Religion of the Apostles: Orthodox Christianity in the First Century

In one of Father Josiah Trenham's lectures, he gives an explanation for the different lengths of the catechumenate in the early centuries of the Church and the seeming lack of such a catechumenate in the text of the New Testament. He says that at the time of Christ, the Jewish people were anxiously awaiting the arrival of the Messiah who would fulfill all of the promises of the prophets, and though they may have been a little misguided or wrongheaded about the particulars, they already had a deep knowledge of the Gospel that was to come. Similarly, Gentile God-fearers like St Cornelius and the Ethopian eunuch, were likewise familiar with the Messianic expectation. Fr Josiah explains that after the Church had received those who already knew the promises of the prophets and expected the Gospel, She then began to receive those pagans who knew nothing at all of the Jewish faith and worldview. It was at this time that the Church in Her wisdom began to receive converts after a lengthy catechumenate that walked converts through the Old Testament.This was on my mind as I read Father Stephen DeYoung's book The Religion of the Apostles.I am thoroughly a Biblical studies idiot. I started Criswell College in 2010, went on and off again through the following 8 years, oftentimes distracting myself from my classes by chasing down answers to some new questions I had about the Scriptures. I was particularly blessed to have had both New Testament Survey and Church History in my first semester to teach me that I knew absolutely nothing about the Scriptures and that there was so much more for me to learn. In that semester, I found Orthodoxy. I was confused, angry, confused, curious, confused, intrigued, and confused.I spent the next five years studying the Scriptures the way Criswell taught me because of my love for them AND studying Orthodoxy because something about it just seemed true to me. The more I found to love about Orthodoxy, the more I needed to study it and the Scriptures. I reasoned that since I was a Criswell student, and almost certainly the only Orthodox student they would have, I would need to know every little detail of this new Tradition that I would be adopting or else I would risk turning them off to that which I was continually finding to be the most beautiful thing I knew.As I studied, I came to realize that good Biblical scholarship actually supported Orthodox claims. Everything that I found that was good in N. T. Wright, Ben Witherington, Michael Heiser, Brante Pitre, Richard Bauckham, et al, was actually the very same things that I was beginning to love in Orthodoxy.Since I've become Orthodox, I was hoping that something like this book would be written. I'm no scholar, so I couldn't write it. But the scholarship in this book is the very reason I'm Orthodox. It's not perfect, but it almost is.This book is an excellent bridge from Old Testament to New Testament, from New Testament to the earliest Fathers. In some ways, it could have been titled Apostolic Demonstration 2, in that Fr Stephen makes explicit many things that are assumed in St Irenaeus.There are many many things done right. Part 3 (Creation and Salvation) is perfect and includes the best treatment on the Atonement I've seen by an Orthodox author. Parts 1 (The Godhead) and 4 (God's People and His Law) are excellent, with the only issues I have with them being that they are too short. Chapter 5 on the Saints in Glory is something I've wanted to see in print for a very very long time. Almost every single paragraph is so very full of excellent things.I have two favorite parts of the book. The first is on page 223, where we find this quote: "The Hebrew nachalah, usually translated in English with the word 'inheritance,' is used 223 times in the Old Testament." This made me chuckle.My second favorite part is actually substantive. His treatment of "baptism for the dead" (1 Corinthians 15:29) is the only interpretation I've seen that actually makes sense. The argument is that "the dead" refers to the Christians who have fallen asleep in the Lord (v. 6) and being baptized for them suggests that those being baptized are being given to the departed Christian as a client in a client-patron relationship. In other words, St Paul is saying that if there is no general resurrection then there would be no reason to give patron saints to new Christians because they would have simply ceased to exist.Unfortunately, the book is not perfect. I wish it was. The smallest most nitpicking thing I could say is that I am not personally a fan of using the Tetragrammaton, so the amount of times I replaced it with "the LORD" as I read the book was plenty.My biggest issue I have with the book is in Chapter 4: Spiritual Powers of Evil and Human Rebellions.1) He argues that the unclean spirits that possess the living in the Gospels are dead humans. There is no doubt that there is evidence to suggest the Gentiles and many Jews believed this. I simply have never seen this in our Orthodox tradition. Those that possess the living are fallen angelic beings, never humans.2) He teaches that there are multiple falls of angelic beings. While this seems to be the plain meaning of Scripture, the dogma of the Church seems to disagree. The Church teaches that the fallen angels fell the moment after their creation, and that this fall occurred before the creation of the material universe. I know Fr Stephen is not ignorant of this, since he's mentioned it in the Lord of Spirits podcast. I agree with him that we can't know what it's like to be a bat, but I'm not sure that is enough here.3) He teaches that Satan and the Devil/Dragon/Serpent may not be the same demonic being. On the one hand, he treats them as such earlier in the chapter so it doesn't seem like he thinks of them as separate. But on the other hand, it seems almost trivial and inconsequential that there were traditions that separated the two given that they are treated as the same being now and have been for several centuries. More than this, from appearances of Satan to saints like St Paisios, it seems as if they are certainly the same being.My other issues with the book are exclusively concerning exclusions of content. In Chapter 2, I wish he had a section where he discussed the Personhood of the Spirit of God, as opposed to ideas of the Spirit as some impersonal force or power. There's definitely Old Testament evidence here.I was a bit disappointed in Chapter 9 (The Law of God) in the section titled The Sacrifice to End All Sacrifices when Fr Stephen didn't go all Brante Pitre on us and show us that the Eucharist is the fulfillment of particular Jewish sacrifices and that there is justification for 1st century Jews to believe that the Eucharist is the very Body and Blood of Christ Himself.At the end of the day, this book is incredible. I had to struggle for several years, study like mad, and talk for several hours a day to people like my old roommate David Burnett to get the content that's in this book. We are very blessed to have this book, and I will recommend it to anyone I think it may help.5 stars out of 5, 9.7 out of 10, and three thumbs up.

The Religion of the Apostles: Orthodox Christianity in the First Century by Stephen De Young had several aims. I am paraphrasing: “To outline the contours of the religious practice and beliefs of the Jewish people in the first century AD; to rectify the assumed discontinuity between Old and New Testamental beliefs, practices and scriptures, and to be used in the Orthodox Christian apologetics”. The book achieved and exceeded its aims, at least this is my humble opinion, but it is not without its faults, about which I will speak later. Additionally, the book’s aim, which was unmentioned but fulfilled anyway, is to give Orthodox Christians grounding in their beliefs and practices. Too many of us gather as the one Body and participate in the life of the Orthodox Church without understanding the modes of that participation. I have seen criticism levelled against the book, and those mainly revolve around not providing enough references. If you are looking for a scholarly book full of references and footnotes (the book is not without them), this is not the book for you. The book was not written to be a scholarly reference for somebody’s doctoral thesis. The book had different aims.As mentioned above, the book does have some issues. The issues are mainly in its pacing and the presentation of the material. However, this criticism I would not entirely place on the author, much of it has to do with the material, which gets complicated at times. The book starts very well. It presents the material very cleanly and concisely, which for me was a refreshing change. Too many authors in the field of religious studies try to be “scholarly”, which comes off as pretentious. Part 2 is where the trouble begins. Part 2 very soon becomes repetitive and a bit tiresome. While Part 3 is too complicated, to the point of feeling like reading somebody’s PhD thesis, which makes a reader lose focus. This is particularly obvious in the audiobook version, with the listener (me) losing focus in Part 3, hearing every third word or so. However, as mentioned before, much of it has to do with the subject matter of this particular section. This section answers questions that many regular non-western Orthodox parishioners (people with roots in the Middle East, Balkans, Russia) have never raised during their religious lives. Part 4 is where the book goes back to its beginnings, slowing the pace down and being much clearer.From the technical perspective, the e-book is well-formatted, and the audiobook is well-narrated by the author himself, with the occasional “end quote”, which would pop out sound-wise and was clearly recorded later in the process.To summarise, the book is excellent, and the benefits to the Orthodox readers and listeners are immeasurable. First, because the book shows us two fundamental things:1. That the first Christians did not “invent” anything.2. That the first Christians did not “corrupt” anything.Second, because it shows us that the first Christians listened to the voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Repent (in Greek “metanoite” – change your mind, your worldview), for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”. And then listened to the call of the Apostles and their descendants through the ages, until today: “Taste and see that the LORD is good”.However, the book is not without its problem, which will be negligible after a careful re-reading. The first of many, I am sure.

Enjoyed the insights into the first century practices and theology of the early church. This is a practical yet scholarly work that reads well. Not heavily footnoted but it does affirm the same ideas of other early church scholars. If you’re not Orthodox, it gives some good insight into some Orthodox practices. Great purchase!

Shipped fast, I have already started reading this prior from our church library which prompted me to purchase this book outright. Straight forward easy to read, with an abundance of information. Also for those that are Catechumens or inquirers, this would be an excellent book to have on your journey into the Orthodox church.

Hard going but interesting

This book was so good!! Fr. Stephen has done an excellent job of connecting both biblical testaments and showing us that Christianity is meant to be a continuation and a fulfilling of Israel’s religion. His treatment on the law and what it means for Christians today was great and forced me to rethink my own views of the law in my own life.This is a must read!!

Over the last few decades in the USA there has been a steady trickle of Evangelicas converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, the attraction seems to have been the opportunity to become even more absolutist than before. As David Bentley Hart has pointed out, the result is a peculiarly American version of Orthodoxy which, apart from the external appearance, is theologically no different from conservative evangelicalism. This is a good example. Full of proof texts and otherwise unsubstantiated assertions.

Fr. Stephen DeYoung writes a fantastic, concise summary of second temple Judaism and its blossoming intoOrthodox Christianity. Well worth the price, anybody inquiring into Orthodoxy should read it.