Pisteōs Christou — A Mandate for Discontrol

Scripture is a mandate for discontrol. This is a word that Fr. Marc Boulos coined in one of his recent podcast episodes, which highlights the scriptural mechanism of human disempowerment. It is the absurdity observed by the authors of scripture, that despite the fortified city walls and the intercession of their deities, they still were forced to undergo a deeply traumatic cultural genocide at the hands of the arrogant invaders (felešet) from the Mediterranean Isles. The program of Hellenization following the death of Alexander of Macedon, representative of a younger nation, put the older nation to shame. This is not how it should go. The elder takes precedence over the junior. And yet, like Jacob usurping his older brother Esau (Isaac’s preferred son), the Greeks — whose civilization arose almost two millennia after the glory days of the Semitic Akkadians, proudly imposed themselves onto the “barbarian” Arameans, the inheritors of Akkad.

The Mesopotamian cities failed, despite their grandeur. The gods Bel and Marduk failed, despite their reputation. The works of human hands, which were to protect the Arameans from such an attack, failed miserably. All the while, the bedouin shepherds outside the city carried on like nothing happened. They were unaffected. How could this be? They had no city walls to protect them. Then the “aha” moment — the problem, all along, was human arrogance. We created the cities, the gods, and the structures that led to our downfall. The victory against the Greeks wouldn’t come from a human being more arrogant than Alexander, nor were any of the tribal gods sufficient for such a task. This deity would have to be Pantokrator (all-powerful), able to effortlessly wield the chaotic forces of the Syrian desert and the Mediterranean Sea. This God would need to put Alexander’s arrogance to absolute shame.

The only hope for those Mesopotamian authors was that the God who provided for the Bedouins would provide for them, on condition that they conceded their efforts into the mercy of this El Shaddai from the desert. This was the only established path yet to trust/accept in this dire situation. Both of these words in Hebrew, establish and trust, are from the root אָמַן ’aman whence we get the famous “amen”. From the prophet Isaiah:

וְרֹאשׁ אֶפְרַיִם שֹׁמְרוֹן וְרֹאשׁ שֹׁמְרוֹן בֶּן־רְמַלְיָהוּ אִם לֹא תַאֲמִינוּ כִּי לֹא תֵאָמֵנוּ׃

And the head of Ephraim is Samaria and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah. If you will not trust/ accept (תַאֲמִינוּ ta’aminu), then you will not be established/ safe (תֵאָמֵנוּ te’amenu). — Isa. 7:9

Here the two words ta’aminu and te’amenu are both from the root ’aman and demonstrate its functional range. On the one hand, there is security and safety involved — on the other hand, it requires trust (or concession/ acceptance). Related to the root ’aman is the word אֱמֶת emet, which means “truth”, “trustworthiness”, or “established”. To say “amen” is to bear witness to the truth of the statement, as is repeatedly done in Deuteronomy 27.

The lexical gloss of the same root in Arabic

Routinely, this is the (only) response the God of scripture endorses from his people. Take the example of Abram, whose concession to God’s promise was equivalent to being declared righteous.

וַיּוֹצֵא אֹתוֹ הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הַבֶּט־נָא הַשָּׁמַיְמָה וּסְפֹר הַכּוֹכָבִים אִם־תּוּכַל לִסְפֹּר אֹתָם וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ כֹּה יִהְיֶה זַרְעֶךָ וְהֶאֱמִן בַּיהוָה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לּוֹ צְדָקָה׃

And he brought him outside and said, “Look ye towards the sky and count the stars if you are able to count them”. And he said to them, thus shall your offspring be. And he trusted God and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. — Gen. 15:5–6

This example is especially powerful in context because Abram had spent the previous three chapters either disobeying God or attempting to circumvent His will by having a child through his concubine Hagar. In so doing, he and Sarai lost patience with God’s promise of progeny and decided to take matters into their own hands. By chapter 15, however, Abram simply conceded to God’s will and stopped trying to compete with him. It was no longer about him and his own agenda — it was about submission to the will of his Lord, even to the point of sacrificing his promised son when asked to do so.

The Church Father, Epiphanius of Salamis, correctly understood the implication of this verse when he taught that the religion of Abraham was not “Judaism”, but rather the trust that God would indeed provide him with progeny that would bless all of the nations. This is what Paul later refers to as God “preaching the Gospel beforehand” to Abraham (Gal. 3:8).

St. Epiphanius of Salamis, whom St. Jerome dubbed the “Pentaglossos” because he spoke five languages: Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Latin, and Coptic

And God chose Abraham who — again, characteristically of the holy catholic church — was faithful in uncircumcision, and was perfection itself in godliness, a prophet in knowledge, and in life, conformed to the Gospel […] But there was no name of a sect derived from Abraham, other than simply the name of his godly self; and so those who were derived from Abraham were called Abramians. — Epiphanius of Salamis, “The Panarion”

The teaching that God values trust and obedience over anything else is advanced by His troubling words to the prophet Habakkuk. After delivering to him the dark sayings that he was sending the Babylonians to destroy Jerusalem, he says this:

הִנֵּה עֻפְּלָה לֹא־יָשְׁרָה נַפְשׁוֹ בּוֹ וְצַדִּיק בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ יִחְיֶה׃

Behold the puffed up one; he is not upright in himself but the righteous one shall live in his trust (בֶּאֱמוּנָתוֹ be’emunato).— Hab. 2:4

Here arrogance עֻפְּלָה (lit. to be swollen) functions in direct contrast to אָמַן. The arrogant ones will not concede to God’s instruction, but will instead operate as if they are their own gods. They will continue to boast in their identities and the workings of their own hands.

Invoking St. Epiphanius again, it is interesting how he lays out archetypal heresies in the context of human arrogance. One of these archetypal heresies is none other than Judaism itself.

Now since the Jews were guided by the type (i.e. the pedogogical law) and did not reach the fulfillment which is proclaimed by the Law, by the prophets and others, and by every book (in scripture), they were put off the estate. And the gentiles came on, since Jews can no longer be saved unless they return to the grace of the Gospel. For every ordinance has been violated by them as each text says, in every scripture. — Epiphanius of Salamis, “The Panarion”

The issue here is arrogance, which became apparent after the time of the Hasmoneans when the covenant of circumcision was bastardized into a political banner and Judaism became an ethnic conclave of boastful superiority over the “gentile sinners” who were without the Law.

My colleague Matthew Cooper wrote a fantastic essay that underscores the errors of individuals like Flavius Josephus who warped the scriptural message in his presentation, into a historical account about a real people group with real land claims.

It’s this same arrogance that prevented the Jerusalemite elite of Paul’s time from accepting the fulfillment of their pedagogical law in the crucified Christ. Even though the prophet Jeremiah prophesied of a time when the God of Israel was going to make a New Covenant not like the one made at Sinai and including the Gentiles (Jer. 31:31), they doubled down on the regimentation of the legal codes, refusing to eat with their Gentile neighbors unless they were circumcised. The Law was no longer functioning as it should — that is a pedagogy meant to reveal sin. It was now being used as a license for self-righteousness and vain religiosity. This was, in part, by design. The one who performs the Law is bound to perform all of it (Gal. 3:12). This, Paul explains in Galatians, is the curse of the law. Paul saw in the death and resurrection of Christ, a clear message from God, however. He had used this pure vessel to function as the propitiation sacrifice that would usher in the New Covenant where Jew and Gentile alike would sit together at table, under the aegis of the one Elohim, God of nations.

An important phrase from Paul’s argumentation is pistis christou which refers to the acceptance/ trust of Christ. The exact rendering of this phrase is controversial among Western scholars because of the technicality of Greek grammar regarding objective and subjective genitives. Without belaboring this subject, I take this phrase to refer to the acceptance/concession that the promise of Abraham has been revealed in Christ. In other words, “faith of Christ” or “faith in Christ” refers to the reality concerning Christ. He is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Therefore, Paul is inviting his audience to accept this freedom in Christ by turning away from mechanisms of worldly enslavement. This not only includes pagan deities but also the performance of the Mosaic Law. In Christ, both Rome and Jerusalem lose their control. That is why the Gospel is good news to the poor, but horrific news to the rich. But in any case, Paul’s Gospel of pistis christou is the same faith of Abraham, where concession to God is the only creed. Of course, the Qur’an gets this point right when it links the Hebrew ’aman with the Arabic aslama.

مَا كَانَ إِبْرَٰهِيمُ يَهُودِيًّا وَلَا نَصْرَانِيًّا وَلَـٰكِن كَانَ حَنِيفًا مُّسْلِمًا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ

Abraham was neither one who holds to Judaism, nor a Christian, but was inclining to truth as one submitting; and he was not of the idolaters. — Q. 3:67

Thus, the God of the scriptures does not desire fancy religiosity or false piety. He doesn’t want you to do anything impressive at all. He wants you to give up trying to fight him and concede. And once you concede, then you can feed your neighbor, both the heavenly bread delivered 24/7 for those with ears to hear, and physical bread for the poor around you.

Amen.