In my personal experiences, I have heard many argue about the nature of Christ: Who is He in relation to the Father (in the Godhead), is He God, is He less than God, etc? We become absorbed in our debates that we turn to our own interpretations without ever looking at the interpretations based on the traditions of the Holy Church. The Church was for the most part, a one, universal, holy and apostolic church in the early centuries. Particularly in the fourth century, when Christians were allowed to practice freely without the onslaught of persecution. We became structured and worked uniformly to deal with problems within the church: heresy, apostasy, and Gnosticism. The Church, at this time would come together from all parts of the Empire and work together to deal with these issues. With this structural system, more emphasis was put on theology in regards to its terminology and technicality. This was not only as a result of this new freedom, but also because there were those who thought incorrectly also – the heretics. Although, they appear detrimental to the Church’s foundation, it is because of their challenge why our great church fathers came to the ultimate conclusion – that they were right, because the heretics were wrong. However Scriptural the heretics were, the Fathers were very convinced that right belief and right piety were appeased with one another (change). Therefore, the conclusion the Fathers reached was more than a misguided understanding of Scripture.

One of the premier highlights of the fourth century was none other than time period surrounding the Nicene Council in 325. This dealt with an ongoing issue at the time highlighted by a controversy implanted by a priest named Arius. Arius gave way to the belief that Jesus was not of one substance with the Father and that there had been a time before he existed. Although in conflict with what the Church believed, this belief started to germinate throughout the Empire. The Council of Nicaea proved this wrong (although the Arian controversy was yet far from eradicated at the conclusion of the council), and laid the groundwork for future Christological understandings. The Nicene Creed’s central term, used to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son, is homoousios, or consubstantiality, meaning “of the same substance” or “of one being”. The Council of Nicaea argued over the denotations of the Greek words homoousios (same substance) and homoiousios (similar substance). The council came to the conclusion that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (the Godhead) all are of the same substance, being or essence (homoousios).

The 4th century also marked further developments of Trinitarian beliefs as such enforced by three saints of the Church known as the Cappadocian Fathers (St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nanzanius,and St. Gregory of Nyssa). As mentioned before, subsequent to the Council of Nicaea, Arianism did not simply disappear. The semi-Arians taught that the Son is of like substance with the Father (homoiousios) while the outright Arians who taught that the Son was not like the Father. So the Son was held to be like the Father but not of the same essence as the Father.

The Cappadocian Fathers fought extensively for the Orthodox cause. In their writings they made extensive use of the formula “three substances (hypostases) in one essence (ousia),” and thus firmly acknowledged a distinction between the Father and the Son, but at the same time maintained their essential unity – a formula that was not as clear earlier during the time of the Nicene Council. Thus, the formula “Three Hypostases in one Ousia” came to be everywhere accepted as an epitome of the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

I understand that the vocabulary may be new and new and daunting to many people in our faith – but I am hoping throughout the course of time we can all gain a better understanding of what was realized. It is important we learn this as understanding the true nature of the Godhead constitutes better understanding of our faith. Since we are followers of Christ, we must of have an understanding of whom we are worshiping. Since it is easy to distort the truth with Scripture, we must rely on those who meditated and examined Scripture with guidance of the Church and who kept and preserved her ways – the Church Fathers. In a modern world today where being spiritually uplifted takes precedence over theological understanding, we must not forget our roots and we must realize the importance of (Orthodox) theology.

As Gregory of Nazianzus asserted, “If one does not acknowledge Mary as Theotokos, he is estranged from God” (Epist. 101). This bold assertion might cause the casual Christian of many traditions to be amazed or bewildered, particularly living in an age highly influenced by Sola-Scriptura (Scripture alone). However, as mentioned earlier the understanding of Mary ties strongly to the understanding of her Son.  More than a metaphysical god, or an unnamed deity, the God of the Christians has a history that spans several millennia. The eternal God whom we first recognized since the Creation narrative and further throughout the history of Israel has brought forth His presence in the flesh through the divine Incarnation by proceeding from the womb of the Blessed Mother. The latter part draws into question the purpose of picking such a person to house a deity and provide Him to the world through the process of childbirth. However, the key significance of this act and more importantly, this person, has been understood since the early days of the Church. The term, Theotokos was already in existence when Nestorius debated it. The Third Ecumenical Council was focused on Christological dogma and did not create any special Mariological doctrine in response to the false Nestorian assertions.  Although this word does not occur in Scripture, the Church councils were not articulating or expounding a new article of faith.  As the late Eastern Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky says, “An ‘unscriptural’ word was chosen and used, precisely to voice and to safeguard the traditional belief and common conviction of ages.” St. John of Damascus in his discourse states Mary “contains the whole mystery of the Incarnation”, and she did not bear “a common man, but the true God.” Without a definitive teaching about the Mother of Christ, Christological doctrine can never be truthfully and sufficiently expressed.

The Incarnation was a personal work of the Living God, the “coming down” of a divine Person.  Mary was not just a mere “channel” through which the Lord came, but the one from whom He took his humanity. Again referring to the words of St. John of Damascus, He did not come “as through a pipe,” but has assumed of her, a human nature consubstantial to ours.  St. Luke shows she was not simply an instrument, who allowed herself be used for the Incarnation, but rather a person who sought to realize, in her own consciousness, the meaning of the fact of her divine maternity.

The scriptural statement, “God sent forth his Son, born of woman” (Gal. 3:4), establishes an intimate spiritual relation between the mother and the child. This unique relationship reciprocates Jesus’ love for His Mother in the fullest sense. For the Incarnate Lord there is one particular human person with whom he is in a very special relation, that not only is He the Lord and Savior of, but also Son. Scripture also points out a verse that not only is a precursor to Christ’s suffering but shows Mary’s direct role in His suffering as well: “Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also” (Luke 2:35).

The Incarnation was not only a sovereign act of God, but more importantly exuded His fatherly love and compassion. God wanted man to have his active share in the mystery. Mary was representative of the whole race, exemplifying in her the whole of humanity. Mary responded to the divine call, responding in humility and faith: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word” (Luke 1:38). Divine will is accepted and responded to as Mary’s obedience offsets the disobedience of Eve. For this reason Mary is the Second Eve, as her Son is the Second Adam. Although Mary herself needed to be redeemed, she was actively engaged in the mystery of the redeeming re-creation of the world as she bore “the second man”, “the last Adam”, who “is the Lord from heaven” (1 Cor. 15:47). As the Creator used the words, “Let there be” which brought creation into existence, Mary uttered humbly, “Let it be”, in her obedience to God.

Those who are against the designation of St. Mary as Theotokos cannot be Christians to the fullest extent, as they oppose the true doctrine of the Incarnation of the Word.  According to St.  Gregory of Nanzianus:

“If the teaching about the Mother of God belongs to Tradition, it is only through our experience of life in the Church that we can adhere to the unlimited devotion which the Church offers to the Mother of God; and the degree of our adherence to this devotion will be the measure of the extent to which we belong to the Body of Christ.”

Devotion or tradition pertaining to the Virgin Mother can be found in the Old and New Testaments that will supply the Church with texts to glorify the Mother of God.  The Great Kings of Old Testament had an inclination to grant their mothers’ request.  One example is that of King Solomon. When he sees her he honors his mother by bowing before her as he puts her in higher regard than any other person on earth. When Bathsheba petitions for Adonijah in 1 Kings 2:19-20 Solomon acknowledges he will not deny her even before knowing the request. However, further into the story we see Solomon was not able to grant this request simply because it threatens his throne. In the same sense Christ who is in the same lineage of Solomon, follows a similar tradition. We petition to Mary to intercede for us; we are not praying to her but instead asking her to pray for us. Our Scriptural basis is John 2:1-11, in where Mary is a key figure in Jesus’ first miracle. The passage reports that while Jesus was attending a wedding in Cana with his disciples the hosts ran out of wine. Jesus’ mother told Jesus, “They have no more wine,” in which Jesus replied, “Dear woman, why do you involve me? My time has not yet come.” However, self-assured of Jesus’ response His mother then said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you” (John 2:3-5).

The importance in glorifying Mary cannot be overlooked as Scripture itself says, “all generations will call you blessed” (Luke 1:48). However, one important example in the gospels which is used to refute glorification of Mary is one in which Christ Himself publicly opposes the glorification of his Mother. When a woman in the crowd proclaims, “Blessed is the  womb that bore you, and the breasts that you sucked,” Christ replies back by saying “Blessed rather are those who  hear the Word of God and keep it” (Luke 11:27-28). However, what St. Luke is doing is not depreciating, but showing the significance of those who receive and keep the divine revelation, as in the case of Mary. This keeping of the words heard concerning Christ in an honest and good heart that Christ exalts above the actuality of physical maternity is attributed in Gospel to no individual except the Mother of the Lord.  St. Luke insists of it, as it is mentioned twice in the Infancy narrative: “But Mary kept all these things pondering them in her heart” (Luke 2:19, 51). For this reason the Church exalts the Mother of God since she was the one who “hears and keeps” the words of the revelation.

The name of the Mother of God contains all the history of the divine economy in this world.  Between the two Eves lies all the history of the Old Testament which cannot be divided. Her participation in the work of the Incarnation was a choice that followed and concluded a whole series of other chosen ones who prepared the way for it. The Roman Catholics take Mary’s own birth to the extreme with the Immaculate Conception. However, according to the Orthodox understanding, the Holy Virgin was born under the law of original sin, and she shared with all the same common responsibility for the Fall. But this sin has not overcome her person, as she was the one who willfully obeyed God.

The Orthodox Church has not made Mariology into an independent dogmatic theme as it remains integral to the whole of Christian teaching.  A strong foundation of the Orthodox faith is based on how the name Theotokos stresses the Child whom Mary bore was not a simple man, not a human person, but the only-begotten Son of God. Theologians from Protestant circles have little or in most cases no interest in this matter. However, to ignore the Mother means to misinterpret the Son. The Mystery of the Incarnation includes the bearing the Eternal Son of God who was made man, as well as the Motherhood of the Incarnate, and more importantly the Mother herself. This Christological perspective has been in many cases obscured by a devotional exaggeration or by an unbalanced pietism. This causes many to turn away from Mariology and Marian devotions as they deem it unnecessary to the person of Christ. However, within the context of the Church in its entirety, Mary is an essential figure in understanding the fullness of Christ.

When reading the creation narrative, it is apparent that humanity was meant to live in paradise, where there was no sickness or sorrow. Because of the sin committed by Adam and Eve, man was removed from Paradise and faced the consequences of sickness, suffering and death. Thus, this Original Sin led to death in the world and also, generally speaking, their sin led to sickness in the world: i.e., things fall apart, people get sick and die; there is evil and darkness around us. The purpose of humanity was not for suffering, but that they can share an eternal communion with God.  Only in this world, or earthly realm is it consumed by death or sickness, which is a direct result of the devil’s dominion over it. It is because of this dominion that we all commit sin, suffer and die.  Even as society progresses with cures for once untreatable illnesses, the fact of the matter remains that morbidity and mortality are still present. Thus, the efforts by society are meager as it only masks a greater problem, which is the inherent sin and destruction.

Thus, healing beyond the scope of medicine is important. Since sin and sickness are so inherent, prayers and supplications that petition the return of God’s kingdom on earth as it was in the time Adam must be made. This kingdom, free of all the aforementioned negativities is what we heed for when we pray for God’s kingdom to come as in the Lord’s Prayer. This original kingdom to return is what will restore the earth into the proper order.

The implementation of sickness, which is a result of the original sin, not everyday sin, allows the healing ministry of the Church to take place. The Church is what presents Christ in this fallen world! It is our accountability to bring healing to those who are around us as we will be asked in the Last Judgment if we “visited the sick” (Mt. 25:36).  However, the sacrament of healing and the anointing of the sick are elements that are deficient on the parish level as we leave those who are in need of physical or spiritual healing to be left alone or to die.

Healing is in the root of the Church. Many of the rites or sacraments of the Church entail some indication of healing. Jesus, the second Adam has come to reverse the calamities associated with the fall. The sickness and despair brought about by man’s downfall are overturned with Jesus’ ministry. Jesus proclaims to be the Messiah to John by simply saying that now “the blind receive their site and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up…” (Mt.  11:5).  Jesus’ miracles proclaim that the kingdom is at hand. In Mt. 9:35, Jesus is seen going through every village and in addition to His teaching, healing is also a component that is contributed in His ministry. Thus, through His miracles, we see the kingdom, because the original kingdom – the garden, was without infirmity.

In the heavenly kingdom man will return to the paradise that God had intended him to be in. However, at that time there will be no evil whatsoever. Both sin and death will be overcome. The blessed will live in perfect love with God and one another, and each of them will live a perfect, bodily life in union with the risen Lord Jesus. While Jesus preached and taught, he was announcing the heavenly Kingdom and urging people to follow him into it. To show them what it would be like, he performed many miracles-as it were, giving illustrations of the Kingdom. For that reason, he forgave people’s sins and/or cured them of their sicknesses.

Associated with the healing process is the power to forgive sins. Christ has come to reverse the tides brought upon by the first man. In the Old Testament the Jews were exiled because of their sins: “Israel came to the wilderness of sin” (Ex. 16: 1), and in the New Testament Jesus, when He healed He often forgave the sins of those who He healed first: “Man, thy sins are forgiven thee” (Lk. 5:20). Jesus, as in the case of the paralytic forgave his sins first before He healed him. Jesus’ healing ministry deals with the remission of sin which is the source of the sickness that permeates throughout the world. Therefore, physical healing is not the end goal, but rather its’ purpose is to reconcile the world with God. Furthermore, the healing was temporary as the one who was healed was subject to further illness and death, however the glory of God’s kingdom that is to come was apparent in Jesus’ actions. Jesus in His healing restores the natural relationship between God and man that has been destroyed because of sin, sickness, and death.

The task of healing is one that is appointed to us through the apostolic tradition. In the Synoptics, we see that Jesus gave his disciples over the unclean spirits and many demons were cast out by the apostles in Jesus’ name. Thus, with this tradition passed down, we too are obligated to heal. The purpose of healing is for the glory of God – to stay united by bringing those back who fell out because of their illness and also as mentioned before, to restore the relationship with God. St. Paul in his writings talks of unity. Therefore, the idea of healing is intertwined with unity since we are all obligated to love another to the extent that we provide healing when one is need of it. As Paul writes in 1 Cor. 12:26, when one suffers, all suffer.

There are, however, some connections between sin and sickness. But the connections are not rigid. Sickness is neither the bodily side of sinfulness nor vice versa. The book of Genesis and the writings of St. Paul make it clear that original sin is somehow the principle of all the evils from which we suffer and all the disorder in the whole created universe. Plainly, good and holy people often suffer depression, cancer, or other psychological and physical illnesses. The book of Job completely rejects the view that sickness and other afflictions indicate that sufferers have sinned. Still, we know as a matter of experience that many of our sins do have bad effects on our health. Wrongful sexual behavior results in transmitting a whole slew of diseases.  Self-indulgent overeating and abuse of drugs damages people’s health. Wrongful attitudes toward one another lead people to kill, wound, and injure one another.

As Orthodox Christians we can only believe that sickness and suffering are the inevitable results of the sinful state of the entire world as a consequence of Adam and Eve’s actions. Thus, sin and sickness do not share a direct cause and effect relationship as viewed by modern society. All share in this suffering, even Christ who Himself was sinless as He took up the cross for our sins. Sickness is a result of the original sin that caused man to fall away from God. In any case, through the sacrament of healing, the kingdom of God in its perfect and intended glory is able to be previewed on this earth.