Aziz Matta

For a number of years I have heard Christians of different churches declare their agreement on a single date for Easter and they add that coming to such an understanding would unify them. My fear is that many are satisfied that there is no other difference between us than this. What is even more dangerous is that many go so far as to say that the dogmas which separate us are the work of theologians and that some bishops feel threatened by the loss of what people call their centers of power even though the churches are content for the Church in its unified state would not require the bishops to quit– there are a tiny number of them in the world.

Thus my feeling that this rush for a unified date for Easter among some hides an attitude that depreciates the importance of dogmas and so goes beyond the issue of the feast, which is unquestionably at a lower level than the level of dogma.

The unity of Christian sentiments seems to me to be related to problem of Christian unity from the narrowest perspective or from the perspective of someone who is ignorant of the fact that there is a whole basket of disagreements that must be addressed together.

Disagreement over the dating of Easter was known in the second century when the Church was one. In Asia Minor, they celebrated it on the 14^th of Nisan while in Alexandria and Rome it was on a Sunday. They worked in unity to establish a single date and arrived at it being on Sunday. They considered a unified date to be preferable, but the difference between the two dates did not constitute a schism.

Of what use has been a single date for the feast among the Catholic Church and the Protestant churches since their disagreements have remained intense for the past four hundred-odd years? In the 1920’s, when the Armenian Orthodox chose the western date for Easter did they then belong to the west on the level of dogma? Of course not. What makes their choosing a common date for Easter with us difficult is their complete unity with the Armenian church in their mother country. The Armenians of Lebanon and the Arab East will not adopt a different date without consulting their mother church and for this reason our Armenian brothers will not be part of any unity for the date of Easter in Lebanon.

***

The rule for the timing of Easter was set down at the ecumenical council of Nicea in the year 325. It requires that we begin the calculation for Easter from the Spring Equinox that takes place on the 21^st of March. Then we wait for the full moon that follows it. The Sunday after the full moon is Easter. This ancient principle was confirmed by the ecumenical gathering that took place in Aleppo in 1997.

After Pope Gregory XIII corrected the Julian calendar in 1582– a correction which was not accepted by the Orthodox Church—the Julian (Orthodox) 21^st of March started to be different from the Gregorian 21^st of March that was followed by most countries. So Catholics began to follow their March and to wait for their full moon to start their feast and the Orthodox 14^th of March is now in this century 14 days after this and they await their full moon and their Easter is the Sunday after this.

So according to the movement of the moon we have two dates or one date for the feast. If the full moon follows soon after the Gregorian 21^st of March, then the Orthodox have to wait until the next full moon to have their feast on the following Sunday and for this reason the Orthodox Easter can be far after from the Catholic one. However, if the full moon is far after the Gregorian Spring Equinox, then the feast is on a single day. The problem, then, is that the Catholics adopted the Gregorian calendar while the Orthodox are still on the Julian calendar which Rome abandoned in the time of Pope Gregory XIII.

It seems to me that if we held to the rule of the First Ecumenical Council—that is, the Spring Equinox then the first full moon—then the Orthodox must abandon the Julian calendar. This would require the mutual understanding of all the Orthodox churches in a general council or the exchange of letters between their heads. This appears difficult at the current time because, even if Orthodox decisions originate canonically from the heads of the churches, they tend the sentiments of their flocks. As far as I can ascertain, their sentiments do not seem to me to be very enthusiastic for change. They are composed of flocks and dioceses that are closer to holding to their heritage and who feel that the date of the feast is a part of this heritage. Our patriarchs and archbishops are not masters over their people in an absolute sense because of the system which coordinates between the clergy and the laity.

At this point in history, the Orthodox churches are enmeshed with ethnicities and in places like the Balkans, there has been bloodshed between Catholic ethnicities such as the Croats and Orthodox ethnicities. This is a grouping of different nations that are not prepared for change because they feel that sometimes it goes against dogma. You deal with peoples and not just with churches. Thus I do not anticipate a sudden change among the Orthodox peoples.

It remains that change, even if it is impossible at the present time, is possible on the regional level.

***

This is what Pope Paul VI thought in the 60’s during the sessions of Vatican II when he allowed Catholic minorities living in countries with an Orthodox majority to follow the Orthodox Easter, and this is what Catholic Christians do in Egypt and Jordan and Occupied Palestine. The Maronites of Lebanon studied this matter and they were almost at the point of celebrating Easter with the Orthodox after a meeting in Cyprus. I remember that their Patriarchate announced that they would consult Maronite people the about this question, but it appears that the patriarchate never undertook this consultation. Or they did and we don’t know the result.

Then there appeared literature coming from some Maronite intellectuals claiming that the Maronites in Lebanon are not a minority and so Pope Paul VI’s permission did not apply to them. The Orthodox patriarchate did not dispute this position. On the other hand, the opinion of many Orthodox was that Lebanon is not an ecclesial unit but rather that the unit is the Antiochene space. That is, one must consider all of the churches existing in the Antiochene space, Syria and Lebanon, together. If we adopted this principle then Pope Paul VI’s guarantee applies and the Catholics of the region of Syria and Lebanon can celebrate Easter according to the Orthodox calculation.

And now we find ourselves at an impasse. On the international level it would be irrational for the local Orthodox (in Syria and Lebanon) to be divided in their celebration from the Russians and the Greeks in their various countries, the Bulgarians, the Serbs and others by choosing a Lebanese day for the feast.

There are many who call for a unified date for the feast in our regions. As I image it, the Orthodox say to the Catholics—“the bond brotherhood between us requires you to celebrate with us as you were given permission to do so. Understand, beloved, that if we say that we cannot separate ourselves in this matter from our brothers in the Orthodox world. You, on the other hand, are not leaving anything since the matter was decided by your first source of authority. No one’s essential being is tied to the date of the feast and unity in a single date is considered by the people to be a concern about brotherly love. Let us then live this love on a region scale if we cannot live it now on the global level.

Translated from Arabic

Original Text: “تاريخ واحد للفصح” – 10.04.2010

O Jesus, “O my love crucified”. You had been hanging on “our sins” before they hanged you on the cross. Our sins killed you as we were amusing with them. We behold you now as having “no appearance that we should be attracted to you “bloody and pierced, yet not broken; an object of God’s love. You condemn our iniquities through your body but you do not condemn us because your heart cannot bear to have any person die in it. We are homeless oh Lord. You have stretched your arms to embrace us so you can bring us back to your Father a pure and whole humanity so that He (the Father) does not pronounce His judgment on us on the that day. And you tell Him (the Father) “What is it with them and death! Forgive the trespasses of those who lie, steal and murder because you love them the same way you love those who are pure. All of them are your children and all are my brethren. You enfold them with your mercy and no one can be saved except through this mercy. You have revealed to the “Beloved Disciple” that “God is love “.That is an understanding that Love is you and you dwell in him who loves. You also dwell in the unbeliever; you only ask him to believe in your forgiveness. That would bring him back to you. You forgive him because you long for him at all times.

You long for him because he is the offspring of your love, the love you want no one to be excluded from. If he ignores your love, then of what importance is anything else? Our great Fathers said that you brought us to being so that your love does not remain a captive of your own being. Father you are a god who reaches out to others embracing them. And you were resurrected in me (Jesus) so Man can know that (the resurrection) and live, becoming aware that he is God’s kin.  I have been his companion even unto death so that his knowledge of you would be new; no more are you “up there” and he is “down here”. There is no distance between him and you anymore. The ancients knew that they were close to you, but when they got to know me they realized that your grace has made them in a better standing; they got to know that they are one with you. And that required that I be wounded. You have ordained that I be wounded so that they would love you and be healed. And when healed, you would become their song and joy. And joy is heaven.

You did not raise any one to You except when You have sent me down to them. In a little while, they will be ascending (to You) with me so that Your joy will be full in us and thus Your kingdom is revealed to them. I have told them that Your kingdom is in them and then I revealed that to them further in my death.

Jesus, take me to that love with which my sins are daily atoned for. Let me not see except your face, for every other face is a distraction. Constrain me in your love so that my passions will not “tickle” me, and people would be able to see your light manifested on my face; but let them know that this light is not from me but is poured on me through your tenderness. You have mixed with us so that we can taste you (experience you) and our relationship with you after you consummated the last supper is that you give us yourself in the form of the bread and the cup so that we will always thirst and hunger for you thus bridging the distance between us and your Father.

And when you come to us in that form (bread and wine) we know we are not brothers in flesh and blood only, but we have become so in your Spirit. We do not bring you to us; you carry us off to yourself. You, you reveal what we receive from the altar of salvation (i.e. the bread and wine) as “You”, the one seated at the right hand of the Father.

We see that your arms stretched on the cross embrace us binding us to you and your Father in the power of your Spirit. We return to your world so that we do not get dispersed in our world; but we return to you, you having become our world, so we do not stray away to another where there is boredom and death.

You have said: “He, who wants to follow me, let him deny himself, carry his cross and follow me.” We know that this is hard on us. But we believe that you have carried our misery; and so we get comfort from every word you have uttered. And you have said: “You are clean because of the words that I have spoken to you”. We become a new creation by listening to what you alone said and to none else. After that we delightfully enjoy your Kingdom.  Jesus, be our Lord so we can be certain that your peace is in us.  The peace you give gushes forth from your wounds healing our wounds waking us from the slumber of death.

This New Life you have called us to is in us and remains there when we keep your commandments. If we stay away from your commandments, we become merely a mirage and then dwindle to nothingness. Lord, do not leave us to the nothingness in which your words are not heard. Pull us out of the mire of our sinfulness that distracts us from beholding your cross and that makes us inclined to listen to the “voice” of deception. And deception is the “lust of the eyes and that of the flesh and pride of living”. We know that all those are “deaths” that obstruct the power of your cross working in us.

Oh Lord, we want you. Do not fail us nor let us be tempted with iniquity. You have decreed that the saints should fly away from that (iniquity). And as we follow you, we do so as if saintliness is a burden or impossibility. Change us into what you desire us to be so that we would want only your will thus becoming profoundly united with you. Make straight our thoughts so we do not miss your will for us, purify our intentions so that we would accept, with joy, what you intend for us; and so we become really your friends. Stay close to us in our weaknesses so that we can obtain your strength and not fear death.

Oh my Lord, keep every shadow of death away from us. And aid us with your resurrection power when the hour of our meeting the Father draws nigh. At our last moments, cast not us away so that the darkness does not overwhelm us. Reveal to us that our departure from this world is the door to your bosom. Remind us of this always so that when we realize that our time is near, we also realize that we are not alienated from your presence. Your face (presence), your face oh Lord is our comfort in this weary world. Permit it not that we despair of the hope of being close to you; such despair is death itself.

Call every dying person to you at the hour of his death because if he does not hear your voice he will remain deaf. Reveal your face to him so that he accepts the bosom of your Father. All those who die enter into His mercy. That was said by our Fathers who had practiced the ascetic feats. Your Mother, oh Lord, cannot stand that any one should end up in the fire (of hell). And you have told your beloved disciple standing at the cross that she is his mother conveying to us that she is the mother of everyone who is loved by you. She does not like anyone to perish for good; so when they get saved they realize that she has interceded for them. That is the meaning of the wedding at Cana of Galilee, oh Lord.

That wedding is the image of your wedding with humanity; a wedding in blood. That itself will be the eternal wedding when you gather those who love you from the ends of the earth; then their sufferings will end and they will exult in you. Those whom you have “kidnapped” to yourself will follow you wherever you walk up there.

All what we have seen of your goodness is but a preparation for this “last day”. The resurrection, of which we have tasted many “resurrections” in the love you have for us, that resurrection you accomplished after your passion, will be revealed to us as an in-gathering of those who have been drawn to your love. After that we will play, with the angels, music on the harps of victory, and each moment of Heaven will be in us a new song for you.

And all that in Heaven is an echo of what we on earth chant: Christ Is Risen.

Translated by Riad Mofarej

Original Text: “يا عشقي المصلوب” – 02.04.2010

This would be the last time Jesus enters Jerusalem “the killer of the prophets and those sent to her”, an event we commemorate tomorrow (Palm Sunday). Jesus knows of the conspiracy of the Jews and that is mentioned more than once in the gospels. We believe that the Lord went to death voluntarily even though He was a political victim. Did not Caiaphas say “It is better that one man dies for the people” (John18:11). This entrance into Jerusalem, which seemed at first to be one of victory and welcomed by the nation and its children, was a path to death. “The cup of suffering that the Father gives me will I not drink it?”

Jesus, despite His meekness, was confrontational par excellence. And whoever studies the gospels realizes that the sort of confrontations he had would have to end in a disaster. One wonders how a poor unarmed man protected by no one opposes, with such serenity and composure on His part, the chief priests and scribes and the powerful party of the Pharisees, who showed ferocious enmity, such that they were able to strongly challenge the Roman Governor and forced him to give up Jesus to be killed!

He enters the Holy City knowing that He offers Himself as sacrifice; but also knowing that He would launch, with His crucifixion, love into this world; a model of all those martyred whose blood speaks till eternity.

The blood of the man from Nazareth tells us that “God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son…”. Humanity, for the first time, realized that God is not a god of armies despite the fact that the people who call themselves by His name have armies. His blood was the only language of love He spoke to the world with. Love made the Son of God Himself come down to tell the world that their God is such that the only way he can tell them that He loves them is with (the language of) blood.

Time, for Jesus, was not wasted from the day he entered Jerusalem (Palm Sunday) till the day he was killed. There is no room to mention here all what He did during this short duration of time; but it was full of strong actions like the casting out of the traders from the Temple; those that made the Temple a den of thieves. Nothing is sacred for the thief. Many of them have taken positions in the Church or the government. Do we cast away the thieves from their positions? Are we concerned for the sacredness of this world in all its aspects or do we take it easy because we believe that we cannot combat corruption?

Another unique manifestation is the washing of the feet of his disciples during the Last Supper. Here John puts us in the course of thought behind this action: “Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God; so he got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him.” Then he explained the importance of that: “”Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them.”You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you.” It means that the greatness of those “great” among us is not complete unless they consider themselves and feel that they are at the feet of all people; and that is so because all others are better than them; and if that feeling is not in them, then they do not belong to Christ. That is so because we are here to serve others around us fully till the end of love. Only that can deliver us from our arrogance.

Perhaps the most eloquent manifestation of Jesus, one that remains forever in the Church, and that derives its meaning from his death and resurrection is the event of the Last Supper (Sacramental Supper) which Luke tells in this way: “And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.” That became the Holy liturgy in Christianity. Jesus wanted the effectiveness of His death and resurrection to be realized in that form. And the meaning of His words that carry no other meaning is that when you perform this rite in your Sunday meeting, you become me and I become you. That becomes palpable for those who know what it means to say: “I am that whom I’m in love with and he whom I love is I.”

What justifies the above view is that the body, in Hebrew culture, denotes the person himself. To eat my body means to eat me; to take me into you so that no distance remains between me and you. There is no place here for symbolism and metaphor or any other denotation other than its Hebrew denotation. You take me wholly in the Divine Liturgy. And when he says “my blood”; that (blood) is life in Hebrew culture.  The meaning here is that my life becomes your life and your life becomes mine.

The meaning of this manifestation of Christ in the Holy Eucharist does not reach its full meaning except in farewell discourse which starts in John 4:31 until the end of John17. And that speaks thoroughly of the relation of Jesus with the Father and the Holy Spirit as it also tells of the relationship of the believers with Him. I do not think I would offend the New Testament if I said that the Farewell Discourse is its climax. Here you read what He says of himself: “I am the truth and the way and the life”. Here you get to understand the nature of Christ: “He who has seen me has seen the Father”. And here it becomes needless to talk about the “one nature” or the “two natures”. We got to know that the argument over that is one of words only, since no Christian would not believe that he, who sees Jesus, sees the Father. That there is no Christian who would not believe that his Christ is fully God and fully Man.

With the above there is a difficult commandment: “If you love me you obey my commandments.” And this is repeated several times in various ways. The meaning of the Holy Eucharist in the words: “Abide in me and I in you” contains an answer to all those who say that Christianity is only spiritual and is not related to this earth. My question here is whether the earth is only related to the earth or Heaven brings forth the earth? Is not our behavior a projection of Heaven on to Earth. If you do not adopt the meanings of the Farewell Discourse in your life, you would be the type of Christian who builds church buildings, and holds rituals, and your priests would be those who are dressed in some special clothes, and simply put, you would be of a superficial religion that has nothing to do with God’s bright shining light, and His love that is poured down on you from Christ’s heart. Such as that is the richness you would look for if you want to be a “rich “Christian.

All the passion of Christ, which I will not talk about here, is connected to this discourse. What happened to the Lord is directly linked to what He said. And what He said uncovers the meaning of what He voluntarily went through in His life. All the tenderness He shows in the Farewell Discourse, would show in His suffering, in His patience and in His constant communion with the Father before and during His death.

Here I understand what Paul has said to one of the churches: “I know nothing among you except Christ and Him crucified.” 1Cor2:2. If you do not take the crucifixion to become a meaning for your life, it remains meaningless. All what we have has this meaning: which is the manifestation of God in the man Jesus of Nazareth. In Him divinity is shown not as a theory only, but as dwelling in us and a guarantee for us as a Paschal people.

Pascha is this perennial departure from our sins to God’s face; that exodus which, in History, Christ has accomplished in His body and His words. His resurrection is the clear expression that he has risen from the dead alive so that death can no more be effective in Man. So that we would become light and through us also the whole world would become light.

Translated by Riad Mofarrij

Original Text: “الدخول إلى أورشليم” – 27.03.2010

Their Church has apostolic roots, meaning that there has never been a time since the day of Pentecost when it did not exist and meaning that it was not founded by any human. In the older terminology of the Church, it is said of the Faith that it is Orthodox, which is a Greek word meaning “of right opinion” or “giving right glory.” That is, correct opinion is revealed in worship. Thus, it was not originally called the Orthodox Church. It was only called the Universal Church (“Catholic” in Greek). The Rum Orthodox Church was called Orthodox Catholic in later eras. The two terms are in fact synonymous. So Orthodoxy is the equivalent of Catholicity, and is not dependant on anything linguistically. The Muslim Arabs called what is now the Church of the Rum Melkite, or royal, because they considered them at the time to be of the religious opinion of the Byzantine emperors. This was not always true since we differed with the Byzantine patriarchs for a short time during the reign of Heraclius, who was a supporter of monothelitism, and we differed with the patriarchs who fought against icons, ending in 843.

It remains that the dominant Arabic name was true, because the Rum mentioned in the Quran were the Eastern Romans, that is the Byzantine Empire, which is the Western name for the Romans of the East who considered themselves to be of the Roman Empire, which in their view was still undivided. This is a mistake that Europeans fell into when they translated the term “al-Rum al-Orthodox” as “grec orthodoxe” in French and similarly in English. We are not tiny remnants of Alexander’s Greek army who settled these coasts. Panteleimon al-Jawzi, compiler of the Russian-Arabic dictionary, affirmed that at the coming of Christ’s apostles to Syria or the Fertile Crescent we were Arameans. The expression “Rum Orthodox” thus does not mean that we are of Greek descent.

Liturgical language is a different matter. It was Greek in the cities, the result of Alexander’s occupation, and Syriac in the countryside. This has nothing to do with sectarian differences. All the Christians used Greek or Syriac, according to their region. Our language gradually became Arabized and we have written in Arabic since the ninth Christian century and we have been eloquent in it since the eleventh century, when we debated the Muslims in the court of the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad, and their language was no more beautiful than ours. Syriac remained beside Arabic in Church services and priests would use this language according to what their flock knew. That is, the Byzantine liturgy was performed in Syriac for a long time and the Gospel was read in it in our churches until the sixteenth century.

***

To say that this Church is Arab by blood or by heritage or language would be incorrect. However, it is true that during the time of the Arab Revolution during the First World War she felt her own Arabness. We in Syria and Lebanon supported prince Faysal. This means that we rejected French colonialism and the breakup of the Ottoman Empire that resulted from it.

Once, with Ghassan Tueni, I tried to describe the Orthodox politically, and I said to him:

Nous sommes d’empire. It is not easy to translate this expression into Arabic. I explained to Ghassan that at the beginning of Christianity that we felt that we were within the Roman Empire (which is the same as the Byzantine Empire). After the Islamic conquest, we entered into the Dar al-Islam, in terms of governance but not religion. This is what we explained to the Umayyads when we arranged their finances and when we built a fleet for them in the port of Tripoli even while they forbade our belief and our worship.

However, we did not feel that we belonged to the Crusader principalities that persecuted us to the point of bloodshed. In the Islamic era the system of dhimmitude was not applied at all times. It is not historically true that our mentality was a dhimmi mentality while others did not have this mentality. All the Christian subjects of the Ottoman sultan paid the jizya when there was a jizya. However, it was legally abolished in the middle of the 19^th century in the empire when it adopted civil law. I humbly say that I hope that Christians do not compete in denying dhimmitude. Those who implement it abandoned it one hundred and fifty years ago.

The Orthodox do not mix their religious affiliation with their civil governance. During the events of 1958, when fractiousness overtook the country, the Orthodox were one with the Lebanese government against what it considered territorial interference. During the last civil war, they did not have a militia and their Church neither blessed nor condemned any of her sons if they joined one political party or another. It is possible to say, even today, that the entire Orthodox people is Lebanese in Lebanon and there is no crisis in this. One should add that since 1975 the Church has taken explicit positions against Israel all of which appear in the record of the Synod of metropolitans headed by the patriarch and this was done entirely freely. This position was taken out of love for the Holy Places and to sanctify the rights of the Palestinian people. Not once did we talk about the Christians of Palestine, but rather about all Palestinians.

In domestic politics, the Orthodox do not have a single position, because deep down they do not feel themselves to be one sect among others. They know themselves as a Church. For this reason it is ontologically impossible for them to march behind Orthodox political leaders. They never once had a political leader, not because they are divided, but because they have forbidden political benefits for any one believer because they consider these benefits to have nothing to do with eternal life.

Today it is said that they have started to feel themselves cheated in matters relating to government positions. The newspaper al-Liwa recently made this clear with a rather academic list of names and positions. Twenty or more years ago I was talking to an Orthodox minister about this and he said to me that we can’t begin to do anything without taking a census. Perhaps the distribution of government positions took place without regard for the sect of the position-holder. But, a man has the right to wonder why high positions escape the most qualified Orthodox and they are left to be content with crumbs. I think that we in this country have sufficient understanding. But, before we abolish political sectarianism (and important people tell us that this would take two or three further agreements) we are still under the rule of political sectarianism. There are psychological minorities. Do not force this upon the fourth-largest group in the country, which, even if it is humble in its own self-estimation, is inferior to none in love of country and inferior to none in sacrifice for it. The Ottoman governates in greater Syria knew the gifts the Orthodox had for management and finance.

I am not asking for anything right now. And I am not giving advice on the level of spiritual guidance. But, I hope that the government, for its own benefit, will use employ good people. Ali ibn Abi Talib said, “Understanding. Understanding. I hope that we shall have a state built upon understanding.”

Translated from Arabic

Original Text: “الروم الأرثوذكس” – 13.03.2010

It is very easy to say that they are being exterminated or displaced by the civil war in Iraq. I understand that Sunni and Shii combatants die. This is a rule of war. Or I understand that those who resist the American occupation die. This is a story of arms. But the Christians of Mosul and of elsewhere in Iraq did not take part in the civil war and are not in the resistance. For what reason are they lead to their deaths or to expulsion from the country they love and in whose civilization they have taken part since the times of Sumer and Babel?

What has taken hold in Iraq, a country that was once so attached to Arabism and was at the forefront of the Arab countries in civic consciousness? If the government defends all its citizens without regard to religion or sect, then why are attacks focused on them and why do we calmly watch the spilling of this innocent blood? “whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind (Surat al-Ma’ida 32).” I am not comfortable blaming the death of every Christian in Iraq on al-Qaeda or on any revivalist or fundamentalist movement. Al-Qaeda and similar groups also kill Muslims. Is this a matter or religious enmity, outside the scope of the war? I do not know. It is up to the Iraqi government to investigate this. But who will ask the Iraqi government?

It is forbidden for a Christian to take revenge. By definition he forgives those who attack him. However, I cannot accept Arabs killing Arabs because of their religion. First of all this was not present in principle. And to the best of my knowledge the principle of enmity between the majority and the minority did not exist in Iraq prior to this war. There is wonton killing there that I can only understand as intending the scattering of the Christians in that great country.

Who desires this?

I understand that the Americans are not eager to preserve the minorities. They were not interested in this for a single day. We know where their interests lie. I was counting on the minorities being under the care of the state. It does not appear that this will be realized in this brother country or nor is there any indication that this will be realized. I am no psychologist, but I hope to understand from psychologists that the civil war stirred up feelings among some against the minorities. Does the victim in the moments before he is slaughtered feel that his killer truly became an enemy on account of religious feelings within himself? I have no answer to this. However, this must be made clear in order to heal the future of coexistence if there is any hope of coexistence.

***

I will mention something that someone said to me: The current situation is one of general confusion and in this atmosphere Christians are being killed. This argument is refuted by the fact that no Christians are taking part in the war. For sincere, thoughtful, people, this is a threat to the state’s existence as a state. But before they speak with their politicians, all Iraqis must cry out and protest out loud in order to purify their consciences and together build a civilized nation after the end of current events.

I do not scour the newspapers to see if there is a single Muslim in Lebanon crying out in the face of these criminals in Iraq. The important thing is that such a man should testify to his brotherhood with the Christians in Mosul, Baghdad, and elsewhere or that he testify to shared Arabness. Silence is murderous. It makes you feel like you’re a foreigner.

A non-Christian in Lebanon asked me: What will happen to us after this attempt at exterminating the Christians of Iraq? I assured him by saying that the Muslims of Lebanon not only love us but are eager for us to remain here with them. I told him this in order to spread peace in people’s hearts and contentment with cooperation with Muslims. However, I would like to be made surer that there is not the strong desire among certain jihadist, takfiri groups to expel the Christians through terror.

***

What happened in Egypt—I mean the killing of Copts—in terms of means and motive, the main motive being hatred, is nothing new. This has occurred for years and the government also does not act because it seems to fear the masses or some fundamentalist segments. Do you not remember that the Copts were at the forefront of resistance to the English in 1919? Do you not know that the one of the major leaders of the Wafd Party was the Christian Makram Obeid? Have you not read that Pope Shenouda always refused to use the word “minorities” when the Americans were agitating to stir up this question in terms of human rights law? The Christians in historical Palestine have become 2% of the population. Jerusalem, which prior to the occupation had a substantial Christian population while now the Christian population does not surpass one or two large Christian villages in Lebanon.

What is the difference between evacuation and expulsion? Evacuation is a band of silk that does no harm and expulsion is a band of silk that strangles. The solution is in the hands of understanding, pure and strong Muslims. How do you rein in the killing? I do not know. Verbal sympathy is not enough. Loud outcry is not enough. Islam does not reject using power within the state or outside the state. For hundreds of Iraqis to be exterminated is a great problem. For ten or more Copts to be slaughtered every year in Upper Egypt is a question laid before the Egyptian entity and the laws within it. In the face of all these horrors the Islamic conscious cannot just look on, especially since so many tongues and so many pens have talked for a very long time about Islamic tolerance. Does this remain on the wish list or will Islamic societies truly become free societies for all rational creatures within them?

We want to live with Muslims in the European sense of the word “freedom.” We desire God’s peace upon them and for them to flourish in every way. This is at least what pious Christians say. I am not talking here about Lebanon where the hearts are one and in my view they are united whatever the form of the government or its organization may be. I have the right to hope that our Muslim brothers will resist the fanatic movements that work against them with the same power that they work against us. However, the Lebanese model does not protect against the movement that might come from abroad.

This movement needs an Islamic denunciation from here and a Lebanese Islamic movement to teach the Arabs freedom for all kinds of people no matter whether they are close or distant in belief. It is not the place here to point to what happens to Christians in Pakistan and Indonesia. I believe that the Arab Muslims are the teachers or tolerant Islam in the world. However this requires a true belief in complete freedom. How their leaders can derive this from their heritage– that is their concern. I do not have patience for to wait for the God that the Muslims worship to be my assurance.

Translated from Arabic

Original Text: “مسيحيو العراق وغير العراق” – 06.03.2010

The teaching and warning of Jesus the Nazarene from being rich, in a way or another, indicates that whatever the human being understands adds on him/[her] splendor, beauty or discernment and then, he/[she] rejoices and prides him/[her]self upon it as if it is his/[her] possession. We do not possess anything, since we either have inherited everything which gives us glamour by our embryonic formation, or God has poured it in the soul. Endowments are either from nature or from beyond nature, and you have received them and you have no merit in [their concern]. You preserve what you have and you either improve it, inactivate it or you harm yourself with it. Nevertheless, you are nothing.

I understand the effort it takes to develop a gift and its importance. However, if the folds of your brain were thick, you would never become clever, and the one born ugly might find some help in cosmetology, though limited help. Accept yourself as you are, since it is not a calamity whenever you were of less shrewdness and it is not a disaster when a girl has an ugly face whenever her soul was kind and she had a pure conduct.

We do not acknowledge the place of beauty in the hierarchy of values since it does not belong to the world of values. It is a mere fact and we do not know a purpose for it, unless we presume that it helps in the relationship when two, of different genders, meet. Maybe God has had a purpose in this. This might be true in the human world and not in the world of different kinds. I do not think that you can delve deeper [in these issues]. This might help in the world of poetry, however, the Qur᾿an has warned us saying: “And as to the poets, the perverse follow them.” (Sura Al-Shu῾ara᾿ [The Poets], 224)

It does not harm the person to carry a physical beauty, which is not of him/[her]. However, one is called to understand that he/[she] is not the maker of this beauty, and thus priding oneself upon it is not admissible, since it is a denial of the gifts of the Creator. Also considering beauty as personal contiguous possession [is not admissible] for the one who wears it, since it is not more than a garment. Of course the beautiful person does not have the capability to become ugly, and for me, he/[she] does not need to thank God for the garment which he/[she] wears, since it is inherited by nature and has not descended from heaven.

Beauty is a danger similar to any richness, and the danger is that the creature might take the place of the Creator and deprive God of God’s grace. The pretty one might be aware of his/[her] prettiness or might not. Awareness or the lack of it, in this case, both are worthless. All this is from the world of dust.

Once I was attending the installation of a cardinal, between whom and me there was a work-relationship in the domain of the convergence of churches, and the deacon was given a great role in that ceremony. When the deacon completed his work shouted with this Biblical saying: “And the world and its desire are passing away” [1John.2: 17], in order that he may warn the cardinal from arrogance.

Whenever the splendor of God descends upon you and you consider it yours, you would be like the one who deemed him/[her]self to be a god, and then you would be falling into polytheism (shirk). That is why in the monastic order we say that “the chaste monk whenever loses love loses chastity.” You are poor and only in your poverty you look at the face of God in order that you might have a face. Whenever this occurs you would not be able to see your face, and in case you boast and take a mirror to see yourself, you become nothing, according to a proverb: “whoever covets abolishes”. Only through poverty you come into being. Every show is a demise of the show-person, since God abolishes the haughty ones. “He has brought down the powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and sent the rich away empty.” (Luke 1: 52-53)

Whenever splendor descends upon you from God you acknowledge it as grace and not as a possession. The Lord has willed to crown you by it, for a purpose that He knows, and He does not reveal it to you unless He wants you to know your responsibility at its receipt. Whoever receives grace is poor and has to be aware of his/[her] poverty in order to be enriched. But whoever ascribes a gift to him/[her]self God would abolish him/[her]. That is why the best prayer is the prayer of praise, since it surpasses the prayer of supplication or plea. Through the latter you receive and then thank, while in the praise you do not look at yourself, but you look at the face of God, you love God, and you become completely compassionate.

Probably the most tempting for the intelligent one is to enjoy his/[her] intelligence, thinking that the substrate of his/[her] mind was not this inherited brain, rather he/[she] has cultivated it. From the divine Book we know that Satan has been clever and most probably the reason of its fall has been pride. While the highest in sanctified humanity have no time to look at themselves, since they perceive only the face of the Lord. For the Lord, those with embellished minds are not closer to the sight of the Creator than those with limited minds, since the Creator does not distinguish among people other than for their faith.

Nothing indicates that whoever fathoms the secrets of universe comes closer from the secret of God. This is a question of heart: “O servant, everything is [revealed to the] heart.” The heart has its logic which might or might not be related to the mind. And for our Fathers, the mind does not become aware of its freedom unless it descends to the heart, where it might be purified and then ascends to its place. For us, this meeting does not occur without grace from the Lord and then, the mind begins the journey of humility. In that state, purity would have been reached its climax and nothing would follow it except vision.

There is premiership in intelligence and that is a danger similar to all premiership and domination. This is not a call to annihilate it, since there is kind of self-destruction in that. This is rather a call that intelligence might start from the divine word, which you are called to speak with human ingenuity, with no conceit or arrogance. The “extraordinary power belongs to God and does not come from us.” [2Cor. 4: 7] And your role with people is what the Qur᾿an has spoken about: “So, exhort, you are a mere exhorter; you are not supposed to dominate them” (Sura Al-Ghashiyah [The Overwhelming Day], 21-22). This means that you have to remind [people] by the words that have descended from above, and that you are [merely] an exhorter. Choose the best method, that is your responsibility and your Lord does not oppose human creativeness, whenever we are truly creative.

Someone might answer me that intelligence has been developed through sciences, philosophy, literature and so on, and this is beautiful. God, [however], cares neither about beauty nor about science. God cares about the truth that is within you, which you are able to give. Scientists might come closer to divine presence or might not. The intelligent ones are not guaranteed by the Lord. He [rather] blesses those who are poor to Him, who know that they come from His approval and that the one forming them surpasses all mind and description.

The one heedless of knowledge impresses me whenever his/[her] Lord imparts him/[her]  knowledge of Godself [cf. Sura Al-Kahf [The Cave], 65], which reveals to him/[her] all love capable of raising him/[her] up. Yes, the human being needs the tools of knowledge in order to manage the worldly things. However, he/[she] would not experience any human depth whenever he/[she] misses the experience of love, before and after which nothing comes, which alone saves the intelligent and the dumb by the same power. Both are to be judged by the same divine keenness for their thoughts and works.

I do not know one spiritual person, in the history of monotheism, who has despised the mind. However, I am always astonished by those who are not aware of its limitations and have not heard of its shortcomings, or of the danger of its boast. I have not spoken about the heart which dissolves in itself. This is also boasting. However, as I am worried from the stiffness of passion and the irritability of the hearts, I am also anxious about the closure of the mind on itself. This is polytheism. However, if you become humiliated in the presence of the Lord, then the doors of both the heart and the mind will open, and you would assume to yourself a high state, which is the state of love [in the sense of Eros].

What a beautiful stand is when those wise ones equate themselves with others, who are less wise than them, since then they would be witnessing that salvation is love. And love has handled the mind at the start of knowledge in the civilization that we have inherited.

All our Fathers said that the first and the major sin, to our day, is pride, which whenever you analyze you would see that it is the elimination of divinity from God, since it is the worship of the self. But whenever you accept the divine mind within you, you become deified, as the spiritual ones say in all the spheres of monotheism. They alone actualize in themselves [this verse: “Say: “He is Allah, the only One” (Sura Al-Ikhlas [Sincerity], 1). While whoever isolates him/[her]self from divine wisdom traces understanding only to his/[her] humanity.

The beauties that are only from the world, including the body, its pleasures, its domination and its glamour, these in reality are ornaments for the people of the world and they take them, and take their world, to the soil, since they are of the earth. But whoever is enlightened by the divine light, they become statures of light, and their Lord knows that they belong to Him now and forever. Those rise only before God and from God they come to us, and we live by their blessings.

Translated by Sylvie Avakian-Maamarbashi

Original Text: “بركات النور” –An Nahar- 27.02.2010

Whenever Christ is addressed as the only Son of God, it is the same as the beloved Son. Christ was not called the child of God in the New Testament. Only once in the First General Epistle of John he was designated as being born of God [cf. 1John 5:1]. The Nazarene [was rather] designated as being born of Mary. The Bible called the human beings the children of God. Thus, to say that He was born, as a designation, is not mentioned in our writings, except in very rare liturgical employments. Sonship, or filiation, is the designation [used]. However, I am not tackling the question of sonship directly, as it is stated in the Nicene Creed in the statement “true God from true God”. My purpose is to arrive at this claim from the humanity of Christ.

I take the baptism in the Jordan River as a starting point for my addressing the topic of sonship. Before John the Baptist, or the forerunner, had baptized Jesus, he said this about Him: “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1: 29) Namely, in the context of addressing His death and after his baptism [in Arabic: pigmentation] he has “borne witness that this is the Son of God.” [John 1: 34] This is not a clear statement about the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. Here, we have a sonship that is disclosed through the humanity of Christ, baptized [pigmented] in water. John the Evangelist, as his method was to descend from Christ’s divinity to His humanity, here, he ascends from the humanity to the divinity.

Matthew, who emphasizes the humanity, mentions the baptism. Then, “the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”” (Matt. 3: 16-17) This is how it is mentioned in Mark, almost literally, and also in Luke.

What does this similar description in telling the story of baptism in the Gospels, that we call ‘synoptic’ (Matthew, Mark, Luke), mean, because of the great similarity in describing the Feast of Epiphany (on the 6^th of January), commonly called [in the Middle East] Immersion [al-Ghtas]? Our liturgies tell us that it is a revelation of the mystery of Holy Trinity. However, why does God give this revelation on the occasion of Christ’s baptism [pigmentation] in the Jordan River, while this baptism is known to us in the theology of the New Testament, especially in Paul, that it is the symbol of Christ’s death and resurrection (the descent into water is the descent into the earth, and the ascent from it is the ascent from the earth)?

I think that the key to understand these similar texts is what is mentioned in the Gospel of Luke about the transfiguration.

Jesus went up on the mountain to pray; maybe the mountain is Mount Tabor or Hermon, i.e. Jabal al-Sheikh. “And as he was praying, the appearance of his countenance was altered, and his raiment became dazzling white. And behold, two men talked with him, Moses and Elijah, who appeared in glory and spoke of his departure, which he was to accomplish at Jerusalem.” (Luke 9: 29-31) He was in glory, of which He came, and the two prophets were in glory, which has descended upon them from above, and the conversation was about His suffering. This is what was meant by “his departure … at Jerusalem”. Then, “a cloud came and overshadowed them” (i.e. the three disciples who accompanied Him to the mountain); “and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. And a voice came out of the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, my Chosen; listen to him!”” (Luke 9: 34-35).

Here on the mountain we do not have the statement “with whom I am well pleased”. Rather, we have His conversation with Moses and Elijah, and here I dare to conclude that what the Father said at the Jordan River means that the Father’s delight about the Son refers mainly to the Father’s delight about the suffering Son, since through Him the will of God has been accomplished. And at the time of conversation with the two prophets, glory has been revealed upon Him and from Him upon Moses and Elijah. God is revealed upon God’s wounded Son on the cross, and John the Evangelist had more than once said that the cross is the locus of glory.

And if there is no glory in heaven and on earth other than the glory of God, it becomes evident to us, from all these sayings, that the locus of divine glory, par excellence, has been the body of Christ in its wounds. And when John, in the beginning of his book says: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us … we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father” [John 1: 14], he would be relating between Christ’s glory and the description of Him as “the only Son from the Father”. The only and the beloved are the same in the New Testament. And hence, John would be saying, in his way, whatever has been said about the baptism [pigmentation] of the Master in the Jordan River and His transfiguration on the mountain; and he would be descending from his speech about the Word, in the beginning of his narrative, to the humanity of Christ in order to find the divine glory delineated there.

After the descent of the words comes their ascent. This is what we perceive in the most explicit statement in the Gospel of Matthew, where he says: “no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son” (Matt.11: 27). It is not possible to understand this verse unless we know that the root of ‘knowing’, which appears in the whole Bible and specially in the Old Testament, refers to nothing else than that which relates a man to a woman, namely their unity until they become one being (in Genesis and then in Paul: the one body). That means that the Father and the Son, together, and because of the reciprocity between them, each loves the other with reciprocal love, which makes their being one. Love for us is the unity of divinity and it forms the bound between the three faces (as they are not numerically three) and we call them the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

From all these sayings we conclude that the New Testament thought makes the whole glory of God upon the face of Jesus Christ. The righteous and the pure person, who has dispensed with all human agitation and has been exempted of all desire, we see that divine lights have been delineated on his face. Here, we see that one human being, who was born of a woman, as Paul says; his name is Jesus the Nazarene, all divine glory has been poured forth upon Him and there is not any delineation from the glory of this world.

In order to explain the mystery of God’s relationship to this unique Man, God has wanted to originate His body from Mary, through God’s Spirit, and God has disclosed that He is God’s Word, which means that whatever this Man says Godself says, so that you might spell divine thought whenever you can read the face of Jesus Christ. And whenever you love Him you love God, and if you can accompany Him to the cross, believing that you see His glory in truth, you might ascend to God’s glory. From the womb of Mary God has chosen Him for Godself, you might follow Him step by step in His miracles and sayings, and you will find the traces of His Father upon Him, till you reach at the cross, where God has laid all God’s projection and has revealed Him to you as a Savior.

A projection which has been covered through blood, and then, the cover has been taken off through resurrection, and the light has radiated from it, which has first appeared at the Jordan River, and second on the mount of transfiguration, and finally in Calvary. There, God has poured all God’s knowledge of the universe, and through it God bound Godself to the whole humanity, since you have received salvation through this torn person, regardless whether you know this or don’t. And if you want glory, all the glory that a human being can attain, you should know Christ, the way, the truth, and the life and you pose there, in order that whenever God raises Him to heaven God raises you with Him. And if God has seated Him on God’s right side, God will seat you there on God’s right side in order that your humanity, whenever receives the glory, becomes Godlike in its power and splendor to the divinity which exists from everlasting to everlasting. And eternity, for which you were called, has renewed its everlasting reality, as the Son has dwelt in the Virgin’s womb. That is to say that you, who as the creature after eternity, move through love to that which is pre-eternal, as if you were not created.

You, as God has brought you into being, become as if you have no beginning, since Christ, in the mystery of His love, would have been seized you and brought you to eternity before.

Translated by Sylvie Avakian-Maamarbashi

Original Text: “الابن الوحيد” –An Nahar- 30.01.2010

The Orthodox Church calls the Sunday of tomorrow the Ancestors’ Sunday, and by the ‘Ancestors’ it refers to those who had laid the origins of Christ from the beginning of creation. In the Gospel, we have two genealogies for Christ. The first is in the beginning of Matthew, and it starts with Abraham, while the second starts off with Jesus the Nazarene to reach at Adam. Through an informed reading, it would be clear that Matthew, as he wrote down his book around the year eighty in Antioch, was a Jew by birth and had grown up in Palestine, and he adhered to Hebrew theology as he compiled the first Gospel in the capital city of Syria. He had determined to tell the Christian community – Jewish by origin – in Antioch that this man, in whom they have believed was a descendent of Abraham. And that His true origin does not go back to Moses, who was not mentioned in the genealogy, but to the first believer in God, Abraham, according to whose faith Paul had said that the humanity will become righteous, in the image of Abraham’s righteousness, and not in the image of the righteousness of the law. It is possible also that Matthew wanted to comfort the converted priests of the temple, who were reduced to poverty because of the loss of their salaries from the temple. He wanted to assure them that in their poverty they had gained Christ, since He is the end of their prophets and the realization of their visions. Thus, through Him the Torah becomes an image of the One to come, a representation of the paradigm, who is Jesus the Nazarene.

This is Matthew’s genealogy. To this the Lord was traced in the work of Luke, the Syrian physician, who had been a disciple to Paul and had written his Gospel after the period of discipleship in Rome, the capital of the world, where the hope for a Savior has developed. Luke had to establish a bond, which relates Jesus not only to Abraham, but to Adam, in order to maintain that the ancestors of Jesus were not only from the Jewish race, but from the whole humanity. Thus, He would be inscribed in His Marian [human] existence and in God’s eternal plan to be the fruit simultaneously of both ancient humanity and its origin.

The Savior of the Jews and the Savior of the gentiles, this was what allowed Paul to write “there is neither Jew nor Greek”. [Gal.3: 28] Since the dividing wall, which was separating among the one people of God has broken down. [This wall] was dividing between the people of God, who had no philosophy and those people of philosophy, who had no one God. Through Him, the wall, separating reason from revelation, would be destroyed; so that whenever reason is drawn to love, becomes itself the place where revelation descends.

Matthew carries the pure spiritual movement which has arisen from Abraham. Luke extends it to Adam and from him to the intellectual capacities which had human aspirations in ancient philosophy. Perhaps those enlightened ones oscillate between these two poles, so that they might be united in Jesus Christ.

According to Matthew, all righteous ones descending from Abraham, in addition to three adulteresses, rise from Him. Thus, the evangelist might indicate that the body of Christ saves the righteous ones, and the sinners together. Further, the evangelist also maintains that the nature, which the Son has attained through incarnation, is subject to corruption. However, Christ had preserved it from corruption. This has been the approach of some Church Fathers, and not all of them. Matthew’s genealogy maintains inherently that Christ carries the sins and that He is the Savior of those who preceded Him and those who followed Him, in order that He might become “all in all”.

According to Luke, all nations will inherit Christ, [and among them] first are the Greeks. This is so in order that the evangelist might maintain that all the splendor of the Greeks, from the time before Socrates, are not up to His majesty, [which could have been actualized] only through perfect giving, which the Nazarene has bestowed on humanity by His death.

If the Savior is related to the whole descendents of Adam, is he related to the religions of Eastern Asia? Some of the Western theologians, both Protestant and Catholic, have maintained this. They perceived in these religions some elements which are close to the Gospel; not because they have permeated the Gospel or have impacted its formation, rather that there is cognation between those religions and the content of the Gospel. Others have pursued Hinduism as mystic platform, yet remained on the Christian tenet. What I wanted to draw out from this standpoint is that the followers of Jesus perceive Him in some of the things [or the events] which had preceded Him, without there being any continuity of texts. Jesus had acquired nothing from Buddhism; there is no doubt in this, especially that we know nothing precisely about the history of His emergence. Asceticism in Indian religions and austerity are pleasant to Christians.

Before more than forty years I was studying Hinduism with Evangelical pastors in Switzerland by a Hindu professor – both as nationality and belief. After some days he asked me, why do you apprehend my [words] more than your friends? And he did not refer [by this question] to intelligence, but to the spiritual perception. I answered him: There is cognation between the Eastern Church and you, on aspects of asceticism, spirituality and the heart.

If there was a kind of cognation between Christ and what had preceded Him, what is then the relationship between Him and those who are near to Him? Today, and since several decades, there are new religious callings, which are arousals of Gnostic trends, or those which advocate gnosis (not in its Islamic sense) and tendencies which are influenced by Hinduism in a way which destroys our spiritual heritage, and attempts at compensating the tradition by a denial of revelation. Among these trends are those related to Nietzsche, and others, and the remnants of atheistic existentialism and the Zionist Christians in America. That is to say that there is much paganism with different forms. And our position in their regard is critical, or dismissive, or sifting, as it was in regards to old paganism and to some aspects of Plato’s thought and Neo-Platonism.

Surely there is a major deviation in the core of Western civilization and its apparent expressions. There is a clear departure from Christ; this, if we look merely at the thought, without considering the depraved, careless morals, which are in themselves injuring the purity of Christ.

We had, from the beginning, a fierce attitude concerning faults and a loose attitude toward philosophies or the movements, which carry within themselves what prepares for the truth of Christ. In different terms we do not have forgery, or syncretism, i.e. a system which brings together different beliefs, from here and there, and constructs a false approach. We reject relativism in religious order and we do not say that we are parts of dispersed truths. But we say that we welcome cognation wherever we find it and we build bridges, whenever possible. We do not quarrel and we do not assort freely. “Test everything; hold fast what is good”. (1Thess. 5: 21)

It remains that we strive to see the good elements in the others. And since we see the whole of truth in the Christ of the gospels, we welcome the cognation which is relevant to the human nature of the Master, regardless whether this took the shape of direct communication or indirect mental compatibility.

The line of Christ is not only the one descending from Abraham, according to Matthew, or the one ascending from Christ to Adam; rather it is also the radiating line from Him to those who come after Him, or those who meet Him without a direct relationship. We do not gather only the historical traces of Christ; rather we are after the cosmic Christ, who is luminous here and there through means that we know and others that we don’t.

The expansion of Christ from one side and the outpouring of thought in Him are the two faces of our new perception of the Ancestors’ Sunday, which we will have tomorrow. We need great precision, i.e., the uprightness of opinion, so that we can distinguish between that which belongs to Jesus Christ and that which belongs to the depraved or the foolish spirit of the world. The walls of the Church are not barriers between us and Others. The Church is a place for purification, so that we might urge in dignity, purity and truth. The walls in the Church have doors, through which the King of glory enters and with Him all the multitude of the pure ones on earth enter, as they carry wisdom, humility and righteousness.

Next Sunday, our allegiance to Christ increases, proceeding from the ascription of our allegiance, and from his lineage to Abraham, until we leave everything on the Feast Day [of Easter], facing His great constriction and great glory.

Translated by Sylvie Avakian-Maamarbashi

Original Text: “أصول المسيح” –An Nahar- 12.12.2009