Would a first-century believer recognize the Orthodox Church?

St. Abo of Tiflis

While Orthodox liturgy looks an awful lot like Jewish liturgy (Temple and Synagogue), some of Her theology and practices would appear completely foreign to a first century follower of the Messiah.

So wrote Scott to me recently, and it is a legitimate comment and question. With his permission, I am reposting some of our conversation here. As background, let me tell you that Scott seems to be somewhat knowledgeable about the Jewish faith. He also commented:

Thank you for the clear way in which you have described the Protestant dilemma: the God of the TaNaKh, who commanded a rigorous liturgy with all its pomp, formality, and yes, order, is the very same God of the B’rit Hadassah.

So, I answered: The problem is that if the first century follower of the Messiah would not recognize the theology then Orthodox Christianity is in deep trouble. You see, our claim is precisely that we have been faithful to the deposit that we have been given.

Now, on the practices, I can understand that they would be most startled. Nevertheless, after studying her practices, I would dare say that they would understand the development of the worship. I suspect that mythical first century follower might even have some of the same critiques that Fr. Schmemann and others have had in their books. I agree that the practices of the Church are far from perfect. But, as you pointed out yourself, the first-century follower would probably see Temple and Synagogue in the worship. And, if that first century follower was educated, then that follower would know, from TaNaKh (Torah, Nevi’im, Ketuvim), from Mishnah, and Gemara that worship itself had changed throughout the Old Testament. That first century believer in the Messiah would know that the Temple in which he worshiped was not the Temple in which Solomon had worshiped but a rebuilt one, and it was not the tabernacle at Shechem, nor was it the tent in the wilderness, nor had the synagogue existed in the first centuries of Israel. Yet, that worship in the Temple, as different as it was from the worship in the tabernacle was still the same worship, but now with costly developments, with bronze seas, with bulls, with cherubim, etc. So, why would not that first century believer realize that the same process had happened within the Church, and that it was a process guided by YaHWeH Himself? You see, I could as easily and accurately say that most of the Jewish believers who tramped across the desert behind Moses would have the exact same absolute shock upon seeing Herod’s Temple and the worship inside as you say the first century believer would have upon seeing our worship today. It would be true, yet we know from Scripture that several of those were changes brought about by God. Why could that not be equally true today?

On to doctrine now. How do you know that the first century Christian would see the theology as that foreign? The doctrines of the Ecumenical Councils (except the seventh) are supported by Orthodox, Roman, Anglican, and Protestant theologians alike and with almost complete unanimity. Is the entirety of Christianity that wrong in its doctrine? They might find the terminology as odd as we find the terminology of the “anxious seat” when we read the sermons of John Finley from the 19th century. Yet, with an explanation, not only can we understand that terminology but also realize that the terminology is within the realm of true Christianity. Could not that simply be true of the first century Christian as well? With an explanation, might not that first century Christian be as accepting of the doctrines of the Councils as we are ourselves? We actually have a small mini-preview of that in the story from Acts where St. Paul met those who had received the baptism of John but had not received the Holy Spirit. In fact, when doctrine was fully explained to them, they had no problem in receiving it.

Finally, you speak about a first-century follower of the Messiah. But, by phrasing it that way, you bring a question to my mind. “The disciples were first called Christian in Antioch.” And that was even before St. Paul had done his missionary journeys. Are you implying that this was not an appropriate part of the development of the Church? You see, when you posit this mythical follower of the Messiah, you need to be sure that you look at the whole of Scripture and how God has worked in the development of His community. If something is possible in the Old Testament, then it must surely be possible for the Church. If it is not, then the Church is actually less flexible than the Old Testament community! That would certainly be an odd claim to make.