they seeing what's in heaven in the place where they go and wherever else they go on some kind of cosmic journey, but they're also seeing, and this is kind of important for the text we're talking about tonight again, as it has been for some of the other ones we talked about, they're also seeing the earth and what's going on on the earth and the history.

Of the earth from that perspective.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, exactly. From the perspective of heaven. You can see this world in a different way from that point of view.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And so all apocalyptic literature, by definition, involves someone taking that kind of journey. Right. And so when you have these two figures from the Hebrew scriptures who were told were taken up into heaven.

That then presents this good opportunity for apocalyptic literature to be composed and become attached to those figures.

This also sets up from the perspective of later literature, the idea that, well, since they didn't die, they were just sort of taken up into heaven. This then seemed to present the opportunity that they could come back, they could reappear.

Right.

And this. So, for example, with Enoch, eventually, when we do that first Enoch episode.

We'Ll talk about in some of the later sections that aren't in all the versions, but in some of the later sections, for example, Enoch comes back and, like, appears to Methuselah or appears to Noah.

To communicate things to them. And since he didn't die, was taken up into heaven, he could sort of reappear in bodily form.

And interact with them, interact with his descendants. And of course.

Not only within scripture, but outside of scriptures, there's all kinds of Jewish tradition about the return of Elijah. Right. From leaving a chair open for him.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

To.

Elijah coming first before the Messiah. Right. That, you know, he didn't die, he's taken away to heaven, so now he's going to come back.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

And there's. And there's even, like, Jewish hymns to Elijah, like, calling upon him.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, you know.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Is that idolatry, though?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

No.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Oh, okay.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, by the way, guys, that's not how idolatry works.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, exactly.

And then we also see an image here.

And this takes off, for example, from some of the details, like the detail that.

The Prophet Elijah, St. Elias, is taken up into heaven in a chariot. This is connected to the idea of God's chariot throne. We talked about this more in our episodes about saints. But so.

These two men from the Hebrew scriptures come to represent sort of the image of what a redeemed human being looks like.

That they were sort of. They experienced salvation to such an extent in this life that they didn't die.

And they were taken up into heaven. And then because of the idea of the chariot throne, they're sort of included in God's divine council sort of immediately along with the angels. Right. And even those reappearances, like Enoch's reappearances.

Are sort of connected to. He's doing the kind of things that God would send an angel to do. Yeah, right. To convey information, to convey messages. He's Sort of functioning as an angel. The sense of functioning as a messenger.

Right. Of God. And you see that connection also with the Elijah traditions, both in the Hebrew scriptures and around it, where he's coming before the Messiah to bring some message to announce. Right.

Sort of the coming of the Messiah. Again, that's a kind of angelic mission, which is why you sometimes see St. John the Forerunner with angel wings.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Angel wings, yeah. Well, and also why. Like when. When the Lord on the cross says, eli, Eli.

There are people who. Now, now that means my God. My God. He's referencing the Psalm 22. But why? There were some people who could think he's calling upon Elijah because that's a thing that people were doing, you know?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You don't have to keep justifying your idolatry.

Yeah. It's also very interesting that when Christ says that, he says it in Aramaic.

Since he's quoting a psalm.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

He doesn't quote it in Hebrew or Greek.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Sorry, Greeks.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Is that our first sorry, Greeks on the show? I don't remember.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I don't know. I feel like I've picked on the Greeks at some point, although that may have just been them taking me picking on Plato, personally. I don't know.

Then I say nice things about Aristotle sometimes, so they're probably torn. They don't know what to do with me.

So those are people who we see who ascend. Now, we mentioned when we were talking about assumptions where someone dies and their body is taken up.

The Old Testament example we referred to was Moses. Yeah. Moses dies.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

This may not be super obvious to some people that that's what's going on there. So we're going to talk about that.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. So like with Enoch and Elijah, I mean, Enoch just reading those verses in Genesis, there's a little ambiguity.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

If you really start parsing the words, it becomes plain pretty quickly.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Well, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I like what's going on.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. It says like it says, God took him, he walked with God and God took him. But then. But then you get a nice disambiguation in Hebrews 11 where it says, by God, by faith, Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. And there's also. Well, you get similar things in Ben Sirach and Wisdom also. So, I mean, that's just. Everybody interprets it that way from the earliest interpretations we have.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

God took.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But even then, you don't even have to rely on that. You could just dig into those verses in Genesis. So the word that's take is Sort of more like transplant or translate. Yeah. But anyway.

Yeah, so there's a little ambiguity there. But, I mean, it's pretty clear what's going on. Not many people would argue with you about either of those cases that the Bible is saying they were taken up into heaven.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Sure, Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

There are some weirdos about Elijah, but.

And if you're one of those weirdos who I just called a weirdo, sorry, man, but you're being a weirdo. Send us an email.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

We love the weirdo emails.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, a lot, actually. Like, this is just so abundantly clear what's going on.

But.

Yeah, there was somebody, even if I remember the name, I won't say it, who was saying that. They were trying to warp it around to me. God took Elijah and put him on an island or something.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, there is a thing out there. Yes, you can. Actually, as I was researching, searching a little bit for this, there is a thing out there that said that basically God sucked him up into heaven and put him somewhere else so he could minister somewhere else for a while.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. Which is kind of a quasi Mormon.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Thing or something, I guess. I don't know. I don't know.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Was it the US Is that where he went? Was it Jackson, Missouri?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It's a very pretty part of Missouri.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. Yeah. And that's just weird, right? Not. Not even the Jackson, Missouri part like the rest of it.

Right. Because it's so clear what's going on in the text. It's so clear how everyone from the original readers on understood that.

You know, gotta write journal articles and stuff, though. So. Hey.

They won't publish your article if you're just saying, like, everything you thought was true is actually.

Yeah, but anyway, the case of Moses is much more ambiguous if you're trying to just go by just strictly by the couple of verses that describe the death of Moses. Right. It's not obvious. It's especially not obvious in English, the way it's usually translated in English.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah. Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

This is in Deuteronomy 34, verses 5 and 6.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. So it says this actual death of Moses is described. So Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Peor. But no one knows the place of his burial to this day.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. So right off the bat, even before we start asking questions of it, there's some weird things in the text. Like it tells you where he was buried and then says no one knows where he was buried.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Maybe they just mean it's somewhere in this valley.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But we don't have the actual gravestone. Seems odd.

But.

There'S also some. Now one of these you can't see, right? But I pointed out to Father Andrew when he did the good old cut and paste on the quote.

And that's that in most English Bibles, for some reason, the he in he buried him is not capitalized.

Right?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So who is this he that buried him?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. Well, in the context, you could go back to the beginning of chapter 34.

Right? There's not a bunch of other humans here.

It doesn't talk about Moses and Joshua hanging out and talking or something. So that might be Joshua. Right. The verses leading up to this are all.

The Lord meaning Yahweh talking to Moses.

Right? Before he dies. There's nobody else mentioned in there. And so when it comes up to.

Moses, the servant of Yahweh dies there. The land of Moab, according to it, could just be with the word of the Lord meaning who he was talking to and the Yahweh who is standing there talking to him. And he buried him. The he can only refer to.

The Lord or specifically the word of the Lord, right?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Who being the one who buried him.

Right. So God is the agent here of burying Moses.

Then we have to ask another question. And that is, what does the word buried there meant? You might say, well, buried. That's obvious. You know, you dig a hole, you put the body in, you cover it with dirt.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That's what you think, right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But the word.

That is translated as buried in Hebrew here means in general, to care for a dead body.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, I mean, which we, we do that in English too, right? Like I've many times said, oh, I buried that guy last year, but I was not the one who dug the grave. I was not the one who put the body in the grave. I led the funeral services, right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And when that word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew scriptures, like what is it? Someone is told, go bury your dead.

That doesn't mean, oh, just throw them in a hole. That's it. Like, you're not allowed to do anything, right? That means go dead, take care of the bodies of these deceased people. Right?

So.

And then finally, right, at least the English translation that Father Andrew read, you know, which causes weird thing, he buried him in this place, but no one knows the place of his burial, Right? Makes it extra confusing. The second one is a different word. It's no one knows the place of his grave to this day.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So so you could also read it as.

He, meaning the Lord, did his funeral in the valley of the land of Moab, but no one knows the place of his. His grave, you know?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes. Cared for his body, right? Took care of his dead body.

In that place, but no one knows where his grave is.

And so again, from the earliest Jewish interpreters we have.

They understood this to mean that God, when it says that God is taking care of his body, it's that God took his body.

Right? That God took his body, meaning he took it into heaven, right?

And while that is never explicitly said in the New Testament. Right. It ever straight out says, in the New Testament God took Moses body into heaven.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

This tradition is very clearly referred to in the New Testament. The first time is a little oblique because the first time is on Mount Tabor at Christ's transfiguration, right?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

We all know that scene. The Lord appears, He goes up there with Peter, James and John, and then he's transfigured in front of them. And while he's transfigured in front of them, Moses and Elias stand there talking to him, right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And.

We'Ve heard that so much that we miss the point. That would have been weird if you didn't know about this tradition.

Right? Because as we've already said, Elijah coming back, sure, Right. Like.

Didn'T die, right? Bodies up in heaven, they're expecting him to come back maybe multiple times, right?

But usually when you get two people showing up.

It'S Enoch and Elijah, right? Enoch is the other one who.

Went up into heaven without dying, right? And so you can see this if you read the earliest interpretations we have of the book of revelation.

Right? Revelation, St. John, you'll see that pretty much everybody says that the two witnesses who show up, the two witnesses that Revelation talks about are Enoch and Elijah.

The two guys who left. The two guys come back, right?

And then they interpret that different ways, whether it's literally Enoch and Elijah, whether that's representative of Christ and St. John the Forerunner. There's different places they go with that, right after that. But that's the identification they make because that's sort of the natural identification even in a lot of Jewish literature.

But anything that's in the orbit of this tradition about Moses.

Then what happens on the Mount of Transfiguration makes sense because Moses has also been reunited with his body, right?

The story of the Mount of Transfiguration doesn't say Elijah and the ghost of Moses, right? Elijah and the spirit of Moses, Elijah and the soul of Moses.

They're both presented there as being bodily, as being recognizable. So they have this sense of identity about them such that.

The disciples know who they. Peter, James and John know who they are.

Right. Know that that's Moses and Elijah. It's almost like they'd seen pictures of them somewhere before.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Isn't that idolatry?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

They saw Moses.

Moses was visible. Right. Because he had his body.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So this is assuming that tradition. And then even more clear than that. Right. Without even having to dig much, you get Jude, verse nine. Right. The Epistle of St. Jude, brother of the Lord.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. This is one of those ones that if someone is into the weird bits in the Bible, they probably have seen this a lot. But if they're not, they probably may not even remember that this is there. So, yeah, Jude 9. There's just one chapter in Jude. So just Jude 9. But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, the Lord rebuke you.

Without. So there's no. Like, he doesn't tell the story. He's like, oh, you know, like when. When. When the archangel Michael and the devil were disputing over the body of Moses. You remember that? Yeah, he doesn't like, say, oh, and one day when Moses died. Like, he doesn't tell the whole story, just sort of assumes that the audience knows the story.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. I think St. Jude's epistle was inspired to be the thorn in the flesh of all those who believe in Sola Scriptura. He wants to quote and reference everything except the Bible.

He does refer to Sodom and Gomorrah. So not completely, but just quotes first edict, verbatim.

Etc. And refers to this. Right, refers to this.

And we'll come back to this when we talk about the text, the assumption of Moses. But we can already go ahead and say here.

We don't know for sure that this is a reference or the Lord rebuk you is a quote. We don't know for sure that that's a direct reference to the text. The assumption of Moses, in fact, probably isn't. It could be. But this is a reference to the traditions that we have recorded.

In the Assumption of Moses. And notice how. Yeah. As Father Andrew said, How St. Jude refers to it. He just refers to it offhand, like, yeah, you all know about this.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. And he doesn't bother to say, oh, I know this isn't in the Bible. It's just a Tradition, but.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Because that's not the way it operates.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes.

He could just refer to it as an example.

And so clearly this is telling us again, this doesn't, as I mentioned explicitly, say God took Moses body into heaven. Right.

But this is very clearly. And we'll see some more about that in a little bit. But this is very clearly a reference to this tradition.

Now.

Why would St. Michael the Archangel and.

The devil be fighting over Moses body?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. And what does it mean for God to take it?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes.

This isn't, as some people, especially those infected with Plato Brain.

St. Michael and the devil contesting over the soul of Moses. Yeah. It's about the body. This isn't Moses passing through an aerial toll house. Okay.

They're fighting over his body.

Over his body, not his soul or his spirit here.

That's what the contention, the dispute.

Is over.

So why is this? Well, first of all, because they're fighting about the body. This tradition is assuming the bodily resurrection.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. Because if there is no bodily resurrection, who cares?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. Why would you fight over his body? You'd just be fighting over his soul. Right, right. If there needed to be a fight.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It'S just a shell, man.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But so this assumes the bodily resurrection. This assumes that the body is in some sense still Moses. Right. And needs to be protected or claimed. Right.

It also though assumes that the devil, because there has to be a contention that the devil.

Has some claim to press over the body of Moses.

Right. And this goes back to something we've talked about a few times on the show regarding the curse that's placed on the devil in Genesis chapter three. Right. And we've talked about how it says, you know, you're gonna crawl on the ground and eat the dust of the earth. Right. All the days of your life. And certain very literal minded people want to read that as, oh, this is Rudyard Kipling's just so story about how the snake lost its legs.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I still remember some weird fundamentalist tracks where they were claiming they had evidence that snakes used to have legs. Nice try to prove that this was a true story scientifically. Like really, guys?

Because of course, as we've said before, ancient people had seen snakes eat mice.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. And rats. They'd seen this happen. They knew they didn't eat dirt. Right. And the word that's used for the dust that the snake is going to eat is the same word that just a few verses away is used when God says, you are dust and to dust you will return to Adam.

Right. He's made from dust. He's going to return to dust. So this is talking about the decomposition of his body.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, this is.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

This is talking about the devil is the eater of the dead.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yep, yep. This is. This is dissolution, you know, disintegration, death, corruption, decay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Entropy.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right, right. And expressed as physical.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Physical.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Corruption. Right. The physical corruption of the body. Right. That this is sort of a punishment. And so the devil is trying to claim Moses body and corrupt it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But as Moses is a righteous man. Right. St. Michael is disputing this claim in this scene that St. Jude refers to.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. The idea being that the devil, who has been swallowing up the dead all this time now Moses dies. He's like, great, here's a tasty morsel. And the archangel is like, hold on a second.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

And so.

In this tableau, even though, again, we don't have this whole story spelled out here in St. Jude's Epistle, it's hard to imagine that St. Michael would have lost this particular engagement.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes, right, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And unfortunately, that time the devil won. Right? No, right. That's not going to happen. Right.

So then again, we're kind of confined to St. Jude. But assuming.

St. Michael wins this particular contest, this particular dispute, I mean, given.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Tabor, I'm pretty sure that he wins.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. Like what happens to Moses body. Right, right. That's why this is directly connected to this assumption, tradition and to resurrection. And this is a mode of reasoning this, that we've just been talking about, that we don't talk about a lot.

Even in the Orthodox church, though we have a little more reason that we'll talk about in a minute to talk about it.

But is important very early on, at least in. In the Christian proclamation. And as evidence of that, you have what St. Paul says in Acts 13:35, 37, where he quotes David in the Psalms, saying, you will not allow your Holy One to see decay.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Talking about decaying in the tombs. And David there is very clearly, if you read the whole psalm for which that's quoted, David is talking about trusting in God, even though he dies and goes to Sheol. Right. Goes into the grave. So it's very much pointing to the bodily resurrection.

In the psalm. But after quoting it, St. Paul then says.

David, after he had done everything he did as God's servant, died and decomposed.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

David had not yet literally experienced the resurrection, even though he had put his trust and his faith in it, he had not yet experienced it. And then St. Paul uses that to point to Christ, whose body did not see decay during his entombment because he rose from the dead.

Right.

And so St. Paul is there using this mechanism to talk about Christ's resurrection as the beginning, the first fruits of the general resurrection.

Christ's resurrection is the resurrection. Right. And that's connected to this idea that his body did not at any point decay. Right. Because as Christ says in St. John's Gospel, he says, the ruler of this world is coming for me. He has no claim over him. Right. He finds nothing in him.

He has no claim on Jesus.

And so the things that are pitted against each other are the resurrection versus corruption. Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That's what the fight between Michael and the devil is about.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. Decay and, and decomposition. And this is what's going on with. There are certain saints in the Orthodox Church whose relics. Whose bodies. I'm pretty sure we talked about this back in the relics episode, way back in the long ago time.

Don't decay. Or at least don't decay normally.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. And. And there's, there's, there's variation in this point. Like there's levels of this. On the one end, you've got bones that maybe turn golden or scarlet and have a fragrance, a beautiful fragrance that's kind of the most. The most minimal form of incorruption. And then on the other end, you've got the hand of St. Mary Magdalene, which not only has the flesh on it and it's flexible, but it's also warm, which I probably, I think I've mentioned this on this show before, but I can personally attest to that. Like, I have actually touched it for myself and can attest that that is real.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. So that's. These are incorrupt relics are a sign of.

The bodily resurrection, of the reality of the bodily resurrection.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It's incomplete, but it's. It's present on some level.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So then we talked about this Moses tradition.

We mentioned back at the beginning that this is not only something, a tradition that the church has received about Moses, but this is.

What we say also happened with the Theotokos.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. So if someone says, well, why do you believe that the body of the Theotokos was assumed into heaven? We can say, oh, it's just like Moses.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. And then they get confused.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. Especially if they've never heard or considered any of the stuff that we just got. We just finished talking about.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, yeah. And we're also going to have to do a little bit of disambiguating vis a vis the Assumption of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church.

And I know already, you know, I know there's going to be a section of you Catholic listeners who are going to insist that we're misrepresenting you and et cetera, et cetera.

Here's the thing. Here's the thing.

We love you and we care about you Roman Catholic listeners to the show. But.

There seems to be this thing among Roman Catholic people, even Roman Catholic people who I get along with totally well, that they're unable to acknowledge that any summary of their doctrine and beliefs that is even vaguely critical is accurate.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Well, I mean, that's a human thing. Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But it's especially.

Pronounced among a lot of Roman Catholic.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I think that that's true.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And part of humility, Right? Part of humility, intellectual humility, is being willing to admit that there are people out there who fully understand what you believe.

Orthodox people need to do this too, by the way. I'm not just saying this. Robocallex. Orthodox people, Protestant people. Right. Buddhists.

Republicans. Everyone needs to understand this.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Green Party.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. Libertarians.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Everyone needs to Anarcho. Communists. You must all understand this.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Zoroastrians.

We have to be willing to accept that there are people out there who fully understand what I believe or what you believe. Completely understand it just as well as you do. Right. And don't agree with it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah. The other, the other two things that I think people need to toss aside that kind of go in the same direction is the assumption is if you don't agree with me, number one, it could be like it's. The other person doesn't understand it. Right. So there's.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. You don't know.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. Yeah. And that could be either that they're ignorant so they haven't studied enough. Right. Or it could be that they're incapable of understanding it, like you're just too stupid. And then the other one is you have an ulterior motive. Right. It's. It's. You're, you're evil and so you don't want to accept this. Right. But the reality is that people can look at all of the same evidence, be just as informed, they can be just as smart and just as good willed and still disagree. It's a reality.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. And that's okay. That doesn't mean you're wrong.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. Doesn't mean you're wrong. You could still be wrong, but that.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Doesn'T mean you're wrong. But that doesn't automatically mean you're wrong.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right? Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. That's. I mean.

So you could argue about it. Right. You could argue why you're right and they're wrong or whatever. Right. But present evidence. Whatever you want to do. But you have to accept at some point. Not everyone who disagrees with you is stupid. Not everyone who disagrees with you is uninformed. Not everyone who disagrees with you is lying. Not everyone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I mean, to me, the conversations only really get interesting once you assume none of those things are true, then you can have an interesting conversation. Right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And that's not to say no one who disagrees with you is ignorant or stupid or acting in bad faith. There are certainly those people out there.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes, Right, Absolutely.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And when you discern one of those people, it's not worth arguing with them. Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Just walk away.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Just let them be. Right. But there are those out there who do have good faith disagreements with you, and those are the people, as you said, who are interesting to actually talk to about it.

That's worthwhile to talk to about it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

We said all that to say this.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

To set up for the fact that we're gonna have to do some disambiguating here.

And point to some areas of disagreement that are legitimate disagreement. Because I also.

Everyone who knows me knows how much I despise the panned heresy of ecumenism.

We're also not willing to do this paper over like, oh, we all just really agree, like terminology.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No, there are points of disagreement.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

We're both very much on record.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Of.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Not thinking that way.

Yes.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I think there's only like, five people in the world who are real Christians. That's how opposed to the pan heresy of a Cubanism I am, and I'm not one of them.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That's right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I was going to say.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

And may we have their prayers.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Pious, rigorous things to say.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

We just lost several listeners there, but that's okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That's all right. Yeah.

As long as they're not over those five.

Those five would listen to this show. That's the thing. Yeah.

So, okay, in terms of what the church. By that we mean the Orthodox Church says about the Theotokos vis a vis her body being assumed into heaven after her death.

So we have to start out in terms of talking about this, by talking about the fact that our starting point is that it happened.

And here's what I mean by that. Right. I don't mean it happened because it happened. Right.

What I mean by that is there's this tendency nowadays in conversations. Right. So I'll use another example related to the Theotokos, because this is one that has come up A lot, at least around me. Right.

And that's over the fact that the Theotokos didn't have any other. Didn't give birth to any other children besides Jesus.

Which is something that was believed by everyone in the church until.

Like late 17th century.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. And you know, just to throw.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

All the Protestant reformers believed it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah, exactly. And just to throw this out, especially for those of you who do believe in solo scriptura, there is nowhere in the New Testament that it ever describes any other person as being a child of Mary.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So if you're going to say she had other.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But we're not going to.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, you're going to have to go outside the Bible.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Just let's not litigate that too far, though.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, no, no, but I'm just saying.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But yeah, I'm just using that as an example.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right, right, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And the example I'm using it for is not the issue itself, but the argumentation surrounding it. Yeah, right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So. But it's very common, even though this is a relatively recent thing, to reject that idea, to say that she did give birth to other children.

This is the majority view among Evangelical Protestants of the United States now, I would say.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And when someone. This is probably. I mean, I don't claim to have any kind of great knowledge of conversations between Protestants and Roman Catholics, but I imagine with them, and I know for sure in conversations between Orthodox folks and Protestants on this issue, Evangelical Protestants, at.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Least.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The way it's often approached from the Evangelical Protestant side is.

The argument starts with not. Is that factually true or not?

The argument starts with, well, why?

What does it mean? Why is that important?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That the Theotokos is ever virgin. Right. That's. That's where the conversation begins. And therefore the argumentation, if you track it out over the course of the conversation. Right. Like if you took a transcript of the conversation and tracked the course of the argument, the course of the argument from the other side tends to be. You can't give me an adequate or acceptable to me, explanation of why or what it means or why it's important. Therefore I reject that it's true.

Yeah.

Right. Therefore I reject that it's true.

And.

There'S a. The problem with that is that all of these things, all of these events in and around Scripture.

Which relate to the Christian tradition and our faith.

Including the very most important ones.

The central ones.

All happened first. They just happened.

And they didn't happen in a way that explained themselves. And then after the fact.

The church reflected on those things.

And the whys and the what it means and the why it's important. Right. Comes out of that later reflection. So to use a couple of the very most important and central things of the Christian faith, right. As examples, Christ rose from the dead.

That's as central as you get. That is the central proclamation of Christianity. Christ is risen. Right. Christ rose from the dead.

That did not come with an explanation.

In and of itself at the time. Christ rose from the dead. His disciples so didn't get it that they didn't think he was going to rise from the dead. Yeah.

They should have because he had told them. Right. In the Gospels. But they didn't. Right. They not only didn't have an idea of what it meant, they didn't even know it was going to happen when it happened. They found out about it after it happened. And when they first heard about it after it happened, they didn't believe it.

Right.

Then later.

After this has happened and after Christ has appeared.

And explained a little bit, at least what it was about, you get St. Paul writing 1 Corinthians 15 about the resurrection and reflecting on Christ's resurrection.

And other passages all through the New Testament, all through the writings of the Church Fathers, all through the writings of the Church in every era, reflecting upon. Right. That's what real theology.

If we're talking about theological writing, is.

It's not coming up with new arguments and new stuff. Right. It's reflecting upon who Christ is and what he's done. Right.

And the experience of Christ.

So. Right. You see this pattern. It happens and they understand it. We can say the same thing about the crucifixion.

Right. Christ is crucified. Christ dies on the cross. Right. Pretty central to the whole Christian faith. Right. But at the time, no one understands why it's happening.

In fact, pretty much everybody misunderstands what happened there at the time.

After the fact. That, again.

Huge portion of the New Testament is reflecting on the meaning of Christ's crucifixion and death.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. And then again, all through the history of the Church. Right. All this reflecting upon it. Right. So those explanations and understandings come afterward.

So when I say that the beginning of what we're saying about the Theotokos and her body being assumed into heaven is that it happened. Right. We're saying that we have had handed down to us from the eyewitnesses who saw it.

The fact that after the Theotokos died, after she was buried.

They returned to the tomb to care for her body and her body was gone.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Okay. And when they returned to the tomb and her body was gone, it was not like when Jesus rose from the dead in the sense that she was not walking around eating with them.

Right. That she was resurrected in the same sense Jesus was. Right. But her body was gone in the same sense that Moses was.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That she had already experienced resurrection, but she's not walking on this earth now. That does. And has historically opened up the possibility that she can make return appearances.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Just like Moses did on Tabor.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But. Right. So this happened. They found.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Hey.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Her body isn't here.

And I'd also point out.

That with all the claims of relics, the most interesting thing to me that John Calvin ever wrote, at least the most entertaining, we'll put it that way, is at one point, John Calvin wrote an inventory of all the relics in Western Europe.

As best he could ascertain it. And it's. It's him doing his best. Jonathan Swift, before Jonathan Swift. Because he's kind of making it obvious, like, did St. John the Forerunner have eight legs and three heads? Right, right. To point out that these all can't be legitimate. So there were people, there were rackets, right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

In various parts of the Christian world at various times, selling fake relics.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Okay. Yeah. Or trying to set up fake pilgrimage sites with fake relics.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Shows up in Chaucer.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. It's endemic throughout Christendom.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

From St. Constantine on, it becomes just endemic. Pops up all over the place. Okay.

There's no record anywhere of anyone ever claiming to have a body. Part of the Theotokos.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Which there'd be very strong reasons to do that.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

There's never a claim. And I mean never a claim. We don't even have, like, oh, this bishop had to send a letter saying, you know, hey, this is phony. Because her body was taken up into heaven.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No one ever even claimed it in the first place. And had to be corrected.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Which shows how incredibly deep seated this belief.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes. How early and how deep seated and how universal this understanding was within the Christian church.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. From a very early phase. But so, yes, it happened. And then after the fact that they happened, it gets interpreted. And it gets interpreted in light of these Moses traditions.

That, oh, what happened with Moses happened with her.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That God took her body so that it would not see corruption.

Because she was a righteous servant of God like Moses was.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. And is, of course, the mother of the Lord.

Now here's where.

Our Roman Catholic friends will again get irritated with me. Some of them will even call this an attack, but there's nothing I could do about it. So here we go.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

How dare you, sir?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It is very obvious. Even though we celebrate the Dormition, the falling asleep, meaning the physical death of the Theotokos on August 15, that's the same day the Roman Catholic Church celebrates the Assumption of Mary.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It's on the same day. It was proclaimed a Dogma.

In the 19th century.

By the Roman Catholic Church. The Assumption of Mary.

And when it was declared a dogma.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Actually, I'm going to have to. Actually, you.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Oh, is it the 20th?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes, yes. So you're thinking of the immaculate conception. That's 1950.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I thought immaculate conception was after.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Anyway, 1950.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The 20th century.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

1950.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Oh, see, so pre Vatican II'm going.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

To revel in this for just a second because I almost never get to immaculate you. Okay, okay, camera.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So 20th century, later than that, even he's declared a dogma.

Yes, I flipped my Marian dogmas.

Well, see, now they're all going to use this as evidence. See, he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Got a date wrong.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Busted. Yeah.

So in. In the proclamation of it as a dogma.

Rome deliberately introduced an ambiguity to try to include us in the East.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, this is. This is.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Now, as I said, this is pre Vatican too. So they. It wasn't so much that they cared about us as that the way a proclamation of dogma works in the Roman Catholic Church is that they declare that some particular belief was held always everywhere and by everyone in the Church.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Which is super fascinating with the Immaculate Conception and Thomas Aquinas. But.

So they're saying that what they were proclaiming as dogma about the Assumption of Mary was always everywhere held by everyone in the Church. And they were aware of, at least in broad strokes.

The difference between the tradition in the east on this and what they were declaring.

And so they put this nebulous little phrase because what they were declaring as dogma, effectively, is that the Theotokos.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Mother.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Of the Lord, the Mother of God, did not die.

But ascended into heaven. And ascended into heaven in a manner parallel to Jesus Ascension. To Christ's Ascension.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. And interestingly, like if you actually read. If you read the text. Right. Of this dogmatic declaration by Pope Pius xii, which is named. I'm going to get this wrong, but Munificentissimus Deus. That's pretty good. They link it directly with the Immaculate Conception.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It actually says that she completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception and as a result was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave. And she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body. So there's. It links it to this, to that earlier Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. And you notice the language there. So unlike Moses, there wasn't. She didn't have to die and there didn't have to be a fight.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. So she ascends into heaven. And linked in the way it's celebrated in the iconography of the feast in the Roman Catholic Church is when I say it's paralleled with the Ascension of Christ, I don't just mean flying up into the sky. Right. Because although Elijah and Edict potentially with Enoch, but flew up into the sky. Right.

What I mean is, as we talked about in our Ascension episode, Christ's ascension is really about his enthronement.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And if you look at the celebration of the feast of the Assumption of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church, it's really about the enthronement of St. Mary as the Queen of Heaven.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. And I mean, if you just want to check this, just go to Google Images and type in Assumption of Mary and it'll show you a gazillion Roman Catholic paintings. And you can see this is her being enthroned in the heavens.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And then you could search for Dormition of the Theotokos, which will show you the Orthodox icon.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Where you see her dead body. You see her dead body on the bottom center and Christ with her soul in his hand.

You know, right above the body. So that the Dormition icon is very clear that she physically dies.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. And so being at least somewhat aware of this and wanting to make the claim at least semi legitimate, that this is what was always and everywhere believed by everyone when it, you know, there is an ambiguity introduced into the dogmatic proclamation by Rome that she may or may not have died. Right. Even though clearly from everything that is said, like the quote that Father Andrew just read from all the iconography associated with it in the west, they're saying she didn't. Right. Like they're saying she did not. But they introduced that ambiguity so they can try and rope in all of the Eastern texts, and all of the.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Eastern texts, they quote St. John of Damascus and various other things as evidence.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

In support of what they're proclaiming, even though it's different. Right.

And so there are some. There's some fundamental differences there.

Right. There just some fundamental differences there. Now, we don't deny, as Orthodox Christians, we don't deny that Queen of Heaven is an appropriate title for the Theotokos. Sure. Right. You can listen to our. We did an episode about the Theotokos talking about her as queen and mother.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right, Mother.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, yeah.

So you know that it's not that we deny the title's appropriate, but we think there's something fundamentally different going on with the Dormition of Theotokos. And what's going on in the assumption that's in part linked to the Immaculate Conception also.

Which we do reject fully.

And our concern with that in the Orthodox Church. Is that pretty much exactly what's summed up in that quote. Father Andrew read that you're making the Theotokos something other than a human.

And.

It'S because Christ takes his human nature from the Theotokos. If she's something other than a human descended from Adam.

Like the rest of us, then what does that mean about Christ's humanity? That his humanity is different than the humanity of the rest of us. Yeah. And the whole thing falls apart.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I think it's worth noting, by the way, that if you look up Roman Catholic explanations of this dogma, you can find different opinions about whether or not the Virgin Mary actually died. And that's because.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Because that ambiguity is there.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Because the ambiguity is there in the proclamation.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You're allowed to believe either.

But all of the positive statements, the hypnography, the iconography and all of those things. Right. Are pointing in the other, in one direction. Right, right, right. But there's that language again. You're allowed to believe.

The other. And this is what we're getting into when this issue comes up. One of the first things between Roman Catholic and Orthodox folks, one of the first things you'll hear from the Orthodox side is that for us, it's not a dogma.

And I think that gets misinterpreted a lot.

It gets misinterpreted a lot.

Part of the reason for that is.

What the Roman Catholic Church means by dogma.

And.

How Protestantism has traditionally reacted to that. Because especially since most of these conversations are happening in places like the United States and Canada. Right. And the Anglophone world that are dominated by Protestants and then minority Roman Catholics and then tiny minority Orthodox. Right. Most of these conversations that are taking place that we have access to are taking place between Protestants and Roman Catholics and there usually isn't an Orthodox person to be seen.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Like in the vicinity.

And so.

The Roman Catholic view is clearly that anything that's a de fide dogma, which would include.

Since mid 20th century the assumption of Mary, which includes the Immaculate Conception, includes all those things, have been proclaimed as dogma de fide. Dogma. You have to believe it or you can't go to heaven.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

In very brief form, yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Necessary to conception.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes. Now there are.

Again, because no matter what I say, I'm going to be accused of misrepresenting the Roman Catholic position. I have quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church and been accused of misrepresenting the Roman Catholic position.

But it's amazing. I don't give up. But.

There are qualifiers. Like this only applies after the dogma has been declared. So, for example, Thomas Aquinas didn't really believe in the Immaculate Conception, but it was declared a dogma, like 600 years after he died, which, I mean, let's.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Think about that for a second. You must believe this in order to be saved. But if you didn't used to believe it before the dogma was declared, you could be saved. Suggesting that salvation now works differently.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Because there was a.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right, because now if you don't believe it, you are rejecting the truth. So that's the distinction that's made.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Understood. Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Okay. So Thomas Aquinas was just kind of ignorant.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So he'll be all right in his place in time. He didn't know. Right. How important this was.

And. Right. And so if you're ignorant because it hasn't been made a dogma yet, or if you're just ignorant in general, like if you're living somewhere in the world and you've never heard of it.

Right. But the idea is, if you're aware of it, so if you're, say, a Protestant and you've read the decree and you've heard about it and you reject it, you can't go to heaven. That's the official teaching. Right. I know post Vatican ii, we've all gotten mushy about everything, but that's still the official on the books in Latin teaching.

Of Rome. If you consciously reject one of these dogmas, you can't go to heaven. And of course, the Protestant response to that is like, what?

These things that aren't the Bible, first of all, obviously, because Protestants generally hold to some form of sola scriptura. Right.

But so because of that kind of debate, the debate then shifts. Right. That mode of argumentation shifts the overall debate to what are the things you have to believe in order to get into heaven?

Or reversing that? What are the things that denying them would cause you to not go to heaven.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

Yeah. Technicalities.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, yeah, but not Just technicalities. But it creates this kind of minimalism.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right, Right. Exactly.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Like you're trying to compose mere Christianity, for example.

Yes. That's shots fired, C.S. lewis.

I don't think that's a good impulse. Yeah, I want minimal Christianity. No, I want more Christianity. Right. I want all of Christianity. That's like, I want the whole thing. I don't want the turkey sandwich.

But this idea of we need to just whittle down what are the bare minimum things. Right. And some of this is in reaction to, you know, here comes the bugbear again, the idea of ecumenism. Right. I want to whittle this down enough that I can so that I could call more people my brothers. Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Hands across the.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And so forth and. And opt out of theological debates and stuff, because I'll decide those aren't really important. Right?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But this has all kinds of bad effects.

Right? This has all kinds of bad effects.

And this slides in only one direction.

Right. The direction this slides in is fewer and fewer things get important with each generation.

Right. There are these folks out there. You can find them on the Internet. They're called Reformed Baptists. Oh, yes, Reformed Baptists. They're Baptists who are Calvinists, meaning they're Baptists who hold to a theology.

Formulated by people who killed Baptists as heretics.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

I know. That's amazing.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. So this issue, not baptizing your children was such a serious issue.

[Narrator]

In the.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

17Th century that people were killing each other over it. Right. And now Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists go to the same seminaries and they call each other brothers, and they both hold to the Reformed faith and, oh, it's not that big a deal.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Both Luther and Calvin believed that a Baptist church was not really a church.

They believed that a Roman Catholic church could be called a church.

But that the Baptists were a sect.

They were worse than Roman Catholics according to Luther and Calvin.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But now, hey, we're all friends.

And now that this sliding of what's important.

Now that we're in the 21st century and we're down to almost nothing, and it's gone from just theological issues like how you formulate the Trinity or who Christ is, which are now up for grabs, apparently it's gone from that now that it's gotten into moral issues and ethical issues, now all of a sudden, a lot of our Protestant friends are realizing the problem.

Right. To be blunt, now that it's, oh, who you have sex with isn't really all that important now there's an issue.

Tacitly denying the doctrine of the Trinity. Doctrine of the Trinity. Thirty years ago, we just started winking at.

Right. But now that it's gone into this moral zone, now it's serious.

Ironically, but it's not going to go in the other direction. Guys.

When you start whittling down, what is mandatory about the Christian tradition.

It'S going to be less and less is going to be mandatory with each generation. And now we're pretty much at the point, as we've said before on the show, where what it means to be a Christian is. I identify as a Christian.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It doesn't matter what I believe. It doesn't matter how I live. If I just identify as a Christian, I am a Christian. And you have to acknowledge that or you're a bad person. You can't tell me I'm not one based on how I live or what I believe or what I do or where I go to church or if I never go to church or if I start my own in my garage.

Right. That's where that leads. CS Lewis did not want it to lead there.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right, Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I'm not blaming him for it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But that's where. That's where it leads. Right. That's where it leads.

But it starts on a very personal level. It starts with individuals. This idea that, again, comes out of the Reformation of, oh, if you tell people they have to believe these things.

That teaching you something about the history of the church.

That isn't in the Bible, Literally, plain as day. Can't question it, can't doubt it. So teaching you about the fact that, hey, did you know that after the Theotokos died, her body was taken up into heaven? I am somehow imposing on you.

I am binding your conscience.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, I think, you know, that's one of the reasons. That's one of the things. I see this a lot because a lot of the work I do is aimed at evangelism. And so people ask the question, like, well, do I have to believe that in order to be an orthodox Christian? And, like, I mean, often the short answer to most of those questions is yes. But the. I think the more important answer is, look, do you want to be part of this community?

Do you want to live this life?

Because, I mean, as I've found, especially when I was doing pastoral ministry, that conviction actually tends to follow conditioning, that the things that you believe actually tend to flow out of the way you live and what you're participating in rather than being the prerequisite for that, you know, like. And it works the other way, too. Like, I've watched people, for instance, who were faithfully Orthodox, and then they, for one reason or another, they started to attend another church. Like one example that I know of, for instance, a family member asked them, would you please come with me or take me all the time. And it wasn't that they had a conversion experience while they were there or that they suddenly realized, hold on a second, I no longer believe this, and I now believe this. It's that the habit of being in that other church turned them into that. And then all kinds of sort of doctrinal explanations followed. But it wasn't like, hey, I had a. You know, I came to an awareness of, I disagree with this now, and I agree with this. And so therefore, I'm going to go over there. And that's why there's also this whole phenomenon. I see this a lot, too. People say, oh, I agree with all this stuff, but I just can't bring myself to walk through the door. I agree with all of this. Or even people who call themselves Orthodox but have never actually even been to an Orthodox church.

There'S this disjunction. Right. It's this notion that Christianity is a list of things that you get, as you said, like boxes that you check off. I agree. I disagree. You know.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. The core of it is that it's not a question of what you believe, it's a question of who you believe. Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. And to whom are you faithful?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes. Yes. And even folks who are out there who are all about the individual conscience.

Right. Ultimately, you're believing somebody. You're not coming up with all this yourself.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

As the man said, you got to serve somebody.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. Like, and you're not just saying. And I know there are people out there. Well, I believe the Scriptures. Okay. Someone's explaining them to you.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You're believing someone's explanation. And it's for a variety of reasons. Right. And I'm not just saying this. If you're not Orthodox. Orthodox people, too. Oh, yeah, right. You know, people, if they are parishes in my church and I get up and preach.

And I preach about what reading from The Gospel of St. John means.

And they believe it. They're trusting me. They have, for various reasons, decided that they could trust my explanations of these things.

It could be a variety of reasons among the different members of my congregation. So this isn't just. Again, this is everyone. This is every human. You are believing someone. Right. You are trusting someone. Someone's explanation, someone's interpretations. Right. And for various reasons. Right. There are various reasons why you accept person A's as opposed to person B's or group A's as opposed to group B's, Right. You may or may not be aware of them at any given point in time. You may be very aware of them, maybe very conscious of them. It may be related to decisions you've actually made or that may be kind of sub rosa, kind of unconscious or subconscious with you. And you know, but if people believed things because they were true, no one would ever be wrong. They'd always believe the truth. Right? So we have all these other reasons. And so you're trusting. And so that's the real question we have to ask.

Right? There's some danger here because if we set up, if I set up myself as the judge of all things, right? I'm going to hear from the representatives of all these different views and then I'm going to decide for myself who is right and what the right thing to do is or the right way to go is. Right. Scriptures tell us there's a way that seems right to a man and it's end is destruction.

We should remember that. Right? So I can't just trust my own judgment. My own judgment is flawed and sinful by definition. Right. I need, I need others. Right. And so we're going to choose to submit to something, to be a part of something. Right. To receive something, to enter into a Christian tradition.

Right. That existed before we were born. If it didn't exist before you were born, don't even think about it. It's not worth it.

We got made up last weekend. It's wrong, I assure you.

Right. That's what we, that's what we submit to. Right? And so when people say things to me or around me like, well, I agree with a lot of stuff of the Orthodox Church or the Orthodox Church seems good to me in these various ways. But for example, this is something I heard someone say if I joined I'd have to pretend I believe some other things that I don't believe.

That wouldn't be authentic or something, right?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No, that's not what the Orthodox Church. I'll speak for the Orthodox Church as an Orthodox priest. That's not what the Orthodox Church calls you to do. The Orthodox Church does not call you to agree or pretend to agree to on a list of things in order to be a member. But the Orthodox Church requires you to do is to not make that decision for yourself.

What the Orthodox Church requires of you, if you decide to join the Orthodox Church, is that you decide this is Christ's Church. This is the place where Christ is.

This is the place where I encounter him. Therefore, what Christ's Church teaches is what I will believe.

No matter how it seems to me.

Some of it may make total sense to me and some of it may not make any sense to me, but I'm going to believe it either way because this is the place where I encounter Christ. This is Christ Church.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yep. Amen.

All right. Well, all that said, we're going to go ahead and take our first break, and then we'll actually start diving into these texts that this episode is about. So we'll be right back.

[Narrator]

Father Andrew Stephen Damick and father Stephen DeYoung will be back in a moment to take your calls on the next part of the Lord of Spirits. Give them a call at 855-237-2346. That's 855-AF-RADIO.

You've probably heard of St. Raphael, Halloweeny, St. Alexander Hodovitzky, liturgical translator Isabel Hapgood, and other righteous men and women who made their mark on the early development of Orthodoxy in America. But what about the notorious itinerant Bulgarian monk? Or Father Raphael Morgan, the first black Orthodox priest in America? Or Vera Johnston, who served the Orthodox Church without renouncing her Theosophist roots? Their stories and many others, some edifying, some appalling, all entertaining, make up the lost histories of the early decades of Orthodox Christianity in the continental United States. Lost histories, the Good, the Bad and the Strange in Early American Orthodoxy by Matthew Namie, out [e-mail] Again, that is store.ancientfaith.com.

We'Re back now with the Lord of Spirits, with Father Andrew Stephen Damick and Father Stephen DeYoung. If you have a question, call now at 855-23-7-2346. That's 855 AF radio.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

And we're back. So we just spent an hour and 25 minutes setting up the framework for the two texts we're gonna be discussing, which are the Ascension of Isaiah and the Assumption of Moses. Or is it called that? We'll get to that.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Or is it. Yeah, that is your real name.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes, exactly. Exactly. Ancient text, if that is your real name.

Yeah. It's important to understand the difference between an ascension and an assumption. And the basic thing that they turn on is whether the person is dead or not. If they're alive still and they're caught up into heaven, it is an ascension. If they're dead, it is an assumption of their body. And this is the orthodox take on this, as we said, there's the Roman Catholic take and there's ambiguity built into that and you can find all kinds of explanations of that.

So, you know, go look that up for yourself if you want to read all about the way that the Catholics explain what happened there. But yeah, so the first of the two texts we're going to talk about is the Ascension of Isaiah. So we know who the prophet Isaiah is, but it turns out there's actually a whole bunch of traditions surrounding him that are not mentioned explicitly in the Old Testament. And some of which then these not Old Testament traditions get mentioned in the New Testament. Right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

They're nearby.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

They're nearby, yes.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

They're scripture adjacent.

Yes. Yeah, yeah. So the Ascension of Isaiah is. And this is, this is something. We already talked about this actually with the, the testaments of the twelve patriarchs. But we'll find this with a lot of these texts as they've come down to us. A lot of these things that we refer to. Oh, this is a second Temple Jewish text. The written documents we now have are sort of often multiple texts put together. Yeah, right. Like amalgamated.

Where not just a composite of oral traditions, like almost all of these are repositories of pre existing oral traditions, but actual written texts that have been put together. Right.

And. Or iterated upon. And what we now call the Ascension of Isaiah actually has three different pieces that have been put together.

The main body of the text is sort of in two pieces that were originally two separate pieces and then another chunk of text has been kind of smushed in, in the middle.

So it's three texts put together, but it's not sort of like text one, text two, text three.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It'S. It's text one and text two. And then text three is kind of rammed in to the middle of text 1 toward the end off center.

But we'll talk about that more in detail here in a minute.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So using that numbering, text 1 followed by text 2 and then text 3 squished in text 1. The first piece is a Second Temple Jewish text.

Meaning it's a, it's.

Jewish as opposed to reflecting any Christian emphases.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. And probably dates to before Christ.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

We're not certain. No, probably not.

It's probably contemporaneous with some of the earliest writings of the New Testament, like a couple of St. Paul's epistles.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, that's the problem. By the way, folks. We often refer to Second Temple Jewish texts, but as a distinct category from say the Old Testament and the New Testament. But the reality is that the New Testament itself is a set of Second Temple Jewish texts.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes, yeah, yeah. And that doesn't necessarily mean not Christian because Christianity was a Judaism along with a whole bunch of other Judaisms that were around in that period.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So just take note that we're using shorthands that are not perfect rules.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. So what we're really saying here is that that first part had non Christian Jewish origins.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. There's. There's no indication in this part that it is from within the Christian community.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, yeah.

On the other hand, and the reason we're making that point is that the other two pieces are very definitely Christian.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. Now, we've talked about, in terms of the other texts, we've only talked about a few so far, but even the ones we've just talked about, we've talked about how there are times where scholars, anytime they see that looks even anything that looks even vaguely Christian, they're like, oh, Christians added that. Right. Like knee jerk.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That's a Christian interpolation. Christians added that. Christians changed that. Right. And we've seen that a lot of times. Those are silly. Right. Like if you, if you presented them the book of Isaiah, like the canonical book of Isaiah, and you didn't tell. And you told them it was from, you know, say the third century, they didn't know it was the biblical book. They probably claimed that a bunch of things were Christian interpolations because they sound Christian.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Like there's stuff that sounds Christian all through the Old Testament. Guess what? Right.

So we've talked about how that's kind of silly. So when we say here that these other two pieces are very clearly Christian, we're not doing that. Like, they are way too on the nose. Like one of them uses the phrase the Christian church.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Okay. Christians refers to Christians in Antioch. Right. Like.

That'S a Christian document. It's talking positively about the Christian church as something they're a member of. Right. And the other one isn't quite that explicit, but talks about things like, you know, the apostles going and evangelizing.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I mean, so it's like. Yeah.

Yeah.

So all three parts come from the second half of the first century A.D. okay.

So these things, including the Christian parts, the two parts that we're calling Christian parts.

Were written during the time when.

The.

A lot of the New Testament was being written.

So that's important to keep in mind. Yeah, right.

The stuff we're calling Christian material here is not like later Christian material.

It is as early as and earlier than some of the books of the New Testament.

The three parts were put together in the form that we have them now. Sometime early in the second century.

In the first half of the second century, it took its current form. We know that because we start finding citations.

Of the text in the second century. Yeah. In the shape that it's in now.

So this is as early as it gets.

That's gonna be important to remember when we see some of the content of the Christian sections, by the way.

But it is a. It is a composite like that. So part one, Right. Piece one, the non Christian Jewish part. And again by that, by the fact that I'm saying non Christian.

Do not assume that that means anti Christian. It just means it came from a Jewish source and the Jewish source that produced it was not a Christian.

So there's no antipathy to Christianity or anything here. And it doesn't seem to have been edited by whoever. Right. Someone could have, whoever put it in its current form with all the Christian pieces in it and on it. Right. Could have gone through and edited this part.

Right. If they wanted to, yeah. They could have gone and made it like really obviously Christian too. But they didn't.

Right? They didn't. So the fact that they didn't.

Shows you that it's definitely not anti Christian. Right. Like it's not contradictory. They didn't feel the need to. They felt like they could just add to it. They didn't need to change anything.

So this is what makes up chapters one through five. And a note here. I wanted to do this earlier, but I forgot.

When we give chapters and verse numbers on these texts, we're almost always. There are exceptions, but almost always going by Charlesworth's numbers, which.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

These are not necessarily universal.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. And we're doing that because every time people have asked us where to get these texts, we point them to the two volume Charles Worth Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. So since that's what we point people to, those are the numbers we use, Right. Almost always. Sometimes there's pieces of text that aren't in Charlesworth or something. And so we have to do something a little different. But almost always when we give them, we're using Charlesworth, those are not standardized.

Right. Like chapter adverse divisions are new enough to the Bible. But with the Bible everybody has kind of agreed on them. With these texts, everyone who's published a translation has done their own numbering.

Literally.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And part of the reason for that, part of the reason for that is that some of these texts exist in multiple forms.

Right. So eventually when we do the one on first Enoch there are radically different in length versions of the book of Enoch in different languages of first Enoch. And so if you tried to follow the same numbering scheme, it would be a mess. Right. Like in the shorter versions, if you were translating one of the, if you're translating say the shorter Greek version. Greek version is much shorter than the, the Amharic version.

Then you'd have to figure out how to use the numbers. Right. Like do I skip verse numbers.

When there's material that's left out of the shorter version? So I go like verse 27 and then verse 33.

People don't notice and think it's weird. Right. So there's a reason for that. Everybody just numbers the version that they're translating.

So that means, that means that if you have some other translation other than Charlesworth and you try to look up this stuff based on the numbers we're giving, you know, you might not have a good time. You might be like wait, that doesn't say anything about that. Right.

That's why. And you don't need to send us emails or anything. I mean Father Andrew always loves getting emails but always. You don't have to send us emails saying that's not what verse Blankety Blank says. Right. Because you're reading a different version. That's because you're reading a different version. Right. Save yourself the time typing it even if you don't care about Father Andrew's spam folder.

So yeah, so we're going by charlesworth's numbering. So this is chapters one through five. Right. The first section, this is referred to as the Martyrdom of Isaiah. And this is basically a written record of earlier Jewish traditions regarding the death of the prophet Isaiah. Right. So his death is not recorded in the book of Isaiah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Or in, in the books of the Kings. So that's not recorded in the Old Testament, the Hebrew scriptures. But there was a traditions remaining orally handed down memory of how he died and when he died.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Because he had disciples who compiled the book of Isaiah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. There are people who are going to know about how he died and tell the story of it because he's a very well known and loved and revered prophet. And this is one of those examples where here's a tradition represented in one of these kinds of texts that is also represented in the New Testament and not saying that the New Testament gets it from this text in this particular case. Right. But that they're both representing stuff that's not in The Old Testament. So the fact that Isaiah was sawn in two and that's how he died. He died as a martyr. That's the detail that you find in this text and also in Hebrews 11:37.

And also in the Talmud. It's also in the Talmud.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, the Talmud is a little different.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Okay. On this because. So Hebrews. Right. Just makes a reference to.

An Old Testament saint being sonnet too.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes, that's right. It doesn't explicitly say that it's Isaiah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It doesn't explicitly say it's Isaiah. And there's no elaboration of the story. Like, how did that happen? Who did it? Yeah, why? Right. Like there's no. There's not like a whole story there. Right. It's just a reference to these traditions. And that's especially why we can't say it has anything to do with this text. Right. Because.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That basic idea that that's how Isaiah died obviously was going around in oral tradition completely separate from this written text. The Talmud, when it talks about the death of Isaiah, actually follows and includes more information from the story as it's told in the martyrdom of Isaiah in these chapters.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay. So it seems that the Talmud version then is pretty clearly dependent upon this text that we're talking about. Well.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Or very close to it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Or they maybe have a common source, perhaps.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, yeah. So we can't say for sure, but much more closely related to it that more of the details and more of the shape of the story. Right. Is there the Talmud? That's part of the reason, by the way, that we say that this part comes from a non Christian Jewish source. Because if it came from a Christian, even a Christian Jewish source, it's unlikely that the Talmud would pick it up unaltered.

So. Right.

This is part of the general reservoir of Jewish tradition, not the specifically Christian strand of Jewish tradition.

So basically what happens in terms of the narrative is that Hezekiah dies.

Isaiah has revealed to him that Manasseh is going to become king of Israel. Manasseh is a bad dude. Right. We have the tradition as represented in the prayer of Manasseh, a little piece of extra biblical content that Manasseh eventually repented, but for most of his life he was exceedingly wicked and sort of brought back paganism full force.

In Israel. So Isaiah kind of realizes this is going to happen, is forewarned because he's a prophet. And so he takes the community of the prophets, which was a thing.

And takes them into the desert, the Judean desert, away From Right. The cities to be away from the king and his ability to enforce his evil decrees.

As I mentioned, we talked about this in our episode on the phenomenon of prophets, which I think was called prophet motive.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yep.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

As a super clever pun.

That and.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

A Star Trek reference.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah.

That they were. So the prophets. There's a whole community of prophets and their wives and their children. Right. Who live together.

In sort of a communal mode of living. We see this reflected throughout the Hebrew scriptures in a whole series of points. Remember, there's the city of prophets where Samuel is that Saul goes down to and then rips off all his clothes and thrashes around on the ground.

And there's Elisha.

After.

The prophet Elijah ascends into heaven, as we were just talking about. Goes back to the community of the prophets. Right. So this community of prophets is a thing. Right. Sort of in the background all through.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Kind of in many ways like a monastery. Yeah, in many ways. Sort of the template for monasticism, actually.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. And so they go out into the desert to avoid Manasseh. Manasseh brings back paganism and his revitalization of paganism allows Belial.

Also sometimes spelled belly R. Just replacing the last L with an R.

Gives him a chance. We've talked about Belial before. It means sort of the yokeless one. I remember we talked about in some detail in the Antichrist episode about the man of lawlessness. That lawlessness is the maniple isle. But anyway, so Belial means the yoke less one, like the lawless one. So this is a devil figure again, in our second Temple literature. He possesses a pagan prophet. He's able to possess him because this pagan prophet is involved in pagan worship of demons in Israel. And the prophet he produces or who he possesses is named Belkira, which is probably not what his mom named him because Belkira in Aramaic means Lord of evil. Yeah, yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, Not a good baptism name, folks. Yeah. Will not baptize little baby Belkira.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Definitely a villain for your next rpg.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, yeah.

That title, by the way, Lord of Evil, or Belkira, is one of the titles for Samael.

The fallen archangel.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, we're gonna. So we really do have to do a devil's episode.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes.

So this is. This is, you know, bad dude. Possessed by the devil, basically is the idea here. And possessed Belkira goes out to track down Isaiah because he's the prophet of God, of the true God, and they capture him and they put him in a log and they saw him in two.

And that is how Isaiah dies. A martyr's death. So he's sort of murdered by this demon possessed false prophet. Yeah, creepy.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That'S sort of part narrative, part one. Okay, so part two, this is the first of our Christian parts, is the material that's in chapters six through 11.

And this is an apocalyptic vision that Isaiah has. Now you may be thinking, hold on now. Okay, isn't he dead? Yes. Well, you may be thinking, oh, okay, so he died. So is this like his soul goes up into heaven and has this vision? No, no, this is a prequel.

This is an apocalyptic vision that Isaiah had.

Well before he died, well before he was martyred.

That is just recorded here. So this section is from chapter 6 through 11 is often called the vision of Isaiah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Although in a sense this is kind of like the ascension proper, sort of.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes, yeah, yeah, kinda. Yeah.

Yeah. So ascension is being used somewhat ambiguously to refer to both the visions and his death.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right? He doesn't. He's. Yeah, exactly, exactly.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah.

So it recounts this apocalyptic vision where he's led by the angel of the Lord. Right, the angel of the Lord figure from the Hebrew scriptures.

On this journey through the seven heavens, where he sees all of these things and.

Recounts all of these things. When he's talking about the angel of the Lord, the angel of the Lord shows up and Isaiah comments, oh, he's very different. This angel is different. Different than all the angels. Right. This is this very different figure, this higher figure, this greater figure, and refers to how he's very different from the angels that he saw all the time.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, it's kind of an interesting detail in the text that he sees angels all the time.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, this one's different.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But wait, this, this is a completely different thing. And.

That seeing angels all the time we've talked about with prophets before, like Elisha and Gehazi. When he opens Gehazi's eyes to see all the angels.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Implying that Elisha saw that all the time.

That these very holy people sort of have constant access to the spiritual world in a way that we don't. Right. Us sinners.

So he asks the angel of the Lord his name because he could see what, you know, who's this? Right. This is totally different. And he kind of says, well, I'll tell you my name at the end of our journey. Spoilers. It's Christ.

And this is one of the things where we know this is very obviously a Christian text, Right.

Because it's not even like the Messiah. Like it's way more specific than that. And this shows us this shouldn't be too much of a surprise. Right. That we already in the first century have someone making the identification of the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament with Christ. Because pretty early in the second century, St. Justin Martyr says the same thing.

And just presents it as the Christian belief.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Without any argument. He just says this is what Christians believe. So it shouldn't surprise us that this was already around in the first century, at least somewhere. Right.

And so they go on this trip through the seven heavens. Interestingly, what passes for hell, where the evil angels are. Are held, is one of the heavens.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Which kind of counterintuitive for us.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Which. But it, but it makes sense if you understand. Right. The devil is the prince of the powers of the air.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. Sort of the lower levels. But.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah. Like there's this sense that that angelic powers, both good and evil, are kind of in the air. And, and this is of course before.

The end of the world. Right. So they're still kind of loose, you know?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, sort of.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Kind of. Sort of. Somewhat.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. But also that the heavens. Right. Even were talking to the seven heavens here. Doesn't mean the sky.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It's literally. And it doesn't even mean the place where God is.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. It's associated with the sky in a.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

An imagination.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But what it really means is the spiritual world.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It means the spiritual world. The seven levels of the spiritual world. Right. Is really what we're talking about. And they get in a fight with Samuel at one point because that guy's no good.

And then eventually, once they get to the seventh heaven, this is where it gets really interesting. And I say really interesting. You might find all the seven heavens interesting, but if you read a lot of this literature, if you start reading a lot of apocalyptic literature, like.

You go through so many different visions of the seven heavens and they're all different. Right, right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It kind of blends together after a while.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. And you, you know, but the part that's really interesting to me, and I'm saying this, essentially what, what I mean by this is, as opposed to all those other ones. Right. What's really significant about this one in particular, as opposed to some of the things that you'll find in many of them, if not all of them, is when you get to the seventh heaven and you come to the throne of God. And part of what I think makes this different and unique and interesting is that this is a first century Christian document. Right. So you're getting a window into the Christian view of this at the earliest stage, at the apostolic stage.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. There's still apostles around when this is being written.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

When they arrive there, they're at the throne of God.

Right. In the seventh heaven, the highest heaven. And in front of the throne of God, Isaiah sees the angels and human saints.

Right. Angels are holy ones, too, but the human holy ones and them. The only one of the human saints that's mentioned by name is Enoch.

But there's more. It says there's more of them there.

Right. So these are the people like Enoch. Right.

And it says that they no longer have garments of flesh.

Or garments of skin, but they have new or renewed garments. Right.

Right. We've talked about garments of skin before. Right. This idea of the flesh, the sinful flesh, flesh that's subject to change, but also to death, mortality, corruption. Right. That's been changed or renewed to this new garment. Right. Think of St. Paul's language in First Corinthians about being clothed with immortality.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. Yeah. This doesn't mean they don't have bodies anymore. It means that their bodies are different, that they are changed.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right? Yeah. They're referred to as being like the angels.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

How about that?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And he sees that there are crowns and thrones and garments there waiting for future human saints.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. And those images come up over and over again in the. In the text. They talk about the crowns and the garments and the thrones.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah.

Now this.

You know, just.

Our Roman Catholic friends feel like I was picking on them at the end of the last half.

Now I guess I'll pick on our Protestant friends a little bit or pick at a little bit maybe, but I think it's important. So again, this is first century.

Okay.

This is first century use of language. So there has been a predominant. I will just say a predominant view within Protestantism.

That the language of clothing and changing clothing from an old garment to a new garment, this changing of clothes language, especially as St. Paul uses it, but also in other places where it occurs in the New Testament, that this is talking about imputed righteousness.

That this is talking about sin in the sense of guilt.

And deserving punishment on the one hand, with the old garment, and that the new garment is referring to righteousness in some positive sense, like merit. Right.

And so this is taken to be an image of justification or of salvation or of being born again, of accepting Jesus. Right.

That the. The old garment that represents this sin and the need for punishment is taken off of you and put on Christ and this perfect robe of Christ's righteousness and merit and goodness is then put on you. Right.

In what's sometimes called the great exchange. Right.

Here we have a real problem with that.

Because not only here do we see this language being used in a Christian text, and it not meaning that at all.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. Here it refers to mortality and immortality.

Right. Death and life.

And none of these garments is being worn by Christ.

Right. This is a garment there in heaven that's awaiting these people at the end of their journey.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

And it would also, like, the image doesn't make sense if, like, this is Christ's garment because there's multiple sets of them around.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes, yes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

You know, so it just.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It doesn't work that way.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, right. Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Now, so.

Someone who holds to that other view, that predominant Protestant view, might say to me, yeah, well, okay, but essentially, Isaiah isn't in the Bible. Okay, Right. And I'm going to say that the. I'm going to hold out that the Bible uses it in a different way. All right, here's the problem with that. First Corinthians 15.

Go read First Corinthians 15. St. Paul uses that language in 1 Corinthians 15 to mean exactly this.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. So we have evidence both within the Scriptures and a Christian interpretive text outside of the Scriptures.

Showing this other usage of that language.

So to take this other view that presupposes, amongst other things, I mean, there's all kinds of things we could say about this and argue about. About this, but minimally, you have to presuppose that St. Paul uses the same language in two different places or three or four different places. Right. In completely different ways.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Or.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And that one of the ways he uses it, one of the ways he uses it fits perfectly with the Christian use of that language contemporaneous to his epistles and immediately thereafter. And the other way he uses it, the other kind of contradictory way he uses that same language in other places does not conform to the way Christians used it in the first and second centuries.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Occam's razor. It seems to me like he's probably always using it the same way.

And he's. And it's probably consonant with the way Christians used it at the time he was using it and immediately thereafter, that seems more likely. Now, that's not checkmate Protestant Protestantism. Ah. See, all Protestant doctrine is wrong. You need to become orthodox. I mean, you should, but.

But it is to say on the point of that language. Right.

I think it's very difficult to argue that St. Paul himself was using that language that way. You could argue it's a Valid theological metaphor. It's derived from something else somewhere else. Sure, sure, right. But to try to say that St. Paul is using that language that way and say Romans, I think is a really hard argument to make in light of everything.

But you may be just as informed as me and disagree still, that is, as we said in the first half.

Though, ought to be totally hypocritical.

Just a little bit.

So, in addition, some other little pieces we get here at the end of this second section of the Ascension of Isaiah. The saints, the human saints, the human holy ones who are there with the angels are there replacing the angels of the lower world.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, it's. It's interesting because like the.

The language that's there, there is this reference to them being lower, but there's also the angels on the right and on the left, and the ones on the left are lower. Right. So there's. Yes, it's this, you know, very, very, very old association of the right with goodness and left with, with evil or whatever. And so those, you know. But I mean, we've talked about this many times in the podcast before, so it's just, it's representing the same image of what we call the left hand of God, you know, which we see in, in.

The image we see in heaven before Ahab gets it. And, you know, and that's how St.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Gregory the theologist reads Job.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

When it says that the angels gathered at God's right hand and his left.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

His left hand. Yeah. And the ones at the right are.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The right are his elect angels, and the ones on the left are the other ones.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, exactly. So the idea here is that the left ones, the lower ones.

They have departed from obedience to God and humans are going to take their place.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes. And the particular way here, and this is some of these elements we're talking about here. You're going to find out in our last half, are the reason why these two documents are related more even than the Ascension assumption idea.

The reason that. That or the way in which they rebelled. Right. So the anarchic literature tends to focus on the giants and the Nephilim. Right. But the focus here of their rebellion is that they sought to be worshiped by humans. They became the gods of the nations.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. So this sort of the post Babel idea.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. That's sort of more the focus here in terms of these angels and their judgment.

You also see, quite frankly.

I think this is hard to avoid.

You see, not just, you know, the Trinity in the sense of referring to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, which you get for example, in Matthew 28. Right. Like not just mentioning the names, not just mentioning the three persons, but in this first century document, late first century, admittedly, but still first century A.D. christian document, you see some detail and some depth into the doctrine of the Trinity as it will be sort of codified, if you want to use that language, at the Council of Nicaea.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Hmm. Wow. And this is contemporaneous with the New Testament, everybody.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes. So the text refers to the great glory, which is a reference to God the Father, because it's saying the great glory that no one can look upon, which is sort of God proper. Right. Otheos the God. Right. God the Father. Right. And then there are two other figures who Isaiah sees. One is Christ the beloved. Right. And when I said it's not ambiguous, right. This isn't just the Messiah, Right. This is Christ, it said that he is the one who descended and then ascended again to his former place.

So it's very clearly referring to Jesus. Right. And we'll see it gets even more on the nose about that. But.

So this is very clearly. Right, Christ. And then he refers to, he says he sees the angel of the Holy Spirit.

Okay. Now there are folks out there, There are folks out there reading this.

Who. This kind of ruins their whole day if they're scholars.

Because remember our going assumption.

Since at least the 19th century and our German friends has been that the doctrine of the Trinity evolved over the course of centuries.

Right?

So finding a text like this from the first century, that's a pain, Right?

So this is a place where they read. He says he sees the angel of the Holy Spirit and they go, aha.

Here'S our out. We're going to say that this means that this text is saying that the Holy Spirit is an angel.

Okay. Now this isn't even need to take a logic course to get a PhD time. This is like SAT level reading comprehension. Okay.

When he saw the angel of the Lord, did that mean the text was saying that the Lord is an angel?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. No.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

No.

Right.

If you go out into the parking lot and you see the car of Father Steven.

And you say, I saw the car of Father Stephen, does that mean you're saying Father Stephen is a car?

Yeah. Okay, so this is, this is like, this is what I mean by sub logic course level. Right? Like that's not what that means.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Well, and, and I mean, and also, also frankly, if you look, if you look in chapter eight, so it's a few chapters before we're talking about right now. It actually, it says. I thought this was really interesting. I'm just gonna read it real quick. It says, he took me up into the sixth heaven and there were none on the left. So, right. This is the idea. There's the angels of left. The. The ones on the left have left. There were none on the left nor a throne in the middle, but all were of one appearance, and their praise was equal and strength was given to me. And I also sang praises with them and that angel also. And our praise was like theirs. And then this. And there they all named the primal Father and his beloved Christ and the Holy Spirit, all with one voice.

So it's. It's like. It's like Father, Son and Holy Spirit explicit here. We're all being worshiped by the angels, and Isaiah is worshiping them with them.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

You know, so just.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But if you've based your whole career and all those articles you published on the idea that Nicene Trinitarianism doesn't exist until the fourth century.

And you find it in the first century, you got to try to argue that it's not Nicene Trinitarianism. Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Come up with something or admit you're wrong.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But we can't do that.

That's not possible. Right. So.

The fact that he sees the angel of the Holy Spirit implies that this angel he is seeing is not the Holy Spirit himself. Yeah, obviously. But the Holy Spirit does not have a bodily form.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. So you don't see him.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. So if he's going to see this in front of him, he also doesn't see the great glory. That's why he just refers to God. The Father is the great glory that no one can look upon. Right.

Then you're gonna have to see some kind of representation of the Holy Spirit. Right. Some kind of image of the Holy Spirit. So this angel or messenger is a representation of the Holy Spirit.

That he sees. Right. Is definitely not saying that the Holy Spirit is an angel.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And the context in which he sees it is important because he sees this worship being given. Worship is being given not only to the great glory, not only to God the Father, but also to Christ and to the Holy Spirit.

Okay. But he makes this important point.

That the worship that's given to Christ and the Holy Spirit. Christ and the Holy Spirit then pass on to the Father.

Right. They then pass on to the Father.

Why is this important? Well, this is the same principle, the same idea that lies behind in the formulation of nicene Trinitarianism. What St. Basil the Great, especially St. Basil the Great, and in this case, St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa, and is why there are not three gods.

Saint Basil the Great uses some important terminology with this. Right. So part of the reason why Christians are not tritheists.

Among many, but one primary and very important one. Right. Is that Christians worship one God.

Right? Who is that one God? Christians worship one God. As it says in the Nicene Creed, the Father.

Almighty.

Father is the one God and the worship that is given.

To Christ and the Holy Spirit.

As St. Basil the Great says, the honor given to the image passes to the prototype.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. And Christ is described as the image.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Of the Father, the express image of God the Father who is begotten of the Father. The Son is the image of the Father by definition. That's how Father and Son works biblically. Right. And the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father is the image of the Father. So the worship offered them passes on to God the Father. Right. And if you want direct Bible references to this, remember when St. Paul talks about Christ subjecting all things to the Father, this is how the early Christians understood what it meant when Jesus said, the Father is greater than I.

Or when Jesus says, this is life, that they know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you sent.

He is not there denying that he is God. Right? That he is divine. He is there affirming that there is one God, the Father.

Right. While also other texts affirm that Jesus Christ is God because he is the express image of the Father, meaning everything that the Father is, he is also.

God from God. Right? Light from light, true God from true God, all of that Nicene language. And so that principle that St. Basil the Great points to through that principle, that the honor given the expression is a prototype, Right? So he's making that distinction using Greek philosophical terms. Right. But he's making the same point that's being described in narrative here in the Ascension of Isaiah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Again, contemporaneous with the New Testament.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Contemporaneous with the New Testament, a Jewish Christian source. Okay? This is also important. Get out of here with this. Oh, the Bible was written with a Hebraic mindset, and the church fathers had a Hellenic mindset. Get out of here with that nonsense.

Okay? They're using different sets of terminology in different languages to describe the same reality.

Okay? That's what's happening.

So the core element, at least a core element of Nicene trinitarianism is here in a Jewish Christian work in the first century.

The Ascension of Isaiah, incontrovertibly. Right. Is every element of Nicene Trinitarianism here in this one text? No, of course not.

Of course not.

But this core element is.

And I think, frankly, this by itself is enough to validate the claim that the Council of Nicaea makes that what they taught was apostolic.

Because this at least shows that in the time of the apostles, there were Christians who believed what was proclaimed at Nicaea.

It's impossible for me to prove every Christian did.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Sure.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Or that any particular Christian did. But it was clearly believed at that time.

By Christians.

Sorry. Just about everybody. Okay.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

All right, so then, as I say, what's the third part? That's actually not the third part.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

We have to talk about the very end of this section. Then there's sort of a summary of the life of Christ.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Oh, yeah, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That is. It's beyond on the nose. Right. It's very clearly dependent upon the Christian Gospel. Not necessarily any of the written. Probably not any of the written Gospels. It doesn't seem to be. There's not enough detail in it for you to say, like, oh, this is based on Matthew. Right. But there's enough detail that it's like, obviously this is especially combined with everything else. This is clearly a Christian document. Right.

But the way it's presented, this is what's important about it is that it's presented in terms of. Because remember, our literary figure here is Isaiah. This is a vision Isaiah is having. And so the idea behind this recounting of Christ's life is it's using terminology and things to connect it to the canonical book of Isaiah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

To try and say, oh, Isaiah in the canonical book of Isaiah was really talking about Christ.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah. And you get stuff.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Not just the Messiah in general, you.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Get stuff that is, as you said, so super on the nose. Like, for instance, it talks about him being a baby in Nazareth.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So like. Right, right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, yeah.

But this is connected to things in the canonical book of Isaiah to try to show that. Right. This Jesus is the one who he was talking about. So then there's this third part. This third part gets wedged in to the first part. This third part is called the Testament of Hezekiah.

And is as the text now stands. And again, we're using the Charlesworth Numbers is chapter three, verse 13.

Through the rest of chapter three, and then all of chapter four.

And it's been just kind of crammed in there.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And again.

Obviously, Christian 3:15 refers to the Christian Ecclesia. Christian church.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So, I mean, it uses the word Christian.

But this piece is another vision of Isaiah.

In which he sees again in very on the nose detail, not only the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ, but the coming of the Holy Spirit, the apostles going and evangelizing the whole world. Right. So I mean, this is clearly Christian. Right.

But then he goes on in the vision to talk about the coming of the Antichrist.

And if you read the description of the Antichrist, much like in the book of Revelation, it's pretty clearly that Nero, the Roman emperor. Nero is kind of the model here. Yeah, but that's what you'd expect.

At the end of the first century.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Sure, Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The second half of the first century, everyone was using Nero as the model of the Antichrist, including the Book of Revelation.

Which was written at that time too. And then.

After the coming of the Antichrist, you have the resurrection of the dead, you have the last judgment and then the beginning of the eternal kingdom. Right. So essentially his vision is the gospel.

Right. For all intents and purposes, Isaiah sees the gospel in this vision and it's presented that it's wedged in there so that they can say the fact that he had this vision, the fact that Isaiah knew the gospel in advance, that's why Belial came and killed him.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That's why it gets crammed in there that Belial didn't want anybody else to know about this.

So he goes and sort of assassinates Isaiah through gory means. Right now. It's important.

So this is again, we talked about this already with sort of the idea of pseudepigraphy as we were talking about some of these texts. Right. Modern readers tend to come to these texts and assume that there's some kind of fraud or falsification going on.

Right. This text is making the claim that Isaiah had these visions and knew these things.

[Narrator]

Things.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. That's not what's happening.

That's not what's happening.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, it's, it's, it's more like Isaiah is a character that is being used as a mode of interpretation of his prophetic book.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That's in the scriptures of Isaiah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, exactly. It's a way of saying, okay, so Isaiah's prophecy connects with what we know from the Gospels. And here's a way of talking about the connections between them.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. And so the reason these texts gravitate together is that you have this text just recording Jewish traditions of how Isaiah died. Right, right. And then you have some Christian texts where Isaiah is used as a figure to represent the book of Isaiah and show the connections between that and Christ.

Right. What Isaiah prophesied and the death and resurrection of Christ and these other things, the bodily resurrection, the last judgment, all of this. Right. And so they gravitate to each other.

Right. But this happens all the time, even in the New Testament.

Right. In the New Testament, it's very common to quote, say Moses says, and then it's just a quote from the Torah. Yeah, right. And sometimes what's being quoted isn't something that Moses said.

Like the person, Moses isn't the one who said it. Sometimes it's God who said it. Yeah, right. But if they're quoting the Torah, they'll just say Moses spoke, saying. Right. And sometimes they'll quote psalms that aren't even Psalms of David in the New Testament and say David says. Yeah, yeah, it's because David is a figure is just used to represent the Psalms.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And Solomon is just a figure that's used to represent wisdom.

Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Some point. I'm sure we'll go into this in more detail on the show, but I hate to tell you folks, the Book of Wisdom was written in Greek in the first century, and the fathers who quote it as refer to it as the wisdom of Solomon knew that.

You know how I know they knew that?

Because a lot of them listed as part of the New Testament, not the Old Testament.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. I mean, this just underlines what Pseudepigrapha is in this period.

It's not an attempt to steal somebody else's name and pass your stuff off as theirs. It's using them as a figure in some ways, maybe to invoke their authority, but in many cases like this as an interpretive device.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. So Isaiah here.

Represents the book of Isaiah.

So you should read a statement like if you. A summary statement like Isaiah foresaw the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ.

Right. You should read that as what they're claiming actually in this text is the book of Isaiah prophesied the birth, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. This is the correct way to read the book of Isaiah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes. So this is a way of doing interpretation.

A sort of narrative way of doing exegesis. Right. It is not making us a historical claim about the historical Isaiah and what. What he knew and when he knew it. Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

This is just. This is just like what we saw with Jubilees. You know, Jubilees is a way of interpreting and understanding Genesis and a little bit of Exodus, you know.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. And we'll talk about this more because we're going to see the same thing here as we move into the third half with. In the Assumption of Moses, the way Moses is used as a figure in that text.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Exactly.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Exactly.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Exactly. All right. Well, we're going to take our second and final break and we'll be right back with the Lord of Spirits.

[Narrator]

Father Andrew, Stephen Damick and father Stephen DeYoung will be back in a moment to take your calls on the next part of the Lord of Spirits. Give them a call at 855-237-2346. That's 855-AF-RADIO.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

St. Paisio said every day you should try to plant in your soul something spiritual which will eject something worldly and sinful. Replace the sinful images in your mind with holy ones. Athanightusa.com offers holy icons for those wishing to plant something spiritual in their souls. Immaculate 22 karat gold leaf, hand applied on solid wood. A lifelong gift for yourself and someone you care for. Use the code faith for free shipping. Come and see atheniteusa.com.

[Narrator]

We'Re back now with the Lord of Spirits with Father Andrew, Stephen Damick and Father Stephen DeYoung. If you have a question, call now at 855-237-2346. That's 855-AF-RADIO.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

And we're back. It's the third half of this episode of Lord of Spirits. We're talking about we just discussed the Ascension of Isaiah, and now we're going to be talking about the text called the Assumption of Moses.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Or is it probably.

If that is its real name.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yes. We can't just assume that.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. So, yeah, we do have to kind of start there.

So we have this text, Right. We only have one copy of it.

And it labels itself the Assumption of Moses. Okay.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

From ancient sources.

We have references to a book called the Assumption of Moses, to a text called the Assumption of Moses, and to a text called the Testament of Moses.

This text that we have, while it is called the Assumption of Moses, in literary genre, it is a testament. So we talked about the testament of the twelve patriarchs. We talked about how testaments are. These are the final words of some.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Biblical figure, last will and testament.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So this is the last words of Moses to Joshua. That's what's in the text that we have. So, okay, in genre, it's a testament. It calls itself the Assumption of Moses. We have these sources talking about the Assumption of Moses and talking about the Testament of Moses. Maybe this is the same book.

You might think.

By two different names. Here's a problem.

Saint Nikephoros, the confessor of Constantinople, who we've mentioned before on the show, who made in the 9th century.

When he was the patriarch of Constantinople, made a list of books, of books that were publicly read in all the churches, meaning effectively canonical everywhere.

Books which were read publicly in some churches but not others, meaning were considered canonical in some Christian communities, but not others.

And then books that were to be read privately.

By everyone's consideration. Right. And these are all texts that were available to him in the library at Constantinople. So it's a very helpful list.

Shows us where things were at the 9th century. He not only lists the names of the books, but he lists their length in lines, how many lines of text there are in the work.

How long it is.

And he has separate listings.

For the Assumption of Moses and the Testament of Moses.

With different lengths, like a major difference in length.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So these are different texts for him.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Which makes it clear that he had in front of him two different texts, one of which he was calling the Assumption of Moses and what he's calling the Testament of Moses. So these are not. There are two different texts. Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So which one is this that he had in front of him?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, so.

There'S more confusion.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, of course. The question is how many lines? In what language? And in. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And so.

Yeah, well, we can't. We can't use that to figure it out because the one copy we have of this text is missing the last third. Oh, so we don't know exactly how many lines are in it.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yep.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

In total.

Now we do have. There is a quotation.

In Saint Athanasius and a few more in some Byzantine writers where they quote things that are in this text that we have.

And say they're quoting the Assumption of Moses.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So this is why we're calling it the Assumption of Moses. This is why we've chosen Assumption rather than testament, is the witness of Saint Athanasius to the text.

And these other Byzantine authors and the fact that it labels itself the Assumption of Moses.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

But if you're going to look this up in Charlesworth, he calls it the Testament of Moses.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

He calls it the Testament. He makes the other decision. Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So just putting that out there.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. And of course, that side could argue, guess what's in that last third that we don't have. Yeah. Maybe that's the assumption, the actual assumption of Moses. Yeah, right. The place where his body is actually taken up into heaven. We don't have that part of the story. Right, right. So Charlesworth could say what we actually have is a Testament.

The assumption piece is missing. Right. Now our side can then respond and say, well, well, actually, if you read the part we have, Moses refers to the fact that his body is about to be assumed up into heaven in what we have. So surely that was in the piece that's missing because it's telegraphed early. Right. But you can't be conclusive.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It's a testament about the assumption and some other things.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes, we made a call. Right.

But there's a. There's an issue there. On top of everything else, the one manuscript we have is in Latin. It's a Latin translation and seems to.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Be a translation of a translation. Probably.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. Because there's non Latin phrases in there.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Latin from Greek, from Hebrew probably is.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. And.

The copy itself is from the sixth century.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

And dug up. And dug up in the 19th.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

By an Italian.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

We used to have none copies.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Who found it? He found it. It's a. It's what they call a palimpsest, which means it's. They use. He found. It's like a text that was erased and there's another text that was written on top. So he read the erased parts. But it wasn't obviously perfectly erased, which is why I could still see it. So it was. It was reused.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, because they didn't have erasers. It's. It's on vellum, so you have to scrape it off.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. So they reuse the vellum, which is animal skin.

A lot of ancient texts are this way, folks. There's a lot of things that we have only in whether in palimpsests.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, that's the word for today.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

There you go. Palimpsest.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Whenever someone says palimpsest, scream real loud for the rest of the day.

Not going to be much screaming in most homes, I don't think.

Or it's going to be deliberately goaded. Right. But so, yeah, whatever texts Saint Nikephoros was looking at would have been the Greek versions.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah, again. Right.

Yeah. So pretty much everyone agrees on the dating of it. Right. Like I said, the copy is 6th century, but pretty much everyone agrees that this was written in the early 1st century AD.

So for a couple of reasons. One reason is there's nothing to point to this being a Christian text.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, but so, but this would mean though, like Jesus is alive and is. Is, you know, this is pre Jordan, you know.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. That's what early first century means.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, yeah. He's been born.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But there's probably during the life of Christ himself, this was written.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And so it's. It seems pre Christian, but also.

In the text that we have a major portion of it is sort of recounting the history of Israel.

And it kind of goes right up to the first century B.C.

Right?

So no one thinks this is a mystical prophetic text.

So it was written after the events it records, right? Because I mean, it goes through the Hasmonean period. It talks about the Maccabean revolt, the Hasmone. Like it goes right up into the. So normally when you find texts like that, when you see apocalyptic texts used to recount history, it's leading up to the time of writing, right?

And so everyone's pretty much in agreement that this text is doing the same thing all those other ones do, right? And so if you take pre Christian plus records events from the first century bc, you get beginning of the first century AD Right? And pretty much everyone agrees.

Moses, as we mentioned at the end of the second half, Moses is used here to sort of represent the Torah, right? To represent what he wrote, right. In this, in giving this recounting of history. And we should remember that in the Hebrew Scriptures, right, the Old Testament proper, the books from Joshua through second Kings or fourth kingdoms are referred to as the Deuteronomistic history because they're not objectively describing the history of Israel. They're describing the history of Israel from the perspective of, in particular the book of Deuteronomy.

Right? And the blessings and cursings that come upon Israel based on their faithfulness or faithlessness regarding the commandments of the Torah. Right? That's the basis. And so this is a similar kind of thing going on, right? This is put into the mouth of the person Moses. But Moses is here representing the Torah, representing that perspective on history.

As we mentioned, genre wise, this is a testament. This is Moses speaking to Joshua before he dies. Within the frame story.

During that, as I mentioned, he talks about the fact that his body's about to be assumed into heaven. So I mean, that's how part of how we know that that some version of that was in the piece that's missing, right?

He.

Now again, this is the second time. This one's not quite as bad as the angel of the Holy Spirit, but it's not good either. So.

Some scholars have looked at this text and said, oh, look, this text is saying Moses predicted in detail all these things that were going to happen over the next, depending on where you put Moses. Millennium and a half, millennium and a quarter, right?

This text is claiming that the historical Moses knew all these things. Well, if the historical Moses knew all of these things for sure, then that would mean they were all set in stone.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

What?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And Therefore, whoever wrote this text was some kind of, I don't know, early Jewish Calvinist or some kind of fatalist. Wow. Who believed that all of Israel's history was set in stone beforehand.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Because that's how prophecy totally works. Even given that idea.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. Not only is that not how prophecy works, as we were just saying at the end of the last half. Right. This text is not making a historical claim that Moses really said this. Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

This is not untold secrets of Mosaic prophecies.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right. Moses is here. They're not trying to scam people. They're not trying to trick anyone. They're not trying to start their own Jewish sect. Moses is here being used. He's speaking for the Torah. He's a literary vehicle. Right. This is very common in apocalyptic literature. People use.

A kind of apocalyptic prophetic recounting of history in order to comment on their own times.

Right. In kind of a subrosa way.

Right. You don't just come out and say, the current high priest is. Is garbage, man. He's corrupt. Right. Because bad things happen to you if you go and say that publicly.

Right. Or you go start talking trash about the Romans.

Right. Bad things happen to you. But you produce a text where you have. I don't. I'm just randomly picking Daniel saying all this stuff about.

The horrible Greeks. Right. Like, or the horrible Babylonians. And the Babylonians or the Greeks in your text just happen to sound a lot like the Romans.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You can convey your meaning. Right. Are you talking about the Assyrians? Wink, wink. Right. Like.

I mean, this is. Again, part of this, I think, is the assumption that, like, just ancient people were stupid and weren't capable of kind of nuance. Right.

Because, like, you know, do you think anybody would go and read George Orwell's Animal Farm and say, well, this text is claiming that animals can talk and form complex societies on farms.

Of course not.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Like, he's very clearly using these animals and their relationships to the farm in the context of critiquing totalitarianism. Right. Like, we get that. Right. And there's no reason why someone in the first century AD couldn't do something similar.

And why readers of that text in the first century couldn't understand what the author was doing because they're just as smart as we are.

This is just.

Should be basic kind of stuff. Now, that said.

The author, like, pretty much all Jews, I'm sure, believed in the providence of God. Right? And part of this narrative recounting of history is that God is doing things.

Right? God is a mover within history. And God is doing things, and he's bringing good out of evil, and he's doing things. Providence is a thing. It's real. Right. So this is not to say the other extreme, right, away from, like, fatalism on one hand. So we're gonna say it's a random event.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right?

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

It's not random events.

That contradicts the text just as much. Text is not saying the events are random.

There's a purpose and a meaning to these events that the text is trying to bring out. But that doesn't imply some kind of predestination or worse, fatalism. Right. Either. It's in between. Not everything is an extreme.

So one of the central sort of interesting themes in the recounting of history.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Is.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

That unlike so some overviews, like if you look at the Deuteronomistic history, you probably have to conclude that the focus there is on different kings. That's why we call it first and second kings. Right. There's good kings and evil kings.

Right. It's sort of the fate and fortunes of Israel as it's recounted there in the Deuteronomistic history. Sort of ebb and flow with who the king is.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

You have David as the archetypal good king. You have other archetypal evil kings. You have Josiah who reforms it. Right. That's sort of the focus with this recounting of history and the assumption of Moses.

The blame is placed more on the tribe of Levi for everything going wrong. Because everything goes wrong, they end up in exile. They end up under the Romans. Right. Why is everything a mess? Because the priesthood became corrupted.

And so when the priesthood became corrupted and the worship of Israel became corrupted, that was the first domino with all these other things going wrong. So the evil kings, and from the perspective of this text, the evil kings, the injustice, all the other horrible sin, and everything that was going on in Israel was the fruit of the poison tree of the false worship and the corrupted priesthood.

So that said, if we're looking at this being written in the early part of the first century A.D. right. It starts to materialize. Okay. Using this historical commentary as a way of commenting on the present time, this is probably directed against the Sadducees, against the current high priest and priests, right. Who control the temple, who are definitely corrupt, who are beyond corrupt.

Right. Not only were they collaborating with the Romans to keep their power, we've talked before on the show about how they use the temple tax to for their family to take possession of 70% of the land in Judea. That wasn't owned by the Romans, belonged to the high priestly family, because they confiscated it for back taxes by levying temple taxes that they knew the people couldn't pay. And then they went to work as tenant farmers on what used to be their land. And it wasn't just that it used to be their land, like they used to own it. This was land given by God in the Torah to their families.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. These are the. The allotments. Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes. And they took it for themselves. So this is sort of the image of ultimate corrupt. Right. So again, standing up in Jerusalem and publicly denouncing the high priestly family, not good for your health and well being. Right. But this is a way to do that. Right. By showing. Right. You're saying this is the problem, right. In Israel's history is a corrupt priesthood. Right. And that also tells us the likely circles out of which this text emerged. Right. Probably the Pharisees.

Right. Pharisees are, of course, opponents of the Sadducees, but not just that. Remember, as we said when we were talking in the first half about the assumption of Moses body into heaven, this is intimately connected to the idea of the bodily resurrection.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So it's very likely that this text emerged from Pharisaic circles. And this sort of sharp critique of.

The Temple's corrupt priesthood is aimed at the Sadducees at the time, right through this vehicle. And Moses is being used to represent what the Torah has to say about this corrupt priesthood.

Right.

And so then at the end of it, though, or the end of what we have.

The end of the Testament part, there is this sort of final prophecy that Moses gives, because of course, his recounting of what for the author was history is presented as Moses prophesying too. But you jump from the first century B.C. and the recounting of history, you jump to the end of days. You jump to the day of the Lord. And so there is this final concluding prophecy about the day of the Lord that is quite interesting.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. I'm going to read it. And everybody just listen closely and maybe it'll remind you of something as I'm reading it. Don't worry, we will tell you what it should remind you of after I'm done reading it. But I just want to put it in front of you first.

Yeah. Okay. So it starts like this. Then his kingdom will appear throughout his whole creation. Then the devil will have an end. Yea, sorrow will be led away with him. Then will be filled the hands of the messenger who is in the highest place appointed. Yea, he will at once avenge them of their enemies. For the heavenly one will arise from his kingly throne. Yea, he will go forth from his holy habitation with indignation and wrath on behalf of his sons. And the earth will tremble even to its ends shall it be shaken. And the high mountains will be made low. Yea, they will be shaken as enclosed valleys would they fall, the sun will not give light, and in darkness the horns of the moon will flee. Yea, they will be broken in pieces. It will be turned wholly into blood. Yea, even the circle of the stars will be thrown into disarray. And the sea, all the way to the abyss, will retire to the sword. The sources of waters which fail, yea, the rivers will vanish away. For God Most High will surge forth. The Eternal One alone in full view will he come to work vengeance on the nations. Yea, all their idols will he destroy. Then will you be happy, O Israel. And you will mount up above the necks and the wings of an eagle. Yea, all things will be fulfilled. And God will raise you to the heights. Yea, he will fix you firmly in the heaven of the stars, in the place of their habitations. And you will behold from on high. Yea, you will see your enemies on the earth, and recognizing them, you will rejoice and you will give thanks. Yea, you will confess your Creator.

So, I mean, there's a lot going on here that's kind of end of the world sort of imagery like you see in the Gospels, frankly, which, you know, not written yet.

Possibly some of the writers, not even born yet.

But. So, yeah, they didn't make all that stuff up.

But, yeah, you get this image of God rising up from his throne, and he's about to enact vengeance. Right. And the idols of the nations are going to be destroyed.

And then finally you get the image of him saying, the powers of the.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Sun and moon are crushed.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Crushed. Yeah. Oh, yeah. The earthquake, the earth will quake. Foundations of the earth will shake.

Yeah. And then you, Israel, will be raised up to the heights and be fixed firmly in the heaven as the stars in the place of their habitations.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Right.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So it seems like this is a kind of.

Expansion on Psalm 82 in a number of ways. You get God enacting judgment.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Well, he arises.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

He arises. Right. Arise, O God. Remember, this is Psalm 82. Arise, O God. Yeah. And even the language of God will surge forth. This is this sort of, you know, in Greek. Right. You know, Anasta, rise up. Right. Uprising.

I mean, it's not exactly the same it's not just a retelling of the psalm. Right. There's a lot of eschatological imagery in here, but definitely something going on here that's very similar in a lot of ways.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And interpreting it as him judging the gods of the nations.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right. The idols are going to be destroyed and then you get the bit about.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Putting sun, moon and stars.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

The holy ones in their places destroyed and. Yeah, and then they're exalted as stars up into the heavens in their places.

And the righteous stand before the throne of God. The archangels did.

The.

Fallen gods are God's nations are punishing at Hannah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, it says like, like in the Charlesworth, it says you will see your enemies on the earth. But I mean, what is the earth? Right. Like it's that sense of Eretz. The underworld. Yeah, the underworld in Genesis 3. Yeah, yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

So that's the.

End of the world expectation and prophecy here that we get depicted at the beginning of the first century A.D.

Right, in this Jewish source and again shows us how that was understood, which is very much how it's understood and used liturgically in the Orthodox Church on Holy Saturday.

As prophecy.

So as we mentioned, we talked about way back in the first half, so long ago now.

We talked about his reference in Jude verse 9 to the devil and St. Michael contesting over the body of Moses. Right. And of course.

That would be in the piece that's missing, right?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

All the stuff about Moses actual dead body is in the piece that's missing.

We do have a decent reason to think that that was in this text.

Because the earliest commentators that we have.

On the Book of Jude. So as you might imagine, there's not just mounds and mounds of commentary on the Book of Jude.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah, I mean, there's not much to it anyway. It's really a short text.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But the earliest commentaries we have on the Book of Jude, we have earlier quotations from it. But I mean, places that comment on Jude verse nine, frankly, the earliest people who commentate comment on Jude verse 9 and that we still have, that are still extant today are a certain fellow named Galasius of Sizzicus.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Okay.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Who I know you all read everything he's written.

And Origen, everyone's favorite non saint.

They'Re the earliest ones in the third century who comment on Jude verse nine and both of them connect.

This reference to Saint Michael the Devil contesting over the body of Moses to a text they call the Assumption of Moses.

Right. So of course our case that that was included in the missing portion of this text. Is based on our case that this text is the assumption of Moses. Right. So that's not 100%.

But I think that's pretty good testimony that what we have is 2/3 of the text.

That contains the tradition St. Jude is referring to. Yeah, right. That if we had the whole thing.

It would include that element. Now, that doesn't mean, by the way, we don't have. We certainly can't say for certain that St. Jude is quoting this text. Right. That would be going way too far.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Right.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Because we can't even demonstrate that what he's referring to was in this text. 100%. Right, right. And there's probably an oral tradition element here too. Right. Where the idea that that happened precedes this actual text. Right. And so could have a common source. St. Jude could just be referring to the tradition that underlies this, etc. Etc.

But.

There it is.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Yeah. All these things on the table look a little similar to each other or a lot similar.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So there's reason to put them on the table together.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yes. Yeah. Yeah.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

So I think the main theme that is my takeaway from this is this question of.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

I mean, we.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

It's funny, like, we talked about ascensions and assumptions at the beginning, and even those categories don't totally fit exactly everything we're talking about. Although, of course, with Moses, I think the assumption is a pretty clear thing.

That's the tradition. Right. Even though that part doesn't show up in this text that we just talked about that has that name because parts are missing.

But I think the thing that I want to come away with is this notion of the exaltation of the human person.

And this, I think, is particularly important because of this. And we've talked about this a bunch of times on the show, but I think it bears repeating, and especially from another angle in this case, this idea that Christianity believes that you go to heaven when you die. If. Fill in the blank here, you know, if you're a good person, if you ask Jesus into your heart, if you, you know, whatever it is, Right. If you've done the thing, then you go to heaven when you die. Period, end of story.

And I know full well that.

That is not the official teaching of most churches or definitely not Orthodox, definitely not Catholic, definitely not most Protestants. But it is, however, an extremely common theology that people have. Really, really common that this is what it means, that this is what the afterlife is about. Right. Heaven or hell when you die.

And that's the end. And oh yeah, oh, by the way, there's going to be a resurrection someday. And I think the problem is that it's. Even if people do mention that it's a. By the way.

Right. That the hope of the resurrection is not the key vector of the way that a lot of people think about.

The afterlife, the life after this life. Right. And.

That there is the possibility of bodily assumption. Right. That there is the possibility of bodily ascension. Even though for most of us, certainly bodily ascension is not going to happen to us. Right. Which is being taken up to be with God even while we're still alive in this life, not having died, you know, as Enoch and Elijah did. Right. And even though the bodily assumption that Moses experienced, that the Theotokos experienced.

Even though that is not going to happen in the same way for most of us.

It is actually going to eventually happen for the righteous.

And I want to make a disambiguation here, of course, because everyone is going to be raised from the dead, the righteous and the wicked, as Christ says, the righteous to eternal life and the wicked to eternal condemnation or damnation, depending on your translation.

So everyone is going to be raised from the dead. Everyone will have their souls and bodies put back together.

But the righteous, their bodies will be changed. And that's really what this assumption is about. Assumption into heaven is not about a change of place. Right now, it's depicted visually like the imagery that we have is. Is of a change of place. But it's interesting if you think about the assumption of Moses. Actually, we don't. We don't even have, like, I don't. I don't know. Is that even an icon? I mean, I've seen icons actually, of the devil and.

And Michael.

Battling over the body of Moses. I've seen that. It's apparently relatively rare, but I have seen icons. A friend of mine who's an iconographer sent me some pictures of that.

But you don't get the assumption of Moses in terms of, like a flight up into heaven. Right. And of course, for the Orthodox, the Dormition of the Theotokos is not depicted as a flight up into heaven. Right. And so the imagery is not that. But even if you want to think of it as in terms of, like, you know, going from one elevation to another, that's still not the point. It's not about a change of place. This is about, as St. Paul says, being caught up to be with Christ in the clouds. Which doesn't mean we're going to all hover up, rapture style into the air. Sorry, dispensationalists, Sorry, everyone who's been affected by that theology, which is bunk. Rapture theology is bunk.

What it's interpreting badly is the language in Scripture that human beings, when they are raised from the dead and those who happen to be still living in this life, when the end comes, when the true end comes, that the righteous, their bodies will be changed, they're going to be exalted. We're going to cast off mortality and put on immortality. This is the crowns and garments and thrones that we talked about in the Ascension of Isaiah that is over and over again in that. That text. And we see that same kind of language in the. In Revelation. We see it in St. Paul.

And of course, we have Christ himself saying that humans will become equal to the angels, the righteous will be equal to the angels, the sons of the resurrection will be equal to the angels.

That's the destiny of Christians of. That's the destiny of the faithful.

Bodily resurrection. And then this exaltation of the human person.

In which we will still certainly have material bodies, but they will be changed. We don't know exactly how, but they will be changed. St. Paul makes the comparison between a seed and a plant, which I think is a great image, because if you've ever planted a seed and then you see the plant that comes, those two things don't look anything like each other, but we know that they're the same thing. It's that seed you put in the ground, broke apart and became that plant. It's the same thing. And even if you were to do like a DNA test on it, you would see that it's the same thing, but it's radically changed. And St. Paul says that the bodies that we have now are like the seed, and the bodies that the faithful will have in the age to come are the plant.

And.

I think seeing that clearly and understanding that clearly puts a shape to our Christian hope that is much more vivid and much more motivating in terms both of trying to live according to the commandments of Christ and also in terms of our evangelistic necessity. It's much more powerful vision of what the life of the age to come is than simply going to heaven when you die. That is a very static.

A very flat way of understanding the age to come. And frankly, it's wrong. It's just incorrect, right? Not just technically incorrect, but it's just incorrect. It's just way too limited and reduced and so forth.

That the life of the age to come for the faithful is going to be.

Dynamic and active and.

Exalted and glorious. Right? Like part of the value of these apocalyptic visions is we have a glimpse of what the possibilities for human beings really are to take the place of the angels to be set among the stars. Right. And if that sounds like pagan to you, right. If that sounds like, oh, Greek mythology talked about people being made into constellations, that's not what that meant, but they were, they were correct in the sense that human exaltation to be like the stars, that is to say, like divine beings, that that is a possibility. What the Greeks and all the other pagans who talked about this stuff got wrong was, number one, it's not done through great feats of glory. Right. You're not trying to oppress the gods so that you get to become one of them. And number two, it's actually available to everybody, not just emperors and sons of gods and whatever. It's available to everybody, including the lowest slave, the smallest child, the most abused, stomped on person in the world can become like the stars. And in fact, in fact, they probably have a better shot at it, frankly, than those who are glorious upon the earth. They have a better shot at it.

When Christ came, he came as humble. He came as humble and thus showed us the way.

So I think the value in looking at texts like these is that they help us to see more clearly.

What it is that we as humans can be.

This is our actual possibility.

And the key to getting there is with the grace of God, to be faithful, to repent every day, to follow the commandments, to say, not me, but you, to actually love your neighbor and to worship the Lord Jesus Christ with his Father and the Holy Spirit.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Is that my cue?

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That's your cue.

Period. Amen.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Yeah. So.

I want to talk a little bit about picking up what we were talking about at the end of the first half.

Long, long time ago. So long we can't remember. When.

Talking about intellectual humility, which for some of us at least, I'm including myself in that. Maybe the hardest kind of humility.

As I may have said on the show before, I talk a lot like. So I do like this. I do a Bible study, I preach, I talk to people, I teach classes, I do all this stuff. So I remember saying things, but I have trouble very often remembering where and when I said them. So I end up repeating myself a lot in things. But as I may have said on this show in the past, I have.

For literally decades now.

I have been reading Nietzsche during Lent.

To help me work on my intellectual humility, to sort of beat my reason over the head.

For a while and try and force it into submission.

I mean, just to give an example of what I mean by that, like how that would work.

You know, Immanuel Kant said, there are these certain things that just have to be true. We have to presuppose them, because if they're not true, then sort of logical thought and reason become impossible. And Nietzsche's response to Kant on that point is, who said rational thought and reason were possible?

And so it's a way.

Of reminding myself repeatedly that all the things I think I know for sure.

I really don't know. And all the things that I think I figured out, I don't really have figured out. And all the things I think I totally comprehend and understand, I don't really understand and don't really comprehend.

Which is hard to really convince yourself of. That's why I have to keep doing it repeatedly.

We, especially now. And this isn't just as modern people. This is a very contemporary thing. I'm saying this as somebody in the United States, but I don't think it's all that different in most of the other places where people are going to be listening to this.

Have entered an era in which we take X Files and Stone Cold Steve Austin way too seriously. And we don't trust anybody.

Except ourselves.

We have an unbelievable amount of trust in ourselves.

And our own ability to understand things and figure things out and do our own research and find the truth ourselves and get to the bottom of things. But we don't trust anybody else.

And if we don't trust anybody else in terms of just other individual humans, once you start getting groups of people together, we trust them even less, if that's possible. And when those groups of people form institutions, we trust them even less than that, if that's possible.

And there's a basic problem with that.

And that's that we still have to live.

We still have to our lives every day. We still have to do things. And you can't actually live like that.

I just took a plane flight last week. I'm taking another one this week. I don't want to. I hate flying, but that's another topic.

But I think, honestly, if I'm honest with myself, one of the things I don't like about flying, that drives me bonkers about it is that when I'm sitting there on a plane, I can't pretend I'm in control of anything.

I have to trust this plane that's probably very old and may or may not be well maintained. I have to trust the pilot that he knows what he's doing and has managed to get some sleep. And his co pilot, you know, I have to trust that the maintenance crew did what they were supposed to do, that were properly fueled up, that.

I don't like it, right When I'm driving in my car. I'm also having to trust in all kinds of things regarding the car and the maintenance that's been done on it and my own attentiveness of that maintenance. But I at least have to give myself the illusion of control because I'm driving. I mean, I'm not controlling all the other motorists on the road, so I'm not really. But I could pretend, can't pretend on the plane.

Because it's more obvious that I'm being forced to trust.

And the more we're honest about our lives, the more we realize our lives are more like being on a plane and less like being the commander of our own destiny in every respect, that we constantly have to trust other people, even groups, even institutions.

Just to function every day.

And I think the only way around the various impasses at which we find ourselves.

Community wise is not to continue to deny the fact that we have to trust.

But to at the same time become intentional about the fact that we have to trust somebody and become intentional about who we trust.

Who do we believe?

Usually when people decry the lack of trust in our modern society, they're comparing it to like an imaginary version of post World War II, pre Vietnam War.

History, at least in the United States.

Where there was trust in institution and people, quote, unquote, believed science. Right? So they're decrying the fact that we don't believe scientists anymore, or that we don't believe newscasters and journalists anymore, or that we didn't. Right?

Let me be honest. Those probably weren't the best people to trust in the first place.

Right? But.

There are institutions and people we can trust. Not because they're perfect, not because they never make mistakes. You can trust God, you can trust Christ because he'll never make mistakes. But his church is made up of humans.

And the clergy is made up of people like me.

Who are sinners and are unreliable and will make mistakes and will have bad days, sometimes give you bad advice.

But when you make the decision, this is the other piece. When you make the decision.

Not to trust.

People and institutions, even institutions that God has established, even people that God has given some level or degree or area of authority.

You are directly choosing then, rather than trusting them, because you got to trust somebody, to trust yourself.

To trust your own ability to know and your own ability to understand and your own ability to work things out.

Any confidence you pull away from everyone else is going to go there.

If you start to. If you start to lose confidence in yourself without putting it in anyone else, then you're in real trouble because then you can't function at all.

But the intellectual humility comes in. In the realizing that I can't trust myself.

Remember that thing I just said about being a sinner? That doesn't just apply to the advice I give other people. That applies to my own understanding and my own ability to decide what's right and what's wrong and what I should and shouldn't do and what I should and shouldn't say in a given situation. If you listen to this show, you know, I have no clue what I should and shouldn't say. I think it and I say it for the most part.

And so I'm not trustworthy.

I'm one of the least trustworthy people I know in that regard. In terms of who I myself can trust.

The most untrustworthy in general person I know is probably more trustworthy when it comes to me.

Telling me the truth about who I am and what I do than I am in my own.

Impression of myself.

And so it's not just. I know when we talked about this at the end of the first half, there'll probably be people who are saying, you know, there he goes, attacking Protestants. Right. On the issue of trusting the church. Right. But it's not just about that. It's not even primarily about that. It's about things far more basic and where we put our trust. That's why we have spiritual fathers in the Orthodox Church. So before I make an important decision, I can get a second opinion.

So when I realize I've messed up, I can get some advice about how to maybe try to start fixing it and not mess up again. At least not the same way. I'll find other ways.

It's why we live in a church community and are part of a community. Living in a community, instead of living by yourself and visiting a community, living in a community puts all of these bumpers and barriers and frames around everything you do.

That's where you learn, living in a community.

What some of the things are, at least that you should think and not say. You probably shouldn't think them at all, but you definitely shouldn't say them.

Where you can learn the things that you don't do, that's where you learn. Where there are lines that you don't cross. Right. That's how you learn how to live and how to function.

But doing that means you have to put some trust in the community and the people around you.

You have to enter into that in a trusting way rather than a distrustful way, rather than in a skeptical way.

I think that's not only important in how we approach, like, what church should I belong to? Right? Not that that's not. That's super important. But again, more basically.

What do I do? How do I live my life? Right? Has to start with trusting the people around me, the people who I care about and who care about me, people I'm in a relationship with.

It has to start with not being skeptical of everything they say and do. How do you be skeptical of something someone does? You read all kinds of motives into it that probably aren't there.

Speculate.

Right? You, rather than assuming everyone is an honest actor, you assume everyone is a bad faith actor.

This is where it starts. We have to do that to live.

We have to start being intentional about it.

And we have to start trusting other people, the people God has put in our lives more than we trust ourselves and our own ability to think things through and our own ability to understand.

Because ultimately the truth is Christ. Ultimately the truth is God. God whom we cannot comprehend.

God who we cannot even frame correctly in human words.

So in the face of the truth being something we can't understand or comprehend.

What we're left with is trust.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Amen. Well, that's our show this time around. Thank you very much everyone for listening. We weren't live this time, but. And we won't be live next time. But God willing, we'll be live again in.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

But someday we'll come the rest of your life.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

That's right. It'll come alive again in July.

But we'd like to hear from you. You can email [e-mail] you can message us at our Facebook page. You can. You can also leave us a [e-mail] LordOfSpirits and if you have basic questions about Orthodox Christianity or you need help to find a parish, head over to orthodoxintro.org and join us for our live.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

Broadcasts normally on the second and fourth Thursdays of the month at 7pm Eastern, 4pm Pacific. Fish don't fry in the kitchen. Beans don't burn on the grill. It took a whole lot of time trying just to get up that hill.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

If you're on Facebook, you can follow our page, you can join our discussion group, leave reviews and ratings everywhere but more importantly than that, please share the show with a friend who is going to benefit from it.

[Father Stephen DeYoung]

And finally be sure to go to ancientfaith.com support and help make sure we and lots of other AFR podcasters stay on the air. Now we're up in the big leagues getting our turn at bat. As long as we live, it's you and me baby. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

[Father Andrew Stephen Damick]

Thank you, good night. God bless.

[Narrator]

You've been listening to the Lord of Spirits with Orthodox Christian priests, Father Andrew, Stephen Damick and Father Stephen DeYoung, a listener supported presentation of Ancient Faith Radio and I beheld and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders, and the number of them was 10,000 times 10,000 thousand and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and Blessing. Revelation chapter 5, verses 11 through 12.