CREED - Why does the Indian Orthodox Church recite "he rose according to His Will" and not "rose according to the Scriptures"?

The Nicene Creed, is a statement of faith accepted by the Orthodox (both Eastern and Oriental), Roman Catholic, Anglican, and major Protestant churches. It gets its name from the First Council of Nicaea (325), at which it was adopted and from the First Council of Constantinople (381), at which a revised version was accepted. Thus it may be referred to specifically as the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed to distinguish it from both the 325 version and later versions that include the filioque clause. There is also an Armenian version of the Creed.


In modern times there are many variations to the Nicene Creed – but what we recite today in the Indian Orthodox Church has not deviated from the Faith of the Fathers. Given below are the Greek (original and transliteration), Syriac (transliteration) and Latin form of the Creed along with the translation. We see that in the Syriac – the word “w’meet” – “and died” is added in between “and suffered and was buried”. This in no way deviates from the Faith but it is just a variation. In the same way if you pay attention to the last part of the Syriac transliteration – the words “akh dasbo” – “according to His will” is what is recited in the Syriac Orthodox Church today. This is not a practice that crept into the Syriac Orthodox Church in the recent past, but something that has been handed down over centuries.

Always bear in mind that when the Creed was formed in Greek, there were people who followed the Faith and who did not know Greek and so several translations needed to be made into other languages such as Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Latin, Syriac – all these translations kept the core of the Faith and might have added a few words of which “w’meet” is one. Some Fathers might have thought that it is just not enough to say “he rose according to the Scriptures”, but to emphasize that “it was in accordance with His Will”. For Christ, the will of the Father signified, exclusively, one specific thing, and it was that one thing that he had come to the earth to perform. “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me”. (John 6:38). The “akh dasbo” emphasizes the will of Christ in accordance with the will of the Father.

Secondly, in the early days – when texts were copied on scrolls and a scribe translates a text from another language to Syriac – there is a possibility of word corruption. Originally it could have been “akh ketbo qadisho” or just “akh ketbo” (am not sure if there is a specific word for Scriptures that might be very similar to “dasbo” (will) in Syriac. So when a scribe copies from one manuscript to another, he might misread the text and write a word he thinks that might make sense to the context. This happens often in ancient manuscript copying. Please bear in mind that this reason is just a thought, but not a confirmed thesis as to why we use “akh dasbo”. However, the change “according to His Will” in the Creed from the original in no way deviates from the Faith of our Fathers. It only goes on to show that there are many variations of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

καὶ παθόντα καὶ ταφέντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρα κατὰ τὰς Γραφάς (Greek – Original Language)
kai pathonta kai tafenta kai anastanta ti triti imera kata tas graphas (transliteration)
and suffered, and was buried, and rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures

Hash w’meeth w’etheqbar w’qom latlotho yawmeen akh dasbo (Syriac transliteration)
suffered and died and was buried and rose on the third day according to His will

Passus, et sepúltus est, Et resurréxit tértia die, secúndum Scriptúras (Latin)
suffered and was buried, and rose on the third day, according to the Scriptures

Who Rules Our Lives Today – God Or Money?

“No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon”. – Matthew 6:24

You cannot serve God And wealth (Mammon). Commanding us, not to be anxious for our food, drink, clothing or future, Christ asks us to trust God. The Gospel tells us that our lives are more than material things and that God cares for us.The word mammon comes from a word in Aramaic which simply means wealth or profit. Mammon was not the name of a deity in antiquity. Actually what we know about mammon is what Jesus told us about it. Jesus uses the name to denote a master of the heart of man, when that heart is consumed by self-interest and pride.

This is what makes his teaching so difficult for us today. We are part of society in which greed is covertly considered a good thing. No body says so too loudly but everyone knows it’s true. To a large extent capitalism is based upon the principle of self interest. As an economy model I do not know any other that surpasses capitalism. There is a danger when capitalism becomes the basis for the spiritual life, when self-interest is not only a necessary principle for free market but the foundation upon which our hearts are built. We derive our sense of identity and mission and value; the law of our personal, communal and spiritual life is founded on money. Economical success becomes equivalent in our minds to the blessing of the kingdom of God. Our sense of security derives from our wealth and not from our God. Then the leaven of greed leavens the whole lump; then the love of money rules over the use of money; then our trust is in money instead of God.

And that may be a very subtle virus. Wealth is very tricky. It seldom presents its ugly face directly unless taken by surprise. It has a very persuasive voice that easily appeals to our deepest yearnings. It promises pleasure, comfort, security, worldly glory, happiness and even goodness and blessing. It lures us to trust in it for our future, to justify our hardness of heart to others with all sorts of rationalizations. It promises all this if only we give it our unconditional allegiance by pursuing our own self-interest first in all we do, while we stop caring for our neighbors as ourselves and God above all things.

Money is the lord of self-interest, profit and wealth. And we say what is wrong with that? Every normal human being must have a degree of healthy self-interest and learn to fend for himself, pursue profit and wealth as much as he/she can. Yes, that is true. But there is a problem. Self-interest, profit and wealth are not the purpose God created us for. We were not made to serve things or ourselves. We were created to serve God, and self-interest, profit and wealth must be crucified with Christ – that is, brought to the service of God and not vice versa.

When how much we get defines how much our life is worth; when making money, because of its potential to satisfy our temporal needs, becomes the predominant purpose and preoccupation of our lives, we have fallen victims of slavery to money. The sad thing is that this may happen to us while we are not aware. As the Lord said: ‘Take heed, and keep yourselves from all covetousness’: We must take heed because there are many aspects of our lives that may be and have been under the influence of money for a long time.

Money forces us to worry trying to answer all questions regarding food, clothing, future, until we secure enough money when we won’t have to worry about anything, anymore. Worrying is exactly the opposite of that which the Lord tells us. The Lord clearly says ‘be not anxious about these things’. And that we cannot serve two Masters. So let us be honest with ourselves: Are we not anxious about these things? We often think that the only way for us to stop being anxious about such things is by working hard to secure a big stock of all of them, and then we can say to our soul, like the foolish rich man of the parable, Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, be merry – Luke 12:19. But that night, God told him: ‘You foolish one, this night is your soul required of you; and the things which you has prepared, for whom shall they be?’ Luke 12:20.

Money is important and we need to have enough of it in our lives. However, there is another way to live responsible lives upon this world. We should pursue lives of stewardship instead of slavery. It is called the way of the cross, the way of faith, the way of love, trust and thanksgiving. It means learning that our lives are not defined by what we have, but by what we do with what we have in the service of Christ. It means learning to be content with whatever the Lord has in store for us good or bad. Learning to be good stewards of all God puts in our hands little or much. Working hard while trusting God in his plan for our future, both in the abundance as with the scarcity, caring for our neighbor as ourselves, putting our gifts in Gods service, not only to help ourselves but caring also for others.

The truth is that a man’s life consists not in the abundance of the things which he possesses – Luke 12:15. Life is more than clothing, eating, drinking and money. Wealth is not the greatest good. It is just a tool and as all tools it should be in our hands and not in our hearts. Wealth is not the greatest rest, it is not the greatest happiness. It is not the ultimate blessing or the unconditional sign that God is with us.

There is a richness, of which wealth knows nothing. It is the richness of the abundance of faith, and charity and compassion and love and peace. It is the blessedness of a heart filled to overflowing with the grace and goodness of the Lord. Such a heart can be deprived of all the benefits of this world and is still content, because of the greatest riches of the spirit, which cannot be taken away, which remain for ever. And this is where a catastrophe like the Tsunami, Katrina and Earthquake may come to help us. It gives us and opportunity to examine our priorities, to see where the treasure of our heart really is. Which Master are we pursuing? In which God do we trust? Is it God or wealth/mammon?

All the evil related to the human side of wars, catastrophe, problems within churches and parishes can be traced to the demon of self-interest, and egotism. The principles that govern God’s people according to his righteousness are directly opposite to the demon of wealth. Wealth cares for things over people. God cares for people over things. Wealth cares for comfort over kindness, while God for mercy over affluence. Wealth cares only for self. God cares for self and neighbor. Mammon cares for money. God cares for stewardship. Mammon loves temporal glory. God cares for eternal glory. Mammon cares for appearances but God cares for truth.

Our church has run into trouble because it has ignored the teaching of Christ. Whenever the righteousness of the kingdom has been compromised by worldly interest and temporal glory the Church of God has suffered loss. We have abandoned his true worship. Our church is in the forefront when it comes to charity but we are still at war with our neighbours. The elder generation might tell us that we do not understand the sentiments attached to all the faction fights that go in the Church. True peace and love can never be restored when the Gospel is compromised…however high the stakes.

‘Seek ye first his kingdom, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.’ No one can serve two masters. We must chose between the justice of the kingdom or the service of mammon. We cannot serve self interest first and the kingdom of God at the same time. All of us are charitable by nature and we do a wonderful job but let me take this opportunity to make a humble request to my young brothers and sister who have jobs. Please GIVE openly and freely. Never has anybody in history become a pauper because of his/her charity. God loves a cheerful giver. This is a time to examine ourselves and reassess our priorities, to order them according to the values of the kingdom. Let us renew our vows and commit our whole lives to the honor and service of God and his kingdom.

The Orthodox Church and Original Sin

The Epistle of Romans is St. Paul 's magnum opus. While it's not the systematic theology text that some make it out to be, it is his most theological and most systematic epistle. It’s in this Epistle that Paul writes most specifically about the inherited nature of sin, and it is from this passage that St. Augustine gets his material for “inherited guilt”. Romans 5:12 – 19 reads: “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned -- For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous”.

Technically speaking, in their writings the Eastern Fathers and Orthodox theologians do not use the Latin term introduced by Augustine in his treatise “De Peccato originali”, but instead translate this concept by means of two cognate terms in Greek, namely, progoniki amartia and to propatorikon amartima, which is properly translated “ancestral sin”. These terms allow for a more careful nuancing of the various implications contained in the one Latin term.[1]

With regard to original sin, the difference between Orthodox Christianity and the West is: In the Orthodox Faith, the term “original sin” refers to the “first” or “ancestral” sin of Adam and Eve. As a result of this sin, humanity bears the “consequences” of sin, which is death. Here the word “original” may be seen as synonymous with “first” or “ancestral”. Hence, the “original sin” refers to the “first sin” or “ancestral sin”.[2] In the West, humanity likewise bears the “consequences” of the “original sin” of Adam and Eve. However, the West also understands that humanity is likewise “guilty” of the sin of Adam and Eve. The term “Original Sin” here refers to the condition into which humanity is born, a condition in which guilt as well as consequence is involved. In the Orthodox Christian understanding, while humanity does bear the consequences of the original, or first, sin, humanity does not bear the personal guilt associated with this sin. Adam and Eve are guilty of their willful action; we bear the consequences, which is death.[3]

John Karmiris writes that “the sin of the first man, together with all of its consequences and penalties, is transferred by means of natural heredity to the entire human race. Since every human being is a descendant of the first man, ‘no one of us is free from the spot of sin, even if he should manage to live a completely sinless day’”.[4]

The Orthodox Church cannot agree with Augustine, when he says that humans are under a “harsh necessity” of committing sin in his City of God. The image of God is distorted by sin but never destroyed and because we still retain the image of God we still retain free will, although sin restricts its scope. Orthodoxy repudiates any interpretation of the fall which allows no room for freedom. However, we agree with the West that sin had set up a barrier which humanity by its own efforts could never break down. Sin blocked the path to union with God. Since we could not come to God, He came to us. With all that said I do recommend works of Augustine for Orthodox believers.

It can be said that while we have not inherited the guilt of Adam’s personal sin, because his sin is also of a generic nature, and because the entire human race is possessed of an essential, ontological unity, we participate in it by virtue of our participation in the human race. St. Cyril of Alexandria says: “The imparting of “First Sin/Ancestral Sin/ Original Sin” by means of natural heredity should be understood in terms of the unity of the entire human nature, and of the homoousiotitos of all men, who, connected by nature, constitute one mystic whole. Inasmuch as human nature is indeed unique and unbreakable, the imparting of sin from the first-born to the entire human race descended from him is rendered explicable: ‘Explicitly, as from the root, the sickness proceeded to the rest of the tree, Adam being the root who had suffered corruption’”.[5]

[1] Original Sin in Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church ( Oxford , 2005).
[2] Fr. Anthony Hughes, “View of Sin in the Early Church: Ancestral Versus Original Sin”.
[3] Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology: A Concise Exposition, trans. Hieromonk Seraphim Rose (Platina, Calif.: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994).
[4] John Karmiris, A Synopsis of the Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic Church, trans. from the Greek by the Reverend George Dimopoulos (Scranton, PA.: Christian Orthodox Edition, 1973), pp. 35-36.
[5] Justo L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought: Volume 2 - From Augustine to the eve of the Reformation.