Concordia Seminary - Saint Louis

Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary

Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation Concordia Seminary Scholarship

Spring 5-20-2022

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church’s Interpretation of

Ἀναξίως in 1 Cor. 11:27−29 in Relation to Worthy Admission to
the Eucharist in Light of Ritual Jewish Purity Laws Embedded in
its Qeddassé and Tradition
Tibebu Teklu Senbetu Rev. Dr..
Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, tibebu118@gmail.com

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.csl.edu/phd

Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, History of Christianity Commons, and the Liturgy and Worship
Commons

Recommended Citation
Senbetu, Tibebu Teklu Rev. Dr.., "The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church’s Interpretation of Ἀναξίως in
1 Cor. 11:27−29 in Relation to Worthy Admission to the Eucharist in Light of Ritual Jewish Purity Laws
Embedded in its Qeddassé and Tradition" (2022). Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation. 108.
https://scholar.csl.edu/phd/108

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Concordia Seminary Scholarship at Scholarly
Resources from Concordia Seminary. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation by an
authorized administrator of Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. For more information, please contact
seitzw@csl.edu.
THE ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX TEWAHEDO CHURCH’S (EOTC) INTERPRETATION OF
ἈΝΑΞΊΩΣ IN 1 COR. 11:27−29 IN RELATION TO WORTHY ADMISSION TO THE
EUCHARIST IN LIGHT OF RITUAL JEWISH PURITY LAWS EMBEDDED IN ITS
QEDDASSÉ AND TRADITION

A Dissertation
Presented to the Faculty of
Concordia Seminary, St. Louis,
Department of Historical Theology
in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

By
Tibebu Teklu Senbetu
April 2022

Approved by: Dr. Joel Elowsky Dissertation Advisor

Dr. Abjar Bahkou Reader

Dr. Mark Seifrid Reader

© 2021 by Tibebu Teklu Senbetu. All rights reserved.

ii
I dedicate this thesis to my beloved wife (Jeri), my precious children (Nati, Lilly, and Beti), and
my mom (Fele) who prays for me and my ministry without ceasing. [Amesegenalehu]

iii
 CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................ viii

ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................... x

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................................. xi

ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................. xii

CHAPTER ONE ............................................................................................................................ 1

GENERAL INTRODUCTION............................................................................................. 1

CHRISTIANITY IN ANCIENT ETHIOPIA ....................................................................... 2

ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX TEWAHEDO CHURCH......... 5

THE OLD TESTAMENT AND ETHIOPIAN CHRISTIANITY ........................................ 8

THE CENTRALITY OF THE EUCHARIST IN THE ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX

CHURCH .............................................................................................................................. 8

THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE QUESTION ............................................................. 10

THE DISSERTATION IN THE CONTEXT OF CURRENT SCHOLARSHIP ............... 14

THESIS STATEMENT ...................................................................................................... 15

METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................. 16

CHAPTER TWO ......................................................................................................................... 22

THE ROLE OF JUDAISM IN ETHIOPIAN HISTORY AND RELIGION ..................... 22

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 22

HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ETHIOPIA AND ISRAEL ....................... 23

CURRENT SCHOLAR’S VIEW OF JEWISH ORIENTED CHRISTIANITY IN

ETHIOPIA .......................................................................................................................... 30

JEWISH RITUALS AND WORTHY ADMISSION TO THE EUCHARIST .................. 39

Fasting and Dietary Laws .......................................................................................... 41

iv
 Sexuality and Worthiness .......................................................................................... 45

Purity and Laws ......................................................................................................... 49

K'idusane, Objects, and Materials ............................................................................. 50

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................... 56

CHAPTER THREE ..................................................................................................................... 58

ἈΞΊΩΣ IN THE QEDASSE AND THE FETHA NAGAST AND IN ST. JOHN
CHRYSOSTOM’S HOMILY ............................................................................................ 58

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 58

ORIGIN OF THE ETHIOPIAN ORTHODOX TEWAHEDO CHURCH’S QEDDASSÉ . 59

Form and Structure .................................................................................................... 67

The Fetha Nagast ...................................................................................................... 72

WORTHINESS IN THE QEDDASSÉ AND THE FETHA NAGAST ................................ 75

Other Means of Becoming Worthy............................................................................ 87

Eucharistic Sacrifice .................................................................................................. 91

ἈΝΑΞΊΩΣ IN ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM’S HOMILY .................................................. 95

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................... 99

CHAPTER FOUR ...................................................................................................................... 102

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS EXEGESIS OF THE SCRIPTURE AND THEIR VIEW

OF THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE ...................................................................... 102

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 102

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS’ EXEGETICAL APPROACH ....................................... 103

RE-READING THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT ...................... 117

Sacrifice in the Book of Hebrews ............................................................................ 118

Eucharist as a Sacrifice ............................................................................................ 125

v
 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 134

CHAPTER FIVE ....................................................................................................................... 137

INTERPRETIVE TRADITION OF THE ANDEMTA COMMENTARY...................... 137

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 137

GENERAL FEATURES OF ANDEMTA COMMENTARY TRADITION ...................... 138

Sources for Andemta Commentary .......................................................................... 145

Place of Context and Tradition in Biblical Interpretation ....................................... 148

ANTIOCHENE-ALEXANDRIAN INFLUENCE ........................................................... 151

ἈΝΑΞΊΩΣ IN THE ANDEMTA COMMENTARY ON 1 CORINTHIANS 11:27 ......... 160

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 165

CHAPTER SIX .......................................................................................................................... 167

ἈΝΑΞΊΩΣ IN LIGHT OF SOCIAL AND THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN 1 COR.

11:17−34 ........................................................................................................................... 167

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 167

CONTEXTUAL AND SOCIO-HISTORICAL ANALYSIS ........................................... 168

Unity and Structure .................................................................................................. 168

Historical and Socio-cultural Setting ....................................................................... 170

Discriminatory Dining Convention ......................................................................... 173

CONTEXTUAL AND SOCIO-HISTORICAL ANALYSIS ........................................... 176

ἈΝΑΞΊΩΣ AND SELF-EXAMINATION (VV. 27−28) ................................................. 182

Paul’s Concept of Holiness in First Corinthians ..................................................... 188

AN ARGUMENT ON PAUL’S USE OF ΣῶΜΑ (VERSE 29) ....................................... 192

Σῶμα as Participation in Christ ............................................................................... 199

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 202

vi
CHAPTER SEVEN ................................................................................................................... 205

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 205

SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH ................................................................................. 205

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................ 208

JESUS AND THE UNCLEAN ........................................................................................ 210

ἈΝΑΞΊΩΣ VS. SOLA FIDE ............................................................................................ 213

AMHARIC TERM FOR ἈΝΑΞΊΩΣ ................................................................................. 215

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................... 218

VITA .......................................................................................................................................... 234

vii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I praise, glorify, and honor God the Almighty and my Savior Jesus Christ. All credit goes

to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, Three in One, the beginning and the

end. He helped my family and me throughout the long journey by extending His grace and mercy

upon each one of us. Without God’s provision of a wonderful wife and beautiful children, a

prestigious theological seminary, an outstanding mentor and advisor, dissertation committee, and

thoughtful scholars and distinguished professors at Concordia Seminary, this Ph.D. research

would have been unlikely to be completed in this manner. I wish also to express my most

profound appreciation to the Concordia Seminary administration and staff for your generous

scholarship.

I am especially indebted to Professor Joel Elowsky, under whose direction and patience

this research was conducted. He provided professional comments and ideas, invaluable insights,

and thoughtful guidance throughout its preparation. In addition to his intellectual excellence

about the subject matter, he experienced the tradition and religious practices of the Ethiopian

Orthodox Church in person during his mission work in Ethiopia; no one could have a better

Doktorvater. I also would like to acknowledge the dissertation committee members, Professors

Dr. Mark Seifrid, Dr. Abjar Bahkou, Dr. Erick Herrmman, and Dr. Jeff Gibbs, for their

outstanding comments and the resources they provided me to read. I also thank the graduate

school director, Dr. Beth Hoeltke for her unreserved, kind support and guidance.

I am specifically grateful to Dr. Tilahun Mendedo, my confirmation class teacher, and

former Bible School professor in Ethiopia. I wish to acknowledge Dr. Mendedo and his family

for his generosity, especially when we financially challenged due to the stress of the Covid-19

pandemic.

viii
 Finally, I wish to acknowledge the tremendous debt I owe to my beautiful, loving, and

caring wife, Eyerusalem Molla, and my three precious children, Nathnael, Lillian, and Bethel,

who sacrificed a lot while I was absent during my studies. Thank you so much for your patience

and commitment. I know that you experienced the pain of separation for over six years and felt

the responsibility of looking after the entire family.

ix
 ABBREVIATIONS

AC Andemta Commentary

AP Ethiopic Anaphora of the Apostles

Ath Ethiopic Anaphora of St. Athanasius

CI Longer Ethiopic Anaphora of St. Cyril

CJ Concordia Journal

EECMY Ethipian Evangleical Church Mekane Yesus

EOTC Ethiopian Orthodx Tewahedo Church

FC Formula of Concord

J Ethiopic Anaphora of Our Lord Jesus Christ

JB Ethiopic Anaphora of St. James the Lord’s Brother

JC Ethiopic Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom

JTSA Journal of Theology for Southern Africa

LXX Septuagint Translation

LTJ Lutheran Theological Journal

LW Luther’s Works

NPNF Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers

x
 GLOSSARY

Abyssinia: Ancient name of Ethiopia

Aksum: Ancient capital city of Ethiopia

Andemta Commentary: The only EOTC’s exegetical commentary of the Bible.

Bete Krestian: Church (literally it means the house of Christians)

Betekelile: Literally -‘with Crowns’ (marriage conducted with crown in the EOTC)

Fetha Nagast: The legislation of Kings

Ge’ez: It is ancient Semitic liturgical language of the EOTC.

Kebra Nagas:t Glory of the Kings

Kedist: Second section of the EOTC building

Ketera: The annual liturgical assembly in the eve of epiphany

Mashafa Berhan: The book of light

Mek’idesi: Inner part of the EOTC representing the holy of holies

Memhir: It is a professional title given to a teacher in the EOTC

Meskel: It is the Commemoration of the Findings of the True Cross of Christ

Miaphysis: Inseparable unity of the Godhead and the Manhood of the Christ in one nature/

Qeddassé: It literally means – liturgy, hallowing, thanksgiving

Qene mahlet: Specific place reserved for the choirs in the EOTC

Tabot: The Ark of the Covenant

Teregwame: It is the Ge’ez traditional exegesis that displays several readings and/or
interpretations of words or phrases of the Scripture

Tewahedo: The term used to denote “composite unity” of the divinity and the humanity of Jesus
Christ

Timket: Epiphany

xi
 ABSTRACT

Senbetu, Tibebu Teklu. “The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church’s Interpretation of

Ἀναξίως in 1 Cor. 11:27−29 in Relation to Worthy Admission to the Eucharist in Light of Ritual
Jewish Purity Laws Embedded in its Qeddassé and Tradition.” Ph.D. diss., Concordia Seminary,
2021. 249pp.

This research examines the interpretation of 1 Cor. 11:27−29 and the practice of worthy
admission to the Eucharist within the historical context and tradition of the Ethiopian Orthodox
Tewahedo Church (EOTC). Christianity in Ethiopia has ancient roots in Judaism and in the
apostolic tradition of the early church fathers, whose religious orientation and teaching shaped
the church’s history, tradition, doctrine, and religious practices. In particular, we examine the
church’s focus on the sanctity of the Eucharist and the acceptable celebration of and participation
in the Sacrament by the faithful.
Analyzing the multi-facetted legacies of the EOTC, including Judaism and the early church
fathers, both from Antiochene and Alexandrian traditions, interlated to each other, the research
discusses the biblical interpretative tradition of the EOTC, which is codified in the Andemta
Commentary (AC) and which continues to influence the central, formative, ecclesiastical
practice of teaching and preaching of the EOTC. The church’s ancient historical religious
tradition and its liturgy, the long-standing biblical interpretation embedded in the AC, and the
subsequent Ethiopic Bible versions interpret the Greek term ἀναξίως in verse 27 as an adjective,
thus requiring those who intend to partake in the Sacrament to demonstrate worthy Christian
virtue and purity before partaking in the Eucharist. The conclusion is that this interpretive
tradition has not only placed an undue burden on consciences, but has also provided a distorted
interpretation of the Corinthian context and the correct interpretation of this verse.

xii
 CHAPTER ONE

GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The primary goal of this research is to fill a gap in the modern studies of the history of

exegesis by focusing on how the Greek term ἀναξίως historically, contextually, exegetically, and

theologically has been understood in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (EOTC). The

research is based on the larger context of the Church and its relationship to Judaism, as well as

the selected anaphoras of the early Church fathers as presented in the Qeddassé, the Fetha

Negast, and the biblical interpretive tradition of the Church as preserved in the Andemta

Commentary (AC) corpus. The evidence shows that the sacrificial language at the core of the

EOTC’s Eucharistic liturgy, and expressed in the Ethiopian commentary tradition, derived from

both the Old Testament Judaism and the Early Church fathers’ anaphoras, is symptomatic of a

church that has been overly influenced by that tradition. It has exchanged the emphasis of grace

and care for one another found in 1 Cor. 11 for a distorted legalism that moves from

discouragement to de facto exclusion from the Eucharistic life of the EOTC, much as the Old

Testament prescriptions set an almost impenetrable barrier around the sacrificial system

practiced among the Israelites.

This dissertation is meant to be a clarion call to the EOTC’s members to return to the

biblical teaching of proper participation in the Eucharist. Through an essential analysis of the

historical context of 1 Cor. 11 combined with the syntax and the overall Eucharistic teaching of

the Sacred Scriptures, we shall render a more appropriate interpretation and application of the

term ἀναξίως than that found in the EOTC. The Church’s ancient and prestigious tradition is

also, however, an important component of the study. The tradition elevates the sanctity of the

Eucharist and fosters at careful and sincere urge to prepare before the sharing of the Eucharist.

1
And yet, we hope also to provide an awareness both to the Church and its members of the

unintended consequences of terminologies and expression about the Eucharistic teaching in the

writings of the Church that in practice seem to have forgotten that we are now under a new

covenant.

Moreover, the EOTC itself is responsible for giving a clear and sound moral, theological,

historical, and exegetical guide to its members, especially when the faithful members read the

Church’s authoritative documents and doctrine wrongly and thus habitually ignore the service of

the Sacrament altogether, intending to avoid God’s judgment. Therefore, this research draws

robust theological and moral application of the word ἀναξίως to modern-day Eucharistic praxis

of the EOTC that wrongly looks to the Old Testament ceremonial law as an avenue for making

oneself ἀξίος for the Sacrament.

Christianity in Ancient Ethiopia

Since there is confusion regarding the beginning of Christianity in Ethiopia and its spread

throughout the country, it is first vital to give a general overview of historical and traditional

facts about Ethiopian Christianity. We can then explore the historical account of the pre-

Christian ancient empire of Aksum and its relationship to the Old Testament rituals and holiness

code that came to Ethiopia through the account of Queen Sheba, which we will address in detail

in chapter two of this dissertation.

There was a fundamental difference between how Christianity was introduced to Ethiopia

and how it was introduced to the Greco-Roman world. In the Greco-Roman world, Christianity

began among the lower classes and eventually, perhaps after three centuries, succeeded in

gaining converts among some royal family members and the elite. In Ethiopia, however, it was

the other way round. Christianity began among the royal families, mainly in the Northern part of

2
the country, and eventually spread down to the lower levels of the society to the rest of the

country. 1

Concerning the beginning of Christianity in Ethiopia, it is more difficult to refer to a

detailed account of the origin of Christianity in the country, especially during the first three

centuries after the birth of Christ. Not many historical writings related to the origin of

Christianity in Ethiopia elucidate the details of the matter. Nevertheless, this should not diminish

the witness of a few ancient reliable historical sources and witnesses found in the Scripture and

the writings of the early Church fathers or historians regarding the early arrival of Christianity in

Ethiopia.

Nonetheless, many European scholars deconstructed the ancient history of Christianity in

Ethiopia and argued that the middle of the fourth century brought a brand-new beginning of

Christianity in Ethiopia. However, some early church historians and the EOTC tradition tell us

that Christianity began in Ethiopia through various routes in the middle of the first century. 2 For

example, the early Church historian Rufinus of Aquileia witnessed that the Apostle Matthew

took the mission mandate of the Lord and went to Ethiopia. He notes, “In the division of the

earth which the apostles made by lot for the preaching of God’s word, when the different

provisions fell to one or the other of them, Parthia, it is said, went by lot to Thomas, to Matthew

fell Ethiopia, and Hither India, which adjoins it, went to Bartholomew.” 3

1
Sergew Hable Selassie, Ancient and Medieval Ethiopian History to 1270 (Addis Ababa: Haile Selassie I
University Press, 1972), 104.
2
Keon-Sang An, An Ethiopian Reading of the Bible: Biblical Interpretation of the Ethiopian Orthodox
Tewahido Church (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015), 86.
3
Rufinus of Aquileia, The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia, books 10 and 11, trans. Philip R. Amidon,
S.J. (New York: Oxford University, 1997), 18. One of the compelling reasons for St. Mathew to go for mission work
to Ethiopia was the growing number of black people in the Northern part of Ethiopia among the people called the
Felasha (Ethiopian Jews).

3
 The Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church tradition also affirm

Mathew’s mission and martyrdom in Ethiopia. 4 In reading the works of St. John Chrysostom, he

mentions that Ethiopians were present in Jerusalem to celebrate Pentecost and they returned to

Ethiopia with many Jewish migrants. 5 If Christianity is thought to be the continuation of Judaism

in some form, this link can be vividly found in the Ethiopian religious tradition, history, and

customs maintained for more than two millennia. Petros S. Berga also notes that later on, “during

the early Middle Ages when the country [Ethiopia] was surrounded by hostile Islamic nations,

there was a strong movement of identification with biblical Israel.” 6 As we will see in a later

chapter, this identification of the Ethiopian church with Israel is an important aspect of its

theology and life.

Further information in the Biblical account about Christianity’s introduction into Ethiopia

is found in Acts 8:26−39. There we read about the visit to Jerusalem and the conversion of an

Ethiopian eunuch who introduced Christianity to Ethiopians at that early age upon his return to

the country. 7 The Church historian Eusebius witnessed, “Tradition says that he [the Eunuch] who

was the first fruit of the faithful throughout the world, returned to his native land and preached

the gospel so that, by him, was fulfilled the prophecy, ‘Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand to

God’ (Ps. 68:31).” 8 Further, Paulos Mikias notes, “There is no doubt that Judaic influences and

Old Testament reflections had reached Ethiopia long before the introduction of Christianity ...

4
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church. The Church of Ethiopia: A Panorama of History and Spirituality (Addis
Ababa: The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 1970), 3.
5
Church of Ethiopia, 3; see also An, Ethiopian Reading of the Bible, 86.
6
Berga, Original Christian Unity in Ethiopia, 37.
7
Giday Belai, Ethiopian Civilization (Addis Ababa: B. Giday, 1992), 93; see also Paulos Mikias, Ethiopia:
Africa in Focus Series (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC−CLIO, 2011), 180.
8
Eusebius, The Ecclesiastical History, trans. Kirsopp Lake, J. E. L. Oulton, and Hugh Jackson Lawlor
(London: W. Heinemann, 1927), 109−10. Unless otherwise specified, all Bible texts are cited from EVS.

4
that is why the Ethiopian Eunuch was reading the Book of Isaiah during the time of the

apostles.” 9

Therefore, the oral tradition in Ethiopia witnessed the presence of Christianity before its

official establishment in the fourth century, and the presence of Christian Red Sea Traders in

Ethiopia had a vital role in preaching the Gospel, which later led to the official establishment of a

Christian Church around the fourth century. Berga notes, “The preaching of the Apostles and the

activity of believing Greek merchants seems to have been among the various factors contributing

to the growth of Christianity, preparing for the acceptance of Christianity as a state religion

under Abba Selama (Frumentius).” 10 Thus, we may conclude that the message of the Gospel

arrived in Ethiopia beginning from the first century and paved the way for the official

establishment of the EOTC, which took place in the middle of the fourth century.

Establishment of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church

A turning point in the experience of Christianity in Ethiopia occurred in the fourth century

when St. Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, ordained St. Frumentius as the first Patriarch of

Ethiopia, giving it an official status. This also brought international recognition of Christianity in

Ethiopia at that early age. This ancient Christian tradition in Ethiopia had a significant role in

forming a national identity for the Ethiopians and has impacted the people through its orthodox

religious orientation.

The EOTC is one of the ancient Orthodox Churches and the only African black, indigenous

Christian Church in Sub-Saharan Africa. It originated far before European colonization of

9
Mikias, Ethiopia, 170.
10
Berga, Original Christian Unity in Ethiopia, 34.

5
Africa. The Church belongs to the faithful and apostolic Church founded upon the teaching of

Jesus Christ and His Apostles. 11 The EOTC history is not just the nation’s history; instead,

historical studies have shown that the EOTC is the oldest Christian Church in Africa. 12 The

Church united with the historical development of the whole country due to the strong unity

between the Church and empire. The unity of the two granted the nation and the authentic church

sources of power and authority appreciated by the world leaders.

The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria administered the EOTC until the middle of

twentieth century AD. The Council of Chalcedon, held in AD 451, was a council that split the

oriental Orthodox churches from the rest of Christendom. The other Non-Chalcedonian members

of the Orthodox churches are the Coptic, Eritrean, Armenian, Syrian, and Indian Orthodox

Churches. Although the EOTC is part of the five Oriental Orthodox churches, it also shares a

faith-related creed with other Eastern Orthodox churches. The Church is also unique in terms of

engagement in practical religious observations of rituals and religious festivals such as the feast

of the Commemoration of the True Cross of the Christ, known as መስቀል (Meskel), and

Epiphany known as ጥምቀት (Timket).

Currently, the EOTC is numerically the largest of the five non-Chalcedonian Eastern

Churches. These churches are known as the Oriental Orthodox Churches in order for them to be

differentiated from other Byzantine Orthodox Churches. One of the main differences between

the two is their theology concerning the two natures of Christ. The Oriental Orthodox Churches

11
See the entire documents of The Interim Secretariat Oriental Orthodox Conference, ed. The Oriental
Orthodox Churches Addis Ababa Conference (Addis Ababa: Artistic Printers, 1965); and see Alemayehu Desta,
Introduction to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Faith (Bloomington, IN: Author House, 2012).
12
John Baur, 2000 Years of Christianity in Africa: An African History, 62−1992 (Kenya: Nairobi, Paulines,
1994), 39−40; and see Edward Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible (London: British Academy, 1968), 15.

6
do not use the controversial formula regarding the relationship of the two natures in Christ, and

how the two natures exist and function in one person. They instead teach about the one incarnate

nature of God, the Word. The Byzantine Orthodox Churches finally characterized the Oriental

Orthodox Churches as a heretical group known as Monophysitism. The monophysite doctrine of

the Church has been vigorously and avidly maintained in Ethiopia since the beginning until

today because it is seen to adhere closer to the concepts of the Old Testament teaching

concerning monotheism 13 and traces of Semitic culture and civilization, which has influenced

Ethiopian Christianity as well as the lives of the Ethiopian people.

A clarification is also in order, however. The EOTC is erroneously called a Monophysite

Church. The proper way of referring to the Church is as a ‘Non-Chalcedonian’ Orthodox

Church 14 because the EOTC, in opposition to Chalcedon, always uses the term miaphysis rather

than monophysis when describing the relationship of the divine and the human natures of the

Christ. While the prefix μία in the former term stands for a composite unity of the two natures,

the prefix mono in the latter one stands for an elemental unity of the two natures in Christ. 15

Therefore, the Ge'ez term ‘Tewahedo’ means ‘being made one,’ which is the best expression for

conveying the inseparable unity of the Godhead and manhood in the Person of Jesus Christ.

The Ethiopian Church is firm in its belief that only one nature has continued in Christ, a

unique divine-human one. That one nature is composed of two aspects, the Divine and human,

and retains all the characteristics of both natures after the union. However, the Church rejected

13
Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 87 and 115.
14
See John Baur, 2000 Years of Christianity in Africa: An African History 62−1992 (Nairobi: Paulines,
1994), 37−41; Aymro Wondmagegnehu and Joachim Motovu, The Ethiopian Orthodox Church (Addis Ababa:
Ethiopian Orthodox Mission, 1970), 3; and Ayalew Tamiru, YeEtiopia Emnet Be Sostu Hegegat: The Faith of
Ethiopia According to the Three Laws (Addis Ababa: Berhanena Selam, 1960), 205−6.
15
Mebratu Kiros Gebru. Miaphysite Christology: An Ethiopian Perspective (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2010),
18−23.

7
the allegation that the Divine absorbed the human or the other way around. Therefore, the EOTC

Christology is neither Gnostic nor monophysite, but Tewahedo, meaning Christ is at once fully

divine and fully human inseparably and without confusion. 16 Ephraim Isaac correctly notes, “the

Ethiopian Orthodox Church is not Eutychian. It teaches the ‘true man, true God’ theory,” 17

implying the Tewahedo doctrine of Christology.

The Old Testament and Ethiopian Christianity

Ancient oriental churches had strong Jewish-oriented customs and traditions when they

started; however, most of them have declined to keep those Judaic elements in their Christian

history and practice today. On the other hand, Ethiopian Christianity expresses itself through

strict adherence to Jewish customs and traditions by firmly preserving them. As we have

described in detail concerning the strong tie between Ethiopia and Israel in chapter two of this

dissertation, the Old Testament’s teaching, and the long-standing Judaic traditions become part

of the reality found in the religious life in Ethiopia, which contributed to the establishment of an

Ethiopian Christian cultural matrix intermingling aspects of religion, culture, and tradition.

The Centrality of the Eucharist in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church

The EOTC gives high regard to the Sacrament of Holy Communion and teaches that the

members receive the actual body and blood of the Lord, which means they receive both the

divinity and humanity of Jesus. The present Qeddassé openly expresses the notion of Tewahedo

and that the faithful members commune with the One and united Person of Christ. Therefore,

16
Donald Crummey, Priests and Politicians: Protestant and Catholic Missions in Orthodox Ethiopia,
1830−1868 (Oxford: Clarendon, 1972), 15−18. See also Ayala Takla-Haymanot, The Ethiopian Church and its
Christological Doctrine (Addis Ababa: Graphics, 1981).
17
Isaac, Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo Church, 20.

8
according to the EOTC, partaking of the true humanity and divinity of Christ requires holiness

and cleanliness in accordance with the teaching and tradition of the Church.

The EOTC’s worship and its liturgical theology articulate the experience of Heaven on

earth in the celebration of the Eucharistic liturgy. Liturgical worship, in this Church, is

indivisibly tied to the oblation and celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist, the Sacrament which

must remain central to Christian worship and has been maintained by the liturgical practice of

the Church. Therefore, the Eucharistic liturgy articulates the experience of Heaven on earth

observed by the worthy members of the Church.

The EOTC liturgical worship incorporates each of the God-given human senses to immerse

the worshipper in a heavenly encounter by directing all the attention toward the One and true

God according to the traditional context of the Church. Orthodox worship requires the reality of

an encounter with the Divine through the sacrifice of the altar. Therefore, the decorative beauty

of robes and traditional liturgical instruments help create an atmosphere meaningful of

celebration and glory. At the same time, icons channel the attendees’ attention toward the true

worship of the Lord along with the communion of those represented in the iconic depictions.

Unlike some protestant denominations that despise icons, the EOTC firmly maintains icons

during divine worship in order to help the attendees immerse themselves into the heavenly

realities through the representation of visible icons. Besides the Ark of the Covenant replica,

having a sufficient sampling of icons and often ornate vestments, crosses, candlesticks, and the

like are vital to the Church’s liturgical service. The worship service experience, along with its

relation to the corporate assembly, finds its climax in the EOTC Christian observation and

communion of the Lord’s Supper, as this is the ultimate model for Christian worship and a

celebration which is carried throughout the liturgical context of the Church. Just as the service of

9
the Eucharist is the apex and center of the Divine Liturgy, the EOTC’s liturgy, as the way of

worship, is at the center of the experience of belief.

The liturgy of the Eucharist in the EOTC was indeed significantly influenced by the pre-

Christian Hebrew heritage. Thus, it is essential to know that the continuation of the liturgical

traditions of the Church, which have been maintained in the EOTC, means that each generation

of the faithful receives the rich tradition of the liturgy from their spiritual ancestors and

subsequently passes it on to the following generation.

Rev. Marcos Daoud, one of the chief editors of the Ethiopian Qeddassé, stipulates that

although the EOTC has been consistently encouraging its members to partake in the Eucharist

weekly or at least three times a year, some people, however, are “misinformed” or “lack

information” regarding the worthy participation in the Eucharist, which has led them to ignore

the service of the Lord’s Supper altogether. 18 However, Rev. Daoud leaves the door open for

others to join him in order to find out from where, what, and how such misapprehension has been

generated, negatively impacting its members. This research, therefore, attempts to enter in and

analyze selected contents of the anaphoras 19 of the early church fathers as presented in the

EOTC’s Qeddassé and the Fetha Nagast (the Legislation of the Kings) accompanied by the

evaluation of the Church’s biblical interpretative tradition preserved in the AC corpus.

The Current Status of the Question

The Andemta Commentary on Scripture of the EOTC offers the most current commentary

18
Marcos Daoud. The Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church (Addis Ababa: Berhanena Selam, 1954), 10.
19
The term anaphora here refers to the early church father’s liturgical writings. Since the fifth century, during
which many liturgical texts were translated into Ge’ez language, the EOTC liturgy has preserved a rich treasure of
various anaphoras. The teachings of these anaphoras had remarkable influence upon the EOTC’s doctrine and
liturgical praxis as we shall describe and analyze some of them in chapter three of this dissertation.

10
on every book of the Scripture. It is the traditional Biblical and patristic Ge’ez-Amharic

commentary material of the EOTC. Studying the traditional Amharic commentary on specific

Ge’ez texts preserved in the AC is seen as the highest stage of scholarship in the Ethiopian

Orthodox Church education. In the commentary, the EOTC has a distinctive interpretative

tradition that developed over its long history; however, it had not been appreciatively welcomed

by western scholars because, for them, the EOTC has not clearly articulated its own

hermeneutical or interpretative tradition. However, Cowley notes that “there are signs of the

modern interest in the AC as a resource for the expansion of Amharic, and the word ‘andemta’

itself appears in some modern dictionaries with the meaning ‘implication.” 20 He goes on noting,

“Today the prospects for the study of the AC materials are more favorable, as the EMML

collection contains many microfilms of the AC MSS, and further MSS are contained in the

British and Bodleian Libraries... and editions and studies of some related Arabic and Syriac

texts... have become available.” 21

Moreover, some scholars compare and identify the interpretative method of the AC with

that of the Antiochene School’s interpretative tradition. In contrast, others identify the

commentary’s interpretative style with the Alexandrian interpretative strategies. However, we

shall argue that the AC incorporates aspects of both school’s interpretative traditions and places

them uniquely in an Ethiopian and indigenized context. For example, Cowley notes, “In general,

the AC regards allegorical interpretations not as lessons which may conveniently be attached to

20
Roger W. Cowley, Ethiopian Biblical Interpretation: A Study in Exegetical Tradition and Hermeneutics
(New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 4.
21
Cowley, Ethiopian Biblical Interpretation, 7. The abbreviation EMML stands for Ethiopian Manuscript
Microfilm Library, A.A.

11
stories, but as the real truth which the original actions were intended to teach.” 22 Besides, the

commentary uniquely represents the tradition of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church’s biblical

interpretation and the writings of the early church fathers from both interpretative traditions. It

still significantly influences the Church’s biblical interpretation and doctrine today.

Since its establishment, the EOTC’s tradition, doctrine, and biblical hermeneutics have

been influenced by Judaic, Apostolic, Syriac, and Egyptian Coptic traditions but have not lost the

Ethiopic forms integrated through contextualization, shaping the unique practice of Ethiopian

Christianity. For example, the AC on Scripture of the EOTC offers the most current commentary

on the question of what it means to be worthy in the communion liturgy and the various

interpretations of the word ἀναξίως in 1 Cor. 11:27, as it mainly relates to the sacramental

obligations and rituals within the tradition of the EOTC. These living traditions, coupled with the

context of the indigenous Church in Ethiopia, play a significant role in the biblical interpretation

of the Church. The AC frequently records multiple readings and textual variants and presents a

valuable resource in understanding the transmission history of Ethiopic biblical interpretation. In

other words, the commentary’s wide range of allegorical and symbolic interpretations of every

biblical text offers many possibilities to reveal aspects of the history of the formation of the

EOTC traditions.

Although the AC does not deny the text’s historicity, the EOTC’s biblical hermeneutics

endeavors to determine the significance of the past for the present by modifying or even

changing the historical reality rather than merely interpreting it. This means the purpose of

understanding any given text of the Scripture can consequently no longer be the subjective

22
Roger W. Cowley, The Traditional Interpretation of the Apocalypse of St. John in Ethiopian Orthodox
Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 49−50. See the reference for further examples of
allegorical interpretations of the lesson it communicates.

12
recognition of the biblical author’s intended meaning. For the EOTC, a practical understanding

of a specific context or situation needs to be grounded in the lived reality that embodies its

interpretations. Thus, as we have argued in chapter four of this dissertation, although the EOTC’s

interpretation of the Scripture does not question the Scripture’s historicity and literal meaning,

emphasis is placed on searching the spiritual significance of the text by employing an allegorical

and symbolic interpretative approach.

Moreover, the narrative techniques utilized in the AC and applied to 1 Cor. 11:27 change

the adverbial meaning of the term ἀναξίως into an adjective. Both the Ge’ez and the Amharic

translation of the commentary further interpret the term in such a way that many members of the

EOTC understand ἀναξίως to mean that, if they consider themselves unclean or impure in

neglecting to keep the Old Testament rituals, they should stay away from partaking of the

Eucharist. Otherwise, they incur God’s wrath upon themselves and their family.

The other question we discuss in this dissertation comes from the EOTC’s Qeddassé and

the Fetha Nagast. The Eucharistic Qeddassé of the Church developed from the anaphoras of the

early church fathers of various traditions such as the Antiochene, Alexandrian, and Syrian

traditions. For example, in the Qeddassé as it currently stands, the Eucharist and the crucifixion

of Christ are equally considered a sacrifice. Like the Old Testament bloody sacrifice, the

Eucharist is believed to be an unbloody sacrifice offered by the priest on the altar. 23 Just as the

Old Testament sacrifice required the attendees to be clean and pure through observation of

rituals, the Eucharist requires the attendees to be pure and holy via rituals.

23
Wondmagegnehu and Motovu, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 103. According to the EOTC’s tradition,
before priests get ordained, they must spend two years as a Qollo Temari, a period of mendicancy in which they
must travel far away from their family and other sources of support and live only of alms. Their separation from
society is achieved through poverty that keeps them away from the profane, gives them control over their bodies,
and qualifies them for the priestly office.

13
 In addition to the Qeddassé, the domestic application of the Fetha Nagast, which is well-

recorded and documented from the fifteenth century AD to the present, 24 is considered to be one

of the most striking historical references that requires one to adhere to a particular Jewish ritual

system before they can celebrate the Eucharist. Thus, we must analyze selected parts of the two

authoritative documents of the Church in order to identify the precise moment when the danger

of approaching the Eucharist when ritually impure was emphasized.

The Dissertation in the Context of Current Scholarship

The exegetical discussion of 1 Cor. 11:17−34 has certainly become a controversial theme

across the different denominations. Many scholars such as Barrett, Das, Gibbs, Godet, Heinrici,

Lietzmann, Weiss, 25 and others interpret the term ἀναξίως in reference to Paul’s exhortation to

‘discern or judge the body,’ implying that discerning the sacred nature of the elements determine

one’s worthiness. According to them, the Corinthians’ partaking of the Eucharist was ἀναξίως

because they failed to discern or judge the sacred quality of the Eucharist. On the other hand,

scholars such as Blomberg, Dann, Fee, Hays, Horrell, Stanley, Thiselton, and others interpret

Paul’s exhortation to discern or judge the body in reference to the Corinthians’ failure to

understand the term “body” as a reference to the Church, or a corporal body of Christ. In any

case, however, our main question for this study is whether the Corinthians’ failure to discern the

sacred nature of the Sacrament and/or their failure to understand the Church as the corporal body

of Christ made them ἀνάξιοί (‘unworthy’ in its adjectival sense). Further, we must ask what the

difference is between the adverbial and the adjectival function of the word ἀξίος in 1 Cor. 11:27.

24
Abera Jembere, An Introduction to the Legal History of Ethiopia 1434−1974 (Hamburg, Germany:
Munster, 2000).
25
All the sources of the above scholars from both groups are footnoted in the fifth chapter of this dissertation
under “An Argument on Paul’s Use of Σῶμα (v. 29).” See pages 200−5.

14
 Another discussion we evaluate in this dissertation is whether the integration of Judaism

into Ethiopian Christianity is a helpful experience or a pointless fabrication of the old covenant

regulations regardless of its fulfillment under the New Covenant sacrifice. Some scholars such as

Ullendorff, Rey, Burge, Haile, Stern, Charles, and Pawlikowski 26 argued against the assimilation

of Judaism into Ethiopian Christianity. Other scholars such as Levine, Bruce, and the current

writer of this research have observed a remarkable peculiarity in Jewish-oriented Christianity in

Ethiopia. However, we must evaluate and be critical when the Old Testament rituals become an

obstacle for the message of the Gospel, specifically in the EOTC’s doctrine and practice of the

Eucharist.

Thesis Statement

The EOTC regards the Eucharist as a Holy Sacrifice and affirms the efficacy of observing

specific rituals to make the communicant worthy. Partaking of the Eucharist is restricted by a

series of purity regulations, which are distinctively integrated from Judaism, channeled through

the church fathers into the Ethiopian liturgy and Christian community—regulations that are so

rigorous they make participation in the Eucharist unattainable for most of the members for most

of their lives. Performance of certain rituals related to worthy admission to the Eucharist is

embedded in the Qeddassé and the Fetha Nagast, which in turn are endemic to the EOTC as a

unique Ethiopian-Jewish expression of Christianity. Therefore, two authoritative documents are

determinative for understanding the Eucharistic practice in the EOTC, as they elucidate how

some members’ understanding of the role of rituals debar them from participation. This,

combined with the Amharic Bible translation of ἀναξίως and its interpretation (Teregwame) in

26
All the sources of the above scholars from both groups are footnoted in the second chapter of this
dissertation under “Current Scholars’ View of Jewish Oriented Christianity in Ethiopia.”

15
the AC tradition, has generated a blurred understanding of Christian piety and sacramental

theology in the Ethiopian Church that dates back to its earliest days and is still prevalent today.

Therefore, this thesis demonstrates that, while there is much to commend in the EOTC’s

continuation of Jewish practices within the context of Christianity, as mediated through its

historic anaphoras and church fathers, this aspect of its liturgy and the hermeneutical

assumptions that underlie it, have placed an undue burden on those who desire the Sacrament.

They have in effect been excluded by their continual adherence to these Jewish customs and,

even more so, by their misapplication and misunderstanding of the term ἀναξίως in the Pauline

text.

Methodology

The methodology to be employed in this research is multifaceted since we are dealing with

a biblical text which undergirds the Church’s liturgical practice and its pastoral care that, in turn,

has exercised discipline on those who desire to take the Eucharist in the Ethiopian Orthodox

Church. The first methodology to be employed is to provide a historical exploration of the

phenomenon of the EOTC as a unique expression in Christianity, both ancient and modern, in its

symbiotic relationship with Judaism. We will begin by relating the account of how Judaism came

to be closely associated with the Ethiopian expression of Christianity in terms of the account of

King Solomon and Queen Sheba and their son Menelik I, who brought the True Ark of the

Covenant to Ethiopia. This relationship was further cemented in subsequent leaders of Ethiopia

both before and after the advent of the Church, who sought to ground Christianity’s expression in

Ethiopia in terms of its Jewish roots.

After having established an intimate connection between Judaism and Orthodox

Christianity in Ethiopia, we will then offer an exploration of the Jewish rituals of the Old

16
Testament explicitly connected with the purity laws that were prescribed in preparation for the

sacrifices offered in the Temple. These are purity laws that are still enforced and continue to

shape the Church’s understanding of worthy preparation for the sacrifice that takes place in the

EOTC’s liturgy and observance of the Eucharist. As we present in the second chapter of this

dissertation, the EOTC has integrated Judaism into its religious system and particularly into its

Eucharistic liturgy. We have done so to such a degree that many of the Old Testament

prescriptions that the New Testament prescribed as fulfilled in Christ (Col. 2:9) have not only

perdured in Ethiopian Christianity but are central to its understanding of the faith. We see this in

its continued observance of the Sabbath, the Ark of the Covenant, sexual purity, and fasting

prescriptions, dietary laws, clean versus unclean animals, purity verses impurity laws, and the

requirement of almsgiving and prayer. These all have pastoral and practical implications for the

worthy partaking of what the EOTC refers to as the Eucharistic sacrifice.

The above religious obligations, required in the EOTC, vary from what Jesus and Paul

taught about the Christian’s relationship with those laws in the New Advent. For example, Paul

indicates that the Old Testament laws are shadows of what is to come in Christ, “Therefore, let

no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new

moon or Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ”

(Col. 2:16−18, cf. Gal. 4:8−11). As we shall see later, the writer of the Book of Hebrews clarifies

how the perfect and once for all sacrifice of Christ on behalf of sinners has fulfilled all required

Old Testament dietary and purity laws.

The connection of the Old Testament sacrificial system with the Eucharistic sacrificial

language of the EOTC is a fundamental hermeneutical principle for understanding the

participation (or lack of participation) in the Eucharist. This participation is governed by the

17
purity laws of the EOTC taken almost directly from the Old Testament laws and prohibitions that

were stipulated in the Old Testament sacrificial system. Thus, we will compare and contrast the

relationship between the Old Testament sacrifice and the sacrificial system related to the

Eucharistic sacrifice that is believed to be a new sacrifice offered on the altar by the presiding

priest every Sunday morning. We also compare how just as strict observance of the Jewish ritual

and dietary rules culminated in the sacrifice in the Temple, cultic means of becoming worthy to

partake in the Eucharistic sacrifice in the EOTC are also influenced by the Jewish laws of purity,

cleanliness, and holiness codes.

Having established that the EOTC’s Eucharistic practice is based on the Old Testament

Jewish sacrificial laws and system, we will then explore a second influence that undergirds the

liturgical and Eucharist practice of the EOTC. This is the adherence to the teaching and practice

of the early church fathers who drew much of their theological and pastoral practice from the Old

Testament, which for them formed the primary Scriptural reservoir in guiding their ecclesiastical

observances.

Once we have established the hermeneutical underpinnings of the purity laws and other

regulations associated with the Jewish sacrificial system and their perpetuation and continuation

in the ancient Church’s use that was adopted into the EOTC, we will then analyze selected

contents of the anaphoras of the early church fathers as presented in the EOTC’s Qeddassé 27 and

the Fetha Nagast. Being one of the most ancient of Christian Churches, dating back at least to

the fourth century, the EOTC maintains that its tradition of Divine Liturgy centered in the

Eucharist as the crown of all Sacraments and the climax of worship, 28 finds its proper observance

27
Samuel A. B. Mercer, The Ethiopic Liturgy: Its Sources, Development, and Present Form (Milwaukee:
Young Churchman, 1915); and see Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church.
28
Tamiru, YeEtiopia Emnet: Faith of Ethiopia, 205.

18
in following the tradition established by the early church fathers. The first part of this liturgy,

known as the Ordo Communis, is introductory to the second part of the liturgy that deals with the

Eucharist. The latter part, which we analyze, includes the composition of fourteen anaphoras of

the early church fathers accepted by the EOTC since the fifth century AD. 29

The two authoritative documents (the Qeddassé and the Fetha Nagast) further emphasize

the idea that there is an inherent danger in approaching the Eucharist without being ritually clean

and becoming ‘worthy.’ Steven Kaplan notes, “The public ritual of the Mass was often the

vehicle for the dramatization of important issues of church discipline, communal borders, and

social-political status. Only those judged worthy by standards of the Church were entitled to

receive Communion with their fellow believers.” 30 As stated above, it is within the deep

historical and religious rituals and the context of the Old Testament sacrifice and the sacrificial

nature of the Eucharist that we have researched the critical term ἀναξίως because it pertains to

the Ethiopian ecclesial context and the worthy participation in the Eucharist.

As we have indicated earlier, the AC presents different interpretative traditions to produce

a unique interpretative approach to the word ἀναξίως. We also critique and compare the Amharic

Bible Translation on the use of the term ἀναξίως in an Ethiopian context through a careful study

of Greek as well as the Ge’ez iterations of the term. The Amharic translation examination helps

29
The EOTC has many anaphoras. Marcos Daoud, who translated the Liturgy from Ge’ez and Amharic into
English, witnessed that these anaphoras were received from the Egyptian Church; however, the Egyptians lost most
of them except St. Cyril, St. Gregory, and St. Basil. The following are lists of the anaphora in the EOTC’s liturgy,
respectively. The Anaphora of the Apostles, of the Lord, of John (Son of Thunder), of St. Mary, of the Three
Hundred, of St. Athanasius, of St. Basil, of St. Gregory of Nyssa, of Epiphanius, of St. John Chrysostom, of St.
Cyril, of St. Jacob of Serough, of St. Diocorus, and finally, the Anaphora of St. Gregory II (The Wonderworker).
The EOTC has diligently assigned each of the anaphoras to be celebrated throughout the Church’s liturgical year.
Please refer to Daoud’s categories for seasons of celebrations of each anaphora. Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian
Church, 43, 58, 64, 74, 86, 97, 109, 120, 128, 136, 143, 151, 159, and 164; see also Hammerschmidt, Ethiopian
Anaphoras, 41−43.
30
Steven Kaplan, The Social and Religious Functions of the Eucharist in Medieval Ethiopia, in Annales
d’Ethiopie, vol. 19 (Israel: University of Jerusalem, 2003), 7−18.

19
show how the modern Amharic translation stands contrary to the Greek syntax and the overall

historical and literary context of 1 Cor. 11:17−34. Thus, the careful exegetical evaluation of the

unique historical interpretative tradition of the EOTC’s commentary and the comparison of the

Amharic translation with the original language is imperative to understand fully the worthy

partaking of the Eucharist in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Analyzing the two authoritative

documents of the EOTC combined with an evaluation of the AC’s interpretative tradition on 1

Cor. 11:27 will shed light on our understanding of ἀναξίως as related to the worthy admission to

the Eucharist in the EOTC context.

In conclusion, we will summarize the findings of this thesis, recognizing that while there is

much to commend in the unique expression of the Eucharistic liturgy and practice of the EOTC

that draws on its Jewish and patristic roots, there are also debilitating and scripturally

unwarranted restrictions around the Eucharist. Similar to Luther’s critique of Rome’s practice in

the sixteen century, it puts an undue burden on the consciences for those who long to commune

with their Lord in the EOTC.

Finally, we will offer an alternative Amharic translation of the term ἀναξίως that is

compatible with the overall teachings of the Scripture regarding worthy participation in the

Eucharist and could perhaps modestly start a conversation with the EOTC on what worthy

participation could look like. This thesis, therefore, addresses the pressing need to reaffirm the

good biblical translation and interpretation of ἀναξίως coupled with solid Lutheran teaching

situated within the EOTC’s rich and long-standing tradition, history, and liturgy. We hope that

one of the fruits of this dissertation will be to draw proper ethical lessons out of this text by

carefully considering the historical and socio-cultural hub of the EOTC teaching concerning the

worthy participation in the Eucharist while still honoring the tradition in which the EOTC is

20
steeped.

21
 CHAPTER TWO

THE ROLE OF JUDAISM IN ETHIOPIAN HISTORY AND RELIGION

Introduction

The EOTC’s central distinguishing feature from other Christian expressions is its

preservation of the Old Testament Jewish rituals in liturgy and theology—more so than any other

Christian group. 1 The Church has integrated the different symbol systems of Judaism into its

religious system and the Eucharistic liturgy. It has been so proud of its religion’s Judaic origins

which make it an exciting example of non-Hellenized Christianity and demonstrate the peculiar

Jewish origin of religious assimilation in Ethiopia. While other African churches assimilated

various forms and traditions of Christianity that had been brought to the continent from the

West, 2 the Abyssinians considered themselves the lawful successor of Israel and maintained

uniformity and consistency by only embracing Judaism that remained integral to the expression

of Abyssinian Christianity.

Therefore, this chapter is committed to studying the impact of the Hebraic and Old

Testament elements on the peculiar form of indigenous Ethiopian Christianity. We first present

the general historical background that tied Judaism to Ethiopian history and religion. Then we

look at how current scholars and travelers of the earliest time—according to their view or bias—

critique the impact of Judaism and the Old Testament upon Abyssinian Christianity. While some

argue that the assimilation of Judaism in Ethiopian Christianity is an example of a unique

1
John T. Pawlikowski, “The Judaic Spirit of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church: A Case Study in Religious
Acculturation,” The Ethiopian Orthodox Church: A Study in Indigenization. Journal of Religion in Africa 4, no. 3
(January 1, 1972): 178−99; and see Edward Ullendorff, “Hebraic-Jewish Elements in Abyssinian (Monophysite)
Christianity,” Journal of Semitic Studies 1, no. 3 (July 1, 1956): 216−56.
2
Tibebe Eshete, “Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, and Djibouti.” in Christianity in Sub-Saharan Africa (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2020), 147−49.

22
interpenetration of Judaism and Christianity, others have dismissed such ritualized avoidance

behavior as an irrational and pointless duplication, considering it primitive and a mechanical

observance of old-fashioned ancient rites and laws of Judaism. Finally, we explore certain

Jewish rituals that shaped the concept of purity and worthy participation in the Eucharist.

According to the EOTC, strict observance of the rituals determines a member’s admission to, or

exclusion from, partaking of the Eucharist.

Historical Relationship Between Ethiopia and Israel

Ethiopia, referenced often in the biblical tradition, 3 was a geographical name comprising

various countries such as Nubia (in present-day northern Sudan and southern Egypt), Somalia,

Djibouti, and the Red Sea coast Eritrea, and South Sudan. Christine Chaillot notes, “most

authorities seem to agree that the culture of present northern Ethiopia had its origin in an influx

of Semitic tribes from Southern Arabia to the Abyssinian highlands, in the kingdom of Da'amat

(in the area of Yeha, near Adwa), around the 7th century B.C., who mixed with local people they

found there.” 4

3
There are numerous references to the name Ethiopia or Cush in the Old Testament. For example, Gen. 2:13,
10:6−8; Esther 1:1; 2 Chr. 12:3; 16:8; Ezek. 29:10; 30: 9; Isa. 20:3−5; 43:3; 46:9; Dan. 11:43, and so on. However,
three texts are of importance in Ethiopian history. First, Num. 12:1 talks about Moses’ marriage with an Ethiopian
slave-girl against whom Miriam and Aaron spoke. See more on this in Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 8−9.
Second, Amos 9:7 implies that God did not just bring up Israel out of Egypt, but equally, God had concern for other
migrants such as the Ethiopians. Finally, the most popular and favorite text for Ethiopians, frequently cited, Ps.
68:32 says, “Ethiopia shall hasten to stretch out her hands to God.”
4
Christine Chaillot, The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Tradition: A Brief Introduction to Its Life
and Spirituality (Paris: Inter-Orthodox Dialogue, 2002), 26. Enrico Molnar notes, “Homer knew this isolated land
which tended to spurn contact with the outside world until recent centuries; he called it Aithiopia (Αιθιοπία), the
“land of Sun-burned faces,” and referred to its inhabitants as a “blameless race” and Herodotus called them “the
Most Just Men.” See Enrico S. Molnar, The Ethiopian Orthodox Church; A Contribution to the Ecumenical Study of
Less Known Eastern Churches (Pasadena: Bloy House Theological School, 1969), 2−3. Speaking of the country’s
pre-history, Ethiopia is the oldest nation home to the ancestor of humanity, Lucy, Australopithecus Afarensis (one of
the longest-lived and best-known early human species). This skeleton, locally named Denkneshis 3.2 million years
old, was discovered in 1974 by an American Professor, Donald Johanson, in the low Awash valley. See Chaillot,
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Tradition, 26.

23
 Ethiopia shares with Egypt, China, and Greece the distinction of being among the most

ancient countries with their fascinating history which covers more than four thousand years of

continuous existence and unique civilization. For example, Ethiopia and Egypt are the only two

African countries that invented an alphabet and developed a written language. Furthermore,

Ethiopia and Armenia are the two oldest Christian countries, but only Ethiopia has preserved her

independence up to the present.

Ethiopian secular and religious history lays claim to a long history that was indigenous and

has been well documented in the most reliable indigenous sources. Charles Ray notes, “the

country [Ethiopia] adapted Judaism nearly 1000 B.C., and about the time of the birth of Jesus the

mythological beliefs of Greece appear to have been introduced, without, however, affecting the

supersession of the Jewish faith.” 5 Although other historians may locate the history of Queen

Sheba in Yemen, the two ancient and primary documents known as Kebra Nagast (the Glory of

the Kings) 6 and the Fetha Nagast (the Law of the Kings) 7 claim that the Queen resided in

5
Charles F. Rey. The Real Abyssinia (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1935), 175.
6
The earliest form of Kebra Negast was written in Ge’ez around the sixth century C.E., probably by a Coptic
priest complier. The book was a centuries-old revision and eventually translated from Ge’ez to Arabic, Amharic,
English, and finally into German and French in late the nineteenth and early the twentieth Century. See for example,
the edited version of Kebra Negast in German language by Carl Bezold, Kebra Nagast, die Kerrlichkeit der Konige:
Nach den Handschriften in Berlin, London, Oxford und Paris (Munich: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1905).
Kebra Negast consists of several traditions, some historical and some folkloristic character, being influenced by the
Old Testament and rabbinic writings and Egyptian, Syrian, Arabian, and Ethiopian sources. See Ephraim Isaac, The
Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahido Church (New Jersey: The Red Sea, 2013), 244−45; and Gerald Hausman, The Kebra
Nagast: The Lost Bible of Rastafarian Wisdom and Faith from Ethiopia and Jamaica (New York: St. Martin, 1997),
15−16. This manuscript of Kebra Nagast was taken to England by the Napier expedition in 1868 but returned to
Ethiopia at the request of Ethiopian Emperor Yohannes, who wrote a fascinating letter to Earl Graville, the British
Foreign Secretary. Finally, the “manuscript was returned to the King of Ethiopia by order of the Trustees on Dec.
14th, 1872.” See the letter’s content and how the emperor explained the manuscript’s value for Ethiopian politics
and religion. See Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 74−75; and see in Wallis E. A. Budge, Amulets and Talismans
(New York: Collier Books, 1961), 197−99. Edward Ullendorff further notes that Kebra Negast is “the truest and
most genuine expression of Abyssinian Christianity.” See Ullendorff, “Hebraic-Jewish Elements,” 226. He also
witnessed in his other writing that Kebre Negast is both a literary work and the core of Ethiopian national and
religious feelings and genuine expressions of Ethiopian Christianity. Ullendorff, The Ethiopians: An Introduction to
Country and People (London: Oxford University Press, 1960), 144.
7
Justice in Abyssinian Culture and politics had been regulated by the Fetha Nagast code of laws, to which

24
Aksum, a great city built by Ebria Hakim, the son of King Solomon of Jerusalem and the

Ethiopian Queen, 8 who was locally known as Queen Makeda. 9 Hakim visited his father, King

Solomon in Jerusalem with the proof of a ring that King Solomon had given to his mother,

Queen Makeda. 10 When Solomon failed to convince the young man to stay in Jerusalem, he

commanded the princes of Dan, Levi, and Gad with Azariah, the Son of Zadok (the priest), to go

to Ethiopia with Hakim to establish a solid Solomonic dynasty in Ethiopia. Hakim came to the

throne with the royal name of Menelik I and progressed to establish a Judaistic religion. 11

The loftiest claim of all is that of the ታቦት (Tabot), meaning the True Ark of the Covenant

that is the heart of the Kebra Nagast. 12 Since the coming of the true Tabot, the Jewish royalty in

Ethiopia have declared themselves to be direct descendants of King Solomon, claiming divine

origin as if they were gods. 13 The Ethiopians have their local reproduction of Jerusalem as a new

Zion established by Zagwe King Lalibela around the twelfth century. 14 These places are a

Ethiopian tradition assigns a heavenly origin. More discussion regarding Fetha Nagast is found in the next chapter.
8
Budge, Kebra Nagast, 19−33.
9
The Ethiopian Queen went to Jerusalem with tributes of precious gifts, such as gold, to offer King Solomon
of Jerusalem to test his wisdom. See more on Ernest A. Wallis Budge, The Kebra Nagast (New York: Cosimo
Books, 2004), 19−33. Ancient civilization in Ethiopia began from Aksum, the powerful state between the Roman
Empire and Persia. Aksum was well known for the execution of various forms of artistic work from ancient times.
Monuments, palaces, and elaborate tombs were being fashioned with remarkable artistry out of big rocks.
10
Rey, Real Abyssinia, 184−86; and see Gerald Hausman, The Kebra Nagast: The Lost Bible of Rastafarian
Wisdom and Faith from Ethiopia and Jamaica (New York: St. Martin, 1997), 95.
11
Budge, Kebra Nagast, 43−72.
12
The Ge’ez word ታቦት (Tabot) means the Ark of the Covenant. The name for the Ark of the Covenant in
Hebrew, Arabic, and Ge’ez are tebhah, tabut, and tabot, respectively. They have similar sounds depicting the strong
semantic cultural ties between the three languages. Azariah took the Tabot with him to Ethiopia to receive security,
power, and a warm welcome in the lands of Ethiopia. The Kebra Nagast further justifies the removal of the Tabot
from Jerusalem to Ethiopia as an act of doing God’s will. See Budge, Queen of Sheba, iv.
13
Rey, Real Abyssinia, 122−26; Budge, Queen of Sheba, iv−vi; and see Stern, Wanderings Among the
Falashas, xxxiii.
14
See Kristen Pedersen, “Jerusalem,” in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: He- N (Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag,
2007), 273−77; and see Amsalu Tefera, “Colophonic Reflections on Dersana Ṣeyon and Kǝbra Nagast,” Aethiopica.
International Journal of Ethiopian and Eritrean Studies 17, no. 1 (2014): 78−89.

25
complex of eleven rock-hewn churches in Lalibela and are still in use. The rock-hewn churches

are unique structures found nowhere else in the world besides Ethiopia, which is often perceived

as a New Jerusalem for Ethiopian pilgrims.15

Other writers, such as Paulos Mikias, Carlo Rossini, and others, affirm the historical travel

of the Ethiopian Queen to visiting King Solomon of Jerusalem. 16 For example, Paulos Mikias

states that the social and religious ties between Ethiopians and Jewish people are remarkable

ones. He notes that “Judaism also has deep roots in pre-Christian Ethiopia.” 17 Carlo Rossini has

frequently affirmed that “Judaism is ancient in Ethiopia and that there existed Jewish groups

disseminated here and there.” 18 The visit of the Queen is also stated in the Bible (1 Kings 10 and

1 Chr. 9), implying that there was a long-lasting socio-religious Israel-Ethiopia contact between

the two countries. This would manifest in the creation of customs or standard Jewish religious

practices such as “dietary regulations, circumcisions, the worship of [on] Saturday Sabbath, the

worship of [or presence of] the Tabot or Ark of the Covenant, certain features of ecclesiastical

music and dance, liturgy, and elements of religion-magic and language.” 19

According to tradition, the visit of Queen Makeda had religious consequences that gave her

a chance to learn about Solomon’s God, which led the Queen to abandon her pagan beliefs (such

as the worship of the Sun, trees, idols, snakes, and others) and convert to the faith of the God of

15
See Sylvia Pankhurst, Ethiopia: A Cultural History (Essex: Lalibela House, 1955), 151; and see Marie-
Laure Derat, “Lalibela,” in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: He-N (Wiesbaden, Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007), 479.
16
Besides the primary and secondary written sources, oral traditions are an integral part when reconstructing
the history and doctrine of the EOTC.
17
Paulos Mikias, Ethiopia: Africa in Focus (Santa Barbara, ABC-CLIO, 2011), 169.
18
Rossini, History of Ethiopia, 144.
19
Ephraim Isaac, The Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahido Church (Addis Ababa: Red Sea Press, 2013), 27.

26
Israel. 20 Along with the Tabot, the Pentateuch was brought to Aksum together with a cohort of

Jewish priests and nobles around the tenth century BC. 21 After receiving the Holy Tabot and the

Commandments, the Queen declared,

From this moment I will not worship the Sun, but I shall worship the creator of the
Sun, the God of Israel. And that Tabernacle of the God of Israel shall be unto me my
Lady, and unto my seed after me, and unto all my kingdoms that are under my
dominion. And because of this I have found favor before thee, and before the God of
Israel my Creator, Who hath brought me unto thee, and hath made me to hear thy
voice, and has shown me thy face, and hath made to me understand thy
commandment. 22

Furthermore, when Menelik I (King Solomon’s son) was in Jerusalem, he learned the belief of

Israel’s religion. Menelik I was anointed by Zadok, an Israelite priest who left Jerusalem with

Hakim by order of King Solomon.23 Eventually, the people of Ethiopia in the northern part of the

country were converted to the religion of Israel and embraced Judaism within their traditional

religion. This occurrence reminds us of King Solomon’s dream in which he saw the Sun leaving

Israel but shining instead over Ethiopia. 24

Although it is appropriate to imagine the close ties between Judaism and Ethiopian history

and religion after the Queen visited King Solomon, the account of the Queen of Sheba is not the

only story that indicates such a strong tie between the two countries. Many other events or

records indicate the presence of religious pilgrimage to Israel that became standard practice

20
Bunge, Kebra Negast, 28−31 and 54.
21
Budge, The Queen of Sheba, 43−72. The Ge’ez word ታቦት (Tabot) means the Ark of the Covenant. The
names for the Tabot in Hebrew, Arabic, and Ge’ez are Tebhah, Tabut, and Tabot, respectively. They have similar
sounds depicting the strong semantic cultural ties between the three languages.
22
Budge, Queen of Sheba, 29; and see Gerald Hausman, Kebra Nagast, 91.
23
Budge, Queen of Sheba, 53−55.
24
According to Budge, King Solomon saw a dream. He told Zadok that he had seen the Sun moving from
Judah to Ethiopia, implying how God’s glory was moved to the new country known as Abyssinia or Ethiopia. See
more on this in Budge, Queen of Sheba, 31, and 71−72.

27
along with the significant Jewish migrant presence in Ethiopia. To mention a few, in 586 BC,

when Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, many Israelites were captured by the Babylonians, but

others fled to Egypt and Ethiopia. 25 The prophet Zephaniah around the seventh century BC, said,

“From beyond the rivers of Cush or Ethiopia my worshipers, the daughters of my dispersed ones,

shall bring my offering” (Zeph. 3:10). Thus, those Jewish migrants began to expand their

religion initially in the northern part of Abyssinia. 26

The account of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:26−40 may suggest that pilgrimage to

Jerusalem was practiced, at least by the elite. 27 Mikias notes, “There is no doubt that Judaic

influences and Old Testament reflections had reached Ethiopia long before the introduction of

Christianity... that is why the Ethiopian Eunuch was reading the book of Isaiah during the time of

the apostles.” 28 Furthermore, Ogbu Kalu notes that the three magi from the East, who visited

Jesus when he was a baby, were all Ethiopians. At the same time, some argue that only one of

them was an Ethiopian King while the remaining two kings were from Afghanistan and Persia. 29

Abba Gorgorios, who is the pope of Shewa in Ethiopia asserts that the Old Testament was

translated into the Ge’ez language before the inauguration of Christianity, and this makes it most

25
Aba Goergoryos, የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን ታሪክ: The History of the Ethiopian Orthodox
Tewahedo Church (Addis Ababa: EOTC, 2012), 6−7. አባ ጎርጎርዮስ (Aba Goergoryos), an EOTC pope of Shewa,
notes how the culture and way of life of the Ethiopians express the old Semitic civilization. For example, a
celebration of feasts, funerals, and weddings, the custom of women’s and children’s dress, including jewelry,
follows Old Testament laws. See Aba Goergoryos, የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን ታሪክ: 8−9.
26
See more about this in Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 15−30.
27
The historical tie between Israel and Ethiopia facilitated the earlier arrival of Christianity in Ethiopia
around the First Century through the ministry of Apostle Matthew. Rufinus, a well-known fourth-century church
historian, witnessed that Apostle Matthew went to Ethiopia to preach the Gospel to fulfill the Great Commission of
Jesus Christ and eventually suffered martyrdom there. Please see Rufinus of Aquileia, The Church History of
Rufinus of Aquileia. Books 10 and 11. Trans. by Philip R. Amidon (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 18;
and see The Ethiopian Orthodox Church. The Church of Ethiopia: A Panorama of History and Spirituality (Addis
Ababa: The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 1970), 3.
28
Mikias, Ethiopia, 170.
29
See Ogbu Kalu, African Christianity: An African Story (Pretoria: University of Pretoria, 2005), 106.

28
likely to assume some form of solid monotheistic belief that had existed in Abyssinia before the

coming of Christianity in Ethiopia. 30

The appearance of the name Ethiopia (also known as Cush) indicates that Ethiopians were

present in the Biblical stories. If Christianity is thought to be the continuation of Judaism in some

form, this link can be vividly located in Ethiopian history and practices. For example, The EOTC

calls its religious leaders priests, and the garments worn by the Ethiopian priests are identical to

those of Jewish priests. They wear the priestly belt, the skull cap, and the scapular. Several

Hebrew terms that are associated with the service of the Old Testament temple also have been

found in Ethiopian Christianity. 31 As we shall see soon, the Pentateuchal legal code is a further

example of the presence of Jewish tradition in the life of the EOTC. The Mosaic food laws have

been and continue to be practiced and followed carefully. Most of the customs about ritual

cleanliness in the Old Testament are likewise strongly reminiscent of Hebraic customs accepted

in Ethiopian Christianity since its earliest days.

In sum, we can see the strong influence Judaism has had on Ethiopia ever since their

reception of the Tabot and its placement in the new Zion in Aksum. These facts have led the

Ethiopians to claim that God specially chose the country of Ethiopia to be the tabernacle of the

new covenant and new home of the spiritual and heavenly Zion, just as they also believed that

God chose the Ethiopians to be his chosen people after the Jews became unworthy. For this

reason, the EOTC and the whole nation value the Kebra Nagast as a literary work and as the core

of Ethiopian national and religious identity, the genuine expression of non-Hellenized

30
Abba Gorgorios Ye Shewa Papas, The Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahido Church History: Ye Etyopiya
Orthodox Tewahido BeteKirstiyan Tarik (Addis Ababa, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 1974), 15.
31
Terms like Kurban (Korban) and Kahen (Kohen) have similar traditions and functions in both Judaism and
EOTC religions.

29
Christianity in Ethiopia.

Current Scholar’s View of Jewish Oriented Christianity in Ethiopia

Current scholars have studied the relationship between Judaism and Ethiopian Christianity,

with many arguing for or against the assimilation of Judaism into Ethiopian Christianity. Naming

a few scholars, Edward Ullendorff, Getatchew Haile, Henry Stern, Charles Rey, and John

Pawlikowski, 32 are among many others who have also written extensively on this subject matter.

For example, Ullendorff, a contemporary historian and scholar, disregards the practice of

Judaism in the EOTC. Although Ullendorff does not undermine the fact that Ethiopian

Christianity was “impregnated with strong Hebraic and archaic Semitic elements,” 33 he notes

that “They [the Ethiopians] are stubborn adherents to fossilized Hebrew Jewish beliefs, practices

and customs.” 34 Henry Stern accused the Abyssinian Church of departing from the Gospel and

genuine Christian faith. He notes,

She [the Abyssinian Church] soon substituted asceticism for purity of life, and
mechanical performance of certain rites for the true worship of the living God. Fasts
and penances, the adoration of the virgin, and the intercession of saints, together with
the practice of circumcision, the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, and all of the
mosaic restrictions as to clean and unclean animals, form the essential teachings of
her creed. 35

32
Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 73−130; see also Ullendorff, “Hebraic-Jewish Elements in Abyssinia
(Monophysite) Christianity.” Journal of Semantic Studies, vol. 1, no. 3 (July 1956): 216−56; Getatchew Haile, “The
49 Hour Sabbath of the Ethiopian Church,” Journal of Semitic Studies 23, no. 2 (1988): 233−54; Henry A. Stern,
Wanderings Among the Falashas in Abyssinia, Together with a Description of the Country and Its Various
Inhabitants (London: Cass, 1968); Charles F. Rey. The Real Abyssinia (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1935); and see
John T. Pawlikowski, “The Judaic Spirit of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church: A Case Study in Religious
Acculturation.” Journal of Religion in Africa, vol. 4, no. 4 (1972): 178−99.
33
Ullendorff, “Hebraic-Jewish Elements,” 216.
34
Ullendorff, “Hebraic-Jewish Elements,” 256.
35
Stern, Wanderings Among the Falashas, 304.

30
Charles Rey also criticized Abyssinian Christianity for embracing superstition within the

religion. For example, Rey makes the EOTC priests and debteras 36 accountable of syncretism

due to their mixing the truth of the Gospel with superstition. He notes, “Their religion is overlaid

with a thick layer of superstition, some of which is merely curious, but some apt to have

dangerous result … So that in point of fact the Abyssinian priest does not appear to differ very

much from the South African witch-doctor, and indeed of the two I should be inclined to give

pride of place to the latter, so far as medical practice is concerned at all events.” 37 Ephraim Isaac

notes that King Solomon’s legacy as the wise philosopher became a source of his role in

Ethiopian magic exercised by the EOTC priests and debetras. 38 Furthermore, Ullendorff referred

to superstition as one of the most notable practices or beliefs within Ethiopian Christianity. 39 He

notes, “Amulets and Tefillin, the shield of David, and seal and net of Solomon are accompanied,

among both Hebrews and Ethiopians, by spells to scatter demons (‫שדים‬−አጋንንት) and to avert

disease.” 4069F

According to Bunge, key biblical figures such as Moses, Solomon, Christ, and His apostles

or disciples are regarded by the Ethiopians as magicians, “and therefore the Books of the Old and

36
According to Ullendorff, “The debtra occupies an ‘intermediate’ position ‘between the clergy and layman
in the Ethiopian church.’ ‘Though the debtra are not ordained, no service can adequately be held without their
presence.” See Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 92.
37
Rey, Real Abyssinia, 196−97.
38
See Isaac, Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahido Church, 27. The Scripture says, “so that King Solomon’s
wisdom surpassed the wisdom of all the people of the east and all the wisdom of Egypt” (1 Kings 4:30).
Furthermore, there was a time when Solomon used the devils to obey him by his wisdom which the Ethiopian priests
and debetras did the same. See more on this from Steven Kaplan, “Solomon,” in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica, ed.
Siegbert Uhlig, (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2010), 687−88.
39
Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 79−82.
40
Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 79.

31
New Testaments and copies of them were often regarded as amulets.” 41 Bunge further explains

the influence of the Hebrew, Coptic, and Egyptian amulets on the Ethiopian (Abyssinian)

amulets. 42

Furthermore, the sixteen century Jesuit missionaries who came to Ethiopia were aware of

the dominant nature of Judaism in Ethiopian Christianity; however, most of them attempted to

abolish it as an irrelevant and primitive practice. 43 Instead of respecting and reforming the

teaching of Judaism and the customs that were well established in Ethiopia for centuries, the

Jesuit missionaries in Ethiopia were obsessed with refuting the influence of Judaism and its

customs upon Ethiopian Christianity and culture as a practice that needed to be regarded as

primitive and irrelevant practices in the new dispensation. 44

Despite such critiques against the unique form of Ethiopian Christianity and culture, the

Church existed for centuries with stability and continued to worship the God of Israel. Some

scholars such as David Levine and James Bruce challenged such conventional generalizations

about the role of Judaism in Ethiopian Christianity. 45 For these scholars, the expression of

Judaism and Christianity in Ethiopia is an example of the unique interpenetration of Judaism and

Christianity. For example, David Levine has observed how the commonality of Jewish tradition

41
Budge, Amulets and Talismans, 197; and Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 82.
42
Budge, Amulets and Talismans, 177−211. The entire book carefully examines the universal use of the
amulets and amuletic inscriptions described and translated.
43
See Rey, Real Abyssinia, 177 and 184.
44
Portugal’s intention to establish contact with Ethiopia was to control the Indian Ocean, convert Ethiopians
to Roman Catholicism, and bring the EOTC into complete dominion and union with the Roman Christendom.
However, it resulted in a religious conflict between the two, resulting in the expulsion of all foreign missionaries in
the 1630s from the country. Ethiopians became hostile to foreign Christianity and Europeans, which was the cause
for isolation up to mid-nineteenth Century. Please see more in Eshete, “Ethiopia,” 147−51.
45
Bruce, Sources of the Nile, and see David Levine, Wax and Gold: Tradition and Innovation in Ethiopian
Culture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965).

32
within the Semitic Church in Ethiopia is vivid. He then challenged the conventional overview

against Jewish-Ethiopian Christianity. For him, the expression of Judaism and Christianity in

Ethiopia is an example of a unique interpenetration of Judaism and Christianity that is unlike

anywhere else in the world. 46 Throughout his book, Wax and Gold, David Levine describes the

Ethiopian Church as the most systematically Africanized of any Christian Church on the

continent, which is the real example of African culture assimilation by Christianity. These

scholars are critical of those who, from a Western perspective, disparage the practices of the

Ethiopian Church. James Bruce notes, “The first Christian missionaries [Frumentius and

Aedesius around the 4th Century] who found Jewish traditions confirmed in Ethiopia, chose to

respect them rather than refute. Circumcision, the doctrine of clean and unclean meats, and many

other Jewish rites and ceremonies are therefore part of the religion of the Abyssinians at this

day.” 47

Scholars who have acknowledged the uniqueness of Abyssinian Christianity have observed

the unique centrality of the Tabot in Ethiopian Christianity. 48 The theme of the Tabot is one of

great importance throughout the Kebra Nagast and serves as a focal point for Ethiopian worship

and spirituality. Ullendorff notes, “The concept and function of the Tabot represent one of the

most remarkable areas of agreement with Old Testament forms of worship.” 49 Unlike other

Christian groups, what defines a church as a church in the EOTC is the presence of the Tabot in

it. According to the canon of the Church, the Tabot gives sanctity to the Church to exist as a true

46
David Levine, Wax and Gold, 25−36.
47
Bruce, Sources of the Nile, 13.
48
See Atiya, Eastern Christianity, 58−61; Richard Pankhurst, A Social History of Ethiopia: The Northern
and Central Highlands from Early Medieval Times to the Rise of Emperor Tewodros II (Addis Ababa: Red Sea
Press, 1992), 37−39; and Harry Hayatt, The Church of Abyssinia (London: Luzac and Co., 1928), 121−22.
49
Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 82.

33
Church, and the presence of a Tabot is obligatory in every Church; without it, there is no Holy

Communion service. Aymro Wondmagegnehu and Joachim Motovu note, “It is the Tabot which

gives sanctity to the Church in which it is placed... The consecration of a church is a solemn and

impressive ceremony with rites symbolic of the sacred uses to which the edifice is dedicated...

The Tabot, or Ark, previously consecrated by the Patriarch, is installed with grandeur and is the

chief feature of the ceremony.” 50

The transfer of the Tabot from Jerusalem to St. Mary Church in Aksum signified that the

God of Israel had changed his dwelling place from Jerusalem to Aksum and the Ethiopians

became the chosen people “because they did not reject the Son of Man when he walked on

earth.” 51 The Church of Aksum Seyon was the holy Church built by Negus Kaleb (King Kaleb)

of Aksum in the fourth Century, and this holy place was dedicated to St. Mary, the Mother of

Jesus. 52 This unique building takes the name of the Zion Church in Jerusalem, which was built

by Maximus, bishop of Jerusalem around AD 340 on Mount Zion. According to the EOTC,

therefore, the construction of the old Aksum Seyon Church demonstrates that the original

symbolism of this Church was related to a venerated prototype, the Church of Zion in

Jerusalem. 53 The rationale behind placing the true Tabot in the Church of St. Mary in Aksum is

because the Ethiopians see St. Mary as the Ark of the New Covenant. The celebration of the

famous Ethiopian feast known as Seyon Maryam in Aksum annually implies that the Arks of the

50
Aymro Wondmagegnehu and Joachim Motovu, eds. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church (Addis Ababa:
Ethiopian Orthodox Mission, 1970), 46; see also Hyatt, Church of Abyssinia, 121.
51
Gerald Hausman, The Kebra Nagast: The Lost Bible of Rastafarian Wisdom and Faith from Ethiopia and
Jamaica (New York: St. Martin, 1997), 13.
52
Budge, Queen of Sheba, 50−74. The term Zion in this context refers to the commonly used term to refer to
the city of the eschatological age of salvation.
53
Marilyn E. Heldman, “Architectural symbolism, Sacred Geography, and the Ethiopian Church,” Journal of
Religion in Africa 22, no. 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1992): 224−29.

34
Old and the New Testament are uniquely celebrated simultaneously, combining the two

testaments into one.

Moreover, the holy Tabot is central to the worship of the EOTC, and how it is carried in

procession around the Ethiopian churches during annual Christian celebrations such as ጥምቀት

(Timket) is similar to the Jewish forms of worship which we do not see in any other religion but

the EOTC. The Jewish practice of the carrying of the Torah or the Ark of the Covenant in a

procession accompanied by spiritual song and dance, especially during the feast of Simhath

Torah, where David and the people of Israel dance around the Ark (see 2 Sam. 6:1−23), gives

evidence for the indigenous spiritual and Christian songs and dances during the celebration of

ጥምቀት (Timket) in Ethiopia. 54

Although from the religious aspect, members of the EOTC are the main actors of the

ጥምቀት festival, from the traditional and social perspective, it is a holiday for all Ethiopians.

According to the local calendar, this holiday is celebrated from the eighteenth to twenty-first of

January, which is the first month of the year. This holiday is the commemoration of the baptism

of Jesus in the River Jordan. ጥምቀት resembles the ritual re-enactment of baptism, similar to re-

enactments carried out by Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land when they visit the Jordan. On the

first day of the celebration, the holy Tabots, wrapped with ornamental cloth, are carried to a

central area. Since it is rare to see several Tabots together on a single day such as ጥምቀት, an

enormous crowd of people flock from different areas escorting every Tabot, chanting sacred

songs, ringing bells, ululating (joyful sounds) and blowing horns. The Tabots then spend the

nights in tents pitched nearby a river or a stream. Accompanied by a religious ceremony, priests

54
Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 2−3 and 85; and see also Hyatt, Church of Abyssinia, 169−74.

35
bless the water for this evening, called Ketera, the annual liturgical assembly. Surrounding the

river or the stream, they chant the night mass, known as የሌሊት: ቅዳሴ (the Night Liturgy), and

the Divine Liturgy starts at about 3:00 am.

It is customary for EOTC congregants to also spend the nights, either in self-brought tents

or in the open air with picnics around the Holy Tabots singing and praising God the whole

night. 55 Liturgical prayers continue in the morning of the next days, where the morning mass,

የጠዋት ቅዳሴ (yet’ewati k’idasē) meaning the Morning Liturgy, is held, which ends with the

blessing of the water. This occasion reaches its peak when the rite of sprinkling the congregation

with holy water begins. With this, adherents renew their baptismal vows and receive blessings

for the remission of their sins. Religious chants accompany the entire process of the ritual. After

the ceremony ends, the Tabots are carried back to their churches, with people singing spiritual

songs along the way, sometimes by slaughtering an Ox and shedding its blood at a specific

location. 56

Another feature that the current scholars have observed as unique to Ethiopian Christianity

is their celebration of the two Sabbaths. It is a historical peculiarity of the EOTC that both

Saturday and Sunday are treated as Sabbaths in recognition of both the Hebraic and Christian

traditions. This has officially been the practice since about the fifteenth-century, during the reign

of king Zer'a Ya'iqob. 57 Although there is no clear record as to when precisely that custom came

55
Rey, Real Abyssinia, 191−94.
56
Sometimes, the EOTC’s priests and monks, who carry the Tabot cannot move forward when the Tabots
become too heavy for them to carry and walk. In that instance, a good-looking ox must be slaughtered, and its blood
is shed so that the priests can walk to the particular church building where the Tabot resides.
57
According to Herman Norden, St. Gregory of Nyssa affirms the need to keep both Sabbath days. He notes,
“With what eyes do you regard the Lord’s Day, you who have desecrated the Sabbath? Do you know that these two
days [Saturday and Sunday] are inseparably interrelated, failure to keep one of them will stumble against the other?”
See more on Herman Norden, Africa’s Last Empire: Through Abyssinia to Lake Tana and the Country of the

36
up, the question of whether or not the Old Testament Sabbath should be observed “was a severe

problem, probably throughout the history of the local church, but definitely during the time from

the fourteenth to the seventeenth century.” 58

In the EOTC, the Divine Service and the celebration of the Eucharist are observed on both

days as a remembrance of what God had done for his people on Saturday, according to the Old

Testament tradition, and on Sunday according to the New Testament tradition. This fact is often

cited as displaying the continuity and discontinuity between the Old and the New Testament in

the EOTC. 59 St. Gregory of Nyssa, whose teaching has a significant influence upon the EOTC

liturgy, 60 affirms the need to observe both Sabbath days. He notes, “With what eyes do you

regard the Lord’s Day, you who have desecrated the Sabbath? Do you know that these two days

are related, that if you wrong one of them, you will stumble against the other?” 61 All work

restrictions on the Sabbath days are listed in Mashafa Berhan (the Book of Light) with

remarkable similarity to the Mishna and the Talmud of the Jews. 62 Thus, as Steven Kaplan notes,

we may conclude that Judaism’s strong sense of ‘influence’ in Ethiopian Christianity shaped its

tradition, doctrine, and practice. 63

Falasha (London: Witherby, 1930), 201.

58
Haile, “The 49 Hour Sabbath,” 233−34.
59
John Binns, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2002), 30−35. The Fetha Nagast gives further order to celebrate the Eucharist more days in a week. It says,
the “Eucharist shall be offered every week on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, and on feast days if they
fall on Weekdays.” Tzadua, Fetha Nagast, 85.
60
Marcos Daoud, The Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church (Addis Abeba: Berhanena Selam, 1954), 120−27.
61
Norden, Africa’s Last Empire, 201.
62
Ernest Hammerschmidt, “Jewish Elements in the Cult of the Ethiopian Church,” Journal of Ethiopian
Studies 3, no. 2 (Unknown Binding,1965): 1−12; and Phillip Tovey, Inculturation of Christian Worship: Exploring
the Eucharist (Aldershot, Hants, U.K.: Ashgate, 2004), 56−78.
63
Steven Kaplan, The Beta Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia: From Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century (New
York: New York University Press. 1992), 17−20.

37
 Outside of the EOTC’s context, Mary Douglas argued that in defense of Jewish rituals,

purity rights as practices should no longer be dismissed as something inherently primitive

because “Each primitive culture is a universe to itself.... We cannot start to compare primitive

religions until we know the range of powers and dangers they recognized. Primitive society is an

energized structure in the center of its universe.” 64 In her book “Purity and Danger,” she

identifies the concern for purity as a key theme at the heart of every society. For her, purity refers

to the general principle of categorizing and structuring every society. Therefore, ritualized

avoidance of any religious tradition has to be treated systematically or structurally in its rite

because rituals draw external boundaries and control certain undesirable behaviors in a given

society and context.

The analysis of impurity is a matter of social perception and an interpretation of one’s

actions based on what is deemed to be acceptable or unacceptable to God. In other words, the

concept of purity in each society may be defined in a general sense as a system of ordering things

and classifying those things as pure or impure. It may also refer to specific rules and regulations

whereby persons, objects, and spaces are categorized as pure or impure in a particular social

group. Mary Douglas notes, “Culture, in the sense of shared standardized values of a community,

mediates the experience of individuals. It provides in advance some basic categories, a positive

pattern in which ideas and values are tidily ordered.” 65

The Jews had taken the sense of purity and impurity from the Scripture. In Leviticus, God

commanded Israel, “Speak to all the congregation of the people of Israel and say to them, you

64
Mary Douglas, Purity and Danger: An Analysis of Concepts of Pollution and Taboo (Middlesex: Penguin,
1970), 14.
65
Douglas, Purity and Danger, 38−39.

38
shall be holy, for I the Lord your God am holy” (Lev. 19:2). 66 The central replication of the idea

of order and purity was established from the temple system. In other words, the concept of

holiness and purity was mainly mediated to the Jewish people through the specific rules

surrounding participation in the service of the Temple. More specifically, they specified what

kind of animals should be sacrificed, how and when the animals should be sacrificed, and who

should be admitted to participate in the holy sacrifice of the Temple (Lev. 21:16−20). Priests

observed specific purity rules, and just as the Temple and the priests were holy, the whole people

of Israel observed the purity laws so that they would be deemed holy, too.

Jewish Rituals and Worthy Admission to the Eucharist

The concept of purity in the Book of Leviticus is broader than the mere listing of lifestyle

suggestions; instead, it is a serious codified regulation within which punishment is attached to it.

In other words, the seriousness of observing the temple purity system is seen from the severe

punishments resulting from the offenses. Violations may make the offender guilty, and in order

to return to a status of purity, the offender would need to observe additional rules and present

extra offerings to purge the sin committed (Lev. 5:1−6). Looking at the punishments attached to

many of the offenses, one can learn that the entire community life in Israel was organized in

terms of purity rules set by God (See Lev. 20:26). It encompassed a wide range of issues

regarding everyday life, not just those exclusively centering around laws of the Temple.

Likewise, in the EOTC liturgy and tradition, as we shall see in the following chapter,

certain customs are believed to be acceptable to make one worthy for participation in the

Sacrament. Failure to keep those religious and social rules and purity laws disqualify members

66
See Mary Douglas’s work for a detailed description of the Old Testament’s origin and development of
purity and impurity concepts. Douglas, Purity and Danger, 41−57.

39
from partaking in the Eucharist. It also leaves them in a state of impurity and considered taboo in

that community. This frequent motivation to become holy and pure was adapted by Judaism and

became part of the Semitic Christian Church in Ethiopia, originating from God’s command

expressed in Scripture and from the belief that the Ethiopians are God’s chosen people. Besides,

the purity and cleanliness required in both religions signify an external boundary marker between

God’s people and other ungodly people. Further, this is manifested through the observance of

rituals and the addition of other Jewish rites and ceremonies that have made their way into

Ethiopian Christianity over the years. The rituals enact the form of religious and social relations,

giving them a visible expression while also enabling the members of the EOTC to know their

identity as God’s chosen people.

The EOTC teaches that members receive both the divinity and the humanity of Jesus in the

Eucharist, which is so sacred that the members cannot approach it without carefully observing

rituals and having an intermediary. All rituals, which are required before partaking of the Lord’s

Supper, epitomize the sacred nature of the Eucharist, which must be mediated by priests, saints,

sacred objects, and strict observance of rituals in order to bridge the boundaries between the

sacred and the profane and make the attendees eligible for the Eucharist. Although the EOTC at

times sounds dualistic, such teaching is not as strong as Gnostic teaching. The tangible categories

and distinction between the sacred and the profane is more apparent in the Platonic thoughts of

religion, but it is less likely in the Hebrew religion. Since the physical and spiritual separation is

less likely to be made in the Hebrew religion, it has no robust features in Ethiopian Orthodox

Christianity. Instead, the focus of the Church is on how to bridge the two through rituals and the

service of other mediators. Next, therefore, we will describe the selected Jewish rituals that are

obligatory in the EOTC so that members can ensure their worthiness in their partaking in the

40
Eucharist.

Fasting and Dietary Laws

According to the EOTC’s present-day teaching, fasting is a ritual practice and liturgical

preparation that every member of the Church must perform before partaking of the Sacred

Meal. 67 The importance of fasting can hardly be overstated if one is to understand the Church. In

other words, understanding fasting as a ritual practice is necessary for a valid account of its

importance in the EOTC’s understanding of worthiness required for church members to be

admitted to the Eucharist. The standard fasting rules include two days of fasting during the week,

which occur on Wednesdays (in commemoration of the trial of Christ) and Fridays (in

commemoration of the Passion of Christ). The Great Fast before Easter represents fifty-five

days.

Concerning the order of fasting, there are several Judaic elements in the present-day

EOTC’s food and dietary laws. The church members have been given restrictions on what to eat

and not to eat, which have not changed since the fourth Century AD. For example, certain food

items must not be eaten during Lenten fasting, such as meat, milk, eggs, fish, and cheese. These

food items also must not be eaten on Wednesdays and Fridays throughout the whole year in

addition to other fasting seasons and days. Due to such rigid abstinence rules, members prefer

not to eat meat and/or animal products during the fasting season even if they are physically weak

and ill. 68 Breaking these fasting rules disqualifies the faithful from partaking of the Eucharist and

67
However, some scholars such as Caroline Humphrey and James Laidlaw critique the concept of fasting as
a ritual. See Caroline Humphrey and James Laidlaw, The Archetypal Actions of Ritual (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994),
65−68.
68
Rey, Real Abyssinia, 188−89.

41
makes the members unclean. 69

There are seven significant fasts in all, and each relates to a particular event in biblical

history. However, many members of the Church may not be aware of the historical value and

connection of why they are observing fasting during these particular days of the seasons. 70

Priests, monks, and clergy must keep all of the seven fasts and strictly observe every fast that

covers more than 250 days within a year, eating no meat during those days. The minimum

fasting order for laypeople is to keep the Lenten and the Wednesday and Friday fasts throughout

the year and the three days of fasting on Neneiveh (Nineveh) that prepare the faithful for Lent. 71

The peak of the greatest fast begins on Good Friday and goes through Easter Saturday, the gehad

(vigil), and remains until the breaking of the fast in the celebrations and the feast on Easter

Sunday. On these three crucial days, no one can even swallow his or her saliva or offer greetings

by shaking hands. 72 When ordered by the priest or soul father, there can be extra fasting days for

penance and/or other personal reasons. Specifically, a minimum of fifteen to eighteen hours of

fasting is required before attending the liturgy and partaking of Holy Communion. There is no

food or water between midnight and 3:00 pm. On Easter Saturday, the vigil, and right before

partaking of Holy Communion, no one is allowed to swallow his saliva or speak aloud.

Moreover, the EOTC today still strictly follows the Food Laws in Lev. 11:1−47. Rev.

69
Tom Boylston, The Stranger at the Feast: Prohibition and Meditation in an Ethiopian Orthodox Church
Community (Berkley: University of California, 2018).
70
Isaac Ephraim, “The Significance of Food in Hebraic–African Thought and the Role of Fasting in the
Ethiopian Church,” in Asceticism, eds. Vincent L. Wimbush and Richards Valantasis (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1995), 338.
71
The fasting and prayer on Neneiveh is a three-day lent recognized by the EOTC and conducted two weeks
before the beginning of the Great Lent. The fast is ritualistically similar to Lent which is performed in
commemoration of the three days that the Prophet Jonah spent inside the belly of the great fish and the subsequent
fast and repentance of the Ninevites.
72
According to the oral tradition, the abstinence of the handshaking is to commemorate the betrayal of Christ
by the ‘Jews’ and the kissing of Judah, who betrayed Jesus as he greeted the Lord (Luke 22:48).

42
Daoud notes, “The washing of hands before and after meals and not eating the meat of animals

that are prohibited in Leviticus Chapter Eleven are observed by modern Ethiopians [just] as they

were by ancient Hebrews.” 73 Animals with uncloven hoofs and/or those animals that do not

chew their cud are ርኩስ (rikusi) meaning ‘unclean’ and must not be consumed by the faithful

members of the Church throughout their entire life. 74 Many Ethiopians died during the great

famine in 1985 refusing to eat animals of uncloven hoofs. For instance, animals like the pig,

horse, camel, donkey, dogs, frogs, and others are prohibited for the faithful to consume. Among

the sky birds, clean ones must have fully separated talons with no attachment to each other. The

EOTC does not allow its members to eat blood because the Scripture says that the life of a

creature is in the blood, and God has shed animal’s blood for humans to make atonement on the

altar for the sins committed; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life (Lev. 17:11, 14;

and cf. Deut. 12:23). The blood thus symbolizes life and is commanded to not be consumed.

According to the EOTC, consuming blood makes one unclean because blood is a symbol of life,

and the blood of the animal is the only part of it that is powerful enough to bring purification.

The dietary law in the EOTC is directly linked to the purity concerns observed in early

rabbinic food law. Failure to observe this law disqualifies faithful members from entering the

Church and partaking of the Eucharist. For example, besides permanent abstinence from the so-

called ‘unclean food,’ the EOTC members must abstain from eating clean meat and dairy

products during Lent, Wednesday, and Friday in order to get forgiveness of the sins that they

have committed during the entire year. Further, they must undergo a rigorous schedule of fasting

and prayers to ensure their worthiness for the Eucharist. The dietary restrictions include

73
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 3.
74
Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 103−5.

43
considerations like who eats with whom, who slaughters the clean animal and how, and where

the food is eaten determine whether one can approach the Divine Service and the Holy

Sacrament.

As we have stated previously, the Old Testament sacrifice of the Temple finds its parallel

with the celebration of the Eucharist in the EOTC. For example, the purity system in Leviticus is

a codified commandment resulting in the punishments attached to many of the offenses. Those

who fail to observe the laws become guilty and experience several punishments (Lev. 26:14−46).

Likewise, just as all forms of bodily discharges defiled and disqualified the Jewish believer from

approaching the Temple, members who failed to observe the cultic means of purification in the

EOTC are considered unclean and unworthy to partake of the Eucharist. Sometimes the concept

of cleanliness and purification among the members turns into a more magical meaning having a

tendency of seeking purification in a mechanical and/or instrumental way, for example, drinking

‘holy water,’ and being sprinkled with ጠበል meaning a ‘holy water’ by a ‘soul father.’ 75

Thus, just as strict observance of the dietary rules would have been a meaningful part of the

tremendous liturgical act of recognition and worship, which culminated in the sacrifice in the

Temple, cultic means of becoming worthy to partake in the Eucharist in the EOTC today is

influenced by the Jewish laws of purity and holiness codes. The physical perfection through

dietary law and fasting, including sanctifying things presented in the Temple, such as offering

blameless animals as a sacrifice, purification of the attendees in the Temple, and a call to be

75
According to the EOTC belief, drinking and washing with the ጠበል (Holy Water) have practical
significance as a non-Eucharistic medium for sacred contact. Drinking or being sprinkled with holy water by the
priest offers a means for those lacking the highest purity levels to receive blessing and healing. Members moving to
a new house will call a priest from the EOTC to bless the building with the holy water before moving into the new
house, and the house will also be blessed after childbirth with the mother and the baby. Priests and monks sprinkle
the Holy Water widely, especially on the Timqet festival (the Epiphany) and other prominent Saints’ days.

44
ritually clean before approaching the Temple, is implied in the celebration of the Eucharistic

sacrifice of the Church. Likewise, a call to purity in Judaism through the fasting and dietary laws

that occur before religious festivals and occasions is linked to a call for worthiness before

Communion, expressing that concrete actions such as the good works must be performed by the

faithful who intend to partake of the Eucharist.

Sexuality and Worthiness

Another contemporary aspect of purity and worthiness in the EOTC concerns sexual

abstinence between couples (three days before and two days after Holy Communion), which is

mandatory in the Eucharistic teachings of the EOTC. 76 The Fetha Nagast utilizes Lev. 20:18,

which deals with sexual relations, in connection with the Eucharistic teaching of the Church.

Between Christian couples, bodily contact and flow of substances is prohibited during fasting. It

is said to follow Mosaic Law which prohibits sexual relations during fasting and temple service.

In the EOTC, couples should not even sleep on the same bed on the days they engage themselves

with the congregational Sacrament. Kessis Kefyalew Merahi notes that the rationale behind such

a notion is that on that day, “the human soul should be deprived of its animal behaviors and has

to perform Angelic deeds.” 77 Thus, each participant should control the physical senses or desire

for sex so that no sin can enter the heart and make the heart perfect and pure. According to the

EOTC traditional marriage, known as betekelile (with crown), those married couples also cannot

partake of the Holy Communion separately. If one of the couples cannot meet the conditions or

is not willing to partake of Communion, the remaining one also becomes unworthy by default,

76
Kefyalew Merahi, The Order of Marriage and Social Ethics (Addis Ababa: OSSA, 1990); and see also
Emmanuel Fritsch, Encyclopedia Aethiopica, ed. Siegbert Uhlig, vols. 3−4 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag,
2007), 271.
77
Merahi, Order of Marriage, 88.

45
meaning one spouse alone cannot receive Communion in the absence of the other. Due to such a

strong sense of the requirement of worthiness, many people conclude that “receiving Holy

Communion is unattainable since such an awesome sacrament deserves the utmost preparation

and is tantamount to dying.” 78

According to the EOTC, marital fasting offers an opportunity to resist one’s fleshly desires

and redirect one’s energies towards worshiping God, just as one fasts from the desire for food.

Tzadua notes, “The prohibition of sex [is imposed] on fasting days in order that one [may] fulfill

the desire which must be obtained through fasting, which is the restraining of the animal soul

from animal concupiscence, in honor of the rational soul, which is united with it in accordance

with its spiritual nature.” 79 Sexual impurity breaks the rule of fasting, and those people who

break the fast cannot enter the Church to receive Communion before a complete physical

cleansing occurs. If they have not gone through the cleansing process, they cannot enter the

church compound at all. For instance, if a man or a woman is in a condition of impurity with

bodily discharge that is accompanied by a dream or otherwise, she or he must not partake of the

Eucharist.

Judaism never welcomed women into religious activities and did not allow them to enter

the Temple because a woman in menstruation is regarded as ‘unclean’ (Lev. 15:19−30).

Likewise, a menstruating woman is excluded from religious activities in the Sanctuary of the

EOTC, a practice adopted from the Old Testament teaching of the Jews. In Leviticus, a

menstruating woman is unclean for seven days, and anything she lies upon or sits upon is

unclean. Anyone who touches her, her bedding, or what she has sat upon is unclean until

78
Fritsch, Encyclopedia Aethiopica, 869.
79
Tzadua, Fetha Nagast, 146.

46
evening, and anyone who has intercourse with her is unclean for seven days. The strict restriction

also prevents the transmission of uncleanness towards other adherents, including the objects in

the Temple. This restriction is the same for a woman as for a man with genital discharges (Lev.

15:31−33). 80

The EOTC regards menstruation as a result of God’s curse, which is related to Gen. 3:16

where God declared that He would multiply Eve’s sorrow and her conception. For the church, if

menstruation does not make a woman impure, she would not have been subjected to impurity, as

is recorded in the Book of Leviticus. So, menstruation in the EOTC is seen as a consequence of

sin, and that is why sexual intercourse between couples is restricted before the woman has

undergone purification. 81 Tzadua notes, “The conjugal act in the days of menstruation and

childbed of women is prohibited because the genital organ is spoiled thereby and because leprosy

befalls the children conceived in the womb [during menstruation] as a consequence of this

thing.” 82

The separation of the menstruating woman in the EOTC signifies the detachment of the

individual from an established set of religious conditions, and the isolation and denial of

admission to the Eucharist begins immediately when a stain of blood is dropped. Furthermore,

menstruating women are not allowed to come to the Church until they are ritually cleansed. The

time of a menstruating woman’s impurity is seven days. Then she must purify herself by

immersion in water at home before going out in public and by the sprinkling of holy water by the

80
Menstruation is a natural process over which women have no control, but ejaculation comes from sexual
desire. Nevertheless, both incidents make the person unclean, according to the Book of Leviticus and the EOTC
teaching about holiness.
81
The Torah regards Jewish menstruating women as impure, and in that condition, she must be secluded.
Please see more on this Arnold Gennep, The Rites of Passage. Trans. Monica Vizedom and Gabrielle Caffee
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960), 58−59.
82
Tzadua, Fetha Nagast, 146.

47
priest before she goes to the Sanctuary for the Divine Service and the Sacrament.

The Fetha Nagast stipulates the danger of admitting a menstruating woman to the

Eucharist and notes, “If a priest or a deacon fails in his duties of control by allowing a woman

who is menstruating to enter into the church, or give her the Eucharist during the days of her

menstruation, he shall be deposed even if the woman is from the royal family.” 83 Therefore, just

as menstrual impurity is at the center of the exclusion of women from the sacred in Judaism, the

EOTC restricts menstruating women from approaching the church building and partaking of

Holy Communion.

Childbirth is another factor of the women’s exclusion from the Church and the Eucharist

related to their gender. The EOTC’s teaching concerning the ritual uncleanliness of a woman

who has given birth is also still observed. Neither the mother nor the child can enter the Church

until the Christening takes place. Both become impure due to their bleeding, according to Lev.

12:1−7. They are considered impure until the child gets baptized, and the mother is christened. If

the baby’s father enters the same house where the childbirth occurs, he also becomes unclean by

default. Harry Hayatt notes, “A man who has been present at childbirth or who has entered the

natal chamber is held to be unclean.” 84

While in Leviticus purity is achieved via sacrifice, in the EOTC purity is achieved via

Christening by a sprinkling of holy water upon the mother and through baptism for the child on

the fortieth day (for boys) or the eightieth day (for girls). At that time, the priest performs an

exceptional service of cleansing at the church door to welcome a mother back to the Church and

the service of the Sacrament at the end of her period of uncleanness. It implies that the human

83
Strauss, Fetha Nagast, 46.
84
Hayatt, Church of Abyssinia, 185.

48
body is defined not only in the sense of the self but also in terms of the socio-cultural context of

the Ethiopian community.

In both cases (menstruation and childbirth), there is no moral dimension to these physical

impurities, but still, it leaves the women in a condition of impurity. Just as all forms of bodily

discharges defile and disqualify the Jewish believer from approaching the Holy Temple, EOTC

members who fail to sexually abstain and have bodily discharges in menstruation and childbirth

before coming to the service of the Eucharist are considered unworthy to enter the church

building and partake of the Eucharist.

Purity and Laws

Although the laws concerning purity are different from society to society, the concept as

expressed in the EOTC today can be traced to the Jewish temple system and their understanding

of the whole order of creation. 85 In the EOTC, the idea of purity and impurity as binary opposites

is based on ancient Judaism and Lev. 15. Indeed, the purity issues addressed in the entire Book

of Leviticus such as touching impure objects, eating fat and blood, food that is acceptable or

unacceptable based on the species of animal, skin diseases, genital discharges both normal and/or

abnormal, issues related to the Sanctuary, sacrificial animals, sexual partners, profaning the

divine name, and so on are observed in the EOTC as well.

The purity system in Leviticus is not just limited to a sacrifice and the Sanctuary; instead,

the purity code was extended to the entire social system depicting that the whole of Israelite life

is organized in terms of purity rules. In Judaism, only priests need to observe the specific rules of

purity; however, all faithful members should follow the law of purity so that all the members

85
Douglas, Purity and Danger, 43−58. Mary Douglas is a British anthropologist and scholar known for her
interpretation of the Book of Leviticus. She presents an alternate way of investigating the general language of
‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ and its specific forms in Jewish and Christian literature in Chapter 3 of her book.

49
may be holy, just as the Temple, the sacrifices, and the priests are holy. 86 Likewise, today, the

EOTC’s definition of specific purity rules whereby persons, objects, places are labeled pure or

impure is influenced by Jewish law.

The concept of uncleanness in the EOTC includes animals slaughtered by Muslims or

Protestants and utensils used by Muslims and/or Protestants. An Ethiopian Orthodox church

member must eat an animal slaughtered by a man who belongs to the EOTC and must be a man

who fully kept the rule of fasting. While slaughtering a clean animal, the butcher must confess

the name of the Triune God, saying, “In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy

Spirit.” Eating the meat of an animal that is slaughtered without confessing the Trinity makes the

meat and the eater unclean. For this reason, an EOTC member is prohibited from eating an

animal slaughtered by a man of a different faith or eating meat slaughtered by a woman. In

Ethiopia, members of the Orthodox Church never eat meat offered by a Muslim or a protestant

friend or neighbors when they have feasts in common. When people from either group hold a

feast for a wedding or other kind of feast, they must be sure to serve vegetables in hospitality to

friends and neighbors of the other religions.

K'idusane, Objects, and Materials

In the EOTC today, Christ as God—despite his humanity, which is made available to

believers in his body and blood—is too pure and sacred for alemawī sewochi (worldly or secular

people) to approach without an intermediary. Members of the Church must seek other

K'idusane 87 and sacred materials that are believed to be purer and cleaner due to their lesser

86
Moshe Bildstein, Purity, Community, and Ritual in Early Christian Literature (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2017); Kenneth. C. Hanson, “Blood and Purity in Leviticus and Revelation,” Listening: Journal of Religion
and Culture, 28, no 3 (Oxford, Oxford Press, 1993): 215−30.
87
Orthodox Christians in Ethiopia understand their relationship with the saints, angels, and St. Mary as

50
contact with the secular world. Although the EOTC seems to be dualistic at times, its true focus

is on how it can bridge the gap between Jesus (who is separated from the world) and humanity

(which is profane) through the careful management of rituals regulated by the clergy, saints, and

sacred materials and spaces.

The purity of priests, monks, and clergy in the EOTC is necessary to build and maintain the

boundaries between the sacred and the profane. They also facilitate and mediate contact between

humans and God, taking on the responsibility that such contact is appropriately achieved

according to the Church’s teaching and tradition. Steve Kaplan notes, “Repeatedly the holy men

intervened between men and demonic, divine, or natural forces... They intervened with a distant

God on behalf of their followers and disciples... Born into human society, and they attained and

maintained a position somewhat outside and above it, which enables them to fulfill a variety of

vital mediatory functions.” 88 He goes on to note, “By living an angelic life, the holy men become

the same as angels, divine messengers believed to be capable of both conveying and influencing

the divine will. Such a mediatory role is of tremendous importance in Ethiopia, where a pious

Christian was primarily concerned with gaining the favor of a mediator, such as an angel, Mary,

or a holy man, instead of appealing to a remote and unreachable God.” 89

According to the EOTC, the chief priest, who also has a significant role in local society and

the Church, is the primary mediator between the church members and God, as he presents Jesus

through the bread and the wine. Kaplan notes, “Both as a monk and as an ascetic, the image of

the holy man [the priest] was intimately associated with the angel. Indeed, at times the line

definitive of their religion instead of Protestant members. The Amharic word comprehended all those figureheads
with the broad term K'idusani (holy beings).
88
Steven Kaplan, The Monastic Holy Man and the Christianization of Early Solomonic Ethiopia
(Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1984), 70.
89
Kaplan, Monastic Holy Man, 82.

51
drawn between the angel and the holy man [the priest] appears to have been quite a thin one.” 90

Therefore, means for interacting with the divine entity, as presented through the bread and wine,

are mediated through priests, monks, material, ranging from smoke and incense to the exchange

of offerings and financial gifts in the form of religious vow. 91

Lastly, understanding the EOTC’s religious system and EOTC’s rituals fully requires an

exploration of the EOTC’s architecture of the temple or sanctuary, because even the church

space itself is structured to ensure ritual purity is kept. The EOTC, being influenced by Semitic

culture and civilization, has preserved its unique church architecture up to the present day,

placing the Holy Tabot at the center of the church building. This architecture is similar to the

Jewish Temple but is different from the Western Basilica model. 92

The Hebrew sanctuary whose threefold division was structured towards maintaining ritual

purity has continued to be the main style used in Ethiopia, ever since the country adopted

Christianity. Every Orthodox Church building in Ethiopia is designed using the threefold

division of the Old Testament temple. The center of the Church is called መቅደስ (mek’idesi),

90
Kaplan, Monastic Holy Man, 81.
91
To enter into exchange relations with saints in whom the supplication gives some kind of gifts such as
money or material goods in exchange for intercession is expected in the EOTC. It is believed that priests possess
mysterious knowledge, not available through any kind of public institution, for which clients must pay. All priests
receive payment in the form of cash, food, or drink for the private ritual services they provide, such as officiating at
funerals, weddings, christenings, private confession, and absolution.
92
The shape and type of the EOTC building can be categorized into three different shapes throughout history
and the seating arrangements in the church signify the level of hierarchy and purity. The oldest churches built in
Debre Damo and Aksum Zion exhibit rectangular structures and a wood-and-stone sandwich-style of construction.
The second and more of the latest ones are built in either circular or octagonal shapes. These are the most and
common forms of EOTC buildings in most parts of Ethiopia. They are primarily found in the countryside, and they
are usually built on elevations and thatched roofs. The final shape of the EOTC church buildings is old and historic
rock-hewn built during the Zagwe Dynasty in the twelfth and thirteenth Century in Lalibela. See more on
Ullendorff, Ethiopian and the Bible, 87−89; and see Hailemariam Shemelis, ኦርቶዶክሳዊ ቅዱሳት ሥዕላት። ታሪክ፤
መንፈሳዊ ትርጉም፤ የሊቃውንት አስተምህሮ እና ሌሎችም: Orthodox Saintly Paintings: History, Spiritual Meaning,
Teachings of Religious Intellectuals and Others (Addis Ababa: Mahibere Qidusan, 2007). Interestingly, the later
book clarifies how the Ethiopian church building and art profoundly impact the style and use of sacred paintings in
Eastern Orthodox Churches, Latin Christian churches, and oriental churches.

52
representing the ‫ קודש הקודשים‬of the Jewish Temple. This part of the Church is the innermost or

central section of the Church, like the Jewish Temple where the holy Tabot is placed. 93

Ullendorff notes, “The concept and function of the Tabot represents one of the most remarkable

areas of agreement with Old Testament forms of worship.” 94 The holiness of this place is viewed
123F

using the Old Testament analogy of the Sanctuary of the Church representing the Holy of Holies.

The unleavened bread and the unfermented wine are also placed in this section of the church

building when the chief priest starts the action of consecration. The EOTC priests are the only

people who have access to this place. Further, they can only enter this place barefoot and after

they have gone through strict cultic purification orders or ascetic forms because this place

signifies the holiest part of the Temple (Exod. 3:5). The laity is forbidden from entering

mek’idesi and from ever seeing or touching the Tabot. The holy Tabot leaves the Church in

procession, being covered with an ornate cloth only twice a year during the celebration of Timket

and on annual saints’ days such as St. Gabriel and St. Michael.

The second part of the Church is called the ቅድስት (k’idisiti) meaning inner court, which

represents the ‫קָ דוֹשׁ‬of the Jewish Temple. It is the place where the priests carry out the Qeddassé

and distribute the Eucharist to the members. This particular place is reserved for those who are

worthy, clean, and ready to receive the Eucharist. The rest of the people who feel unworthy to

receive the Eucharist stand in the outer ring of the k’idisiti. From the outer ring of the k’idisiti

those considered unworthy are sent away from the Sanctuary right before the distribution of the

93
According to the rites of the EOTC, መቅደስ (mek’idesi) has three main doors and one door to the east
towards Bethlehem. In the west, glory to God is recited, and the Eucharist is shared. In the north, we see the faithful
men attending liturgy and the priests who perform horology. Furthermore, in the south, we see women members of
the church attending liturgy and praying from there.
94
Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 82.

53
Sacrament. All who enter this place must take off their shoes, and women and men cannot stand

or sit together; instead, women stand or sit on the right side while men stand or sit on the left

side.

The third section of the Church is called the ቅኔ ማህሌት (k’inē mahilēti) meaning the outer

gallery. This part is reserved for the debteras, priests, and chanters who perform spiritual songs

(Zema) before and after the Eucharist. Rev. Daoud says that the k’inē mahilēti “corresponds to

the naser of the Tabernacle of Solomon’s Temple.” 95 In the EOTC’s music, St. Yared’s Zema

has been much used for the spiritual services that have a spiritual and Jewish character. 96 Edward

Ullendorff also argued for the spiritual and Old Testament nature of the EOTC’s Zema. He

notes, “While the importance of music, song and dirge, dance and accompanying instruments, is

common to most peoples of the East, we are, I suggest, able to recognize certain specifically Old

Testament elements in the musical manifestations, largely of a religious character, of the

Ethiopians.” 97 He further notes, “Antiphonal singing as part of the worship was an established

form of the Hebrew Liturgy since the earliest times and was taken over by the Christian

Churches ... It is unlikely that the Hebraic forms were anywhere more faithfully preserved than

in the Ethiopian service with its emphasis on chant and antiphony.” 98 For example, the unique

musical instruments, bagana (harp), kabaro (traditional drum), and the two categories of

clergymen, the kahen and the dabtara, have parallels with Jewish spiritual musical instruments

95
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 10.
96
Kifle Assefa, The Significance of St. Yared’s Music in the Age of Globalization, Orthodox Archdeacon
(Columbus: University of Ohio, 2009), 167−68. In the EOTC, St. Yared’s Zema is considered God’s heavenly gift
given to St. Yared through his miraculous experience in the sixth century AD He taught for more than eleven years
as an ordained high priest of the EOTC. His chants have established a classic Zema, known as Zema-Mahlet
tradition, usually performed in the outer section of the Church’s interior.
97
Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 90.
98
Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 68.

54
that are part of the twofold categories of the ministry of the priesthood in Israel. 99

Large numbers of people, who for various reasons consider themselves impure and thus not

able to enter the church building, gather in the courtyard outside of k’inē mahilēti. Furthermore,

every Church must have a small house to the eastern side of the Church known as ቤተልሄም

(bētelihēmi), which is built within the courtyard of the Church. The Eucharistic elements are

prepared in this house, representing the Bethlehem of Jerusalem where Jesus Christ was born. 100

The EOTC’s deacon prepares the bread from the best wheat only after he takes off his shoes,

washes his hands (three times), and puts on a special vestment with a prayer offered to St.

Mary. 101 The deacon prepares several loaves of bread, “but only those that are without blemish

are used in the liturgy.” 102 Tzadua notes, “The bread must not have cracks in it and must be

without any stain.” 103

The concept of achieving purity and cleanness is related to the Sanctuary, and the materials

used for the Eucharist celebration must be consecrated beforehand. For example, such distinction

is evident from the prayers held over all vessels of the Church: the coverings, the cross-spoon,

the Paten, the Masob, and the Chalice. 104 One of the prayers on the Preparatory Service II says:

“And make this church and this Ark, chosen vessels, clean, and pure refined seven times from all

99
See more on this in Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 91−92.
100
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 10.
101
Phillip Tovey, Inculturation of Christian Worship: Exploring the Eucharist (Aldershot, Hants, England:
Ashgate, 2004), 64.
102
Tovey, Christian Worship, 64. The term ‘blemish’ in this sense is to refer to the good-looking unleavened
bread made by the EOTC deacons, not deaconesses.
103
Tzadua, Fetha Nagast, 86. The western side of the Church has a hall called ደጀሰላም (Deje Selami),
meaning ‘the gate of peace,’ which is an additional confirmation of the Old Testament textuality of the EOTC’s
Christianity.
104
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 9−16.

55
spot and stain and uncleanness and transgressions like the cleansing of silver from the earth,

refined, purified and tested.” 105

In sum, by example of the aforementioned witnesses and documents, the presence and

influence of Judaism in Ethiopian history, tradition, and religion seems established beyond

doubt. In today’s EOTC, the sharing of the Eucharist represents the meeting of God and

humanity in an encounter where the nature of Christ is most clearly seen and experienced. The

total fasting and bodily rituals required before partaking of the Eucharist epitomize the sacred

nature of the Eucharist, which must be mediated by the EOTC priests, saints, and sacred

materials in order to make the attendees eligible for the Eucharist. Thus, Judaic practices in

Ethiopia remain integral to the expression of Christianity in Ethiopia by re-appropriating the

need to observe certain rituals and purity codes to qualify for the Eucharistic Sacrifice of the

altar.

Conclusion

The EOTC remarkably fuses the Jewish and Christian traditions into an indissoluble whole

and has enjoyed a long-standing presence as a national church, and the forms of Judaism have

retained great value even after Christianity became the dominant faith. This Church strictly

teaches the values of observing the Old Testament rituals such as the Sabbaths, fasting and

dietary laws, purity laws, and the holiness codes of Moses by dictating how members of the

Church must make themselves worthy to partake of the sacrifice of the Eucharist.

Access to the Eucharistic liturgy is extremely limited to a few faithful members and is

highly controlled by the clergy of the Church. Only the ones who are ritually pure are made

105
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 15.

56
worthy to receive the Lord’s Supper. To be allowed to participate, one is usually required to

observe many rules and rituals in order to purify one’s body and soul from sin and sinful

thoughts. Because of all of this restriction usually only a few people (children, old people,

priests, and monks) can participate in the Eucharist liturgy. Most of the audience stays outside

the church building during the mass, considering themselves unclean and unworthy to approach

the temple and the sacrament.

In this context, we see the EOTC adapting Judaism and its practices to the doctrine and

participation in the Eucharist. The concept prominent in the Old Testament of the Sancta Sanctis,

meaning holy things (the Sacrament) for holy people (adherents who passed through a strict

cultic purification system), implies in an Ethiopian context that only the so-called ritually ‘clean’

and ‘pure’ are worthy and can approach the Eucharist in worthiness. The Old Testament notion

of holy things for holy people is not only implicit but becomes explicit in the sharing of the

Eucharist when only those who have made themselves clean through rituals are invited to the

Sacrament. Thus, for members of the EOTC, entering a place of holiness is dangerous. To eat the

holy body and blood of the Sacrifice requires purity through observing rituals and vigorous

preparation on one’s part. The EOTC’s Qeddassé and the Fetha Nagast further intensify the

danger of approaching the Sacrament, which is the discussion of the following chapter.

57
 CHAPTER THREE

ἈΞΊΩΣ IN THE QEDASSE AND THE FETHA NAGAST AND IN ST. JOHN
CHRYSOSTOM’S HOMILY

Introduction

The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church’s Qeddassé (Liturgy) reveals the impact and

influence of Coptic (as influenced by Hebrew liturgy) and Syrian liturgical forms, teachings, and

traditions. Most notably, the Egyptian liturgical tradition played an influential role in the overall

development of early Christian worship. The EOTC Qeddassé naturally shows the characteristics

of the Alexandrian family, being most closely connected with the Greek Liturgy of St. Mark and

with the Coptic St. Cyril of Alexandria. The main emphasis of the Liturgy is its focus on the

mystery of the Divine Wisdom and Light coming into the world to save God’s creation. The

Church’s liturgical worship, as it is the case in other Eastern Orthodox Churches, is characterized

by the strictness of rituals and mystical spirituality where members of the Church are shut off

from the chancel, and the most sacred actions, such as the consecration of the Eucharist, are

hidden from view.

In what follows; therefore, we first describe the historical origins of the Ethiopian

Orthodox Church Liturgy and briefly describe its communality and distinction from other

Eastern Orthodox Churches. Then, we describe the source and role of Fetha Nagast (the Law of

the Kings) as one of the ecclesiastical documents that influence the Church’s order and the life of

the adherents. Then we analyze selected contents of the anaphoras of the early church fathers, as

presented in the EOTC’s Qeddassé, and examine selected sections of the Fetha Nagast,

specifically looking at how the two authoritative documents stress the danger of approaching the

Eucharist if the Holy Sacrament is taken ἀναξίως (“in an unworthy manner”). Finally, since this

dissertation focuses explicitly on the issue of worthiness in partaking of the Eucharist, we shall

58
explore St. Chrysostom’s interpretation of the word ἀναξίως in his homily XXVII-XXVIII in

comparison to the EOTC’s doctrine of almsgiving as it is related to the Eucharist. His teaching

on helping the poor or charity is aligned with his interpretation of the term ἀναξίως and can be

used to evaluate whether the EOTC correctly understood his concern and interpretation of

worthily partaking of the Eucharist in 1 Cor. 11:27 in its context. We have chosen St.

Chrysostom because he is one of the influential early church fathers in the EOTC.

Origin of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church’s Qeddassé

Early church history tells us that in the Western part of the Roman Empire, the single

Roman Rite flourished for centuries without any strong competition. Nevertheless, that was not

the case in the Eastern provinces and beyond the limits of the empire. In these areas, there were

at least four effective forms that arose and developed into mature rites. These four forms of rites

are the Antiochene, the Alexandrian, the Cappadocian, and the East Syrian. 1 These significant

rites become the source of other rites in the East from which, over time, other various rites such

as Jerusalem, Coptic or Egyptian, Byzantium, Armenian and others were invented.

The EOTC’s Qeddassé is part of the family of the Coptic Liturgy and retains Syrian

elements as well. The earliest form of the Antiochene liturgy gave rise to many other liturgical

rites, including elements of the EOTC liturgy. For the sake of understanding the peculiar nature

of the Ethiopic Qeddassé, it is vital to mention its place within the context of the post-

Chalcedonian liturgical development after AD 451. According to Samuel Mercer, the Melchites

used the Liturgy of St. James in the Greek language, which has been used for centuries. After the

1
See more on Samuel how the four major rites become the source of other rites in the East. Samuel A. B.
Mercer, The Ethiopic Liturgy: its Sources, Development, and Present Form (Milwaukee: Young Churchman, 1915),
46−72.

59
centralization by Constantinople, the Byzantine rite prevailed much more, whereas the Jacobites,

Malabarese, and Malankarese liturgies utilized the St. James liturgy in Syriac. 2 Mercer notes,

“The Jacobites have, in addition to the Syriac Liturgy of St. James, a large number of other

Anaphoras.” 3 The Eastern Syrian Rite, which comprises the Chaldean, Assyrian, and Persian

liturgies, consists of the Liturgy of Mari and Addai, including several other rites derived from

Antioch. 4

The impact of Syriac tradition in the EOTC is evident from several factors. First, the

Amharas and Tigres, the dominant ethnic group in Ethiopia in the Aksumite kingdom in the

northern part of the country, identify themselves as a “Semitic immigrant of a Syrian type.” 5

Levine notes, “Christianity soon became a central component of ethnic identity of the Aksumites

and their descendants the Tigreans.” 6 According to Keon-Sang An, the language, physiognomy,

and customs of the tribes are often Semitic. 7 Second, the arrival of Syrian missionaries in

Ethiopia, such as Frumentius and the Nine Syrian Saints who fled persecution and went to

Ethiopia between the fourth and sixth centuries, contributed to Ethiopian Christianity and its

development of liturgy. The Nine Syrian Saints translated the Bible and other early church

fathers’ writings from Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic into Ge’ez. For example, some of the

early church fathers’ doctrinal treatises and homilies were translated into the Ge’ez language.

Keon-Sang An notes, “In particular, St. Cyril’s De Recta Fide, which was translated under the

2
Mercer, Ethiopic Liturgy, 73−114.
3
Mercer, Ethiopic Liturgy, 75.
4
Mercer, Ethiopic Liturgy, 75−76.
5
An, Ethiopian Reading of the Bible, 100.
6
Donald Levine, Greater Ethiopia: The Evolution of a Multiethnic Society (Chicago: University of Chicago,
1965), 32; and see also An, Ethiopian Reading of the Bible, 101.
7
An, Ethiopian Reading of the Bible, 100.

60
title of Qerlos, laid a foundation for the teaching of the EOTC. The Ascetic Rules of Pachomius

still regulate the monastic life of today’s Ethiopia. The Life of Saint Anthony by Athanasius

remains popular among the people of Ethiopia.” 8 Thus, in general, we may say that the Syrian

elements are evident in the development of Ge’ez language, liturgy, and literature.

The strong tie between the Coptic and the Ethiopic Church has also been around since the

fourth century AD. Until the mid-twentieth century AD, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was

dogmatically and juridically dependent upon the Egyptian Coptic Church. Patriarchs in the

Ethiopian Church had been chosen from Egypt and consecrated by the Egyptian patriarch. For

example, the first bishop of the Ethiopian Church, known as Bishop Frumentius, was consecrated

by the patriarch of Alexandria, St. Athanasius. Keon-Sang An notes, “The EOTC had Coptic

elements, not only in theological tradition, but also in church practices such as the liturgy, rituals,

the church calendar, and other customs.” 9 Monasticism was also introduced to Ethiopians from

Egypt through the Nine Saints, who stayed in Egyptian monasteries before they left for

Ethiopia. 10

Even though there are no precise written details on the liturgy which St. Frumentius had

brought with him from Alexandria in Egypt, 11 it is most likely that all Egyptian nominees to

Ethiopia, known as Abuna(s), brought the Alexandrian Rite of worship to Ethiopia, with which

they were accustomed. For at least until after the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451), the

8
An, Ethiopian Reading of the Bible, 102.
9
An, Ethiopian Reading of the Bible, 104.
10
Hyatt, Church of Abyssinia, 65.
11
However, Tzadua notes that St. Frumentius was trained with the New Testament for five years in
Alexandria, and “after his Episcopal consecration, bishop Frumentius returned to Ethiopia carrying with him all of
the liturgies.” See Tzadua, Divine Liturgy, 6n5.

61
Alexandrian liturgy in the Greek language had been used in Ethiopia. 12 Tzadua notes, “with the

Macedonian conquest at first and later with the influence of the Ptolemies, the Greek language

spread not only in that part of Africa [Egypt] around the Mediterranean basin but also at the

court of Aksum in Ethiopia.” 13

When looking at the Egyptian Rite, Jerusalem became the earliest source of Egyptian

Christianity, and the earliest Christianity in Egypt was Jewish. The first converts to Christianity

were already accustomed to offering prayers to the divine being accompanying those prayers by

appropriate ritual acts. It is evident from the early church history that Alexandria was home to

the largest Jewish Diaspora community that arrived from Palestine, specifically Jerusalem, and

had religious experiences and rituals. History tells us that among the leading figures of the

Jewish diasporas in Egypt, Philo and Josephus were the prominent ones. Colin H. Roberts’

thorough study concluded that the earliest Christian documents would generally have been

identified with the Jewish ones. 14 He noted, “In the first age of the Church Christians in

Alexandria and consequently throughout Egypt were either unable or unwilling to escape from

the Jewish connection or at any rate to appear to do so in the eyes of non-Christians; the fate of

the first church in Alexandria would thus have been involved, willy-nilly, with that of

Judaism.” 15

The EOTC’s lectionary is derived from the Egyptian or Coptic Rite, containing a liturgy of

12
See Abu Salih, Basil Evetts, and Alfred Butler. The Churches and Monasteries of Egypt and Some
Neighboring Countries, Attributed to Abû Ṣâliḥ, the Armenian (Oxford: Clarendon, 1898), 284−91.
13
Paulos Tzadua, The Divine Liturgy According to the Rite of the Ethiopian Church (Place of publication and
publisher is not identified, 1900), 6.
14
Colin H. Roberts, Manuscript, Society, and Belief in Early Christian Egypt (London: Oxford University
Press, 1979), 49−73; see also Mercer, Ethiopic Liturgy, 21−35.
15
Roberts, Manuscript, 57.

62
the word (the reading of the sacred texts), which mostly follows the structure adopted from the

Coptic Church in Egypt and inserts this Liturgy of the Word into a liturgical year developed

within the Ethiopian context. 16 Unlike the present-day Alexandrian or Coptic traditions, but in

keeping with the tradition of the Syriac-speaking Churches, the EOTC has developed fixed

liturgical periods with variable lengths of time that may be as short as only one day and the total

length of which is fixed.

Although the Egyptian Rite influences the Ethiopian Orthodox Church’s Qeddassé, it is

also distinctive. Irenee-Henri Dalmais notes that “the most notable accomplishment of the Coptic

Church must be sought in Ethiopia.” 17 During the earlier years, the liturgy used in Ethiopia was

used at Alexandria, in the Greek language, until after the council of Chalcedon. When in the fifth

century AD the Copts separated from the Alexandrian Church into Miaphysitism and created a

Church of their own, the Ethiopians were made known of the schism through the Coptic Church

and a few other Miaphysite monks. They migrated from Syria to Egypt and Ethiopia, and

Ethiopia embraced miaphysitism from the Copts. 18 The Ethiopian Orthodox doctrine and liturgy

are of great importance from a historical and pastoral point of view, as it considers its peculiar

religious practices, rich history, and culture. According to Nicholas Zernov, the peculiar situation

of Ethiopia is its prestigious and ancient traditions which give the Church a special place in

today’s Christian Africa that is conscious of its differences from other Christian groups. 19

16
Fritsch, Emmanuel. The Liturgical Year of the Ethiopian Church (Ethiopia: Master, 2001), 71−74; and see
Maxwell E. Johnson, Liturgy in Early Christian Egypt (Cambridge: Grove Books, 1995), 46−51.
17
See further description in Irenee-Henri Dalmais, Eastern Liturgies. Trans. Donald Attwater (New York:
Hawthorne Books, 1960), 29−31.
18
After the separation of the Coptic Church from constantinopolitan Orthodoxy, the main changes made
were the rejection of the idea of the filioque clause and a belief in Consecration by the epiclesis.
19
The peculiar situation of Ethiopia is its prestigious and ancient traditions that should give the Church a
special place in today’s Christian Africa that is conscious of its differences from other Christian groups. See more on
this Nicholas Zernov, Eastern Christendom (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1961), 241−42.

63
 Today, the canonical discipline that governs the EOTC’s Qeddassé is mainly contained in

the books locally known as Sinodos, Mashafa Kidan Zaegziena Yesus Krestos Didascalia, and

the Fetha Nagast. 20 The Sinodos is a vast theological and ecclesiastical collection of ancient

canons present in the EOTC. 21 It is a version of the Egyptian Church order which is also known

as the Ethiopian Church Order. According to Tzadua, the Sinodos includes the Canon of the

Apostles, of Clement, of Hippolytus of Rome, of the Synods of Ancyra, and the Canons of the

Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. 22 The Mashafa Kidan Zaegziena Yesus Krestosis an EOTC’s

version of the Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi, meaning the Testament of Our Lord

Jesus Christ, is, according to Tzadua, a document of Syrian origin from the fifth century AD.

Similarly there is an Ethiopian version of the Didascalia Apostolorum adopted from “books I-

VII of the Apostolic Constitutions.”23 Furthermore, we have the Fetha Nagast, which we will

shortly examine concerning its role in Ethiopian history. Of all these historical documents, the

Ethiopian Orthodox Church adds the Sinodos and the Testament of Our Lord to the number of

the canonical lists of Books of the New Testament. 24

The initial liturgical innovation in Ethiopia was introduced during the Aksumite era, named

20
Tzadua, Divine Liturgy, 4−5.
21
The Sinodos has always been a part of the Ge’ez version of the New Testament. However, it is not
included in the Amharic versions, and the same as Qerlos (Cyril), the Sinodos is a collection of several writings that
describes the early history of the Catholic Church. The EOTC’s Liturgy is governed by the historical documents
known as the Sinodos, the Ethiopic Didascalia, and the Synkesar (the Synaxar of the Coptic Church translated into
Ge’ez along with many other Ethiopian indigenous additions).
22
Tzadua, Divine Liturgy, 4.
23
Tzadua, Divine Liturgy, 4n7.
24
The EOTC’s biblical canon consists of a Hebrew Bible (‘Old Testament’), Late Second Temple Jewish
Literature, and the New Testament. Please see more on this Isaac, Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church, 59. Many
church historians and biblical scholars agree that the EOTC’s biblical canon is the largest in number compared to the
biblical Canon of any other church, including the Roman Catholic Church, comprising 81 books known as Semaniya
Ahadu, which means eighty-one. Nevertheless, this biblical canon is not an only giant in number, but also it is one of
the oldest in translations, and it is unique in including some books that are not in other Christian canons. See more
on this Isaac, Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church, 61−62.

64
after the historical capital of the Ethiopian Empire. Paulos Tzadua notes, “While the Ethiopian

rite gets its origin from Alexandria, it underwent, nevertheless, such an evolution that the actual

form of the liturgy seems to be very distant from the original to the point of assuming the dignity

of an independent rite.” 25 Since the Egyptian mother church appointed the Abunas, the EOTC

was primarily influenced by it. It eventually introduced holiness and rituals by incorporating

liturgical dances, drums, and sistrums, which were influenced by Judaic apocalyptical legends

that differed from the Coptic Egyptian church. For example, vernacular language, customs, and

Christian songs contributed mainly to the development of the Ethiopian liturgy, giving the

Ethiopian rite its characteristic features.

On the other hand, the biblical interpretation, discussion, exegesis, terminologies,

antiphonal singing, rituals, and the function of the clergy in Ethiopia have been adopted from

Jewish-Aramaic influences. Ullendroff notes, “The labio-velar sound in the Ethiopic form goes

back to an original targum which shows that this concept entered Abyssinia through Jewish

influences from South Arabia rather than by way of the Syrian missionaries of the fourth and

fifth centuries A.D.” 26 All the dietary prescriptions, ritual cleanness observances, the obligation

of keeping the Sabbath and approaching the temple in holiness, and other Old Testament purity

requirements related to the temple and the Sacrifice, which we have discussed in the previous

chapter, are required for appropriate participation in the Qeddassé.

Moreover, the concept of divinization in the EOTC has a significant role in adequately

attending the Divine Liturgy, which is God’s eternal plan for humanity. The Church holds Christ

to be at the center of its liturgical celebration, which is constantly revealed and experienced in

25
Tzadua, Divine Liturgy, 4.
26
Ullendorff, Ethiopia and the Bible, 98.

65
the daily sacramental life of the Church. For the EOTC, the very purpose of Jesus’ death and

incarnation is for believers to partake in the divine life of God, as initiated in baptism and

nurtured throughout the worthy celebration of the Holy Communion. The Church believes that

the sacramental grace of Christ has been bestowed upon the members through the strict liturgical

celebration and observation of the rituals, which enables them to become appropriate partakers of

the Divine life of God. According to Ivan Popov, Aymro Wondmagnehu, Joachim Motovu,

Ayalew Tamiru, and other writers on the Early Eastern Church, the EOTC’s liturgy provides a

foretaste of potential divinization, as the liturgical life mediates this salvific grace upon the

faithful members of the Church. 27 The realization of the likeness of God in faithful members’

lives, therefore, is an ongoing process that is realized by the Holy Spirit and the willingness and

obedience of the faithful members of the Church. Thus, the divine-human cooperation towards

the fulfillment of one’s worthiness for the Eucharist, and ultimately, for salvation is vital in the

EOTC liturgical teachings. 28

In sum, the theology and spirituality of divinization is the center of the Church’s

Eucharistic ecclesiology, reflected throughout the Eucharistic anaphoras of the Church. Being

one of the most ancient of Christian Churches, which has maintained the tradition of the divine

worship of the early apostolic Church, the Eucharistic liturgy is the central feature of the Church,

constantly celebrating the saving work of God that culminates in the remembrance of the

27
Please see further Ivan V. Popov, “The Idea of Deification in the Early Eastern Church,” in Theōsis:
Deification in Christian Theology (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 2:42−82; Aymro Wondmagnehu and Joachim
Motovu, The Ethiopian Orthodox Church (Addis Ababa: Ethiopian Orthodox Mission, 1970), 3−5; and see Ayalew
Tamiru, YeEtiopia Emnet BeSostu Hegegat: The Faith of Ethiopia According to the Three Laws (Addis Ababa:
Berhanena Selam, 1960), 205−7.
28
For the EOTC, faith must be practiced along with good works; otherwise, the notion of ‘sola fide’ (faith
alone) alone would not count for much. Please see more on this The Ethiopican Orthodox Church, YaItyopya
Ortodoks Tawahedo Bétakerestiyan: Emnat Sereata Amlekotena Yawec Geneñunat: The Ethiopian Orthodox
Tewahedo Church Faith, Order of Worship and Ecumenical Relations (Addis Ababa: Tensae Masatamiya Derejet,
1996), 68–69.

66
sacrificial death and resurrection of the Christ.

Form and Structure

The basic structure and practice of the Ethiopic Qeddassé still reflects its fourth century

AD roots. Rev. Daoud notes, “With the exception of translations from Ge’ez, the ancient

liturgical language to Amharic, the modern Ethiopian language; and those into Arabic and

English, for the use of non-Amharic speaking faithful, there has been no major change or reform

in the Ethiopic Liturgy.” 29 The Qeddassé consists of four sections. The first part is called the

Serate Qeddassé, meaning Preparatory Rites. This part of the Qeddassé is composed of prayers

and blessings upon the Church’s various vessels and coverings used for the Holy Communion

service. For example, the prayers conducted over the Paten, Chalice, Cross-spoon, and

Vestments. It also sets down different instructions and guiding principles of liturgical functions

appropriate to the patriarch(s), monks, priests, deacons, and the laity, who attend the Divine

Service.

The second part of the Qeddassé is known as the Ordo Communis, which introduces the

Eucharistic part of the liturgy. This part is the Pre-anaphora section, which mainly consists of

introductory prayers and rites, Scriptural readings, and the profession of faith, including the

Creed’s recitation. This part of the liturgy is invariable except for the readings from the New

Testament, the Gospel, and the three verses taken from one of the Psalms and sung by the deacon

alternately with the people before the Gospel reading. 30 Maxwell E. Johnson notes, “It is from

29
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 8.
30
According to the sources of the Ethiopian Church, this part had been rearranged by St. Basil of Antioch.
See more on this in Mercer, Samuel A. B., The Ethiopic Liturgy: Its Sources, Development, and Present Form
(Milwaukee: Young Churchman, 1915), 151; see also Ernst Hammerschmidt, Studies in the Ethiopic Anaphoras
(Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961), 48n 5.

67
Egypt that the church [EOTC] inherited, both through Cassian’s description of monastic liturgy

and the family of the Egyptian monks, a style for the liturgy of the hours which finds its center in

the recitation of and meditation on the Psalter.” 31

The EOTC’s liturgy is unique in its structure and form. Although the Ethiopian liturgy

keeps the ancient Alexandrian liturgical structural lines, the Pre-anaphora part of the liturgy in

Ethiopia developed uniquely by partly adopting the rites of other oriental Orthodox Church

liturgies in its maintenance of its unique characteristic features. For example, like the other

Oriental Church liturgies, “the rite of preparation was introduced placing the offertory at the

beginning of the Divine Liturgy; and the ceremony of incensation, the song of the Trisagion and

the Creed were introduced.” 32

The Ordo Communis comprises the rite of preparation accompanied by the offertory, the

absolution of the Son, the incensing, and various readings, such as the Gospel, along with the

creeds, and the kiss of the peace. However, manuscripts and text from various points in time

showcase that it has developed and changed in three major stages. According to Tzadua, the

three stages of development took place in the sixteenth, the seventeenth, and the eighteenth

centuries, and during the Modern-day Liturgy. 33 The significant sections that changed during the

three developmental stages were: “preparatory part, the offertory part, and the ceremony of

31
Johnson, Liturgy in Early Christian Egypt, 50. The general form of structure of this part of the liturgy is
adapted from the corresponding part of the ancient Alexandrian liturgy in the fourth century AD. And it is structured
as follows: The greetings of the priest, readings and hymns, gospel and homily, dismissal of the Catechumens, the
kissing of peace, and the offertory.
32
Tzadua, Divine Liturgy, 8.
33
The first development of the liturgy took place around the beginning of the 16th century, and the addition
is documented in that period and the “Missal printed in Rome in 1549 by the Ethiopian Monk Abba Tesfa-Sion.”
The second development of the Liturgy took place around the seventeenth and the eighteenth centuries. This
revision “includes the additions and the changes the established order was subject to in the manuscripts of the 16th
century.” The changes were made on the rubrics, the brief and expressive prayers, and their order of succession.
Furthermore, the third stage of the development builds based on the second stage of the development. See more in
Tzadua, Divine Liturgy, 8−10.

68
incensation. These parts, which, in the first documents, had several proportioned and limited

prayers and formulas with a systematic arrangement of ceremonies, became, over time,

lengthened in prayers and formularies and more refined and pompous in ceremonies.” 34 Thus,

the actual content of the Ordo Communis has been unchangeable; however, over time, its entire

formula and length did not remain rigidly tied to the original formula.

The third and foremost part of the Qeddassé is called the Fere Qeddassé or the anaphora,

which can be translated as Prayer of Thanksgiving. Its overall structure is formed by the

dialogue, Sanctus, Post-Sanctus, Institution Narrative, Anamnesis, Epiclesis, and Diptychs, and

ends with the sincere invitation to Holy Communion. 35 This part of the Qeddassé, which is

known as the Eucharistic part, is somehow changeable based on the kind of the feast days. The

Eucharistic part of the liturgy, which we partly analyze in the next half of this chapter, includes

the composition of fourteen anaphoras of the early church fathers which was accepted into the

EOTC as early as the fifth century AD. 36 The Church has diligently assigned each of the

anaphora to be celebrated at different points throughout the Church’s liturgical year. For

example, the Anaphora of the Apostles is celebrated on the memorial feast of the prophets,

apostles, and martyrs. The Anaphora of the Lord is performed on the feasts of the holy family’s

return from their flight to Egypt, on the consecration of a newly constructed Church, and the

Assumption of the Holy Virgin Mary. The Anaphora of St. Mary is celebrated on her different

34
Tzadua, Divine Liturgy, 8.
35
The Eucharist liturgy of all rites (Coptic, Ethiopic, Syrian, Malankares, Maronite, Melkite, and Russian)
has been similar in its basic structure. It has three major divisions: the Preparatory prayers and Rites, The Sacrifice,
and The Communion Banquet.
36
Please refer to Rev. Daoud’s categories for seasons of celebrations of each anaphora, and most of these
anaphoras had been translated from Ethiopic into English, German, and Latin by Rev. Marcos Daoud and Harden
Mercer. See Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 43, 58, 64, 74, 86, 97, 109, 120, 128, 136, 143, 151, 159, and
164. See also on Hammerschmidt, Ethiopian Anaphoras, 41−43.

69
feast days and the Feast of Annunciation. The Anaphoras of the Church Fathers are celebrated on

the feasts of Holy Trinity, epiphany, transfiguration, the crucifixion, the commemoration of the

Holy Cross, resurrection, ascension, Pentecost, Cherubim and Seraphim, the Lord’s Day, saints,

and the commemoration of archbishops, bishops, and priests. 37

The EOTC is one of the churches that has the most significant number of anaphoras, after

the Syro-Antiochene Church. 38 Rev. Marcos Daoud, who translated the liturgy from Ge’ez and

Amharic into English, notes that these anaphoras were received initially from the Egyptian

Church; however, the Egyptians lost most of them except that of St. Cyril of Alexandria, St.

Gregory, and St. Basil, among which the Egyptians’ anaphora of St. Basil is similar to the

Ethiopian’s Anaphora of St. Basil. At the same time, the remaining two (the Anaphora of St.

Cyril of Alexandria and the Anaphora of St. Gregory) are different in form and content from that

of the Ethiopians. 39

The Church recognized fourteen anaphoras, but there are six more anaphoras that are still

in discussion within the Church, but have been used and approved by the Ethiopian Catholic and

the EOTC scholars as apocryphal books. 40 The general structure of the Anaphora of Ethiopic

liturgies consists of the great Eucharistic prayer, which includes the preface, the triumphal hymn

or sanctus with its prayer, and the commemoration. Then what follows is the consecration,

37
Please refer to Rev. Daoud’s categories for seasons of celebrations of each anaphora. Daoud, Liturgy of
the Ethiopian Church, 43, 58, 64, 74, 86, 97, 109, 120, 128, 136, 143, 151, 159, and 164; and see also Ernst
Hammerschmidt, Studies in the Ethiopic Anaphoras (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961), 41−43.
38
Tzadua, Divine Liturgy, 9.
39
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 2.
40
See more on this in Tzadua, Divine Liturgy, 10−11. The following lists of fourteen anaphoras are the ones
that are fully adopted into the EOTC’s Qeddassé and accepted as authoritative sources of the Eucharistic liturgy.
These are: the Anaphora of the Apostles, of the Lord Jesus Christ, of St. John the Evangelist, of Our Lady St. Mary,
of the 318 Orthodox Fathers, of St. Athanasius, of St. Basil, of St. Gregory of Nyssa, of Epiphanius, of St. John
Chrysostom, of St. Cyril, of St. Jacob or James of Serough, of St. Diocorus, And the Anaphora of St. Gregory the
Armenian.

70
consisting of the institution, oblation, and invocation. The third part contains the great

intercessory prayer, consisting of general intercessions and the Lord’s prayer. Finally, we have

the Communion, consisting of the sancta sanctis with accompanying prayers and manual acts,

the fraction, confession, Communion, the thanksgiving prayer, and the dismissal. 41

Of all the anaphoras, the Anaphora of the Apostles was the earliest and is considered to be

the Medebawi, meaning the model or basis for the other anaphoras. The inner structure of all the

anaphoras mostly follows the classical form of the Anaphora of the Apostles. The other

anaphora, perhaps as ancient as the first anaphora, is the Anaphora of the Lord Jesus Christ,

derived from a known document called The Testament of our Lord. 42 When St. Frumentius came

to Ethiopia from Alexandria, he most likely brought with him the Anaphora of St. Mark with the

(Greek) anaphora of the same name at that time in use by the Church of Alexandria, which is

also probably one of the oldest anaphora in use by the Ethiopian Church. 43

Most anaphoras have a similar order of progression; however, there is a slight difference in

their order at the prayer of intercession and the epiclesis in some of the anaphoras. For example,

the prayer of intercession, “while it is normally placed within the introduction of Eucharistic

prayer and the sanctus, exceptions are found in the Anaphora of St. James, the brother of the

Lord, and St. Basil, as in these two anaphoras the said prayer comes after the epiclesis like in the

Anaphora of the Syriac-Antiochian type.” 44

41
Please see Nikolaus Liesel, The Eucharistic Liturgies of the Eastern Churches (Collegeville, The
Liturgical Press, 1963), 40−59. See the comparison of the Coptic Rite and the Ethiopic Rite on pages 8 and 9.
42
See more about lists of anaphoras that originated in Ethiopia and those anaphoras composed from foreign
elements so that they can be typically Ethiopian in character by using free translation. Lee Hammerschmidt, Studies
in the Ethiopic Anaphoras, 48−49.
43
Regarding St. Basil’s Anaphora in Ethiopia, Tzadua notes, “An anaphora which can be considered as a true
translation, is the Anaphora of St. Basil [no.7]. It corresponds more or less to the anaphora of the same name used in
the Coptic Church of Alexandria” See Tzadua, Divine Liturgy, 14.
44
Tzadua, Divine Liturgy, 16.

71
 The last section of the Qeddassé that is worth mentioning is the selota kīdani (ጸሎት ኪዳን),

which is translated as Prayer of the Covenant. This part of the liturgy is attached as an appendix

at the end of the liturgical books, offering post Communion prayers and giving general

instruction for the daily prayers and proper character throughout the rest of the week, which is

expected of one who has received the Eucharist.

In sum, the Ethiopic Qeddassé was initially in Greek, and even today, we find some Greek

elements in it. 45 However, the Ethiopians felt that the development of Hellenistic culture was

crucial to their identity and culture, especially in terms of their linguistic field, which eventually

obliged them to translate the Qeddassé into the Ethiopic language. 46 Consequently, from the

fourth century AD until today, the entire liturgical language in the EOTC is the classical

Ethiopian language known as Ge’ez, which remained the spoken language until the seventeenth

century AD. Since then, Amharic has replaced it, and today Ge’ez is no longer understood by the

laity, though it is still a liturgical language of the Church.

The Fetha Nagast

As we have seen in the previous chapters, the Ethiopians used to be at first ruled by the

Mosaic Law. However, after the advent of Christianity in Ethiopia, the whole nation has been

governed by the Fetha Nagast. 47 This document is derived from an Arabic work known as

Magmu al-qawanın (meaning Collection of Canons), but scholars commonly refer to it as the

45
Aziz Atiya, A History of Eastern Christendom (London: Methuen, 1968), 153.
46
Tzadua, Divine Liturgy, 6.
47
Paulos Tzadua, The Fetḥa Nagast: The Law of the Kings (Addis Ababa: Haile Sellassie University, 1968),
v. The history of the Fetha Nagast in Ethiopia is a debated subject among scholars about the origins and dates of
introduction into Ethiopia. That debate being in progress, the consensus is that the book is not an indigenous code to
Ethiopia. The general belief, which adds to the prestige associated with the codes, is that the Fetha Nagast
originated with the 318 Orthodox Sages at the council of Nicaea. Please see Aberra Jembere, An Introduction to the
Legal History of Ethiopia: 1434−1974 (Munster: Lit, 2000), 188−89.

72
“Nomocanon of Ibn al- ' Assal,” 48 which was documented around the middle of the thirteenth

century by the Coptic Christian Egyptian called 'AbulFada'il Ibn al-'Assal when Cyril III was

Patriarch of Alexandria (1235−1243). 49 The authoritative document deals with matters related to

canonical and civil laws and criminal law. Fetha Nagast was initially compiled for the Christians

living in Egypt. It was eventually introduced to Ethiopia, where it became the authoritative book

for teaching legal matters in Ethiopian schools up to modern times. Besides its function in the

EOTC, Fetha Nagast has governed the Ethiopian empire for centuries, perhaps best illustrating

the influence and place of religion in the law and government.

The entire work of Fetha Nagast can be divided into two major parts, and the first one

deals with religious matters (chapters 1−22) depending on the ancient church canons and the

writings of several fathers of the early Church. This part is derived from the Old Testament and

the New Testament, the writings of the alleged apostolic origin, Canons of the early Councils,

and the writings of the early Church Fathers. Although the Fetha Nagast is a collection of

precepts and laws from the Ethiopic churches that were practiced throughout the centuries, it is

further based on adopted laws from the powerful Christian nations of antiquity and contains

many provisions that stem from Roman and Byzantine laws. 50 The presence of religious laws in

the collection of laws that governed the empire of Ethiopia points to the centrality of religion in

the state until the official separation of the EOTC and the state, which took place in 1974.

Chapter 95 of the Kebra Nagast (another authoritative book of the church) confirmed the EOTC

48
The Nomocanon of Ibn al- 'Assal was written and compiled to guide the Christian Coptic people living
among Egypt’s Muslims. See more on Tzadua, Kebra Nagast, xvi.
49
Tzadua, Fetḥa Nagast, xv.
50
The Fetha Nagast became a respected book in Jamaica. Tzadua notes, “When Ethiopia's stature as an
impendent African monarchy helped to catalyze the emergence of the Ras Tafari religion in Jamaica, the Fetha
Nagast acquired new status as a revered book outside Ethiopia; in 2002, copies of this translation were printed for
distribution within that religious community.” Please see more on this Tzadua, Fetḥa Nagast, xxxv.

73
as the legitimate religion of Abyssinia by the decree of God and also expressed a tension

between Christianity and the Judaic roots of Ethiopia. 51 The second part (chapters 23–51) deals

with secular or civil matters depending mainly on Roman-Byzantine laws. It is mainly based on

the four-book collection of laws commonly known as the ‘Canons of the Kings.’ This book is

well known in Ethiopia, and it is also widely available, mainly because of the numerous printed

editions available. 52

Although the compilation of the Fetha Nagast began with the Church’s governing law and

rules of organization and conduct, it has been venerated, supported, and applied by the Church

and the government for centuries. It governed the Ethiopian empire for centuries and signified

the influence and place of religion in the secular law and government because it is also

represented the imperial law that governed the people of the empire of Ethiopia. Its core revolves

around laws that are derived from Christian notions of morality and holiness. Therefore, for

Ethiopians, these laws were not outside impositions; rather, the laws keep with the Ethiopian

notions of justice and morality because the compilation begins with the Church’s governing law

and rules of organization and conduct.

In sum, the survival and domestic application of the Fetha Nagast, which has been well-

recorded and documented for centuries, must be considered one of the essential historical

references that enforce the ritual system of the Eucharist celebration in Ethiopian Christian

history. Therefore, in the pages that follow we examine the criteria, which are documented

throughout these two authoritative documents that set forth how one gains worthy admission to

51
Please see more in Budge, Sir E.A. Wallis, trans. The Kebra Nagast: Book of the Glory of Kings (Great
Britain: Aziloth Books, 2013), 161. Furthermore, see also Sirgu Galaw, trans. The Kebra Nagast: Ge’ez and
Amharic (Addis Abeba: BerhanenaSelam, 2005), 109.
52
When the Arabs invaded Ethiopia, “the copies already been printed, but not distributed were burnt together
with the printing press.” Tzadua, Fetḥa Nagast, v.

74
the Eucharist.

Worthiness in the Qeddassé and the Fetha Nagast

The EOTC Qeddassé is a highly complex ceremony and highly apophatic, making it

extremely mystical, spiritual, and ritualistic. For example, the celebrant disperses incense twice

during the divine service, first around the altar at the beginning of the service and then before the

Gospel reading. The Gospel itself is treated with veneration, demonstrated by the fact that when

it is read aloud it is sheltered under the ornate umbrella that conveys honor and respect. That

same umbrella is later opened over the chalice. Then the Bible is covered in a delicately

embroidered garment and passed around the Church for the attendees to kiss. 53 This entails that

during the Qeddassé service in the EOTC, hearing the Gospel is supplemented by physical

devotional contact with it.

The term Qeddassé in the EOTC is much deeper than the English translation of “liturgy.” It

offers readers a precious resource for understanding the Ethiopian tradition, as well as its

theology, spirituality, and Christian lifestyle. The word Qeddassé means ‘hallowing’ and/or

‘sanctifying,’ requiring purity and holiness both from those who lead and those who attend the

Qeddassé (Lev. 11:44) which holds the most fundamental doctrines of the EOTC. The entire

Eucharistic Qeddassé, doctrine, and theology of the Church articulates the way in which one can

worthily partake of the Eucharist, preserving the liturgical tradition and teaching adopted from

the anaphoras of the early church fathers. According to the EOTC’s Qeddassé and the writings of

the Fetha Nagast, priests and all faithful members of the Church must exercise control over all

physical senses so that no obscure sins may enter the heart. In doing this, the attendees may

53
Chaillot, Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Tradition, 106.

75
change into the status of an angel. Wet compares angelic status with the holiness of the priest and

links it to the Consecration of the Sacrament when he notes, “This angelic status is necessary for

the transubstantiation of the Eucharist... Whilst their [priests’] social status is concerned with the

management of human bodies in the Christian community located in the sinful πόλις, their

liturgical status is concerned with the control, regulation, and management of the mystical body

of Christ present during the rite of the Eucharist.” 54 Thus, both clergy and laypeople who

participate in the Qeddassé and partake of the Eucharist must properly prepare, which may, in

turn, lead them to attain angelic status. The liturgical celebration is so serious that each

individual must ask himself before attending the Qeddassé, “What do I have to offer? What am I

willing to give to make growth occur in this encounter? Rather than what May I expect to get

from it?” 55

Besides our exploration of the things that are prohibited to be observed before, during, and

after partaking of the Eucharist, we now present some of the obligations of preparation and show

how the danger of approaching the Eucharist is depicted in the Qeddassé and the Fetha Nagast,

respectively. To begin with, the danger of approaching the Sacrament unworthily begins with the

Preparatory Service of the Qeddassé, which gives warnings to those who attend the liturgical

service late because late attendance of the Divine Service disqualifies one from partaking of the

Communion. The Preparatory Service stipulates this fact and notes, “If there be any one of the

faithful that hath entered the Church at the time of mass and hath not heard the Holy Scriptures,

and hath not waited until they finish the prayer of the Mass, let him be driven out of the Church:

54
Wet, “Priestly Body,” 7. Wet used the language of Transubstantiation in his observation of the EOTC’s
understanding of the Eucharist. However, the EOTC, does not talk much about transubstantiation or attempt to
explain how the change takes place; rather, they prefer to refer to the Eucharist as a sacrifice, which is offered on the
altar by the EOTC’s priest.
55
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 6.

76
for he hath violated the law of God and disdained to stand before the heavenly King, the King of

Body and Spirit. This, the Apostles have taught us in their canons.” 56

Another fact that intensifies the experience of partaking of the Eucharist is the use of the

term ‘consuming fire.’ The danger of approaching the Sacrament, which is pictured through the

‘consuming fire,’ referring to the Sacrifice of the altar is fully utilized in the Qeddassé.

According to the EOTC’s teaching, God presents himself in the sacrifice as a ‘consuming fire’

(Deut. 4:24; Heb. 12:29) that burns sinners who approach the Eucharistia Sacrificium ‘in an

unworthy manner.’ The assistant priest issues a declaration to the people to ensure that they

qualify for the Eucharist before chewing the consuming fire. He declares, “He that is pure let him

receive of the oblation [Eucharist] and he that is not pure let him not receive it, that he may not

be consumed by the fire of the godhead which is prepared for the devil and his angels.” 57 The

Anaphora of St. Mary 6−8 confirms the supremacy of the Eucharistic Sacrifice by comparing it

to the animals sacrificed in the Old Testament using the picture of a ‘consuming fire.’ It notes,

“It is not like the Sacrifice of the forefathers which depended upon the blood of sheep, oxen, and

cows, but it is fire. Truly it is the fire that even the fire clad Cherubim and Seraphim cannot

touch... It is a consuming fire to the unrighteous who denied His name.” 58

Likewise, Isa. 6:1−8 is appealed to for this representation of the body and blood of Christ

in the Eucharist as a consuming fire. One of the prayers at the Consecration of the Cross-Spoon

13 says, “Lay Thy hand now on this holy cross-spoon which is Thine; bless it, sanctify it, and

give it power as thou didst give to the tongs which were in the hand of one of the Seraphim, the

56
Liturgy Book, 3 and 5.
57
Liturgy Book, 57; and Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 41. (Emphasis mine).
58
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 74.

77
holy angels, for the purification of the lips of Isaiah the Prophet.” 59 Consequently, the EOTC

believes that similar to the apostles who became divinized as they shared from the holy and

divine Supper, the faithful believers are to become the bearers of Christ through the same

liturgical celebration of the ‘consuming fire.’

The Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom 85 also testifies to the danger of approaching the

‘consuming fire’ (the Eucharist) as a sinner. St. Chrysostom notes, “This bread is not useless as

you see it earthly dry, baked, able to be felt and touched, but it is the fire of the Godhead, which

burns the thorn of sin. It is so consuming that it consumes the wicked; it is so burning that it

burns the sinners.” 60 St. Chrysostom commands each individual to examine themselves before

partaking of the Eucharist seriously, and he defines self-examination in terms of searching for a

‘blemish in the body’ and ‘sin in the soul’ of the faithful so that the attendees may immediately

decide to either depart from Communion or partake of it. 61 In the Anaphora of St. Mary 142, the

priest emphasizes the consuming character of the Holy Eucharist, saying, “It is the fire of the

godhead. What mouth is that which takes in this bread, what teeth and those which masticate the

bread, and what stomach is that which can contain this bread?” 62 St. Cyril of Alexandria is no

different from the other fathers in his description of the Sacrament as a Divine fire that consumes

those who cannot purify their body and soul. He notes, “It is fearful of opening the lips to eat

burning fire and swallow glowing coal if the belly is not purified from deceit.” 63 In this context,

59
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 11.
60
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 141.
61
In his anaphora, St. Chrysostom focuses on examining one’s Christian lifestyle before partaking in the
Eucharist by emphasizing the holiness of the sacrifice on the altar. In his homily on 1 Cor. 11, as we shall see
towards the end of this chapter, he mainly defines the question of worthiness in terms of one’s commitment to
Christian charity and almsgiving.
62
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 83.
63
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 148.

78
the purification of the belly from deceit is most likely referring to the complete fasting from food

before the sharing of the Eucharist, as we shall shortly see in the Fetha Nagast.

The emphasis on the Eucharist as a ‘consuming fire,’ however, has been misunderstood by

members of the Church. It has gotten to the point where it terrifies those who intend to partake of

the Sacrifice but recognized that they were sinners and therefore felt unworthy. Due to the

strictness of the preparation for the Eucharist, members of the Church developed feelings that

they could not make themselves pure and worthy, concluding they should avoid partaking of the

Eucharist altogether. The liturgy further explains that this consuming fire is a fire prepared for

the devil and his angels for their eternal damnation together with those who dare partake of the

Eucharist without carefully observing the sacramental obligations. The destiny of those who fail

to observe the sacramental obligations but still participate in the Sacrament, even though

unworthy, are both cut off from the community in the here and now while also being promised

eternal damnation in the coming world. The unworthy partakers are put in the same category as

Judas Iscariot, who was cursed and cast away amongst God’s people. At the same time, those

who are worthy and attend the Sacrament are considered divinized by the Sacrament and their

own merit.

In sum, the ‘consuming fire’ image of the Sacrament ends up terrorizing the attendees,

leading them to the wrong conclusion and causing them to stay away from the service of the

Sacrament in order to avoid God’s judgment. The recurring image of the ‘coal of fire’ has

overshadowed the mercy and the grace of God made available through the prayer in the

Qeddassé and, ultimately, through the sharing of the Eucharist itself.

When we carefully read the whole Qeddassé, however, we see the opposite: the early

church fathers’ prayer in the anaphoras beseech God to make the attendees worthy for the

79
Sacrament and make the Sacrifice acceptable. The EOTC’s preparatory service of the Qeddassé

stipulates that the adherents think of their sins seriously and ask forgiveness so that they may

obtain mercy from God before partaking in the Sacrifice. After the priest enters the Holy of

Holies in the Preparatory Service, he prays, “Make us worthy of this thy holy mystery, remove

every evil thought and lust which war against our soul that we may offer to Thee a sacrifice and

a sweet heavenly savior without blemish and defilement.” 64

Throughout the Qeddassé the Eucharistic prayer attests to how the Holy Spirit descends

from heaven to overshadow and sanctify both the Sacrifice and the attendees. The Qeddassé also

testifies that the same Spirit bestows His divine power and grace to transform the priest to

become worthy for the celebration of the Sacrifice, rather than the priest making himself worthy

for the Sacrifice. For example, The Anaphora of St. Gregory of Nyssa, a brother of St. Basil,

writes a priest’s prayer in the Qeddassé, asking God to make those who should not draw near the

Sacrifice clean of their sinfulness through the power of God’s word which they hear before they

commune. 65 The Prayer of the Fraction in the Anaphora of the Apostles shows a prayer

requesting God to make the attendees worthy through sharing the body and the blood of Christ. It

notes, “And again we beseech the Almighty God, the Father our Lord and our Savior Jesus

Christ to grant us to take of this holy mystery [Eucharist] with blessing, to grant to us

confirmation and not to condemn any of us, but to make worthy all that partake of the holy

mystery, of the body and blood of Christ.” 66 In this citation, the question of worthiness is seen as

64
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 14.
65
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 123.
66
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, The Liturgy Book of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church:
Preparatory Service, Anaphora of the Apostles and Anaphora of St. Dioscorus (Haile Selase University: Lion of
Judah Society’s Imperial, 2012), 77. See also Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 46.

80
a gift to the partakers through the mystery of sharing the Sacrifice. In the Anaphora of St. Cyril

of Alexandria, in the Prayer of Fraction 105, the priest prays, “Let us also entreat the almighty

Lord our God that He makes us worthy even of the Communion and participation of His divine

and undying mysteries, the holy body and the precious blood of His Christ.” 67

In addition to prayers presented to God for worthiness in the Qeddassé, the early church

fathers witness how the faithful need to approach the Sacrament by grace through faith,

anticipating the forgiveness of sins and salvation offered through sharing the Lord’s body and

blood. In the same Anaphora of the Apostles, and under the Prayer of Penitence which occurs

after the leading priest points to the bread and the wine he prays, “This is the true precious blood

of our Lord and our God and our Savior Jesus Christ, which is given for life and salvation and

for the remission of sin unto those who drink of it in faith.” 68 The chief priest attests the role of

God’s grace and his wisdom to the attendees in the Anaphora of our Lord 13, “Let us come near

the medicine of life. Let us receive the holiness which is granted unto us by grace through the

wisdom of the Lord.” 69

In contrast to this almost Evangelical approach, when we look at the portion of the Fetha

Nagast, which details the practice surrounding the Eucharist, αξίως is rendered in its adjectival

form further stipulating that participants in the Eucharist are required to make their “soul good”

and “saintly” and return to the status of angels before they partake of the Sacrament. 70 It

67
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 117.
68
Ethiopian Church, Liturgy Book, 89. The priest continues praying to say, “I believe, I believe, I believe,
and I confess that his godhead was not separated from his manhood, not for an hour nor the twinkling of an eye, but
he gave it up for our sakes for the life and for salvation and for the remission of sin unto them that partake of it in
faith.” See on p. 91.
69
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 59.
70
Strauss, Fetha Nagast, 86 and 94; Wondmagegnehu and Motovu, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 35−41; and
Habte Michael Kidane, “Eucharist,” in Encyclopaedia Aethiopicaz, 2nd ed, ed. Siegbert Uhlig (Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag, 2005), 449.

81
particularly emphasizes the obligation to fully fast before partaking of the Eucharist and

approach the Sacrifice in worthiness, possibly under the advice of a priest. Abba Tzadua notes,

“No one shall receive the Eucharist unless he fasts with purity, and if any faithful, man or

woman, has tested [food] and then dares receive the Eucharist, he shall be perpetually expelled

from the church of the Lord.” 71

As seen in the previous chapter, the recognition of fasting as a ritual is essential to a valid

account of its significance in Ethiopian Orthodoxy. In the EOTC, fasting is a spiritual exercise,

and the obligation of fasting is not just restricted to those who attend the Liturgy and partake of

the Eucharist. Nevertheless, for young members of the Church who do not regularly attend the

church service and partake of the Eucharist, observing fasts can be a reassurance and affirmation

of their Christianity; or for the strict observers of the liturgy it can be an act of devotion to God;

for the saints and the clergy, and for those who cannot attend the Church for many reasons, it is a

way to participate in religious practice. 72 The Fetha Nagast instructs that “fasting does not

consist merely of [taking] bread and water only; the fast which is acceptable before God is living

in the purity of heart. If the body is hungry and thirsty, but the soul eats whatever it likes, and the

heart is entirely given to delights, what benefit derives from your fast?” 73

According to Shaw, the importance of fasting in the EOTC indicates a profound

recognition that “the soul’s character and condition are subject to the bodily influence, and

71
Tzadua, Fetha Nagast, 86.
72
The importance of fasting in the EOTC is observed insofar members are not permitted to be married in the
church during fasting seasons because feasting is the opposite of fasting. No marriage and/or funeral church services
are permitted during the great fast or ordinary fasting days.
73
Tzadua, Fetha Nagast, 96.

82
therefore also to bodily management.” 74 In other words, fasting serves to weaken the sinful

desire of the body and is considered a weapon to punish sinful desire of the body so that the body

may obey the rational soul, having a transformative impact on the person. The Fetha Nagast

notes,

Fasting is the tribute of the body, just as giving alms is the tribute of wealth. The
purpose of the law in imposing fasting is to weaken the force of concupiscence and
make the latter submit to the rational soul, just as the purpose of prayer is to make the
force of anger submit to the mind. Furthermore, through the benefit we derive from
fasting, we resemble Spiritual [beings]. With this resemblance, he who emulates
gains the power to approach the [spiritual] model. 75

Thus, the effect of fasting is somehow a subtle transformation of a person that places him in

religious orientation and is considered an act of self-formation.

In addition, fasting is required before taking Communion because “the person who fasts is

enabled to realize the suffering of hunger and may have pity for the hungry and those who ask

for alms.” 76 The Fetha Nagast teaches that fasting is a tribute of the body just as giving alms to

the needy is the tribute of wealth. It encompasses abstaining from all other factors that give

delight to the body because, according to the EOTC, mortification is the most appropriate means

to attain purity. It is by fasting that the EOTC members tend to define themselves as Christians.

Members who observe a fast more strictly than what is commanded in the law shall receive a

greater reward which enables them to resemble the spiritual beings.

In particular, the obligation of fasting is combined with prayer and almsgiving, which is

enforced both upon the clergy and the laymen. The Fetha Nagast warns of perpetual expulsion

74
Teresa M. Shaw, The Burden of the Flesh: Fasting and Sexuality in Early Christianity (Minneapolis:
Fortune, 1998), 33.
75
Strauss, Fetha Nagast, 94.
76
Strauss, Fetha Nagast, 94.

83
from the Church unless one fasts with purity in prayer and almsgiving before partaking the

Sacrament. 77 It further stipulates that “anyone who, without being impeded by physical illness,

does not fast during the Lenten time or on Wednesdays and Fridays, shall be deposed.” 78 The

Arabic text of the Fetha Nagast specifies the kinds of punishment against those who fail to fast,

noting, “If he is a priest, he shall be deposed, and if he is a layman, he shall be segregated.” 79

For the EOTC, almsgiving often goes along with fasting and prayer. When one prays and

fasts, one must show love through active generosity to the poor in order for them to be sinless

and clean, as the EOTC’s Scripture (which include the Apocrypha books) teaches that

almsgiving purges sin. For example, The Book of Tobit says, “It is better to give alms than to

store up gold, for almsgiving saves from death, and purges all sin. Those who give alms will

enjoy a full life.” [12:9]. Likewise, the Fetha Nagast affirms, “Everyone must believe that alms

purify from sin, forgive the fault and save from evil; because of giving them one receives a

double reward. He who, while able, neglects to give alms is like the infidel and the wicked.” 80

The Fetha Nagast offers further instructions to be followed before partaking of the

Eucharist that demonstrate that the liturgy goes beyond helpful practice to meticulous strictures

that exceed any kind of Scriptural warrant. It notes that the faithful must not swim or brush their

teeth or gargle with water to avoid the risk of accidentally swallowing the water, which leads to

breaking the fasting. Breaking the fast during one’s preparation for communion will cause

punishment on par with the ex-communication referred to in Lev. 7:20, which results in being

cut off from the community in general and the family in particular. It compares the defiled

77
Strauss, Fetha Nagast, 86−87.
78
Strauss, Fetha Nagast, 61.
79
Strauss, Fetha Nagast, 61n37.
80
Tzadua, Kebra Nagast, 101.

84
people who approach the sacrifice in Lev. 7:20 with the unworthy Christians who partake of the

Eucharistic sacrifice without fasting and rigorously observe the sacramental obligations. Moses

warned the people who approached the sacrifice, “If anyone eats of the sacrifice of the Lord

while defiled, his soul shall be cut off from his people.” 81 Likewise, anyone who partakes of the

Eucharistic sacrifice without being worthy through the Eucharistic obligation of the Church shall

be excommunicated from God’s people and will be destroyed together with the devil at the

second coming of Christ. 82

The intensity of the strict observance is further acted out in the handwashing of the priest,

followed by the announcement of the assistant priest sending those who feel unworthy away

from the Church. The officiating priest washes his hands twice and announces that he is free of

the sin of anyone who takes the Eucharist while being unworthy, and once his hands are washed,

he touches only the bread and the chalice. The presiding priest says right before distributing the

Sacrament, “As I have cleansed my hands from outward pollution, so also I am pure from the

blood of you all. If you presumptuously draw nigh to the body and blood of Christ, I will not be

responsible for your reception thereof. I am sure of your wickedness, but your sin will return

upon your head if you do not draw nigh in purity.” 83 Then the assisting deacon declares, “You,

who do not receive the Eucharist, get out.” 84

The presiding priest is not washing his hands to make his hands clean; rather, the

performance of washing the hands implies the hand washing of Pontius Pilate, who declared

81
Strauss, Fetha Nagast, 86.
82
Strauss, Fetha Nagast, 61−62.
83
Liturgy Book, 57; and Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 41. Similarly, in the Preparatory Service IV
47, the priest declares his innocence against the fate of those who would dare to take communion without proper
participation.
84
Strauss, Fetha Nagast, 84.

85
himself blameless in the condemnation of Christ. Indeed, all the clergy wash their hands, body,

and clothes before they enter into the holy of holies as an obligation to their priesthood office;

however, the second washing of the hands in front of the congregants around the holy altar is to

emphasize and intensify the need to be personally cleansed of all sins and transgressions and take

the responsibility of approaching the ‘consuming fire’ without being sinless. The hands stand for

people’s daily actions, and in washing them, they symbolize purity and blamelessness of action

before coming to the sharing of the mysterious Sacrament.

In the EOTC, besides hand washing, the symbolic expression of ‘kissing one another with

the holy kiss in front of the holy altar and the call for reconciliation between neighbors before

sharing the Eucharist is helpfully connected to the call for worthiness that is expressed

persistently in the Qeddassé and the Fetha Nagast and in Scripture. For instance, the Anaphora

of St. Basil the Great, Bishop of Caesarea, right before the order of the Holy Kiss stipulates, “O

Lord, in thy goodwill, fill the hearts of us all and purify us from corruption and all excess, and

from all revenge and envy and from all wrong-doing and from the remembrance of ill which

clothes with death. And make us all meet to salute one another with a holy salutation.” 85 This is

connected to Jesus’ teaching in the sermon on the Mount that commands Christians to leave their

gift before the altar and go and first be reconciled with their neighbors, and only then can they

come and offer their gift (Matt 5:24). Failure to do the reconciliation before the sharing of the

Eucharist may make the person unworthy, and it may also defile their sacrifice (the Eucharist)

which they offer to God as an offering gift. 86

85
Ethiopian Church, Liturgy Book, 59.
86
The commandment of reconciliation before offering your gift at the altar in the Gospel of Matthew does
not directly relate to the question of being personally worthy for the Sacrament. Moreover, an individual’s failure to
make reconciliation before the sharing of the Eucharist does not defile the Sacrifice of the Altar.

86
 Other Means of Becoming Worthy

The EOTC Qeddassé stipulates other sacramental obligations that must be observed by the

faithful members and maintained by them before, during, and after partaking of the Eucharist. To

begin with, among various means of becoming spiritually worthy, የንሰሃ ጸሎት (yeniseha ts’eloti)

translated as the ‘Prayer of Penance’ is what faithful members should strictly observe. Penance is

one of the seven sacraments of the Church. It is seen as a process of worthiness and divinization

achieved through deeds until the person becomes a master over their sin and becomes spiritually

worthy. Before the service of the Eucharist, individuals must make a private confession of sin to

the priest and then carefully do what the priest orders until they receive the final private

absolution. This process is also seen as a process of sanctification and deification to help the

person meet the conditions.

There are three significant elements in penance: confession of sins, good deeds, and

absolution. Individuals confess their everyday sins to the priests, and then they receive ritualistic

orders tantamount to the nature of their sins which they confessed to the priest. It could include

the order of fasting and prayer, prostrations, recitation of psalms, making a vow of gifts to the

Church in the name of saints, and others. The Orthodox Church priests are the ones who give

prescriptions and later the absolution. They are considered spiritual doctors who can diagnose sin

and prescribe proper medications for whatever sinful passions afflict one’s soul and body. 87

Public confession of sins before the Church’s Eucharistic worship have become part of the

Church’s doctrine since the fourth century AD. Confession of sins as part of penance has become

part of the individual member’s program to help the members pass the qualifications. Only then,

when they meet the conditions, they are considered personally worthy of the Eucharist and are

87
Wondmagegnehu and Motovu, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 33−34.

87
permitted by the priest to partake of the Eucharist. Penance begins with a private confession of

sins to the priest followed by doing the prescribed good deeds, and it is finalized by receiving

absolution from the priest. This is a required act seen as a process making members of the

Church gradually worthy to receive the Eucharist. Thus, there is a strong link between private

confession of everyday sin (as a sacramental obligation), penance (as a gradual healing process),

and the Eucharist as the central focus of all Orthodox Christian life.

Second, just like penance, faithful church members must participate in the complete service

of the Qeddassé. The participants should be present from the very beginning of the Liturgy until

the attendees receive absolution. An attendee who cannot attend the whole Liturgy from the

beginning to the end must not receive Holy Communion and is segregated and set apart from the

communing members. 88 The Fetha Nagast stipulates, “The faithful men and women shall always

stand during the prayer of the Eucharist, singing lauds and beseeching God, and shall restrain

themselves from speaking in the church.” 89 Appropriate participation in the Qeddassé requires

proper preparation because it is, after all, a divine encounter just like those that were given to

Abraham, Jacob, and Moses. It takes forethought; it takes honest personal prayer that includes a

change of heart. It means that proper celebration of the Liturgy anticipates “the passing of this

world as God’s kingdom is already breaking through into our cosmos.” 90

Just like penance, the prayer of the Qeddassé is recited before the distribution of the

Sacrament and includes in it the same three elements: confession of sins, good deeds, and

absolution. The liturgical confession of sins is made communally in a congregational setting.

88
Strauss, Fetha Nagast, 82.
89
Strauss, Fetha Nagast, 86.
90
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 6

88
Whenever the deacon names a list of sins, the people are to say at every pause, “According to thy

mercy, our God, and not according to our sins.” This phrase must be repeated three times by the

congregants at every pause. Then, good deeds done during the liturgical service are a growth

mark in the process of sanctification and an expression of exterior reverence. For example, the

good deeds can be kissing the Bible in the deacon’s hands, kneeling, and bowing deeply before

the Eucharistic elements when they are passed around the congregation to show their adoration

towards the elements and which are also accompanied by bell ringing and incense that fills the

air. It is believed that such an act calls for mental and emotional attention and results in fear,

awe, and distancing oneself from sinful thought.

Finally, during the service of the Liturgy, faithful members receive absolution of sins at

two specific points. The first absolution is called ፍትሀተ: ዘወልድ (fitihāte zewelidi: ‘Absolution

of the Son of God’), i.e., the prayer addressed to Christ by the officiating priest followed by the

litany and forgiveness imparted by the same priest and experienced by Christian penitents. The

second absolution is through ፍትሀተ: እጣን (fitihāte: it’ani), meaning ‘Absolution in Incense,’

which is an offering presented by the priest in order to receive forgiveness of sins and not

condemnation in the Eucharist. 91

The sacramental obligation is restricted to before the service and must be maintained

during and after the service of the Communion. The faithful men and women must stand

throughout the entire prayer service for the Eucharist, except for when they are prostrating

themselves or bowing down. They sing aloud and beseech God with intense fear. They also are

required to refrain from speaking in the Church when not beseeching God with their songs and

91
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 24−25, 27.

89
prayers. The Prayer of Faith in the Preparatory Service says, “If there be any who disdains this

word of the priest or laughs or speaks or stands in the church in an impudent manner, let him

know and understand that he is provoking to wrath our Lord Jesus Christ, and bringing upon

himself a curse instead of a blessing, and will get from God the fire of hell instead of the

remission of sin.” 92 The preparatory service continues warning those who speak during the

service of the liturgy, “When the message of the earthly King is being read no one may speak, or

if presumptuously he does speak he will suffer punishment and tribulation, how much greater

punishment will he suffer who speaks while the message of heavenly King is being read?” 93 In

case of laughing during mass (intentionally or unintentionally), the person will be prescribed one

more week of fasting as a punishment, and he shall immediately be sent off from the Eucharist

service. 94 If the one who laughs during the mass celebration is the clergyman, he must be

punished with one week of fasting but is not asked to leave the service. 95

The sacramental obligation must also be maintained afterward, as is evident from Rev.

Daoud’s explanation of the Anaphora of the Apostles 166, “After partaking of the Holy

Communion one shall not wash his hands or feet, shall not take of his clothes, or bow down or

kneel, shall not spit or commit bloodletting nor cut his nails or hair nor got to a public bathing

place [swim], nor eat or drink too much, nor indulge in any excess nor another occasion of sin.

None of these or the like should be done after receiving the Holy Communion.” 96 The Fetha

92
Ethiopian Church, Liturgy Book, 57; and Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 41.
93
Ethiopian Church , Liturgy Book, 45. The Fetha Nagast also gives orders saying that the one who talks in
the Church during the mass service should be sent off for that one time, and he must not be allowed to receive the
Eucharist. Strauss, Fetha Nagast, 82.
94
Strauss, Fetha Nagast, 82.
95
Strauss, Fetha Nagast, 61.
96
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 56.

90
Nagast instructs, “No one shall drink water, nor shall anyone cover [mix] the Eucharist he

received with [ordinary] bread before the dismissal, and from the water [taken] to wash [the

mouth afterward], nothing shall trickle out of the mouth.” 97

In sum, members who can distance themselves from sin and sinful thoughts both internally

and externally, keep the sacramental obligations, and pass through a strict self-examination

process through penance, rituals, and proper participation in the Liturgy are the only people who

will benefit from the gift of the Sacrament. Faithful members thus confess their sins frequently

during the service, do good deeds, and receive absolution of sins to become worthy to receive the

Lord’s Supper. In other words, the sacramental obligations in the EOTC are processes of

divinization and growth marks of sanctification that one must achieve. Steven Kaplan notes,

“The public ritual of the Mass was often the vehicle for the dramatization of important issues of

church discipline, communal borders, and social-political status. Only those judged worthy by

standards of the Church were entitled to receive Communion with their fellow believers.” 98

Eucharistic Sacrifice

In the EOTC liturgy, as it currently stands, there is another factor that stands in the way of

participation in the Eucharist: the fact that the Eucharist itself is equated with the sacrifice of

Christ. As Abba Tzadua notes, “if anyone eats of the Sacrifice of the Lord while defiled, his soul

shall be cut off from his people.” 99

The EOTC Eucharistic prayer in the liturgy calls the Eucharist a Sacrifice, stating that this

sacrifice is an act of worship that the priest and the entire worshippers offer to God. In the

97
Tzadua, Fetha Nagast, 87.
98
Steven Kaplan, “The Social and Religious Functions of the Eucharist in Medieval Ethiopia,” Annales
d'Ethiopie 19, no. 1 (June 2003): 7−18.
99
Tzadua, Fetha Nagast, 86.

91
Preparatory Service III, 23 of the liturgy, after the chief priest pleads with the whole

congregation to pray for him and the Sacrifice on the altar, the assistant priest prays for the

leading priest, saying, “May God hear you in all that you have asked and accept your sacrifice

and offering like the sacrifice of Melchizedek and Aaron and Zacharias, the priests of the church

of the firstborn.” 100 Then the priest continues consecrating the elements beseeching God to

change the elements into the actual body and blood of the Lord. In the Anaphora of the Apostles,

after the prayer of the preparation of the Holy Communion, the priest prays, “Let the Holy Spirit

descend on this served Holy of Holies [Eucharist]” then, the people reply, “The Holy Spirit will

descend upon the bread and wine and towards the flesh and blood. His special Spirit will

transform them in an instant with his wisdom.” 101

Thus, the EOTC priest assumes the role of the Old Testament priest and becomes the

mediator between man and God without whom there is no forgiveness and salvation. The

elements themselves are referred to as the Sacrifice, meaning that Christ, as a victim, is being

brought to the Altar. After the assistant priest embraces the presiding priest, he prays in the

second chapter of the Preparatory Service 25, “May the Lord keep your priesthood and accept

your sacrifice and offering with a gracious countenance.” 102 This implies that the language of

Sacrifice in the EOTC is that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is something the Church brings to God,

and it is a sacrifice that the Church offers to God as a spiritual act of worship. In this regard, one

is led to ask: Is the Eucharistic Sacrifice what Christ does for the Church as an act of grace that

the Church receives from Christ? Or is the Eucharistic Sacrifice an act of worship that the priest

100
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 21.
101
Ethiopian Church, Liturgy Book, 93.
102
Daoud, Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church, 21.

92
and the entire congregation offer to God? In the EOTC, admittedly, the sacrificial language of

the Eucharist is sometimes referred to as the act of offering prayerful thanksgiving for the person

and work of Jesus through the Eucharistic celebration. In contrast, the Eucharistic elements

themselves are referred to as the Sacrifice brought to God on the Altar. However, in both cases,

the Eucharistic Sacrifice is something brought to God by the Church. The Eucharistic Sacrifice is

the Church’s offering presented to God as an act of worship.

Conceivably, the most apparent evidence that the Eucharist has been viewed as a sacrifice

in the EOTC is found in the present-day Amharic term used to name the Eucharist. The Amharic

word for Eucharist is ቁርባን (k’uribani), which according to Wolf Leslau means ‘offering,’ ‘gift,’

‘dedication,’ ‘thanksgiving,’ and ‘Host.’ 103 It is similar to the word ‘korban’ which Jesus used in

Matt. 15:6 and Mark 7:11 in reference to the Jewish practice of offerings for the temple treasury.

The commonly used Amharic term is መስዋእት (mesiwa’iti), which only means ‘Sacrifice.’ 104

The latter term appears at numerous points throughout the entire Liturgy as a designation of the

Eucharist. 105 Thus, the use of the two terms interchangeably in the EOTC’s Liturgy

communicates the best and most representative theology of the Eucharistia Sacrificium of the

Holy Communion. As indicated in the prayers of the presiding priests in the EOTC liturgy, just

like the Old Testament bloody sacrifice made by the priests, the Eucharist is considered an

unbloody sacrifice constantly offered by the high priest on the Altar. 106 Similar to the Old

103
Wolf Leslau, Comparative Dictionary of Ge’ez (Classical Ethiopic): Ge’ez-English/English-Ge’ez, with
an Index of the Semitic Roots (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987), 440−42.
104
Leslau, Dictionary of Ge’ez, 440.
105
Hammerschmidt, Ethiopic Anaphoras, 37−38.
106
Wondmagegnehu and Motovu, Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 103. In the EOTC, before priests get
ordained, they must spend two years as a Qollo Temari, a period of mendicancy in which they must travel far away
from their family and other sources of support and live only on alms. Their separation from society is achieved

93
Testament sacrificial theology, which required Jews to go through a strict cultic purification

system to make them worthy for the Sacrifice, the New Testament Sacrifice (the Eucharist),

according to the EOTC, requires partakers to be similarly pure and clean in order to qualify for

making and receiving the Sacrifice.

According to the EOTC’s teaching, Jesus never held an eternal high priesthood office after

his exaltation. Instead, Jesus’ exaltation is an affirmation of his human task as the high priest that

demonstrates that he fully returns to his divine majesty and glory afterward. The present high

priestly ministry of Christ is limited to his past work on the Cross, which is linked only to the

Eucharistic Sacrifice that is daily offered in the hands of priests. In other words, no longer does

Jesus function as the high priest; rather, his greatness and exaltation are perceived as his

remoteness along with the termination of his office as the high priest. The only continuity of

Christ’s present ministry is through the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which grants Christ’s human

priestly function to the daily activities of the priests. The EOTC believes that a faithful Christian

needs the flesh and blood of Christ sacrificed on the altar as a continuation of the Sacrifice of

Christ that washes away sins. This implies that it is not the priestly ministry of Christ but instead

his past Sacrifice that continues for the present needs of believers. The EOTC priests serve as

mediators between God and sinners and are therefore called vicars of Christ, as they hold his

priestly office on earth. 107

In general, the adaptation of the Old Testament view of Sacrifice is vigorously presented

throughout the EOTC’s Liturgy. The expression “holy things for holy people” becomes the

theme of the word of invitation to the Eucharist, and the receivers need to chew the Holy

through poverty, which keeps them away from the profane, gives them control over their bodies, and qualifies them
for the priestly office.
107
Ethiopian Orthodox Church, The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Faith, 43.

94
Sacrifice in great fear and trembling without making any sound. The people, in other words, are

holy not because of Christ’s Sacrifice for them, so much as because of their own preparations for

worthiness which are based on the Old Testament ritual purity laws observed before sacrifices in

the Old Testament were to be offered.

Ἀναξίως in St. John Chrysostom’s Homily

St. John Chrysostom’s teaching concerning Christian virtue in relation to the worthy

admission and celebration of the Eucharist is primarily apparent through the picture of poverty

and charity like the EOTC’s teaching regarding worthy admission to the Eucharist through the

lens of Christian’s responsibility in charity and almsgiving. The act of charity to the poor, as a

virtuous act, becomes St. Chrysostom’s focus in his interpretation of the word ἀναξίως implying

the commitment to serve the poor as a type of spiritual worship that grows out of proper

observance of the Sacrament. When we see St. Chrysostom’s Homily XXVII on 1 Cor. 11:27,

we find him strongly stipulating a close tie between charity and ἀξίως. 108 He begins the text by

saying that Christians in Corinth were not coming together for better but for the worse, noting,

“ye do not go forward unto virtue. For it was meet that your liberality should increase and

become manifold, but ye have taken rather from the custom which already prevailed, and has so

taken from it as even to need a warning from me, so that ye may return to the former order.” 109

The Corinthians’ virtuous life became weak because of their lack of charity to the poor, which, in

turn, made them guilty of Christ. We see this in his homily because the wealthy Christians in

Corinth poured out the body and the blood of Christ as “a slaughter and no longer as a

108
John Chrysostom,”Homily XXVII on 1 Corinthians 11:27,” in Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the
Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church
12, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 1893), 283.
109
Chrysostom, “Homily XXVII on 1 Corinthians 11:27,” 277.

95
sacrifice.” 110 The Corinthians alienated themselves from Christ, placing themselves among those

who rejected Christ and put him to death rather than among those for whose redemption Christ

died. Thus, the Corinthians would not be among those who benefit from the Sacrament but

would instead be among those who were condemned.

St. Chrysostom clearly defines the Greek term ἀναξίως in the sense of one’s failure in

charity towards the poor. In his Homily XXVII, St. Chrysostom notes,

He that cometh for it [Eucharist] unworthily and reaps no profit thereby. Seest thou
how fearful he makes his discourse and inveighs against them very exceedingly,
signifying that if they are thus to drink, they partake unworthily of the elements? For
how can it be other than unworthily when it is he who neglects the hungry? Who
besides overlooking him puts him to shame? Since if not giving to the poor casteth
one out of the kingdom, even though one should be a virgin; or rather, not giving
liberally: (for even those virgins too had oil, only they had it not abundantly:)
consider how great the evil will prove, to have wrought so many impieties? 111

In the above text, St. Chrysostom greatly exemplifies the need to help the poor and demonstrates

how Christians are responsible for the needs of others. 112 Nonetheless, Chrysostom does shift the

focus from the poor to the Church. He links the act of despising the poor and shaming them as an

equivalent to hating the Church of God and ultimately the Christ who died for the Church. He

notes, “If therefore thou comest for a sacrifice of thanksgiving, do thou on thy part nothing

unworthy of that sacrifice: by no means either dishonor thy brother or neglect him in his hunger;

be not drunken, insult not the Church.” 113 According to St. Chrysostom, partakers must make

their soul pure and perfect before partaking in the Eucharist through charity and virtuous living.

110
Chrysostom, “Homily XXVII on 1 Corinthians 11:27,” 277.
111
Chrysostom, “Homily XXVII on 1 Corinthians 11:27,” 83−84.
112
According to Wet, St. Chrysostom believed that the poor “live[d] like angels due to the disciplinary and
pedagogical nature of poverty.” See Chris L. de Wet, “The Priestly Body: Power-Discourse and Identity in John
Chrysostom’s De Sacerdotio,” Religion and Theology 18 (Brill: University of South Africa, 2011), 6.
113
Chrysostom, “Homily XXVII on 1 Corinthians 11:27,” 82.

96
Like the EOTC’s requirement of making the soul have an equal status to angels and saints, St.

Chrysostom requires a life worthy of the Eucharist. He notes, “Thou hast partook of such a Table

and when thou oughtest to be more gentle than any and like the angels, none so cruel as thou art

become.” 114 Thus, he encourages Christians to live a life worthy of the Sacrament because the

Eucharistic life commits Christians to the poor, and Christians must recognize Christ in the most

destitute.

Although St. Chrysostom emphasizes the need to live a worthy life and encourages

Christians towards charitable acts, almsgiving, fasting and prayer, and self-control of the body

both prior and after partaking of the Sacrament, neither his homily on 1 Cor. 11:17−34 nor his

interpretation of the term ἀναξίως substitutes the adverbial meaning of the word into an adjective

requiring almsgiving or charity as a condition to be ἀξιοί. In contrast, St. Chrysostom notes,

“Notwithstanding, God delivered thee from all those [ten thousand sins] and counted thee worthy

of such a Table: but thou art not even thus become more merciful: therefore of course nothing

else remaineth but that thou shouldest be delivered to the tormentors.” 115 His teaching never

implies that the lack of charity makes the partakers ἀναξιοί (in its adjectival sense). 116 Instead, he

encourages the faithful to pursue charity and virtue as an outcome of being counted ἀξιοί for the

Sacrament employing true faith in Christ.

Almsgiving and charity were St. Chrysostom’s practical advice when the society he lived

in faced inequality between the wealthy and the poor Christians. His sympathy and love towards

his impoverished neighbors were manifested through his charitable works, making him an

114
Chrysostom, “Homily XXVII on 1 Corinthians 11:27,” 283−84.
115
Chrysostom, “Homily XXVII on 1 Corinthians 11:27,” 84.
116
The difference between the adverbial (ἀναξίως) and the adjectival (ἀνάξιοί) reading of the text shall be
analyzed in chapter six under the exegetical analysis of 1 Cor. 11:17−34.

97
ambassador of the poor and a preacher of almsgiving, as he lived among the company of the poor

and the beggars. 117 For St. Chrysostom, “failure to share one’s good with others was equal to

theft, swindle, and fraud.” 118 He had a firm conviction that Christians should deposit their

treasures in heaven, not on earth. And godly use of possessions was justified only by their proper

use in feeding the hungry and supporting the needy, 119 and it is even a determining factor in

whether one enters heaven or goes to hell. 120

The main question then is, does St. Chrysostom contradict Paul’s teaching that salvation is

by grace through faith and that our works do not count before God? Has Chrysostom been

understood correctly? In chapter 4 of his book, Preaching the Word with John Chrysostom,

Gerald Bray draws a parallel between Paul and St. Chrysostom to show us the similarities and

differences in their teachings about the relationship between virtue and Christian salvation.

Bray’s work helps modern readers correctly understand St. Chrysostom’s emphasis on purity, not

as opposed to Paul’s focus on salvation by faith alone; instead, Bray urges us to read both of

them in their context and not as contradictory but complementary. 121

117
Georges Florovsky, “St. John Chrysostom: The Prophet of Charity,” St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly 4,
nos. 3/4 (1955): 37−42. St. Chrysostom, known as a prophet of charity' and a preacher of morality, believes that
prosperity is a danger that must be overcome through the gift of charity and love. After he left the city life, St.
Chrysostom set examples of charity by building hospitals and orphanage centers to help the needy. His courage and
commitment to sacramental life led him to publicly condemn sin and sinners, which became one of the reasons for
his tragic death. Before St. Chrysostom’s death in exile, the accusations started against him: he sold the gold and
dowry of the Church, then used the Church's income to help the poor.
118
John Chrysostom, St. John Chrysostom on Wealth and Poverty, trans. by Catharine Roth (Crestwood: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary, 1984), 49. According to St. Chrysostom’s teaching, a Christian's character, virtue, and deeds
will either help or harm him/her in the time of judgment that is awaiting all of us.
119
For St. Chrysostom, Florovsky notes, “Everything is Gods except the good deeds of man- it is the only
thing that man can own.” See Florovsky, “Prophet of Charity,” 40. With due respect to Florovsky’s conclusion, we
argue that even the good works that humans do are the work of God’s grace that operates in the life of the faithful.
120
Miller, Chrysostom’s Devil, 142−43, and 161−62. In Chapter 4, Miller deals with St. Chrysostom’s
teaching concerning the Devine-Human cooperation for salvation that modern readers have misunderstood.
121
Gerald Bray, Preaching the Word with John Chrysostom (Bellingham: Lexham, 2020).

98
 However, among members of the EOTC, St. Chrysostom can be misunderstood to be an

advocate of moralism. Nevertheless, one must not ignore that St. Chrysostom’s focus on

Christian charity, almsgiving, and ethics is both deeply rooted in the true Christian faith and

fueled by authentic Sacramental living. For him, there is an inseparable connection between faith

and charity. His teaching of Christian charity and ethics with proper preparation for the Eucharist

must be understood within the framework of faith alone, which is the center of good works and

our worthiness for the Sacrament.

Therefore, it should be underlined that living a life worthy of the Eucharist is not the same

as making oneself worthy to partake in the Eucharist, though the two should not be separated

from each other. In other words, for St. Chrysostom, we argue, living in a ‘worthy manner’

[ἀξίως] of the Eucharist is not the same as making oneself ‘worthy’ [ἀξιος] for the Eucharist by

mean of almsgiving and other good works. Therefore, his teaching about Christian almsgiving

and prayer, concerning the worthy admission to the Eucharist, must be understood within the

notion of sola fide, which is the center of charity and good works.

Conclusion

In this chapter, an attempt is made to enter into and analyze selected contents of the

anaphoras of the early church fathers in the EOTC’s Qeddassé and one of the authoritative

documents of the Church known as the Fetha Nagast. The Ethiopian Church developed different

liturgies, primarily derived from the Coptic rite, representing a much greater variety of anaphoras

than the ones used in Egypt. As one of the most ancient of Christian Churches, dating back at

least to the fourth century, the EOTC maintains that its tradition of the Divine Liturgy centered

99
in the Eucharist as the crown of all Sacraments and the climax of worship, 122 finds its faithful

observance in following the tradition established by the early church fathers who, in turn, looked

to the Old Testament practices to inform their own, as we present in the next chapter.

The prescriptions in the EOTC liturgical tradition, as embodied in the Qeddassé and the

Fetha Nagast and the EOTC’s literature surrounding them, clearly show a paradoxical tension in

the liturgy between God’s grace and forgiveness through the body and the blood, and the call to

worthiness achieved through strict observance of rituals and self-examination. Although this is

evidenced throughout the entire liturgy, the paradox is most clearly seen in the serious call for

worthiness through various rituals to qualify for the Eucharist and the prayer offered to God to

make the attendees worthy. There is a tension between the human effort in making oneself

worthy on the one hand and confessing that God alone can declare one worthy for the

Sacrament—and both elements are found in the documents.

We also analyzed how St. John Chrysostom’s emphasis on Christian virtue and charity can

be misunderstood when interpreted out of its own context and applied to the question of

worthiness in the EOTC. We learned that St. Chrysostom actually provides the EOTC with what

a Christian’s life should look like after conversion. His teaching about the call to worthiness

never implies that failure to give alms makes the partakers ἀνάξιοί (in its adjectival sense);

instead, he encouraged the faithful to pursue good works in helping the poor as an outcome of

authentic Christian life formed by the Sacrament. Faithful Christians are made worthy of Christ’s

body and blood by grace through faith. At the same time, they are called to live a life worthy of

the body and the blood of Christ, which should manifest itself in the sharing of God-given

122
Ayalew Tamiru, YeEtiopia Emnet BeSostu Hegegat: The Faith of Ethiopia According to the Three Laws
(Addis Ababa: BerhanenaSelam, 1960), 205.

100
resources with the poor.

The analysis of this chapter also highlights the perhaps unintended consequences of an

overemphasis on the cultic rituals of the Old Testament that pervade the EOTC’s Eucharistic

liturgy. The parallels that are drawn there and in other authoritative documents point to how the

Old Testament and Eucharistic sacrifices both display the event as a consuming fire that

perpetuates fear and intimidation in those who desire the Eucharist. Further, these people might

refrain due to an overwhelming sense of unworthiness communicated by the very same liturgy

that was meant to invite and involve them in participation in their Lord’s body and blood which

was given and shed for their forgiveness, not their condemnation.

101
 CHAPTER FOUR

EARLY CHURCH FATHERS EXEGESIS OF THE SCRIPTURE AND THEIR VIEW

OF THE EUCHARIST AS A SACRIFICE

Introduction

The EOTC rightfully prides itself on its continuity with the early church in its doctrine, its

liturgy, its teaching and practice. To a large extent, all of these are based on the exegetical

approach they have also inherited from the early church and which is reflected also in the

Ademta Commentary of the EOTC. In this chapter and the next we will explore the early fathers’

exegetical approach in an attempt to understand how the EOTC arrives at its understanding of

the Eucharist as sacrifice which has proven so formidable in discouraging participation in the

sacrament and in its concomitant conceptualizing of worthiness. As Luther understood, not all

Tradition, or traditions, are equal. Some can have deleterious effect on the faith to the point of

even jeopardizing one’s salvation.

The main concern of the early church fathers when interpreting the Scripture was not to

merely reconstruct the Sitz im Leben of the text being studied, but to project its historical setting

into the readers’ lives and context. They mainly concerned themselves with pointing out the deep

spiritual meaning of the Scripture for the readers, not just as a homiletic application distinct from

the text’s original and literal meaning, but also as an organic part of the whole complex of God’s

divine Word. In other words, the early church fathers exegete the Scripture from a different

culture with various presuppositions and assumptions in order to respond to their situation as

pastors, bishops, and monks whose interpretation was done primarily within that pastoral

context. They became better at engaging with the scriptural texts as they grew in their faith in

Christ, were led by the Holy Spirit, and formed by the early church teaching.

In what follows, we shall first describe the early church fathers’ exegetical strategies and

102
then show how the fathers interpreted the Eucharist in light of the Old Testament sacrifices,

which received its perfect fulfillment in the sacrificial death of Christ. The Book of Hebrews has

extensively used typological interpretation of the Old Testament sacrifice and placed it into the

context of the Eucharist. Since the first century, Jewish Christians and the early church fathers

drew their theology and terminology from the Old Testament sacrificial system and applied it to

the Eucharistic theology. Analyzing a few sections of the Book of Hebrews concerning Christ’s

crucifixion will help us understand the Eucharistic theology and interpretative methods used by

the early Christians who viewed Christianity at times in light of its Jewish roots.

Therefore, this present chapter intends to establish a foundation for the following chapter to

evaluate the EOTC’s exegetical tradition of the Scripture as documented in the Andemta

Commentary corpus. As we will see in the next chapter, the AC adopts the early church fathers’

interpretative approaches of the Scripture even while it developed its indigenous interpretation

style that was mainly shaped by Judaism and the historic Ethiopian Orthodox religious context

and tradition. 1

Early Church Fathers’ Exegetical Approach

The early Church fathers’ exegesis of the Scripture is foundational to the development of

Christianity as a religion and offers insight into how they thought about Christian doctrines and

1
The overall interpretation of the Andemta Commentary follows the use of the literary works of the
Antiochene Church fathers. The EOTC acknowledges the historical narrative of the Scripture, and the commentary
somehow presents the literary, biblical historical fact concerning the historical situation of the biblical authors and
the historical context in which the Scripture was written. However, the commentary extensively employs the
Alexandrian way of exegesis, which mainly employed an allegorical way of reading the Scripture. The commentary
presents allegorical teregwame (interpretation) regarding the worthy admission to the Eucharist in accord with the
doctrine of the EOTC (as Judaism mainly influences it) and the context of the implied readers as inhabit the historic
Ethiopian Orthodox religious context and tradition. The EOTC also has a long-standing historical affinity with the
Alexandrian church and shares common doctrine, particularly about Christology. At the same time, the EOTC
maintains its unique Tewahedo doctrine in contrast to the Antiochene approach, which focuses on the distinction of
the two natures in Christ.

103
practices. O'Keefe and Reno will serve as a helpful guide in analyzing the specific reading

techniques employed by the fathers to expound upon the meaning they believed to be essential to

scriptural passages. 2 The authors generally categorized the fathers’ exegetical approach around

typology, allegory, and literary interpretative strategies, recognizing that typology and allegory

were often two sides of the same coin when seeking the spiritual sense of the Scripture.

That spiritual interpretation became an essential interpretative strategy for early church

fathers because it searched for a particular and distinct hidden meaning. The interpreter’s task

was to discern and then expound upon that hidden spiritual meaning of the Scripture. In this

interpretative strategy, the author’s original intent of the Scripture may or may not have had

much of an effect on the spiritual meaning of a given text. The fathers who used this spiritual

interpretation understood their faith in Christ as the recapitulation of the divine plan because the

larger unity of the Scripture had been structured around the figure of Christ, who is the

interpretative key to exploring the more significant coherence of the Old and the New

Testament. 3 The fathers’ Christological reading of the Old Testament was key to their process of

searching the deeper spiritual meaning of a given text typologically. 4 Joel Elowsky notes,

“Christian writers knew that the exegetical work was not done until the text in some way pointed

to Christ, demonstrating that the text is living and active for the Church of all time.” 5 Placing

2
John O'Keefe and Russell Reno, Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the
Bible (London: Hopkins University Press, 2005), 1−139.
3
O'Keefe and Russell, Sanctified Vision, 69. Joel Elowsky notes, “Christ is the one who brings about the
unity between the Old and the New Testaments because he is the focal point, the endpoint, the fullness
(sensusplenior) of Scripture to which the letter of Scripture is only a handmaid or servant.” See Joel Elowsky, “With
a view to the End: Christ in the Ancient Church's Understanding of Scripture,” Concordia Theological Quarterly 70,
no.1 (2016): 66.
4
We shall describe in this chapter the conventional interpretative dichotomy drawn between Antioch and
Alexandria specifically regarding their typologically interpretation of biblical texts.
5
Elowsky, “With a view to the End,” 65.

104
Christ at the heart of their spiritual interpretation allowed the early exegetes to develop a unified

reading of the Old Testament and New Testament as well as providing them a means to bring

Christian practice and experience into the structured economy of the Scripture and the church, all

drawing upon the key and central figure, Jesus Christ.

Both St. Justin Martyr and St. Irenaeus of Lyon employed a spiritual interpretation that

focused on a typological interpretation of the Scripture and set a foundation for the early church

fathers’ exegesis. Furthermore, both appreciated and searched for the spiritual and divine

meaning of the Scripture typologically. For example, Justin Martyr (AD 100 –165) was an early

Christian apologist and philosopher who placed the account of the Passover in the context of the

suffering servant in Isaiah and interpreted it Christologically. He notes, “For the Passover was

Christ, who was afterward sacrificed. Isaiah said, “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter.

Furthermore, it is written that on the day of the Passover, you seized Him, and that also during

the Passover, you crucified Him. And as the blood of the Passover saved those who were in

Egypt, so also the blood of Christ will deliver from death those who have believed.” 6 St. Justin

often employed various typological interpretations in his exegesis. For example, personal names

in the Old Testament such as Adam, David, and Joshua are types of Christ, and they are

associated with Christ by biblical authors in the New Testament (See 1 Cor. 15:21−22, and Rom.

5:14). 7

St. Irenaeus (AD 130–202) was regarded as a Christian martyr in Catholic and Orthodox

churches. He, too, understood the coming of Christ typologically as the main event that

inaugurates the divine economy because his coming is the fulfillment of the Old Testament

6
Dialogue with Trypho, 111, trans. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, Saint Justin Martyr (110−165).
http://www.logoslibrary.org/justin/trypho/index.html
7
O'Keefe and Russell, Sanctified Vision, 75−78.

105
promises. For him, the interpreter’s faith in Christ, which was informed by the Spirit, was of far

greater importance than human interpretative tools or information. 8 His emphasis on the

interpreter’s “sanctified vision” stands against a current perception that one can be an excellent

biblical exegete even if the interpreter is not a true believer or does not accept the most central

teaching of the Scriptures. Without faith in Christ, and a life lived by the direction of the Spirit

and accompanied by a daily desire to be drawn closer to God in faith, personal devotion, and

relationship to the Holy Spirit, one could hardly hope to discover the deep spiritual meaning of

the text rightly. Fathers like St. Irenaeus understood that interpreting the Scripture is an ongoing

process where a faithful interpreter closely observes each detail of the text through faith in Christ

and grasps the spiritual meaning while being led by the Spirit.

The Alexandrian school, in particular, made extensive use of the spiritual interpretation of

Scripture, focusing on the allegorical interpretative method, which dominated biblical

interpretation during the third century when Neoplatonism was emerging and Gnosticism was

still in evidence. Alexandria was an important city of learning where both Jewish and Greek

scholars came together and discussed religious matters. 9 This school developed a mainly

allegorical method of interpretation primarily meant to appropriate the truth of the Scripture into

the daily life of Christians. Its exegesis was primarily influenced by Neo-platonic ideologies and

Gnosticism, which were already present in the pre-Christian Jewish community of Alexandria,

where these ideologies introduced allegorical interpretative strategies, reminiscent of the earlier

commentaries on Homer by scholars such as Heraclitus, who were trying to reconcile some of

8
O'Keefe and Russell, Sanctified Vision, 40. St. Irenaeus of Lyons fought against the Gnostic interpretative
theory that ripped apart the text from its original and historical context and came up with a different and/or
contradictory meaning of the Scripture. Please see more examples and discussions on this from the following article.
Elowsky, “With a View to the End,” 74−77.
9
Louis Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation; Sacred Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids: Baker 1950), 19.

106
the more fantastic aspects of Greek mythology about the gods. 10

For the early fathers, however, allegorical interpretation was not primarily a method for

resolving interpretative difficulties. It was mainly a tool that helped find the theological unity

between the two testaments by placing Christ at the center of the fathers’ exegesis and focusing

on their interpretation of the Old Testament. The use of allegory was most apparent in the works

of Origen around the third century. Origen remained an influential representative of the

Alexandrian school of exegesis, even after his posthumous condemnation at the fifth ecumenical

council. Michael Graves notes, “Origen’s legacy in the church is complicated. On the one hand,

his writings were fundamental for the development of mainstream Christian theology and

exegesis. On the other hand, some of his ideas brought considerable controversy, especially

when later admirers of him took certain of his ideas to extremes.” 11 Two of Origen’s condemned

teachings—the mystical preexistence of the human soul and his speculation about the

apocatastasis, meaning the universal salvation of all creation—had little to do with his exegetical

method widely practiced and followed even by those who condemned him. However, we note

this nonetheless since, as Graves noted, it cast a pall for some time on his writings and

reputation. 12

In On First Principle 4.2.5, Origen argues that all Scripture has a spiritual sense, and it was

normal for him to draw moral lessons from the narrative letter. More significantly, he was

persistently driven into discerning the spiritual meaning of a symbolic nature independent of the

10
O'Keefe and Russell, Sanctified Vision, 3−5.
11
Michael Graves, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017), 68.
12
Origen speculated that all human beings would be saved, and even the devil would repent and be saved at
the end of the age. For him, all substances, mainly the preexistent soul created by God, would not perish, but
ultimately be saved at the final Day of Judgment. This teaching, however, was in his more speculative works and did
not necessarily constitute the core of what he taught or wrote.

107
historical context and flow of the text, especially after noting what seemed like inconsistencies or

interpretive problems. 13 These were signposts from God that the text was meant to be read for a

higher spiritual meaning. For him, every part of the inspired Scripture had a spiritual sense.

Therefore, they must be read allegorically, and “the intent of Scripture lay not at the level of the

literary author but at the level of the inspiring Spirit: So, consistency lay not in the text and its

wording, but in the deeper spiritual realities to which the text referred. 14 Young notes, “Origen

quite explicitly states that, without spiritual awareness, participation in the communion-sacrifice

has no effect, the food just passing through the material body like any other.” 15 This implies that

God’s aim in the Bible is to hide secret mysteries which on the surface, seem to offer a plain

narrative of events. However, in reality, an allegorical approach to a given text involves

searching for an inner vision of what has first to be read in the text. For example, words, word

orders, numbers, events, places, etymology, and characters in the Bible all have a literal meaning

but also must stand for something else that is much deeper. 16 These “letters” of the text speak for

another reality and realm of meaning apart from their historicity. Everything in the text needed to

be worthy of the divine author, 17 and if its literal meaning was not worthy, Origen reasoned that

there must be a deeper meaning behind the signs on the page. He thought that the real source of

the meaning of a given text is found upon discerning what the divine author was trying to

13
Karlfried Froehlich, trans., and ed., Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: Sources of Early Christian
Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 58−59.
14
Frances M. Young, Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1997), 184.
15
Frances M. Young, The Use of Sacrificial Ideas in Greek Christian Writers from the New Testament to
John Chrysostom (Cambridge, MA: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1979), 252.
16
Froehlich, Sensing the Scriptures, 51.
17
See Mark Sheridan, Language for God in Patristic Tradition (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2015).

108
communicate. To twenty-first century eyes, this is a far cry from the historical-grammatical

approach, but it would have been popular within mainstream patristic interpretation.

Origen saw that many important figures used allegorical interpretations to communicate the

spiritual message. He claims the Apostle Paul was an explicit model of allegorical

interpretation, 18 if not Homer of Philo. 19 Origen was following naturally what Apostle Paul was

doing. For example, in On First Principle 4.2.6, Origen mentions how Paul employed allegory

when interpreting Hagar and Sarah, referring to the Old and the New covenant, respectively

(Gal. 4:24). 20 Origen cites Paul’s allegorical interpretation of Deut. 25:4 On First Principle 4.2.6

and notes, “You shall not muzzle the Ox that treads out,” showing how Paul allegorically applied

the text to his apostolic right in order to be supported by the Christians whom he served (1 Tim.

5:18 and 1 Cor. 9:9). 21 On First Principle 4.2.6, Origen found more Pauline models of

allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament. 22 For example, the Old Testament rock from

which the Israelites drank water in the wilderness (Exod. 17:6, Num. 20:10−12, Ps. 78:15−17,

and Ps. 105:41) is allegorically interpreted by Paul referring to Christ. Paul said, “And all drank

the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock

was Christ” (1 Cor. 10:4−5). This spiritual rock and a life-giving water is the Christ. Jesus

18
Froehlich, Sensing the Scriptures, 52; and see also Elowsky, “With a view to the End,” 68. Dr. Elowsky
notes, “The fathers were especially interested in St. Paul’s exegesis in Romans 7, 1 Corinthians 10, and 2
Corinthians 3, where Paul places the letter and the spirit in opposition. Romans 3−11, Galatians 4, and the entire
book of Hebrews were also fertile ground for seeking out examples of allegory and typology. Paul’s exegesis in
Ephesians 5:21ff explained the otherwise inexplicable inclusion of the Song of Songs in the canon of Scripture as a
metaphor for the union of Christ and the church.” For more discussions, please see the article from pp. 68−70.
19
Philo was one of the early practitioners of allegorical interpretation who was a Jew from Alexandria. He
was a contemporary of Paul the Apostle who might have influenced Paul in his allegorical interpretation.
20
Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation, 60.
21
Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation, 59.
22
Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation, 59−60.

109
himself said in the Gospel of John that he is a life-giving water, “If anyone is thirsty, let him

come to me and drink” (John 3:37) because “whoever drinks of the water that I will give him

will never be thirsty again. The water that I will give him will become in him a spring of water

welling up to eternal life” (John 4:14). Perhaps the concept of going to Jesus implies a personal

relationship with Jesus, who spiritually blesses those who believe in him, over against those who

were proud of keeping Mosaic laws and rituals apart from true faith in Christ. Thus, Origen’s

allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament implies a conviction that the Scripture is written

for us, and we must interpret the text in our context without being much influenced by the

historical situation of the human author and the historical situation of the first recipients of the

Scripture. 23 This is similar to how the EOTC appropriates the text of Scripture as it speaks to the

various aspects of life in the church, including participation in the Eucharist.

Didymus the Blind was the last great exponent of the Alexandrian School who was active

in the second half of the fourth century. Like Origen, Didymus also believed that “both Old

Testament and New Testament under their obscurity, conceal supernatural mysteries; the literal

sense (historia) can be a step towards uncovering these, but only the analogical sense can arrive

at them through allegory.” 24 The influence of the combination of the two people (Philo and

Origen) is reflected mainly in Didymus’s allegorical interpretation of the Book of Genesis

16:1−2 (Hagar and Sarah), where he typologically applied the two people to the two

testaments. 25

As interpreters in Alexandria followed their allegorical approach to interpretation, a

23
Froehlich, Biblical Interpretation, 50.
24
Manlio Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic
Exegesis (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 78.
25
Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation, 78−79.

110
competing hermeneutical approach emerged out of Antioch. Today this group of exegetes is

referred to as the Antiochene exegetes because of their connection to the city of Antioch. The

Antiochenes, however, were not a school in a strict sense. Instead, this group simply had a

private and personal teaching role and influence upon the church. 26 The Antiochenes emphasized

the literal and/or historical sense of the Scripture. They denounced Origen’s interpretative

approach to the Scripture, which they believed was not faithful to the literal and historical

context of the Scripture and violated the narrative flow of the text. 27

Although the Antiochenes focused on the literal meaning of the Scripture, which

functioned as the basis for interpretation, they also understood the Scripture to be the inspired

word of God, able to reach beyond the literality of words. For example, Frances Young mentions

how Origen of Alexandria was accused of being literalist by Eustathius of Antioch when reading

1 Sam. 28:1−25 about Saul’s meeting with a witch woman who is a medium at En-dor.

According to Eustathius, Origen was taking the text too literally because the text is telling us

allegorically that the devil is using the witch’s mind to control Saul. Nevertheless, for Origen, the

witch is actually bringing Samuel back from the dead, and it should be understood as an actual

historical occurrence. 28

The historical reference is not the end of the story, and that is why the early exegetes from

26
See Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, 67. The city of Antioch was the center of
learning, especially in rhetoric, and the tradition of paganism was also strong in that city. It also fostered a
remarkable group of Christian thinkers and ascetics frequently grouped and named Antiochene School.
27
According to Frances Young, “neither literalism nor an interest in history stimulated the Antiochene
reaction against Origenist allegory, but rather a different approach to finding meaning in literature which had its
background in the rhetorical schools.” See Frances M. Young, “The Rhetorical Schools and Their Influence on
Patristic Exegesis.” In The Making of Orthodoxy: Essays in Honor of Henry Chadwick (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1989), 193.
28
See Young, “Rhetorical Schools,” 189, and 194−95. Thus, the Antiochene verses Alexandrian exegetical
dichotomy falls short to consistently explain itself, especially when one looks at a couple of representatives from
each school, as we have indicated above.

111
both schools tried to connect ancient events to their context and practices. O'Keefe and Russell

note, “For Irenaeus and the patristic tradition in general, the Bible was not a perfect historical

record. Scripture was, for them, the orienting, luminous center of a highly varied and complex

reality shaped by divine providence. It was true not by virtue successfully or accurately

representing any one event or part of this divinely ordained reality. Rather, the truth rested in the

Scripture’s power to illuminate and disclose the order and the pattern of all things.” 29 For

example, Eusebius was a historical exegete who represented an essential link between the

allegorical and literal interpretation of the Scripture. 30 Although he exclusively focused on the

literal interpretation of the Scripture, even some of the readings such as the ram in Gen. 22:13

and the bitter water of the Marah in Exod. 15:22 were a symbol of Christ and the cross. 31

A fellow African brother, St. Augustine also emphasized the spiritual sense of the

Scripture, as for him the “historical sense [of the Scripture] is the sacrament of the spiritual.” 32

This implies that the historical sense of the Scripture leads analogically to its spiritual sense; the

letter alone kills, especially when the Scripture is read without awareness of its spiritual senses.

De Margerie notes, “Augustine does not seem to have taken an interest in the re-reading of the

biblical text within the economy of the Old covenant, but he did devote attention to the

reinterpretation of Old Testament books in the context of the New Dispensation, after the death

of the apostles.” 33 Besides, Augustine understood the plurality of the scriptural meaning because

29
O'Keefe and Russell, Sanctified Vision, 11.
30
Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, 55−63.
31
Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church, 63.
32
Da Margerie, History of Exegesis, 17.
33
De Margerie, History of Exegesis, 58.

112
the meaning of the text cannot be solely limited to the humanly intended historical meaning. 34

The Scripture is both divine and human, and the Holy Spirit also intends meanings beyond the

intention of the human author to communicate to readers of different circumstances and times. 35

In his book Participatory Biblical Exegesis, Matthew Levering argues that the Modern

Christian’s biblical interpretation has relied entirely on historical-critical methods that undermine

God’s essential divine and spiritual realities central to the patristic fathers’ exegesis of the

Scripture. Thus, Levering intends to establish the valuable finds of historical-critical

methodology for Christian interpretation by proposing a broader understanding of history,

including a ‘participatory’ dimension of biblical interpretation. He mainly argues that for one “to

enter into the realities taught in the biblical texts [it] requires not only linear-historical tools

(archeology, philosophy, and others) but also, and indeed primarily, participatory tools—doctrine

and practice—by which the exegete enters fully into the biblical world.” 36 However, we argue

that participation must be realized by proclamation of the Word and Sacrament and faith alone

not just by a tool. Levering is correct that history is not merely linear-historical but also

participatory, insofar as the idea of participatory is centered around proclamation and faith alone.

Faith and practice should be combined and the leading of the divine Spirit through the Word and

Sacrament must be apparent. Levering is right that there should be an effort to go beyond the

34
De Margerie, History of Exegesis, 58−59.
35
Tarmo Toom, Patristic Theories of Biblical Interpretation: The Latin Fathers (Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 2016), 97. Augustine also talked about the necessity of charity when interpreting Scripture. For him,
exegetes are required to follow the commandment of love in carrying out their interpretative task because “charity
must be at once the source, the object and the purpose of exegesis, which should obey the most fundamental of all
divine commands.” See De Margerie, History of Exegesis, 20−22.
36
Matthew Levering, Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation (Notre Dame:
University of Notre Dame, 2008), 2. Levering’s work invites Christians to embrace and rethink an authentically
Christian hermeneutical basis without discarding all other useful critical tools but at the same time keeps the divine
realities central to the task of interpretation. In other words, the participatory biblical exegesis is as equally crucial as
linear historical exegesis.

113
linear-historical dynamics of a given text to account for the realities beyond the words. 37 This

reality flows from theoretical analysis of the Scripture and a life lived by faith in the Spirit as

expressed in true proclamation and faith alone.

The modern critical method also thinks that the Alexandrian Father’s interpretation of the

Scripture disregarded the historical sense of the Scripture. For them Origen never really

understood the Bible because he approached history loosely. Critics question whether the fathers

were too subjective and uncontrolled in their constant bringing of various texts together, having

no regard for context or any objective approach for doing so. However, the fathers were very

concerned with following a rule of faith that provided an objective means for seeking truth in

addition to being led by the Spirit of God. Their belief in the inspiration of the entire Scripture

was persistent, and they never questioned the historical events in the Scripture. They also

believed that everything was held together and proceeded according to God’s eternal and divine

economy, which received its fulfillment on the Cross of Christ at Calvary.

Therefore, the early church fathers from both schools neither regarded the historical events

as the only foundation to know the meaning of the Scripture nor underestimated the need to

study the historical references in the text. The fathers were serious about studying and discussing

historical details with their contemporaries from other religious groups. For example, Elowsky

notes that some of the fathers “often consulted with Jewish exegetes to understand details of the

text” 38 so that they may grasp the text’s complete and correct historical meaning before

exploring the deeper spiritual meaning derived from the text. The early Father’s effort in reading

the Scripture in its original language and historical context helped them study the text more

37
Levering, Participatory Biblical Exegesis, 6−12.
38
Elowsky, “With a View to the End,” 65.

114
closely, leading them to love and appreciate it to a greater extent. Therefore, the idea that

Scripture refers to historical events was never denied by most fathers who have used allegory

and/or typology in their exegesis of the Scripture. They believed that determining the historical

meaning was only the first step in delving into the more profound riches of Scripture.

Most of the church fathers from the Alexandrian and Antiochene groups utilized allegorical

and literal approaches in their interpretation of Scripture, especially to interpret the Old

Testament Christologically. 39 The Antiochene fathers’ search for the literal meaning of Scripture

was perhaps, in some ways, a more rigorous effort at bridging the spiritual and historical

approaches to biblical interpretation, though this can also be found in interpreters such as Origen.

The Antiochene spiritual hermeneutic, known as theoria (fuller/more profound sense), lies at the

center of their concern for a unified reading of the historical and Christological meanings of the

Old Testament and the New Testament. Their application of theoria in biblical exegesis required

them to find the spiritual interpretation, which was not to be confused with what they saw as an

unprecedented allegorical interpretation by Alexandrian exegetes that were not connected to the

historical accounts in the Scripture. However, the antagonism between the two ancient schools

belies the fact that Antiochene exegesis was not solely literalist, nor was Alexandrian exegesis

solely allegorical. 40 For example, the Antiochenes such as Theodore of Mopsuestia searched for

the historical situation of the Scripture like Eusebius; however, primarily not just for the sake of

historicity but rather to prevent further allegorizing of the text that would deny the reality of

39
De Lubac notes, “He who faithfully esteems history, allegory, tropology, and anagogy faithfully embraces
both the Old Testament and the New Testament.” The combined reading of the Scripture will help Christians today
to appreciate how both testaments are united into a single body of doctrine because of the Cross of Christ. See De
Lubac, Medieval Exegesis, 101 and 239.
40
Simonetti, Biblical Interpretation, 67−68.

115
history in the Scripture. 41

In sum, the difficulty with allegorical interpretation from the Antiochene point of view is

that it functions with a “mode of thinking in which the forms of thought used are detachable and

changeable, and can be rationalized only when assimilated to other forms of thought that do not

arise on the same ground and are not necessarily related to the subject in question.” 42 However,

most of the early church fathers from both schools used allegorical or typological and literal

interpretative approaches in order to discern the deeper and fuller spiritual meaning of the

Scriptures. Although one can find emphases on either side of their interpretive approaches, most

of the Father’s interpretations did not contradict the biblical history and the overall divine and

spiritual message of salvation in the Scripture. The historical sense of the Scriptures provides the

foundation for the allegorical. It offers a possible reading of Scripture that is historically honest

but seeks to read Scripture in a broader context that is made alive through the resurrection of

Christ and the works of the Holy Spirit. 43 In other words, the historical sense of the Scripture

ought to be illuminated by the spiritual sense. The historically honest reading of Scripture seeks a

broader context, which is made alive through the resurrection of Jesus Christ and the works of

the Holy Spirit.

41
See also Young, Biblical Exegesis, 180−82. Frances Young correctly notes that Theodore of Mopsuestia
was one of the best-known hermeneutical representatives of the School of Antioch, highlighting the fact that Pauline
uses of allegory in the Book of Galatians did not eliminate the historia; instead, Paul believed that his allegorical
interpretation was prefigured in the historia, and Theodore’s effort to typologically read Messianic Passages in
Psalms was mostly to reinterpret them historically. See also Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, 21.
42
Thomas Torrance, Divine Meaning: Studies in Patristic Hermeneutics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), 35.
43
Henri De Lubac, Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998),
1:97−100. Torrance correctly concludes that “Both elements demand attention, the most diligent search for hidden
meanings [allegory], and the preservation of those on the surface [literal] which cannot be challenged.” Torrance,
Divine Meaning, 25.

116
 Re-reading the Old Testament in the New Testament

Over the course of Christian history, it is essential to understand that Christianity did not

come to abolish Judaism; instead, in a sense, it came to become the fulfillment of Judaism. Jesus

introduced himself as destroying nothing in the Law and the prophets; instead, he came to fulfill

everything spoken about the Messiah in the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17−18). The early church

fathers relied remarkably on the Old Testament when reading, learning, interpreting, preaching,

and following Jesus under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They used the Old Testament texts

extensively in their writings and relied heavily on the Septuagint (LXX) translation when reading

Jesus who was prefigured and predicted as the ַ‫מָ ִשׁיח‬.

The fathers read the Old Testament as affirming the Gospel, the deity of Jesus, his ministry,

his plan of salvation, and many other aspects of his life and ministry. They believed Jesus

himself had permitted them to do so in his discussion with the Emmaus disciples (Luke

24:25−27) as well as in his debates with the Jewish leaders (John. 5:39). They never questioned

that the Old Testament held a central position in the church’s life because of its relation to the

New Testament, even though there were few in their days, like Marcion, who rejected the Old

Testament altogether. 44 Instead, in the words of the 20th-century scholar Karl Barth, the fathers

believed that “The New Testament is concealed within the Old Testament, and the Old

Testament is revealed by the New Testament.” 45 The New Testament itself affirms this fact. For

example, when we read the New Testament, we read words such as “in accordance with the

Scriptures” or “as it is written,” which, of course, are appealing to the truth of the Old Testament.

Therefore, the fathers saw Scripture appealing to Scripture, implying the hermeneutical principle

44
Ronald E. Heine, Reading the Old Testament with the Ancient Church: Exploring the Formation of Early
Christian Thought (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 29 and 50.
45
Heine, Reading the Old Testament, 27.

117
that Scripture interprets Scripture because it guides and gives an understanding of how to

interpret the New Testament in light of the Old Testament or vice versa.

Christ was prefigured in the Mosaic Law, the Writings, and the Prophetic Books of the Old

Testament, making them fundamental for Christian theology. The fathers believed that the New

Testament could only be adequately understood by considering a correct and profound

theological reading of the Old Testament. 46 Nowhere is this more evident than in the New

Testament Book of Hebrews, which interprets the sacrificial system of the Old Testament in

terms of its fulfillment in Christ, the Great High Priest. Thus, we now turn our attention to

analyzing how the author of the Book of Hebrews interpreted Christ’s crucifixion in light of the

Old Testament sacrifice, setting a pattern of interpretation that would be taken up by the early

fathers of the church in their teaching on the Eucharist. In a later chapter we shall see how much

of this informs the EOTC’s teaching and practice concerning the Eucharist.

Sacrifice in the Book of Hebrews

Exploring the Book of Hebrews for this study is essential because it interprets the concept

of Jewish sacrifices in light of Jesus’ sacrifice more extensively and typologically than the other

New Testament books. The synoptic gospels and the epistles provide the narrative of the

sacrifice and explore some of these theological implications. Nevertheless, Hebrews spells out

the theological and typological implications of his sacrifice on the Cross in particular. Gustaf

Aulen puts it this way: “His [Christ’s] death is a part of a larger context; it is the climax and the

conclusion of his total service.” 47 In relation to the motive of the Suffering Servant of the Lord in

46
Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays, The Art of Reading Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 20.
47
Gustaf Aulen, and Eric H. Wahlstrom, Eucharist and Sacrifice (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1958), 146−47.
Aulen correctly notes, “His [Christ’s] death is a part of a larger context; it is the climax and the conclusion of his
total service.” See also Daly, Christian Sacrifice, 261.

118
the Book of Isaiah 53, Christ’s sacrificial life is an entire journey, which began at the time of his

incarnation. Again, Aulen notes, “In reality, his [Christ’s] act of sacrifice extends back into the

heavenly world; incarnation and sacrifice are inseparably connected.” 48

The Old Testament had various types of sacrificial systems and theology that the early

church tapped into for different aspects of their theology. The Book of Hebrews’ discussion of

the Old Testament sacrifice is a general one that encompasses all forms of sacrifices such as sin

offering, the guilt offering, a burnt offering, and peace offering. Other than the flesh of burnt

offering, which was entirely burned outside of the camp and consumed by God, all other forms

of flesh sacrifices were consumed by God’s people as a consecrated and exceptional food that

was eaten with a spirit of thanksgiving. 49 The eating of the food ultimately establishes

communion with God and with each other. The poor in particular were given the privilege of

being nourished from the offering after they became clean to eat the sacrificial flesh.

Specifically, peace offering requires a degree of cleanness and holiness before the laity consumes

it. 50 The Old Testament worship directives always involved sacred eating and drinking, which

Christians considered to be in the background of the intended meaning and implication of the

sacrifice of the Eucharist fulfilled in Christ, a sacrifice which sets the former priesthood and

sacrifices aside.

The theme of sacrifice and the concept of Eucharist, even though the term ‘Eucharist’ is not

explicitly stated in the Book of Hebrews, is foundational and even decisive in understanding the

sacrament of the Eucharist and comprehending the sharing of God’s gifts of salvation through

48
Aulen, and Eric, Eucharist and Sacrifice, 148.
49
Daniel J. Brege, Eating God’s Sacrifice: The Lord’s Supper Portrayed in Old Testament Sacrifice
(Decatur, IN: Daniel J. Brege, 2009), 24.
50
Brege, Eating God’s Sacrifice, 25.

119
the mystery of the Eucharistic sacrifice. 51 In other words, the Eucharist as a cultic anticipation of

Christ’s death remains very much in the background of the epistle. Daly notes, “The dominant

sacrificial idea of the whole letter is that of Christ seen as the fulfiller and the fulfillment of the

Old Testament cult, particularly the sacrifice for sin.” 52

The writer of Hebrews is much interested in detailing how Christ fulfilled the highest

priestly and cultic function of the Jewish sacrifices, being both the High Priest and, at the same

time, the sacrificial victim. This is evident in the text, “Now the point in what we are saying is

this: we have such a High Priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty

in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every

high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus, it is necessary for this priest also to

have something to offer” (Heb. 8:1−3). After two chapters, the author says, “And by that will we

have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all;” therefore,

“Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from

an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22).

Christ’s saving acts parallel the tasks of the high priest in the order of the Levitical

priesthood. The author of Hebrews provides a detailed presentation of the high priest’s function

in entering the holy places of the tabernacle. As but one example: “For a tent was prepared, the

first section, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the presence. It is called

51
Daniel Brege states some possible reasons the term Eucharist is not mentioned in the Book of Hebrews. He
mentioned some of the reasons: first, it was common to mature Jewish audience to quickly appropriate the
connection to the Eucharist that he needed not to write the specific word. Second, it could be because of the
“Esoteric attitude of the early Christian community,” which he calls “discipline of the secret.” Please see more on
Brege, Eating God’s Sacrifice, 371−74; and see Jeremias, Eucharistic Words, 136. Specifically, Jeremias notes,
“The Conspicuous absence of any reference to the Eucharist in the list of subjects taught to beginners in the faith
(Heb. 6:1f) is probably to be explained by the consideration that the Eucharistic doctrine belonged to those elements
which were reserved to the mature.” See on page 134.
52
Robert J. Daly, Christian Sacrifice (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press. 1978),
263.

120
the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place”

(Heb. 9:2−3). In the Old Testament, on the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), the high priest entered

the holiest place behind the second curtain to sprinkle the blood of the bull and the goat before

the mercy seat. On this day alone, the high priest made atonement for the holy place, for himself

and his household, and all the assembly of Israel (Lev. 16:16−17). The Jewish Yom Kipper,

commonly known as the Day of Atonement, became the climax of those other daily sacrifices in

the Temple. A bull was sacrificed on behalf of the priest as a sin-offering, while a goat was

sacrificed as a sin-offering for the people. Another scapegoat was brought to the priest so that the

priest might lay his hands upon it and transfer all the people’s sins. The scapegoat carried

peoples’ sins, and it was not sacrificed or consumed but driven out into the desert. 53

St. Chrysostom helps us see the typology operative here. In his homily on Hebrews, he

comments, “The types, therefore, contain the figure only, not the power; just as in images, the

image has the figure of the man, not the power. So that the reality and the type have [somewhat]

in common with one another. For the figure exists equally in both, but not the power.” 54 The old

procedure of animal sacrifices could not perfect the conscience of the worshipers (See Heb. 10:4,

11, and Cf. also 7:11, 9:9), and that is why the sacrifice had to be repeated every year (Heb.

10:1). However, Jesus entered not the holy of holies, but also the eternal sanctuary before the

presence of God, sitting before the divine throne of grace. He is the High Priest according to the

order of Melchizedek, who offers his own blood signifying in himself the end and fulfillment of

the Old Testament priesthood. Daly notes, “The author [of Hebrews] uses this Melchizedek

tradition to support his main thesis of the inadequacy of the old covenant and the perfection of

53
See further explanation on this on Young, Use of Sacrificial Ideas, 47−50.
54
“St. Chrysostom’s Homily 17 on Hebrews 10:2−9.”

121
the new.” 55 The high priestly intercession of the Christ on behalf of sinners is a continuous,

heavenly, and eternal reality, which is done once for all. 56

For all the types of animal sacrifices offered on the tabernacle altar, the blood was the

atoning component, pointing to the greater atoning blood of Christ. Just as the Old Testament

high priest enters the holy of holies carrying the blood of an animal as a sacrifice to be offered

first on behalf of himself and then the people (Lev. 16:1−19), Christ enters the holy of holies

shedding his innocent blood as a ransom for many. The old sacrifice then dealt only with food

and drink and various washings and regulations for the body that were imposed until the

fulfillment of the covenant when we are sanctified through the offering of Christ’s body (Heb.

10:9−10). The guilt of sin could only be removed entirely at the cost of the blood from the life

laid down in Christ. Thus, Jesus obtained an excellent ministry far greater than the Levitical

priests because “Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the

covenant he mediates is better since it is enacted on better promises” (Heb. 8:6).

Unlike the Old Testament priests, Christ did not need to offer sacrifice for himself (Heb.

7:27). What the Old Testament sacrifice could not purify, i.e., the human conscience, the New

Testament sacrifice, which is far greater than the animal blood (Heb. 10:18), purifies, and the

Holy Spirit empowers the efficacy of the blood of Christ. Hebrews says that the sacrifice of

Christ have absolute power “to perfect (τελειῶσαι) the conscience of the worshiper” (Heb. 9:9

and see also Heb. 9:13−14). For Chrysostom, “The New [sacrifice] then has not simply caused

55
Daly, Christian Sacrifice, 265.
56
While some argue that Christ’s high priestly ministry was effective just from the time of his glorification,
the EOTC rejects the idea that Christ holds a continuous, heavenly, and eternal high priestly service. For the EOTC,
Christ’s high priestly service was completed during his earthly ministry before his glorification.

122
the old to cease, but because it was no longer useful, it had grown outdated.” 57

The picture of animal sacrifice in the Old Testament is then a type of Christ’s sacrifice in

the Eucharist, foreshadowing the only way of salvation, which is achieved through the sacrificial

death of Christ. Jesus Christ is the High Priest who offered himself to God for the sake of

sinners, and this is evident in Hebrews and the use of the ὑπὲρ-formula (the “for you” formula)

in the Eucharistic words of institution.58 The old sacrificial system, as detailed in Leviticus and

reinterpreted typologically in Hebrews, is perfectly completed in Christ’s sacrifice. 59 Now, when

the faithful receive the blood of Christ, it not only brings life but also gives atonement for sin

because Christ’s moral innocence and his shed blood surpassed the powerlessness of the animal

sacrifice, which was a sacrifice that could perfectly purify neither the high priest nor the people.

The blood of the covenant stated in the Book of Exodus 24 was just a sign of the covenant-

sealing sign, and Hebrews associates that covenant sealing with purification and atonement

achieved through the Messiah. 60 The idea of sacrifice in Hebrews provides the meaning of

Christ’s redemptive act. The implication is that the Jewish sacrificial cult was not completely

effective in pardoning sin for eternity because the Jewish cultic sacrifice had a temporary effect

that required repetition (Heb. 7:27). However, the Book of Hebrews confirms that the new and

57
“St. Chrysostom’s Homily 14 on Hebrews 8:7.”
58
Daly, Christian Sacrifice, 273−74.
59
Francis Young concludes that Christ’s sacrifice fulfilled communion-sacrifice, gift-sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving, and a sin-offering. Besides, Christ’s sacrifice typologically fulfilled the Passover sacrifice and the
covenant sacrifice. See Young, Sacrificial Ideas in Greek Christian Writers, 240.
60
Christ’s priestly work in relation to the peace offering is frequently associated with the theme of the
covenant. See more on William Lane, A Call to Commitment (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1985), 139−40. Jeremiah’s
prophecy about the new covenant combines the sin offering and the peace offering with God’s new covenant granted
to us through the sacrifice of the Christ (Heb. 8:7−13 and compare with Exod. 24: 5−11). Hebrews 9:18 says that
“Therefore not even the first covenant was inaugurated without blood,” and the eating and drinking followed the
dashing of the blood. (Please see Exod. 24:11). In the old covenant, Moses sprinkled the blood upon the people, but
Christ let his people drink the blood of the new covenant. Jesus said, “This is the blood of the (new) Covenant.”

123
perfect antitype is much more superior to the type because God himself actively participated in

bringing that true and prime sacrifice to fruition.

Distinct from the effects of the Old Testament Jewish sacrifice, partaking of the Eucharist

involves both dying to the old Adam and walking in the newness of life. When the living Lord

meets his people in the Eucharistic sacrifice, He has already actualized the sacrifice anew in the

gift of the consecrated bread and wine, and partakers are spiritually participating in the life and

death of the Christ and the life-giving power of his resurrection. Finally, the author of Hebrews

connects the sacrificial death of Christ with the spiritual sacrifice that Christians are to offer God.

In chapter 13, he exhorts that Christians ought to offer their lives as sacrifices pleasing to God.

He notes, “Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus

let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire”

(Heb. 12:28−29). The very purpose of the sacrifice of Christ is presented as the sacrifice that

enables a believer to offer his life in gratitude to God as a kind of sacrifice. The author notes,

“Through him then let us continually offer up a sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of lips

that acknowledge his name.” and he goes on to qualify what that meant saying, “Do not neglect

to do good and to share what you have, for such sacrifices are pleasing to God” (Heb. 13:15−16).

In the sacrificial death of Christ, believers are exhorted to take part in offering their lives as a

spiritual sacrifice pleasing to God. The Christian life is a life lived in the likeness of the

incarnate, crucified, and risen Christ, which is reflected through the believer’s everyday life in

their relationship to God and their neighbors. The author says, “Let brotherly love continue. Do

not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for thereby, and some have entertained angels

unawares. Remember those who are in prison, as though in prison with them, and those who are

mistreated, since you also are in the body” (Heb. 13:1−3).

124
 Another contrast the writer to the Hebrews makes is that the Old Testament sacrifice was

unable to save those who made sacrifices apart from the faith, which trusts in the anticipated

sacrifice of the Messiah. God’s economy of salvation has a consistent means to grant that

salvation to all human beings of all ages. This implies that God did not order two different means

of atonement and salvation, one, through the sacrifice of an animal in the Old Testament, and the

other through the sacrifice of Christ in the New Testament. Instead, the old covenant sacrifices

profoundly functioned as a shadow of the perfect sacrifice, pointing to the actual sacrifice in

Christ. The Book of Hebrews clarifies that the Old Testament type of sacrifice ceases to have

much value apart from its newly revealed meaning. Now the perfect sacrifice has come, and this

Lamb of the sacrifice has obtained eternal redemption and has granted it to all who believe in

him through the Eucharist. In the new covenant believers come “to Jesus, the mediator of a new

covenant, and to the sprinkled blood that speaks a better word than the blood of Abel” (Heb.

12:24).

Thus, the typological interpretation employed in Hebrews emphasizes the interpretive

thought over the literal thought, affirming that the type ceases to have much value apart from its

newly fulfilled meaning. The presence of Christ in the bread and wine is the compelling presence

of Christ’s sacrifice. Christ now accomplishes what sacrifice was thought to accomplish in the

former covenant, and this holy sacrifice is offered to the faithful in the Lord’s Supper. By eating

and drinking the body and blood of the Lord, the faithful participate in the redeeming power of

the Messiah’s death and resurrection, which calls them to live a life worthy of that true sacrifice

by doing good and being generous to the poor.

Eucharist as a Sacrifice

The Jewish religion highly influenced the early Christians and their liturgical institutions,

125
including their book (the Septuagint), culture, and tradition. Jesus himself and his disciples were

of Jewish origin, and therefore Christianity was not considered a new religion without origin, but

rather a new religious sect that came out of Judaism, 61 although the Romans still referred to

Christianity as a new religion. Roman religion, too, was centered around sacrifice. As McGowan

points out, “The centrality of the sacrifice for ancient Mediterranean society is hard to

exaggerate.” 62 However, while Christianity saw some aspects of its liturgical sacrifice in

continuity with Israel, there was no such continuity with the pagan sacrifices of the day, which

were simply idolatry. Enrico Mazza has analyzed the origin of the Jewish ritual sacrifice and

liturgy, placing the Christian liturgy of the Eucharist entirely with this context. His analysis

directs us primarily to the concept of Jewish sacrifices, which figures prominently in the

Eucharist as the Sacrifice of the New Covenant.

The Jewish prayer conducted at a meal is related to sacrifice. Moses instituted the prayer to

give thanks to Yahweh. He instructed how Israel was to pray after they had consumed a meal

saying, “When you have eaten and are satisfied, praise the Lord your God for the good land he

has given you” (Deut. 8:10). The Jewish celebrated God with a meal because He had already

given them food and the Promised Land as their inheritance. Mazza notes, “It was the

Deuteronomic reform that introduced the practice of the nonreligious slaughter of animals; the

result was a clear differentiation between sacrifice with its sacred meal and the “secular” meal,

taken solely for nourishment.” 63 This reform gave rise to the special liturgy of the Jewish ritual

61
The Scripture also tells us that Christians are the new Israel and lets us know the radical character of the
Gospel in forming new covenant people. See 1 Pet. 2:10 and Rom. 9:1−13.
62
Brian A. McGowan, Ancient Christian Worship: Early Church Practice in Social, Historical, and
Theological Perspective (Grand Rapids, Baker, 2014), 32.
63
Mazza, “Eucharist in the First Four Centuries,” Handbook for Liturgical Studies, vol. 3, ed Anscar J.
Chupungco (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1997), 20n12.

126
and religious meal, which was traced back to the divine command given by Moses (Deut. 8:10).

Since the meal was considered to be the gift of God, it had a religious character when

consecrated with prayer and thanksgiving as God’s provision for his people. This prayer is called

the Birkat ha-Mazon, a prayer most often offered at the Passover meal and in the rite of

communion sacrifice, the Eucharistic sacrifice. 64 In praying the Birkat ha-Mazon at every meal,

“the devout Jew celebrates and remembers the gift of the land that is a pledge of the covenant.” 65

Mazza combines the Jewish liturgy of morning and Evening Prayer with the celebration of the

Jewish ritual meal. For him, “Both the meal and the morning and evening prayers were linked to

the sacrifices that were offered, morning and evening, in the Jerusalem temple; the typological

method ensured that the prayers of the Therapeutae were a participation in the nature of the

temple sacrifices.” 66 Mazza concludes that the Birkat ha-Mazon prayer was adopted into the

Christian liturgy and tradition of the Lord’s Supper. 67 The cultic and sacrificial character of the

Jewish Morning Prayer and ritual meal, which is linked to the Old Testament sacrifices, has been

adapted into the prayer of the Christian Eucharist liturgy.

Moreover, in the church’s history, the Eucharist is placed in the context of the paschal

texts, connecting the practice to the redemptive suffering of Jesus. The tradition that the Lord’s

Supper is the Christian Passover meal implies that the Jewish Passover was a type of the

Eucharist in that tit was a thankful celebration of God’s deliverance from sin and death with the

64
Mazza, “Eucharist in the First Four Centuries,” 20. See Young, Use of Sacrificial Ideas, 256−58.
65
Mazza, “Eucharist in the First Four Centuries,” 21.
66
Mazza, “Eucharist in the First Four Centuries,” 31−32. Therapeutae (is a Latin word derived from the
Greek word Θεραπευταί and it means “healers”) were a Jewish sect that existed in Alexandria and other parts of the
Diaspora of Hellenistic Judaism towards the final years of the Second Temple period (AD 70) used the term in
relation temple sacrifices.
67
Mazza, “Eucharist in the First Four Centuries,” 20; and see Young, Use of Sacrificial Ideas, 256−58.

127
anticipation of the future eschatological deliverance at the second coming of Jesus. The Eucharist

was instituted to give believers the fullness of that entire Old Testament history of salvation,

which has now been fulfilled in Christ as a fulfillment of the Jewish Passover. 68 The prefigured

Old Testament Passover would be interpreted typologically by the church fathers who described

the Eucharist often in terms of the Pascha, as we shall see in what follows from the writings of

the Didache, Justin Martyr, and the works of Melito of Sardis.

The Didache is an early Christian teaching document which is known as the Teaching of

the Twelve Apostles. In this earliest document, which was probably contemporary with the

earliest of New Testament documents, most of the wording of blessings, graces, and the

Eucharistic prayers has Jewish content and tone, especially chapters 9, 10, and 14, which

contains a Passover sacrificial allusion from the Book of Exodus. In Exod. 12, God commanded

Israel that the Jews remember the Exodus event with a Seder supper each year during the annual

remembrance of the Passover event. In this case, the wine would represent the blood of the Lamb

that was shed and put on each door. The unleavened bread would represent God’s provision for

the journey out of slavery into freedom for the nation of Israel by providing the Israelites the

flesh of the Lamb for them to eat as they prepared for the journey into the wilderness as they

escaped from slavery in Egypt.

The Eucharistic reference by the early Christians in relation to Mal. 1:10−11, 14 is

emphasized in the Didache14.1 and 3, showing its sacrificial character. It notes, “And on the

Lord’s own day gather yourselves together and break bread and give thanks, first confessing

your transgressions, that your sacrifice may be pure. For this sacrifice it is that was spoken of by

68
The three main Jewish elements of the sacrifice which are fulfilled in the sacrifice of Jesus as an
actualization of the old sacrifice are: “the sacrificial character of the prayer of thanksgiving, the cultic character of
the Eucharistic celebration, and the use of Malachi 1:11 as an account of the institution of the sacrifice and worship
that are brought to fulfillment in the Eucharist.” See Mazza, “Eucharist in the First Four Centuries,” 32.

128
the Lord.” 69 Didache 14 emphasizes the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist when requiring purity

before participation. This sacrificial meal requires moral purity, just as participation in the Old

Testament sacrifice requires ritual purity. At times, the Eucharist was even called the Pascha,

which means the Passover or Passover Lamb, and this Paschal context of the gospel tradition has

clear sacrificial implications. 70 Daly concluded that the Christian Eucharist came to be looked

upon in the early church as the new Pasch, and “the Jewish Passover, as it was understood at the

time of Christ, provides not merely the background but the very foundation of Christian

soteriology.” 71 The substitutionary understanding concerning Jesus as the paschal Lamb was not

new for the early Christians; instead, it is explicitly stated in biblical passages such as 1 Cor. 5:7

and Rom. 6 that have a strong Paschal echo. Besides, all-important past events were considered

Paschal events, and participation in that Paschal rite assured the benefits of salvation. The

eschatological end-event was also looked forward to as a Paschal event. It is in this background

that the Didache refers to Christ as a Paschal sacrifice given for sinners.

Moreover, in chapters 9 and 10 of the Didache, there are instructions for observing the

Eucharist as well as prayers of thanksgiving for the Eucharist. The prayers are unusual insofar as

they do not refer to the death of Jesus but the story of the feeding of the five thousand. 72 John

introduces the narrative of the feeding of five thousand in his Gospel with a specific reference to

the Passover (John 6:4), and Jesus referred to himself as true bread which came down from

69
The whole Didache14 speaks of the Eucharist as a sacrifice. Justin sees the Eucharist as a pure sacrifice
that fulfills Malachi’s prophecy. See Justin, First Apology 65−67; and Justin Dialogue with Trypho 41.1−3 and 117.
14.
70
Rene Girard, Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, trans., by Stephen Bann and Michel
Metteer (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987), 158−59.
71
Daly, Christian Sacrifice, 207. See chapter VI (pp. 196−207) for how the the early church came to look
upon the Eucharist as the new Paschal sacrifice.
72
Please compare Didache 9:4 with John 6:10−13.

129
heaven (John 6:33−35). The early fathers saw this text as Eucharistic, and the crucified Lord is

identified as the bread and the sacrificial Lamb. 73 Christ is the true bread which is both the bread

of the Passover meal (John 6:51−57) and the manna that the Israelites ate in the wilderness

wanderings. The bread continues to be the focus of the Lord’s Supper, along with the wine, and

the association of the Eucharist with the deliverance of historic Passover is still central to the

Christian teaching. 74

St. Justin Martyr referred to the Lamb sacrificed at Passover as a type of the Christ that

superseded all other forms of Old Testament sacrificial rites, emphasizing the importance of the

Paschal aspect of the celebration of the Eucharist. 75 Justin notes, “For the Passover was Christ,

who was afterward sacrificed, as also Isaiah said, ‘He was led as a sheep to the slaughter’ (Isa.

53).” 76 For Justin, the mystery of the Lamb, which God ordered to be sacrificed for the Passover,

was a type of Christ, and “whenever Justin tends to be more specific about the sacrifice, he is

speaking of the Eucharist.” 77 Thus, Justin sees Christ’s death as a sacrificial one who is both the

Christian Paschal lamb and the sin offering of the new dispensation. 78

Melito of Sardis placed the sacrificial death of Christ in the context of the Old Testament

73
Whether John’s text should be seen as Eucharistic text or not is controversial among biblical scholars. For
example, Martin Luther did not see John 6 as Eucharist text in his debates with Zwingli.
74
Melito of Sardis was correct when he wrote On Pascha 2, “The mystery of the Passover is new and old,
eternal and provisional, perishable and imperishable, mortal and immortal.” See Melito and Alistair C. Stewart, On
Pascha: With the Fragments of Melito and other Material Related to the Quartodecimans (Crestwood, St.
Vladimir’s Seminary, 2001), 37. Hereafter this source is cited as Melito, On Pascha.
75
Young, Use of Sacrificial Ideas, 258.
76
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 111.3 and 117; First Apology 65−66; and see Daly, Christian
Sacrifice, 329.
77
Robert Daly, Christian Sacrifice: The Judea-Christian Background before Origen (Darton: Longman and
Todd, 1978), 90 and 328−38, and see also Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 40.1.
78
Justin presented the service of sharing the meal in the context of the second-century Christian liturgy and
what happened on Sunday meetings during the sharing of the Lord’s Supper as the sacrificial meal given to sinners.
For further descriptions, please refer to Justin’s First Apology 67.

130
Pascha. During his time, the early Asian church understood the interplay between the Passion of

Jesus Christ and the deliverance history of the Old Testament. On Pascha is the liturgical text of

the Seder and a second-century homily of Melito, bishop of Sardis, written in Asian Minor.

Stewart Sykes argues that “Peri Pascha itself is the liturgical text of the Seder, on the basis that it

is formally a Haggadah, and so like the Jewish Haggadah belongs in a liturgical setting, on the

basis that it is commemorative in intent, as is the paschal liturgy as a whole, since its shape is

directed by liturgical needs.” 79 Melito’s typological interpretative strategy is portrayed in his

association of the Pascha and the salvation history accomplished in Jesus.

In Melito’s On Pascha, the components of the mystery of the Passover go back to the

history of the creation of humankind and the incident of the fall, which brought sin and the

consequence that sin brought upon the entire creation. God promised to reverse the condition of

fallen humankind through Christ’s suffering and his sacrificial death as a substitute for sinners.

Deliverance of humankind through Christ’s death becomes the central figure of the paschal

event. After Melito finished the historic redemption narrative in the Old Testament, he discussed

it typologically to show how the Pascha is the fulfillment of prophecy spoken in the Old

Testament and how the fulfillment in the Lord’s Pascha annulled former rite. 80

Melito bound On Pascha’s pattern to the liturgical action of the Quartodeciman. 81 Pascha,

79
Alistair Stewart-Sykes, The Lamb’s High Feast: Melito, Peri Pascha and the Quartodeciman Paschal
Liturgy at Sardis (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 142.
80
Melito, On Pascha 17.
81
Some Christian sects in Asia Minor continued to follow some Jewish customs and observed the annual
Passover feast on the 14th of Nisan. This group of Christians was called Quartodecimans (meaning the
‘fourteeners’). They observed a Christianized Passover feast according to the Jewish calendar, rather than on most
Christians’ practice on Sunday. For further discussions on this, please read Lyn Cohick, “Melito of Sardis’s Peri
Pascha and Its Israel,” Harvard Theological Review 91, no. 4 (1998): 354. Most of the Christians’ Practice the
Divine service on Sunday. St. Justin witnessed on his First Apology 67 and noted, “For He was crucified on the day
before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to
His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your
consideration.”

131
which embraced “both... Good Friday and ... Easter, for in keeping with the Johannine tradition

according to which the crucifixion was itself the manifestation of God’s glory. In keeping with

the Jewish liturgical tradition of a single celebration of the Passover, the Pascha was a single

festival which commemorated both the passion and the resurrection.” 82 Just as the Jews

anticipated the coming of the Messiah on Passover night, Christians too believed that the

Messiah came to them in the celebration of the Pascha, which had an eschatological tone

pointing to the Lord’s final return. Thus, Melito’s message in On Pascha is intended to

commemorate and present the work of God in a sacramental sense. This means that Jesus is the

Passover of our salvation made known to humankind by sharing the broken bread and bloodshed

for our salvation.

On Pascha does not have a direct reference to the gift of the Eucharist. Nevertheless,

Melito wanted to emphasize that the death of the Lord is the same as the death of the Passover

lambs and a substitute for the death of the Passover lambs was the fulfillment of the Pascha. The

writer uses historical typology extensively to show us how the events of the Old Testament are

typified in the New Testament to show us the close tie between the Old Testament liberation

celebrated through the Passover meal and the New Testament salvation achieved through the

sacrifice of the Lord as celebrated and shared in the Eucharist. Stewart notes, “Melito has a

theory of typology according to which the type, say the first Passover, precedes the reality, the

salvation worked by Jesus, which fulfills it.” 83 He notes concerning On Pascha 6, “So the

slaughter of the sheep, and the sacrificial procession of the blood, and the writing of the Law

encompasses Christ, on whose account everything in the previous law took place, though better

82
Melito, On Pascha, 18.
83
Melito, On Pascha, 31.

132
in the new dispensation.” 84

Melito compares the Passover lamb and the Lord in On Pascha 4, noting “The sheep is

perishable, but the Lord, not broken as a lamb but raised as God is imperishable. For though he

led to the slaughter like a sheep, he was no sheep. Though speechless as a lamb, neither yet was

he a lamb. For there was once a type, but now the reality has appeared.” 85 He narrates the order

God gave to Moses in Egypt to take a lamb, spotless and unblemished, and in the evening to slay

the Lamb with the sons of Israel to eat it without breaking the bone of the Lamb (Num. 9:12). He

ordered them to take the animal’s blood and spread it across the front doors of the Israelite’s

house as a sign of the blood so that the angels could pass over them. In On Pascha 34, Melito

expresses the mysterious deliverance of the Israelites: “What is this strange mystery that Egypt is

struck down for destruction and Israel is protected for salvation?” 86

Towards the end of On Pascha, Melito sounds like a prophet by speaking the words of the

risen Christ, who is also present in the sacramental action of the Pascha. In On Pascha 103, he

uses the Johannine expression of Christ’s divinity by repeatedly using the term ἐγώ εἰμι in

relation to the purpose of his sacrificial death. Melito notes, “So come all families of people,

adulterated with sin, and receive forgiveness of sins, for I am your freedom. I am the Passover of

salvation, I am the Lamb slaughtered for you, I am your ransom, I am your life, I am your light, I

am your salvation, I am your resurrection, I am your king.” 87

In sum, as we have seen above, one of the significant steps in a historical reconstruction of

the Eucharist is to find out the sacrificial narratives of the Lord’s death by situating the events

84
Melito, On Pascha, 38.
85
Melito, On Pascha, 38.
86
Melito, On Pascha, 45.
87
Melito, On Pascha, 65−66.

133
described within a Passover framework that convey the mystery of salvation history within the

liturgy and praxis of Judaism. 88 Early Christians interpreted Jesus’ life and death by pointing to

the ancient Jewish narrative of redemption, primarily the story of the Exodus from Egypt, where

Jesus’ death echoes the Exodus from Egypt. This development of the Old Testament redemption

theory, signified by the celebration of the Passover meal, is a familiar oriental idea where eating

and drinking communicates the divine gifts understood due to God’s redemptive act.

The Passover meal is one of the merciful acts of God that initially introduced Israel to the

concept of grace because the theology of the Passover sacrifice was essentially that of grace, as

the act of the Passover sacrifice was a gift of grace because God was faithful and kept his

covenant with his people when He acted in righteousness. Jesus is our Passover lamb in the new

covenant, and He has introduced us to God’s grace and love based on His will to die for sinners.

(Rom. 5:10). Young correctly notes that “The Eucharist has the same function in Christianity as

the Passover in Judaism since both looked back with rejoicing and thanksgiving to the

deliverance already brought about by God; they both also anticipated his future eschatological

salvation.” 89

Conclusion

This chapter presented that the early church fathers’ interpretation of the Scripture and their

reading of the Old Testament through the New Testament was principally Christocentric. Their

main goal of using allegorical and typological interpretative methods of the Scripture was to read

88
According to Francis Young, the two Jewish feasts which are unique of importance as background to
Christian sacrifice of the Eucharist are The Day of Atonement Ritual and The Feast of Passover. For further details
of the two Jewish feasts and how they become essential in Christianity, please refer to Young, Sacrificial Ideas in
Greek Christian Writers, 43−50.
89
Young, Use of Sacrificial Ideas, 274−75.

134
the Scripture as a single text that teaches a coherent and unified truth about the nature of God and

human destiny. While focused on the spiritual sense, the Alexandrians’ allegorical exegesis

acknowledged the idea that the Scripture refers to historical events. The Antiochenes emphasized

the coherent discourse of the Scripture as basically understood by the original audience in mind

and then moved on to searching for the spiritual meaning of the text. Both traditions believed the

interpretive task was not finished if one did not consider the text’s spiritual understanding.

The searching of the spiritual meaning of the Scripture is especially true in the early

fathers’ interpretation of the Pascha and the significance of the sacrifice of the Lamb within the

whole Levitical sacrificial system. The fathers’ interpretative theory of the Eucharistic sacrifice

was tied to the Jewish sacrificial system in the Old Testament, which received its fulfillment

through the sacrifice of Christ on the altar of the cross. They believed that all the sacrifices in the

Old Testament found their fulfillment in the Eucharistic sacrifice. The early exegetes understood

the Eucharist as a reutilization of the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. They introduced the

cultic understanding of the Eucharistic sacrifice that required partakers to participate in the life of

Christ.

The EOTC scholars and Christians, particularly those who regularly preach and teach in the

church, should better understand, and apply the early church fathers’ interpretive approaches to

Scripture in our post-critical context. However, as the church seeks to portray this positively, it

should also be aware of the instances where the allegorical interpretative approaches goes off the

literal meaning. Relying solely on the allegorical interpretation of the Scripture becomes

dangerous, especially when the EOTC priests and members of the church emphasize too much

the role of the present interpreter and take the meaning of the text too far from the historical

situation and syntactical construction of a given text. Thus, a faithful reading of Scripture in the

135
EOTC should call the interpreter to properly understand the original text in its historical context

before searching for the deeper spiritual meaning that must be grasped from the studied text.

136
 CHAPTER FIVE

INTERPRETIVE TRADITION OF THE ANDEMTA COMMENTARY

Introduction

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has traditionally attracted the attention of historians and

theologians for its ancient Christianity history and its unique and traditional interpretation and

exegeses of the Scripture. However, despite the significant contributions made to the study of

this complex tradition of biblical interpretation, it is still, to a large extent, not studied very well.

In the previous chapter, we argued that most early church fathers interpreted the Scripture

following various interpretative traditions. While the Antiochene exegetes emphasized the literal

interpretative strategies, the Alexandrians emphasized the allegorical interpretation of the

Scripture. However, the early fathers, from both interpretative traditions, were concerned with

finding out the deep spiritual meaning of the Scripture within the framework of the historical

meaning of the text and attempted to place the text in the context of readers of their time in order

to respond to their specific situation in time.

In this chapter, which is based on the previous chapter’s argument, we will show how the

Andemta commentary (AC) interpretative tradition has been influenced by the early church

fathers’ interpretative strategies from both traditions. In addition to the early exegetes’ influence,

the AC has been developed within Ethiopian tradition, maintaining its own indigenous style of

interpretation of the Scripture. Therefore, in what follows, we shall first describe the general

features of the AC interpretative tradition in its context, understanding that it is a living tradition

that continues to considerably affect the EOTC’s biblical interpretation and preaching. Then, we

shall describe the sources for the interpretative tradition, followed by describing the influence of

the Antiochene-Alexandrian interpretive traditions. Furthermore, we shall critique the unique

137
hermeneutical tradition of the AC on 1 Cor. 11:27, because most of the time, the word ἀναξίως is

taken out of context, so to speak, and wrongly interpreted and practiced in the EOTC. The way

this portion of the Scripture is translated, interpreted, and practiced has long confused its

members. Thus, we shall specifically examine how the AC interpretative tradition uses its unique

context to further elucidate the biblical text to fit within its own cultural and theological context,

thus developing a new narrative situation different from the clearly stated first-century

environment in Corinth and showing how such interpretation of the keyword deviates from the

historical and scriptural teachings regarding the worthy partaking of the Eucharist.

General Features of Andemta Commentary Tradition

The EOTC has developed its distinctive interpretative tradition throughout its history,

which is preserved in the AC. This has substantially shaped how the Church interprets and

preaches the Scripture. The Commentary originated from both internal and external traditions to

reach its final form. 1 It is comprised of Amharic commentaries on Ge'ez biblical and patristic

texts both in typeset and handwritten form. Roger Cowley notes, “It [AC] has been formed as an

Ethiopian oral tradition, but parts of the material have been printed, and the rest is available in

MSS of varying degrees of completeness.” 2

The AC is the interpretation of the EOTC that comprises both the Old and New Testament

1
The internal and external sources refer to the Ethiopian ancient religious tradition (the worship of the
Serpent and the Sun God), the ancient tradition of Hebraic-Judaism, the apostolic tradition, the Syriac tradition, and
the Egyptian Coptic tradition.
2
Roger W. Cowley, The Traditional Interpretation of the Apocalypse of St. John in the Ethiopian Orthodox
Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1983), 3. The AC is partly published, but other essential commentaries
are preserved in the manuscript form, and the institution of Ethiopian Studies at the University of Addis Ababa
preserves them in their manuscript collection.

138
books of the Bible, including fifteen apocryphal books. 3 It is believed that the scholars and

teachers who wrote the AC were highly educated and knew Hebrew, Greek, Coptic, Arabic, and

Syriac well and were thus able to translate and interpret the patristic commentaries on the Old

and New Testaments written by the Apostles, the three hundred eighteen bishops 4 who had been

at the council of Nicaea, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and St. Gregory,

along with Fetha Nagast, the fourteen worship books, Eusebian canons, Ethiopian historical

works, and others. 5

The exact date and chronological origins of the Andemta literature are not known; however,

it is traditionally understood that the Pentateuch came to Ethiopia together with the True Ark of

the Covenant and a group of Jewish priests and nobles in the tenth century BC, as we have stated

in chapter one, as related to the Kebra Nagast. Tradition states that at some point, the Pentateuch

was translated from Hebrew into Ge'ez along with its ancient commentaries. During the Christian

era, the New Testament and patristic writings and their homilies were brought to Ethiopia, and

their biblical commentaries were translated into the Ge'ez language. 6 Ralph Lee notes, “Other

commentaries are thought to have arrived along with the book of the Old and the New Testament

3
The fifteen apocryphal books include the Books of Monks and the Books of Scholars (the early fathers). See
more lists on Mekere Selase GebreAmanuel, Beluy Seyefe Selase Yohanns, Berhanu Gebree Amanuel, and Meleak
Tabor Teshome Zerihun, የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን ታሪክ ከልደተ ክርስቶስ እስከ ፳፳፻ ዓ.ም (2000): The
History of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church from the Birth of Jesus to AD 2000 (Addis Ababa: EOTC,
2000), 176−79. Hereafter this material is footnoted as GebreAmanuel, የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን
ታሪክ.
4
The historians differ over how many church fathers attended the Nicene council of AD 325. However, the
EOTC believes that the number of fathers who attended the council was three hundred and eighteen.
5
Roger Cowley, Traditional Interpretation of the Apocalypse of St. John in the Ethiopian Church
(Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1983), 19. For the entire list of contents of the Andemta Commentary, please
refer to Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 6−14. Besides the eighty-one biblical books considered canonical by the
EOTC, there are several patristic writings and the Ethiopian liturgical texts. Please see Keon-Sang An, An Ethiopian
Reading of the Bible: Biblical Interpretation of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church (Eugene, OR: Pickwick,
2015), 121.
6
Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 19.

139
when translated from Greek.” 7 The written versions of the commentaries can trace their origin to

a time during the Aksumite Kingdom, which was between the tenth century BC and the ninth

century AD. However, the current form came into being during the Gondar kingdom which was

from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries AD. 8 Roger Cowley notes that in antiquity the

EOTC’s teachers used the various materials at their disposal and eventually produced a

commentary corpus, which reached a definitive form during the Gondar Kingdom (AD

1632−1855). 9

The Andemta Commentary, therefore, represents a long-running Ethiopian oral tradition,

possibly originating from the Aksumite Kingdom between the advent of Christianity in the early

fourth century and the ninth century. 10 However, the printed full and final edition of the

commentary was published in the nineteenth-century AD. Since then, the style and the content of

the commentary have remained substantially unchanged. This commentary has been taught

through oral instruction and memorization to impart a thorough understanding of the Scripture. It

is also combined with the teachings of the early church fathers, demonstrating a concurrence

with the doctrine of the Church. Tendencies reflecting a background of theological dispute are

generally absent from the AC’s interpretation of the Scriptures. 11

The meaning of the term Andemta can be literally translated as ‘for one’ and ‘for another.’

According to Mohammed Girma,

7
Ralph Lee, Symbolic Interpretations in Ethiopian and Early Syriac Literature (Leuven: Peeters, 2017),
24:34.
8
Lee, Symbolic Interpretation, 35; see also Roger W. Cowley, “Old Testament Introduction in the Andemta
Commentary Tradition.” Journal of Ethiopian Studies 1, no. 13 (1974): 133−75.
9
Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 23.
10
Ralph Lee, “Symbolic Interpretations in Ethiopic and Ephremic Literature.” Ph.D. thesis, School of
Oriental and African Studies (London: University of London, 2011), 40−53. http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/12742/
11
Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 46.

140
 The etymological origin of the term Andemta is the Amharic word Aand—which
means ‘number one.’ Andem means ‘for one’ with [the] obvious expectation of lelam,
which means ‘for another.’ Hence, so far as the meaning of the text in question is
spiritual and deep enough, Andemta leaves no room for contention even when two
parties come up with entirely different meanings of the text. Hence, hermeneutically,
Amdemta is an interpretive tradition (or philosophy, for that matter) that opens the
way for pluriformity of deeper meaning(s) by bypassing the material or literal
meaning. 12

Roger Cowley notes that the Amharic term Andemta means ‘also,’ ‘either/or,’ and ‘on the one

hand/on the other hand,’ having the meaning of a complementary or contrasting interpretation of

words or phrases of the Scripture. 13 Cowley notes, “Often more than one alternative is presented,

the alternatives either corresponding to different ways of understanding the Ge'ez text or to

different Amharic expressions of the same thought.” 14

The term Andem therefore, suggests alternative interpretations of the ancient Ge'ez biblical

and patristic texts given by various teachers, 15 depicting yet another Jewish connection since this

approach was similar to how the Talmud presents its exegesis. For example, Jesus said to

Nathaniel, “I saw you under a fig tree” in John 1:48, and the AC offers five various and even

contradictory interpretations of the event. It notes,

(a) Nathaniel’s mother had concealed him under a fig tree in a basket made from a
bees’ nest, at the time when Herod had the infants slaughtered, (b) just as Adam and
Eve had done wrong in eating the fig, so Nathaniel had done wrong in murdering a
man, or seducing someone’s wife, (c) Nathaniel was rich and would spend the day
under a fig tree trying agricultural animals, (d) he was learned in the Torah and would

12
Mohammed Girma, “Whose Meaning?: A Critical Look at Wax and Gold Tradition as a Philosophical
Foundation for A Unique Ethiopian Hermeneutics.” Sophia 1, no. 50 (2011): 184; and see An, Ethiopian Reading of
the Bible, 117. Keon-Sang An notes, “The term [Andem] occasionally introduces a chain of successive comments,
which can number as many as ten or fifteen.” Please see further examples on the referred page of Keon-Sang An.
13
Roger Cowley, Ethiopian Biblical Interpretation: A Study in Exegetical Tradition and Hermeneutics
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 39−89; and see Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 3.
14
Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 4−5. The Amharic language uses various idiomatic speech and poetry
to express thoughts and ideas that could be understood in various and dissimilar ways. It also uses the traditional
way of wax and gold expressions that only the elites can understand the hidden meaning of a plain word or phrase.
15
An, Ethiopian Reading of the Bible, 117.

141
 spend the day under a fig tree calculating whether the time for Messiah’s coming had
arrived, (e) as fig leaves are extensive, so Nathaniel’s sin was extensive. 16

The commentary provides multiple alternative interpretations of words and/or phrases of the text

without prioritizing one over the other; it instead leaves the choice for readers because the task of

the commentary is to introduce readers to various possibilities of interpretations without

imposing one over the other since all options agree with the doctrine of the Church. 17

The AC’s corpus and its interpretative tradition is the only authorized exposition,

interpretative tradition, and biblical commentary of the EOTC. Professor Cowley notes several

essential characteristics of the interpretive tradition of the AC, and in his work, he identifies the

formulaic use of the Andem to introduce successive interpretations. He notes that the typical

structure of the Andem is made up of the Ge'ez text, the Amharic translation of the text, and the

commentary consisting of illustrative stories, explanation, and application, which helped to

inform subsequent studies of the Andemta corpus. 18 This commentary represents the tradition of

the Church’s biblical interpretation and the writings of the early church fathers and still

significantly influences the Church’s interpretation and preaching of the Scripture. 19

Contemporary students and scholars of the EOTC are neither allowed to question the

16
Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 51. We are not quite sure what is meant by the entry of letter c, but
have rendered it as Cowley presents it. Another example from Ralph Lee notes that “the white horse” mentioned in
the Book of Revelation 6:2 is interpreted differently. First, “it is the time of the false Messiah. He calls it white
because the Jews were pleased when he reigned over them.” and the other alternative interpretation reads, “it is the
time of the false Messiah. He calls it white because, in His time, the believers will rejoice.” See also Lee, Symbolic
Interpretations in Ethiopian, 33.
17
Please see further examples of such interpretations from An, Ethiopian Reading of the Bible, 117−18.
18
Please see Cowley, Ethiopian Biblical Interpretation. See also Roger Cowley, New Testament Introduction
in the Andemta Commentary Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 16−20.
19
The EOTC has a distinctive interpretative tradition that developed over its long history; however, other
churches have not appreciated it because it has not clearly articulated its own hermeneutical or interpretative
tradition.

142
content and interpretive methodology of the AC nor propose to change it for any reason. 20 Any

student or teacher of this commentary is prohibited from reflecting any critical opinion about any

text to be commented upon because it is believed that God revealed the content to the Church

Fathers through the Holy Spirit, and the EOTC scholars adapted it from them. Cowley notes,

“The commentary effectively assumes inerrancy for the originals of the texts commented upon,

and gives reasons for apparent error and discrepancies, notably scribal error (gedfata Sahafi).” 21

A student who questions or openly declares his opposition to the interpretation of AC will be

declared a heretic. 22 Instead, a student’s task is to recite fully and strictly memorize the

interpretation in the commentary as the mark of reaching the highest stage of the EOTC’s

theological education. The strong prohibition of being critical, along with the accepted

authenticity of the interpretative tradition in the commentary, led EOTC scholars not to present

an alternative interpretation of any word or phrase or write other commentaries, and up until

now, the Church has held the AC to be the only and single authorized commentary throughout its

history.

The tasks of reading, exegeting, and engaging the Scripture have historically been the work

of the priesthood. In contrast, lay engagement revolved around fasting, prayer, and almsgiving,

and observing various rituals to be holy and clean for the sacraments. 23 In other words, lay

Orthodox practice have traditionally been built around discipline, ritual, and bodily engagement,

20
Mulgeta Belayneh, The Nature of Hermeneutics in EOTC and Attitude towards It Today (Addis Ababa:
Holy Trinity Theological College, 2001), 92−94. According to Mr. Belayneh, “The Andemta Commentary does not
appeal to the mental advancement (thinking) of the present generation. This is because the exegetes use unfamiliar
jargon, periphrastic sentences, and unorganized grammatical construction, which does not exist in the contemporary
daily Amharic usage.” Please see the reference.
21
Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 5.
22
HabteMariam Worqineh, Tintawi Ye Ethiopia Serate Timehrt (Addis Ababa: Tinsae Printing, 1971), 217.
23
Unlike the Protestants in Ethiopia, most members of the EOTC do not possess a Bible or the AC at home
or carry the Scripture with them to the Church.

143
unlike many Protestants in Ethiopia who emphasize textuality and reason.

According to the history of the EOTC, the AC’s interpretation is vital for Ethiopians for

four imperative reasons. 24 To begin with, after the fall, the human ability to understand God’s

Word was corrupted and darkened by sin. Humanity was unable to directly understand God’s

message, for Yahweh’s mystery has been concealed from humankind. Another reason is that

human beings were different from one another in various ways such as their culture, religion,

worldview, tradition, language, education, and others. Therefore, they needed an interpretation in

accord with their unique life settings and context. Third, the Scripture was written many

centuries ago for its first recipients, different from our generation in many ways. Their history,

culture, language, and tradition were very different from ours, so it required interpretation of the

Scripture for the contemporary Christian community. Lastly, various biblical genres required

different techniques of interpretation. For example, the Scripture had wisdom, writings, poetry,

Gospels, historical narratives, letters, and apocalyptic writings that demanded a particular

interpretative approach. In addition to this list, one of the major tasks of the AC was to make a

solid connection between the interpreted text and the EOTC’s dogma, which is shaped by the

doctrine of Tewahedo, Mariology, and other basic moral and ritual traditions adopted from the

Ethiopian ancient traditional religious tradition, the ancient tradition of Hebraic-Judaism, the

apostolic tradition, Syriac tradition, and the Egyptian Coptic tradition.

Therefore, the writers of the Andemta Commentary made the spiritual and hidden meanings

of the text understandable for the audiences in their specific context and tradition by illuminating

the hidden mystery found all over the Scripture. The commentary employs specific exegetical

and interpretative strategies to achieve such a goal, which we will discuss later in this chapter.

24
GebreAmanuel, የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን ታሪክ, 174.

144
 Sources for Andemta Commentary

The Andemta Commentary (AC) results from multiple sources, both internal and external,

that are named and unnamed. The first and foremost source is the Ge'ez translation of the Holy

Scripture and the commentary material in the Ge'ez language. The Ge'ez text, also known as “the

Scholars’ text,” has been traditionally regarded as an authoritative and accurate text, and any

other texts that contradict the Ge'ez texts are regarded as erroneous. 25 There were numerous

Ge'ez commentaries on the Ge'ez text of all books of the Scripture, including patristic writings

translated from various sources and origins. 26 The authors of the commentary made exegetical

comments based on the Ge'ez translation of the Scripture, which, according to Ullendorff, was

principally translated from Greek, Syriac, and later revised mainly from Arabic text into the

Ge'ez language. 27 The first Ethiopian patriarch (Frumentius known as Abuna Selama Kesate

Birhan) and the Nine Syrian saints played a vital role in the first Ethiopic Bible translation.

Keon-Sang An notes, “the Nine Saints used a Syrio-Greek text since they know both Syriac and

Greek. Later, in the fourteenth century, the translation of the whole Bible was revised from

Arabic into Ge'ez.” 28 Likewise, Cowley notes that the Old Testament was translated from

Hebrew, the New Testament from Greek, and finally, the whole Scripture was translated into

Arabic into the Ge'ez language. 29

It is worth mentioning here the Jewish source that probably most impacted the

25
Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 3.
26
The EOTC scholars and religious leaders, including Mameher Esdros, Aqane Sa at Kabte, Malaka Gannet,
Takle haymanot, Ato Adrahen, and Azzaz Lamech, have made contributions and corrections in the translation and
interpretation works.
27
Ullendorff, Ethiopian and the Bible, 31−72.
28
An, Ethiopian Reading of the Bible, 128; and see also, The Ethiopian Orthodox Church. The Church of
Ethiopia: A Panorama of History and Spirituality (Addis Ababa: The Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 1970), 8−9.
29
Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 17−18.

145
interpretative tradition of the AC. Cowley noticed the similarities in exegetical methodology

between the AC and rabbinic commentaries. He notes, “it [AC] does exhibit methodological or

formulaic parallels with the Jewish material.” 30 According to Cowley, “Jewish and Ethiopian

rules are generalizations arising from actual engagement in exegetical debate, rather than

expressions of a philosophical interpretive system which has been separately constructed and

then applied to the text.” 31 Ralph noticed that just like the Midrash material, the AC bears some

similarity to the allegorical and typological approach, and the Targumic use of paraphrases and

explanatory expansions to illustrate the Holy Scriptures is a prominent characteristic of the

commentary. 32

As we have argued in the first chapter of this dissertation, given the Hebraic-Jewish

character of Ethiopian history, religion, and culture, the exegetical similarities between the AC

and the Jewish rabbinic commentaries are apparent from the cultural background that both

traditions shared. For example, there are some rabbinic sources mainly found in the commentary

on Ezekiel, 33 whose compiler perhaps has added material after “having an opportunity to study

the material at first hand during his stay in Jerusalem from 1882 to 1912 E.C.” 34 Thus, it is most

likely that the authors of AC used the rabbinic commentaries and that the Jewish rabbinic

exegetical traditions heavily influenced them.

30
Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 374, 381.
31
Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 374.
32
Lee, Symbolic Interpretation, 49.
33
The AC of Ezekiel mainly refers to the actual works of Josephus. The Ethiopian tradition records that the
original version of Ezekiel’s commentary was lost, and some Ethiopian Christian scholars were taught the
interpretation of Ezekiel by a Falasha (meaning an Ethiopian Jew) teacher named Isaac. The printed version of the
commentary was prepared in 1924 by a Christian Ethiopian who had lived in Jerusalem who depicted knowledge of
rabbinic commentaries, the Septuagint text, and Josephus. See for example Ezek. 7:12; 17:1, 23; 24:8; 26:1; 27:19;
23:20, etc.
34
Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 45.

146
 Ralph Lee notes that “The midrash bears similarity to the allegorical and typological

approach of early Christian theology in general, suggesting early Christian influence on the

Andemta.” 35 However, the relationship between Judaism and the EOTC in the interpretation of

the AC corpus is not an exact one, meaning the commentary is not directly copied from the

Jewish rabbinic commentaries. Therefore, Cowley notes, “There are general similarities in

methodology between the AC and rabbinic commentaries. These, like similarities of worldview,

background, culture, and religious attitudes, demonstrate that the creative thinkers of the

traditions had much in common, but they do not prove direct contact.” 36 The AC, just like the

rabbinic exegetical commentaries such as the Tanakh, Mishnah, and Talmud, gives extended

alternative teregwame (interpretations), offering very detailed instructions and guidance which is

to be applied to the daily life of the followers. 37 Lee notes, “The targumic use of paraphrases and

explanatory expansions to illuminate the Old Testament is reminiscent of the andemta.” 38 Like

targumic, the EOTC teregwame in the AC utilizes a story-telling approach, suggesting that

narrative analysis is a helpful and practical approach to studying the commentary material. It first

presents the literal biblical historical fact in relation to the context of the writers and recipients,

and then it presents extended teregwame in relation to the doctrine of the Church and the context

of the implied reader who inhabits the historic EOTC religious context.

In addition to the Scripture, some ancient religious history, the writing of the lives of saints,

and the known historical monastic stories are included in the commentary. For example, the

writings from Senkessar and books of monastic stories (Zana Abaw) are among the unnamed

35
Lee, Symbolic Interpretation, 49.
36
Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 66.
37
Lee, Symbolic Interpretation, 49.
38
Lee, Symbolic Interpretation, 49.

147
references. Among named works, we find Tamer Maryam, Tamer Iyasu, and the Gadls of Takle

Haymanot, John the Baptist, and Victor (and Thecla) Minas are few among many. 39 There are

Ge'ez prayers and chants attributed to the works of St. Yared known as Deggwa (a book of

chant), and some textual additions supposedly made by St. Yared. 40 Furthermore, the

commentary has philosophical sayings attributed to the Mashafa Felasfa and a science section

containing several references to astronomy and medicine. 41

In sum, the Andemta Commentary was formed and developed under the influence of

several sources from various theological and exegetical traditions. However, those sources and

traditions are assimilated into the commentary by native scholars who inhabit the Ethiopian

traditional and cultural context.

Place of Context and Tradition in Biblical Interpretation

Every interpretation and reading of the Scripture is influenced and/or formed by the

tradition and context of a specific community. Interpretation of Scripture is mediated through a

particular conceptual frame of reference primarily derived from the worldview and the socio-

cultural context of a particular cultural community, which in turn also informs and shapes the

exegetical methodology and practice as a framework for the meaning of the text. Thus, certain

people’s social location, culture, and tradition highly influence biblical interpretation. For

example, the task of historical critics mainly focuses on thoroughly studying and searching

history in the light of the cultural and literary principles of its own context because the Scripture

39
Please reference Roger Cowley to find which parts of the Scripture the authors of the AC have used those
sources. Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 41−45.
40
St. Yared was a great Aksumite music composer in the sixth century AD. He composed the Ethiopian Zema
meaning the traditional chant of Ethiopia, particularly the chants of the Ethiopian-Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo
Churches, which are still performed during the liturgical service of the Church.
41
Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 45.

148
is used as a source in the pursuit of Christian history. The historical-criticism method, according

to John Collins, “seeks to answer a basic question: to what historical circumstances does this text

refer, and out of what historical circumstances did it emerge?” 42 However, an essential

theological task must be made in contextualizing the past history into the current context of a

reader after critically having studied ancient history.

Ellen Davis and Richard Hays describe the difference between historical criticism and

traditional exegesis. For them, historical criticism attempts to see texts in their place and time;

whereas traditional exegesis reads the Scripture in light of later developments. 43 The early

exegetes relied heavily on typological and allegorical readings of the Old Testament texts, not

simply in their plain sense but pointing to Christ and making them relevant to their context. 44

Modern critical interpretation, on the other hand, focuses on trying to rediscover what the human

author may have intended by the words he wrote and what the original hearers and readers would

have understood by them, believing that the original intent of the biblical authors is the main

constituent of the text’s single and inherent meaning. 45 In turn, post-modern hermeneutical

theorists believe that texts possess an independence that continues to communicate and speak to

later readers’ contexts. For them, the meaning of the text is what the interpreter says and readers

need to search anew for the text’s continued meaning. The biblical text’s legitimate meaning and

its literary, social, or religious value is not only confined to what the author had in mind but also

must be understood in terms of what the text can still speak to our present context. Based on

42
John Collins, Encounters with Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 2; and see more discussion
and definition of Historical-Criticism in Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (Eugene: Wipf & Stock,
1975), 6−8.
43
Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays, The Art of Reading Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 70.
44
Davis and Hays, Art of Reading Scripture, 71.
45
Davis and Hays, Art of Reading Scripture, 72.

149
what the author meant to say to the original readers of the text, we need to find what the text

speaks to our context now.

The Ethiopian orthodox tradition incorporates patristic texts into the Ge'ez language and

contextualizes it within the EOTC religious context. One of the oldest patristic writings is

Qirillos, which contains the collection of homilies and extracts from the writings of the early

church fathers, such as St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodotus of Ancyra, Severus of Sinnada, and

Juvenal of Jerusalem. 46 For example, St. Cyril of Alexandria’s theological teaching regarding the

divine and human nature of Christ, which he believed represented one nature instead of two

natures (as the Council of Chalcedon confessed) was the primary source and tradition of the

theological idea of tewahedo in the EOTC which rejected the Chalcedonian definition. Another

example is that as soon as its establishment, the EOTC stood with St. Athanasius in the fight

against Arianism and accepted the Nicene Council as binding between the two churches, a

position that determined the dogmatic choices of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. 47

Therefore, we may argue that the earliest Ethiopian religious tradition, the Jewish tradition,

the early apostolic tradition, the Syriac, and the Egyptian Coptic traditions have been adopted

into the Ethiopian context and tradition. Keon-Sang An notes, “Once these foreign inspirations

have been absorbed and transformed, the resulting contents and styles are quickly canonized.

46
Philip F. Esler, Ethiopian Christianity: History, Theology, Practice (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press,
2019), 108.
47
As we have discussed in chapter two of this dissertation, the EOTC is a miaphysite church just like its
mother church in Egypt, along with the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syriac Orthodox (Jacobite) Church, and the
Malankara Orthodox Church of India, whom all rejected the teaching of Chalcedon that Christ had two natures, one
human and one divine joined in a hypostatic union. According to Harry Hyatt, “The theology of the Abyssinian
Church is the theology of the first three Ecumenical Councils and to this nothing had been added.” See Hyatt,
Church of Abyssinia, 85; and Abuna Yesehaq, The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church: An Integrity African Church (New
York: Vantage, 1989), xxi. Therefore, the EOTC’s members are proud that their faith, theology, tradition, and
culture have been inherited and handed down to them from the legitimate apostles and the early fathers. Their
theological traditions have a significant influence on the EOTC’s biblical interpretation and theology.

150
They become part of a tenaciously conserved native tradition.” 48 Similarly, Donald Levine

concludes that “Whatever the stimuli, Ethiopian responses reveal a recurrent pattern that includes

neither nativistic rejection nor slavish adherence to imported forms, but a disposition to react to

the stimulation of exogenous models by developing and then rigidly preserving distinctive

Ethiopian versions.” 49

In sum, the existing tradition and context of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church are the

foundations on which the scriptural interpretation of the Church has been shaped, as these

traditions and context continue to play a critical role in the Church’s biblical interpretation.

Based on this knowledge, in the following pages we will explore the most significant traditions

in Christian history that characterize the biblical interpretation of the Church within its non-

Chalcedonian history. This was foregrounded in the introduction of this dissertation where it was

implied that the EOTC has a non-Chalcedonian nature, implying that the Church is much closer

to St. Cyril of Alexandria’s approach even as they also have recognizable Antiochene influences.

Antiochene-Alexandrian Influence

The Antiochene and Alexandrian ‘schools’ are well known for the two interpretative

traditions of the Scripture. 50 Traditionally, it is believed that the school of Antioch utilized the

literal interpretation of the Scripture but rejected the allegorical interpretation; whereas the

Alexandrian school only accepted the allegorical interpretation but did not care as much about

the literal meaning of the Scripture. In chapter three of this dissertation, however, we have

48
An, Biblical Reading in Ethiopia, 108.
49
Donald Levine, Greater Ethiopia: The Evolution of a Multiethnic Society (Chicago: Chicago University,
1974), 65. Levine stated that the seventeenth-century Portuguese attempted to dominate and subordinate the EOTC
Christianity, which resisted and resulted in war between the Portuguese and the Ethiopians.
50
GebreAmanuel, የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን ታሪክ, 176.

151
argued against such a conclusion. Although the Antiochene tradition focused on the literal and/or

historical and the Alexandrian on the allegorical meaning of the text, neither tradition need

contradict the other; instead, both interpretative traditions looked for the deeper spiritual

meaning of the Scripture but from different interpretative approaches.

On the one hand, some scholars believe that the overall interpretation of the AC follows the

use of the literal works of the Antiochene Church fathers. For example, Roger Cowley, based on

his thorough studies, concluded that the EOTC biblical interpretation and exegetical tradition

stands “in fundamental continuity with earlier commentaries, especially those of the

‘Antiochene’ tradition ... associated principally with the names of Lucian, Paulinus, Diodore,

Eustathius, John Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia.” 51 For example, Theodore of

Mopsuestia’s influence is apparent in the commentary on the Book of Psalms, without his name

being mentioned in the AC, perhaps due to his condemnation at Constantinople. 52 Similarly,

Kristine S. Pederson did outstanding work tracing the origins of the Ethiopian tradition and

particularly the Psalms tradition back to the Antiochene fathers, among whom Theodore of

Mopsuestia was an icon. 53

According to these scholars, the Antiochene interpretative tradition is more conceptual and

more interested in explaining the text’s historical context, which is evident in the AC. For

51
Cowley, Ethiopian Bible Interpretation, 375; and see also Mohammed Girma’s argument against Cowley’s
conclusion that the Ethiopian interpretive tradition has a close tie with the Antiochene interpretative tradition over
against the Alexandrian interpretative tradition. Please see Mohammed Girma, “Whose Meaning?: A Critical Look
at Wax and Gold Tradition as a Philosophical Foundation for A Unique Ethiopian Hermeneutics.” Sophia, no. 50,
vol. 1 (2011), 183−84.
52
An, Ethiopian Reading of the Bible, 132; and see also Kristine S. Pederson, Traditional Ethiopian Exegesis
of the Book of Psalms (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 199), 294. The Book of Psalms is one of the famous prayer books
among followers of the EOTC. For the laity, ዳዊትን መድገም (dawītini medigemi), meaning ‘reciting the Psalms,’ is
vital to establish almost direct communication with God; and it is considered to be the significant stage of literacy in
the traditional Ethiopian system of education for many years.
53
Pederson, Traditional Ethiopian Exegesis, 8, 22−24, 58−61.

152
Cowley, therefore, there is more literary continuity and commonality with the Antiochene

interpretative tradition and interpretation in the AC than the Alexandrian. He further argues,

“there is no comparable link with Origen, Clement of Alexandra, and other Alexandrines, it is

also evident that Antiochene (and Alexandrine) discussions of allegoria, theoria, and tupos (to

say nothing of paradeigma, ainigma, skoposetc) have not reached Ethiopia in intelligible form;

the exegetical fruit has been transmitted, but the root of its theoretical basis has been detached

and lost.” 54 According to Cowley, we find several likely allegorical types in the commentary, but

“the presence in the AC of materials of allegorical type may be felt to weaken the exclusiveness

of its Antiochene connections.” 55 Thus, for Cowley, and those who agree with his view, there is

a belief that the AC acknowledges the historical narrative of the Scripture, and the commentary

does present the literal biblical history concerning the historical situation of the biblical authors

and the historical context in which the Scripture was written.

On the other hand, however, the present writer has found that the AC does indeed move

beyond Antiochene exegesis in employing extensively the Alexandrian way of exegesis, which

mainly employs allegorical readings of the Scripture. For example, the narrative techniques

utilized in the AC to First Corinthians are guided by the communicative environment in which

the commentary is formulated and casts an identifiable framework for the retelling of the source

material. In other words, the AC on First Corinthians uses its Ethiopian context to elucidate the

biblical text, thus developing a new narrative situation that is different from the clearly stated

first-century environment. While a further example of allegorical interpretation employed in the

54
Cowley, Ethiopian Bible Interpretation, 375 (and see n9 for further explanation about the term theoria, and
tupos on page 376; and Ralph Lee also observes lack of direct association of the Andemta Commentary with
Alexandrian figures such as Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and other writers from this tradition. Please see Lee,
Symbolic Interpretations in Ethiopian, 37.
55
Cowley, Ethiopian Bible Interpretation, 376.

153
AC is to follow, let us now look at one of the examples from Paul’s argument against the man of

lawlessness stated in 1 Cor. 5:1−12. The ‘outsiders’ Paul mentioned in this text is translated and

interpreted in the AC as Muslims and shows that even the Muslim culture and tradition condemn

the kind of sexual immorality found among Christians in Corinth. 56

Although Origen’s name is not explicitly stated in the AC, perhaps due to his

condemnation at the fifth ecumenical council in Alexandria, we see Origen’s idea imprinted in

the history of the EOTC. Like Origin, the EOTC believes that behind every literal word of the

Holy Scripture, there is a spiritual sense. Therefore, it must be interpreted allegorically to find

the hidden spiritual meaning of the text. 57 For example, Gebre Amanuel states that the Ge'ez text

translation of 2 Cor. 3:6 reads, “መጽሐፍ: ይቀትል: ወመንፈስ: የሃዩ” meaning “the letter kills but

[allegorical] interpretation saves,” and other texts such as Deut. 32:11 reads, “God carried His

people in His wings,” and Matt. 5:29−30 reads, “If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out

and throw it away.” 58 The EOTC believes that unless such texts are interpreted allegorically,

their literal meaning does not make sense. 59 This is the main reason that the EOTC scholars

worked hard to allegorically interpret and unveil the hidden spiritual meaning of a given text

through the AC in accord with the doctrine and traditions of the Church.

Similar to Origin, which saw vital biblical figures as examples for allegorical interpretation

of the text, 60 the EOTC believes that allegorical interpretation of the AC has a clear biblical

56
The Ethiopican Orthodox Church, የቅዱስ: ጳውሎስ: መጽሐፍ: ንባቡ: ከትርጓሜው: Saint Paul’s Book: Its
Reading with Interpretation. 2nd ed. (Addis Ababa: Berhanena Selam, 2007), 137.
57
GebreAmanuel, የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን ታሪክ, 176.
58
GebreAmanuel, የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን ታሪክ, 176.
59
GebreAmanuel, የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን ታሪክ, 176.
60
Froehlich, Sensing the Scriptures, 52−53; see Elowsky, “With a View to the End,” 68−70.

154
foundation. Every word or phrase in the Scripture has an allegorical meaning and more than one

interpretation. 61 Aba Gebre Amanuel thoroughly argues that the EOTC’s history points out to

some examples of allegorical interpretations used by key biblical authors to communicate the

spiritual meaning of the Scripture to their audience. 62 He mentioned, for example, that in Gal

4:21−24 the Apostle Paul speaks of Hagar and Sarah as the symbol of the two testaments, 1 Cor.

10:1−5 speaks about the rock from which Israelites drank water in the wilderness as a symbol of

Christ who is the life-giving water, and 1 Cor. 9:9−12 speaks about not muzzling an Ox when it

treads out the grain. The AC itself interprets the Ox as a symbol for a messenger of the Gospel.

The Alexandrian tradition found its interpretive schema in Scripture and thus felt justified in its

allegorical approach; likewise, the EOTC believes Christ himself set examples of allegorical

interpretation that can be considered foundational for the AC allegorical interpretative

tradition. 63 For example, the Church believes that, in Matt. 13:1−47, Jesus speaks of the

Kingdom of heaven in six different symbols or examples that are interpreted allegorically so that

the audience may understand the spiritual nature of God’s Kingdom. 64

Girma criticizes Cowley for ignoring the presence of allegorical interpretation in the AC. 65

He notes, “Cowley’s blatant denial of the presence of allegory in the AC tradition seems to be

clearly short of hiding the presence of allegory in the EOTC interpretive philosophy.” 66 Girma

further notes that in addition to the long-lasting historical and traditional influence of the

61
GebreAmanuel, የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን ታሪክ, 175.
62
GebreAmanuel, የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን ታሪክ, 176.
63
GebreAmanuel, የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን ታሪክ, 175.
64
GebreAmanuel, የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን ታሪክ, 175.
65
Girma, “Whose Meaning?” 182−83.

66
Girma, “Whose Meaning?” 184.

155
Alexandrian Church upon Ethiopia, “the EOTC has espoused major theological positions–such

as on Christology–that are directly imported from the Alexandrian tradition. Hence, even though

it might have undergone a considerable amount of indigenization in order to fit the Ethiopian

context, the influence of the Alexandrian tradition on the EOTC’s allegorical interpretive

philosophy seems to be incontestable.” 67

As an example of these clashing traditions, both Cowley and Girma refer to the AC text

concerning Isaac, the son of Abraham, in Gen. 22:5−8 to make a case for their argument. The

commentary reads,

Isaac is a likeness (messale) of this world, the sheep is a likeness of the Lord. Isaac is
the likeness of the godhead, the sheep is a likeness of manhood, the knife is a likeness
of the authority of God, and the blade is a likeness of suffering and death. The
thought of Abraham is a likeness of the grave; Isaac is a likeness of the Lord. The fire
is a likeness of the Holy Spirit, the wood is a likeness of the cross, and the two
servants are likenesses of the two brigands. 68

Referring to the exact text, Girma argues that this text in the AC uses extensively allegorical

exegesis, 69 whereas Cowley takes it as “examples of homiletic application, not allegory

proper.” 70 While Cowley could be correct in his own context, this particular text, however,

seems to be more of an allegorical exegesis as we do not see any straightforward hermeneutical

application “relating ethical and religious principles (of the scriptures) to the daily life of the

67
Girma, “Whose Meaning?” 183. In his argument against Cowley’s generalization, Girma notes, “It seems
absurd to think that acquiring interpretive rules always hinges on explicitly constructed systems. For that matter,
until recently, the EOC has been said to have a very few or no systematically constructed theological treatise at its
disposal. This is because liturgy (which is based on careful precision) and the lifestyle of the believers (i.e., prayers,
fasting, and helping the poor) were and are the main theological documentations. Therefore, it would be interesting
to ask if this absence of systematically construed theology would be a good reason to portray the EOC as a church
without theology and/or philosophy. Liturgy and lifestyle are indeed two prominent media that have maintained the
theology of the EOC for over one and a half millennia with very little alteration if any.”
68
Please see Cowley, Ethiopian Biblical Interpretation, 376; and see also Girma, “Whose Meaning?” 183.
69
Girma, “Whose Meaning?” 184.
70
Cowley, Ethiopian Biblical Interpretation, 376.

156
readers.” 71 Homiletic applications usually draw moral implications of a text which is then placed

in the context of the implied audience. Therefore, the above text is a product of clear allegorized

text even if the allegorical message itself needs further explanation to help the audience

understand the message.

The AC gives two further allegorical interpretations concerning the origin of the ram,

which was sacrificed instead of Isaac. The andemta on Gen. 22:5 notes,

The ram is a symbol of the Lord, Isaac is a symbol of the believers. The ram became
a substitute for Isaac, and the Lord became a substitute for believers. They say the
ram descended from heaven, and the Lord was to descend from the heaven of the
heavens. That they say, it was found from the wood of the Thicket, that he would be
born from sealed virginity, from our Lady. It is a symbol that because he came from
the flock of Abraham, he would be born from the tribe of Abraham. 72

The AC does not give a definitive answer as to whether the ram appeared miraculously or was

taken from Abraham’s flock; instead, it gives multiple allegorical interpretations; however, the

commentary does not deny that the actual event did happen in time and space, “rather the

commentary [AC] allows that actual events may also have a deeper spiritual significance” 73 that

needs to be interpreted allegorically.

We may then conclude that the EOTC’s biblical interpretation embraces both Antiochene

and Alexandrian interpretative traditions, as provided to readers in the AC. When one looks at

the AC carefully, one can observe interpretative traditions of the two schools combined with

typical Ethiopian culture, tradition, and context. It is evident that early church fathers from both

traditions were mentioned by name, and their homilies were cited in the AC. For example, St.

John Chrysostom was cited in the commentary on Rev. 20:4: “Behold, John Chrysostom

71
Girma, “Whose Meaning?” 183.
72
Lee, Symbolic Interpretations in Ethiopian, 52.
73
Lee, Symbolic Interpretations in Ethiopian, 52.

157
commented in his homily which is read on the day of Palm Sunday that he sat on the clothes

which were upon the ass and her foal without being held by a strap or binding.” 74 We also see

other Greek patristic sources such as St. Basil of Caesarea, Severus, Mar Yeshaq, and Ephraim,

along with a translation of Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic sources original Ge'ez compositions as

well. 75 Thus, these multiple references show that the AC draws its interpretative traditions and

legitimacy from Chalcedonian and Miaphysite traditions.

The EOTC’s attempt to embrace both interpretative traditions of biblical interpretation in

the AC challenges the interpretative hostility drawn superficially between the Antiochene and the

Alexandrian traditions. Both traditions had clear doctrinal distinction mainly regarding

Christology; however, it is unprecedented to make a sharp distinction between the two traditions

based on the use of allegory as a critical standard to distinguish their interpretation. After all,

both schools have used allegory, figurative languages, and symbolic interpretation of the

Scriptures as they seek to apply the text into the context of their readers.

Other than Christological differences, Keon-Sang An posits a possible difference between

the two traditions based on their understanding of the goal of biblical interpretation. He notes,

“The Alexandrians were concerned with the spiritual formation of believers. Human life was a

spiritual journey to God. Their understanding of anagogy is “the movement upward from the

bodily level to a spiritual sense.” Here the Bible is a means to an end, a guide for the soul on its

way upward.” 76 On the opposite end, “The Antiochenes had a strong moral, ethical orientation.

The anagogy of Antiochene theoria was to lead people into a truly moral life which continued

74
Lee, Symbolic Interpretations in Ethiopian, 35.
75
Lee, Symbolic Interpretations in Ethiopian, 35.
76
An, Ethiopian Reading of the Bible, 140.

158
into eternity as an existence free of sin. The Bible provided a map of the battle for the salvation

of humans and a guideline for human education.” 77

In its use of the Alexandrian fathers (and the rabbinic tradition), the AC text has

remarkable flexibility. 78 In other words, the meaning of a passage may be stretched to fit any

subject the wording will bear. Early references to the Scripture materials are even more

numerous and pervasive. The Church believes that meaning is not determined and/or confined by

the literal and historical context of the text, though it does not deny the historical fact. Ralph Lee

argues, “The original sources were interpreted to such an extent in the Andemta that often their

literary affinities cannot be identified.” 79 Similarly, although Cowley does not doubt the

originality of ancient sources used in the AC, after his thorough studies of the materials, he was

convinced that “the named sources are typical of all the actual sources, although the AC has

usually digested them to the points at which analysis of the precise literary affinities is

impossible.” 80

Thus, we may conclude that the AC adopted both Alexandrian and Antiochene

interpretative traditions even while developing its own exposition based on the basic teachings of

the EOTC, which were influenced by Judaism. The EOTC commentators developed their

indigenous style of interpretation in service of the Church’s doctrine. This interpretive tradition

allows for as many spiritual meanings of a given text as possible, the only exception being not

contradicting the Church’s dogma and traditions. This commentary’s interpretative tradition,

therefore, continues to influence the central, formative, and ecclesial practice of preaching

77
An, Ethiopian Reading of the Bible, 140, and see also Froelich, Biblical Interpretation, 63.
78
Taddesse Tamrat, Ethiopian and the Bible, 78.
79
Lee, Symbolic Interpretations in Ethiopian, 40.
80
Cowley, Traditional Interpretation, 41.

159
because the EOTC’s preachers’ homiletical concern begins with pastor’s drawing on this

historical exegetical tradition in accord with the Church’s doctrine.

Ἀναξίως in the Andemta Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:27

The Andemta Commentary (AC) offers the most current commentary on the question of

worthiness in the communion liturgy and the various interpretations of the word ἀναξίως in 1

Cor. 11:27 as it mainly relates to the sacramental obligations and rituals within the tradition of

the EOTC. The AC presents allegorical teregwame (extended interpretation) regarding the

worthy admission to the Eucharist in accord with the doctrine of the EOTC (as Judaism mainly

influences it) and the context of the implied readers, who inhabit the historic Ethiopian Orthodox

religious context and traditions. Predominantly, this prestigious commentary interprets 1 Cor.

11:27−29 in such a way that many members of the EOTC understand ἀναξίως to mean that if

adherents consider themselves ‘unclean,’ 81 they should not partake lest they incur the wrath of

God.

Therefore, for many readers and churches in Ethiopia, the word ἀναξίως is interpreted

outside of its original context. In other words, the AC interprets the term ἀναξίως as an adjective

implying that the task of being ‘clean’ and ‘pure’ is the responsibility of those who intend to

partake of the Eucharist. 82 Based on this indigenized interpretation and translation, the

understanding has been developed that the adherents should or could be ritually clean and pure

before the service of the Eucharist, a conviction in which many Christians in Ethiopia consider

themselves personally unworthy and thus reject partaking of the Lord’s Supper altogether.

81
Chapter two of this dissertation described how the concept of cleanness and purity is related to cultic
rituals of good deeds such as fasting, prayer, almsgiving, sexual abstinence between couples, and others.
82
Ethioian Orthodox Church, የቅዱስ: ጳውሎስ: መጽሐፍ: ንባቡ: ከትርጓሜው: Saint Paul’s Book: Its Reading
with Interpretation. 2nd ed. (Addis Ababa: BerhanenaSelam, 2007), 250−55.

160
 The EOTC’s interpretation, for instance, mirrored in the various local dialects, into which,

the Bible has been translated, translates ἀναξίως as an adjective. The ancient Ge'ez language,

which is closely related to Hebrew and Aramaic, is central for the study of late ancient

Christianity because it was the language of some of the earliest Judeo-Christian writings. The

Old Testament and the New Testament were translated in the fourth century by St. Abuna

Salama from the original languages of the Septuagint and New Testament Greek into ancient

Ge'ez. This translation of the Old and the New Testaments in the AC accompanies their

allegorical teregwame. The term teregwame in the EOTC context refers to the Ge'ez traditional

exegesis that displays several readings and interpretations that are intentionally imposed on the

biblical text for doctrinal reasons. 83

Remarkably, the AC first presents the Ge'ez text as a primary source, then offers the

Amharic translation, and finally offers the extended allegorical teregwame. For example, 1 Cor.

11:27 in Ge'ez text reads, “ወይእዜኒ: ዘበልዖ: ለዝንቱ: ኀብስት: ወዘሰትዮ: ለዝንቱ: ጽዋዕ: እንዝ:

ኢይደልዎ: ዕዳ: ይትሃሰስዎ::” The Amharic text reads, “እንዲህም: ከሆነ: ሳይበቃ : ሰጋውን: ደሙን:

የተቀበለ: ፍትሁ: ርቱዕ: ሥላሴ: በፍዳ: ይመራመሩታል::” An equivalent English translation can be,

therefore, if a person receives the body and the blood of the Lord without qualifying, the Trinity

of justice will judge him in afflictions. 84 The AC specifically translates and interprets the Greek

word ἀναξίως in Ge'ez as እንዘ: ኢይደልዎ (inize: īyideliwo) having the meaning ‘being

unqualified.’ This translation only makes sense in reference to one’s moral cleanness, purity, and

83
Kidana-WaldKefle, Mauuafa Sawasewwa-Geuwa Mazgaba Qalatuaddis: A Book of Grammar and Verb,
and a New Dictionary (Addis Ababa: Haile Selassie University, 1948), 17−25.
84
Ethiopian Orthodox Church, የቅዱስ: ጳውሎስ: መጽሐፍ: Saint Paul’s Book, 254. (I translated verse 27 from
the Ge’ez language to English, and emphasis is mine).

161
total commitment to the sacramental obligations within the context of the EOTC. 85 This implies

that an individual member of the Church should make his body clean and pure by maintaining

the cultic rituals before, during, and after receiving the Eucharist. 86 However, the Scriptures

themselves reveal to us that we are all ἀνάξίος because of the fall. However, the good news of

the Gospel is what makes us ἀξίος of the Sacrament, and our remembrance in the Lord’s Supper

is the recognition of the grace of God in Christ as manifested for us in the Gospels. The gifts in

the Sacrament become ours by God’s grace through faith in Christ by which we receive the gift

of forgiveness and salvation through the sharing of the actual body and blood of the Lord.

The further interpretation of ἀναξίως in the AC is linked to verses 28 and 29. It gives an

affirmation that those who take the body and the blood of Christ ሳይነፁ (sayinet͟s’u), meaning

being ritually unclean are those who fail to make their body clean through fasting, prayer, and

almsgiving; fail to separate their body from sins and the world; fail to differentiate the body and

the blood of Christ from the everyday meal; and those who fail to keep for themselves the

Eucharistic obligations of the Church. 87 The AC’s explanation further defines and explains the

word ἀναξίως as ነጽቶ: ካልተቀበለዉ (nets’ito: kalitek’ebelewu), meaning if one receives the body

and the blood of the Lord being ritually unclean, he will be quickly destroyed by a plague visited

on him by God because he partook of the Holy Sacrament being ritually unclean. 88

The word እንዘ: ኢይደልዎ (inize: īyideliwo), which is the ancient Ge'ez translation of the

85
Please refer to chapter one of this dissertation where we offered the detail teaching of the EOTC regarding
purity laws taken over from Judaism.
86
In chapter two of this dissertation, we have explained further how individual members must make
themselves clean for the Eucharist prior, during, and after partaking.
87
Ethiopian Orthodox Church, የቅዱስ: ጳውሎስ: መጽሐፍ:: Saint Paul’s Book, 250−55.
88
Ethiopian Orthodox Church, የቅዱስ: ጳውሎስ: መጽሐፍ:: Saint Paul’s Book, 187.

162
Greek word ἀναξίως, has become the source for other subsequent Bible translations in Ethiopian

languages and has influenced the interpretation of the text. For instance, the latest two Amharic

Bible versions (in 1962 and 1989 by the United Bible Society, UBS) translate the word ἀναξίως

in verse 27 incorrectly. The former translation reads, “ስለዚህ: ሳይገባው: ይህን: እንጀራ: የበላ:

ወይምየጌታን: ፅዋ: የጠጣ: ሁለ: የጌታ: ስጋና: ደም: ዕዳ: አለበት::” Similarly, with a slight difference,

the later translation reads, , “እንግዲህ: ማንም: ሳይገባው : ይህን: እንጀራ: ቢበላ: ወይም: የጌታን: ፅዋ:

ቢጠጣ: የጌታ: ስጋና: ደም: ባለ: ዕዳ: ይሆናል::” In both translations the Amharic word ሳይገባው

(sayigebawi) is translated as an adjective rendering two different meanings. When the accent

rests on the letter ‘ገ’, it is taken as an adjective, having the meaning ἀναξίως referring to the

moral life of a person in order to distinguish whether or not the individual is personally clean and

pure. Nevertheless, without putting the accent on the letter ‘ገ’, the meaning becomes

‘discerning’ or ‘understanding,’ referring to the partaker’s cognitive understanding of the

mysterious nature of the Sacrament. In both cases, the word ἀναξίως is translated and interpreted

adjectivally referring to an individual’s quality of life in order to meet the criteria for partaking in

the Eucharist. Other Bible versions such as the Afaan Oromo Bible translation reads ἀναξίως as

“utuugargarhin basin,” and the Tegregna version reads it as ሽይተገብዖ (shiyitegebi‘o). Thus, both

translations render a meaning that any participator in the Lord’s Supper who does not make

himself clean and pure will be eternally condemned.

Since all translation is interpretation, each of these translations implies that anyone who

does not make himself ἀξιος (‘worthy’ in its adjectival sense) before partaking of the Eucharist

will drink and eat judgment upon himself (v. 29), experience illness and death (v. 30), and even

eternal condemnation (v. 31). The onus for the worthiness in these translations lies primarily

163
with the ones who desire to participate in the Sacrament, looking to their worthiness and their

efforts in doing good works, in addition to Christ’s work on their behalf. These translations and

their interpretations seem to require almost unattainable preconditions for making members

worthy for the sacrament. This is likely what has led most of the members to choose not to

partake in the Eucharist at all, as to avoid God’s judgment. Such understanding of the text is

even more serious than mistranslating a text because, from this understanding, readers make

false interpretations and assumptions about the text, looking for worthiness in their own efforts

as opposed to the worthiness evident in Christ’s work on their behalf. This contradicts the very

message of the Gospel.

For the EOTC, therefore, failure to be worthy and recognize the sacramental nature of the

elements is highly linked with failure to observe the sacramental obligations that must be

observed prior to, during, and after partaking of the Eucharist; this failure is believed to make the

attendees ἀνάξιοί (‘unworthy’ in its adjectival sense). This is evident in the admission of infants

to the Eucharist because infants, according to the Church’s doctrine, are one of the few who

would have very minimal sin, or at least no evident sin or actual sin observed in their lives.

Further, this practice is probably because the EOTC considers infants and small children

incapable of committing mortal sins compared to adults. Thus, they may not need most of the

rituals because of their innocence.

As we have indicated in the previous chapters, the influence of Judaistic teaching upon the

EOTC and the strict adherence to purity laws connected to the sacrifice being offered on the

altar, both in Judaism and the EOTC, contributed to the erroneous interpretation of the term

ἀναξίως in 1 Cor. 11: 27. Due to the rigorous requirement of the rituals, many believers in the

EOTC have developed a feeling that they are ἀνάξιοί to partake of the Sacrament at all. Because

164
of this they prefer to wait until they become more ἀξιος (mostly towards their older age) and are

better prepared to celebrate the Eucharist; otherwise, they think they might expose themselves to

eternal damnation. It is essential, therefore, that there should be a correct understanding of the

passage historically, contextually, syntactically, and traditionally, as it has been translated and

interpreted in the EOTC’s documents.

In sum, these authoritative documents we have examined so far have led many people in

Ethiopia to erroneously interpret the term ἀξίως as if ἀξιος, is in reference to their quality of life

and their strict observance of the sacramental and ritual obligations rather than in reference to the

manner of how the Sacrament is administered in the Church. We, therefore, argue that the word

ἀναξίως in verse 27, as we shall see in the following chapter of this dissertation, is an adverb and

not an adjective, qualifying the manner of observing the Eucharist in the congregation as

opposed to interpreting personal holiness and/or quality of life to meet the sacramental

obligations set by the Church and/or erroneously generated by the members.

Conclusion

In this chapter, we have argued that the AC corpus mainly traces its interpretative roots to

both the Antiochene and Alexandrian traditions and is placed in the context of the Ethiopian

tradition, Christian doctrine, and culture which is heavily reliant on Judaism with its sacrificial

cult and ritual purity laws. The overall interpretation of the AC follows the use of the literary

works of both the Antiochene (Syrian) and Alexandrian fathers by reinterpreting them to fit the

basic teachings and culture of the Church; however, the AC is not a product of simple passive

reception of these traditions and sources; rather the indigenous authors of the AC creatively

incorporated and assimilated the sources and the varied ancient interpretive traditions into the

commentary corpus which in turn buttressed their Judaistic character and reliance on ritual purity

165
in order to participate in the sacrifice taking place at EOTC altars.

The question of what it means to be ἀξιος in this commentary has been interpreted

allegorically in relation to the rituals that the Church adopted from Alexandria’s interpretative

tradition combined with the purity laws and regulations found in Judaism that are adopted into

the EOTC. The doctrinal tradition of the Church substantially informs all stages of the EOTC’s

preacher’s interpretative work.

The AC and the EOTC’s readings and interpretations of the text, therefore, shift the

primary exhortation of Paul against factions between the poor and rich Christians, who gathered

to proclaim the Lord’s death through their celebration of the Eucharist, to be understood from the

individual’s effort in making themselves ἀξιος for the Lord’s Supper by keeping the Old

Testament rituals. All the current Ethiopic Bible versions (similar to some English translations as

well) alter the Greek term ἀναξίως into an adjective, thus requiring certain rituals and regulations

that those who intend to partake of the Lord’s Supper must perform before the celebration of the

Eucharist.

Today, most members of the Church understand that they cannot make themselves worthy, and

the solution to escape from God’s temporal punishment and eternal condemnation is to avoid

partaking in the life-giving Sacrament altogether. Thus, it is important to discuss whether the

term ἀναξίως is an adverb and/or an adjective, how it should be interpreted within the immediate

and larger context of the text, and how we should properly appropriate the text into our own

context, especially for those of us living in Ethiopia. These things are thoroughly addressed in

the following exegetical chapter.

166
 CHAPTER SIX

ἈΝΑΞΊΩΣ IN LIGHT OF SOCIAL AND THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN 1 COR.

11:17−34

Introduction

Interpreting the term ἀναξίως depends greatly on one’s understanding of the exact nature of

the problem in Corinth. Until the contributions of Gerd Theissen, most scholars assumed the

main problem in Corinth to be essentially theological in nature mainly affecting their vertical

relationship with God. Theissen and other scholars, however, shifted the focus from the

theological to the sociological aspects of the problem, which has shed new light in understanding

the horizontal nature of the problem, a problem that primarily affects their relationship with

fellow believers. 1 Nonetheless, the two arguments are not mutually exclusive; but rather, both

problems are inseparably interrelated to each other, making the Corinthians guilty of eating the

body and drinking of the blood of the Lord ἀναξίως.

In what follows, we will first describe the historical and socio-cultural nature of the

problem in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:17−22, 33−34). Then we explore how Paul develops his argument

against the Corinthians theologically (vv. 23−32). In this section, for the sake of the argument of

this thesis, detailed exegetical work is dedicated to verses 27−29 in which we closely explore

what it means to be ἀναξίως (v. 27) in light of Paul’s exhortation for ‘self-examination’ (v. 28)

and ‘discerning the body’ (v. 29). Finally, we conclude the argument showing how the social and

theological problems in Corinth are interrelated and how those problems led the Corinthians to

celebrate the Lord’s Supper ἀναξίως.

1
Gerd Theissenand John H. Schutz, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 17−22; see the entire book of John K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of
Social Networks in Corinth, ed. Stanley E. Porter (Sheffield, UK: JSOT, 1992), 83; and see James D.G. Dunn, The
Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 609−10.

167
 Contextual and Socio-Historical Analysis

Unity and Structure

The problem addressed in 1 Cor. 11:17−34 primarily concerns the abuse of the Lord’s

Supper and the act of despising God’s Church which risks the unity of all believers. Paul had to

correct against divisions and factions which took place in the context of the celebration of the

Lord’s Supper. Although the discussion of the Eucharist in this text focuses on a single theme

such as the abuse of the Lord’s Supper, it can possibly be divided into four major sections. In the

first section (vv. 17−22), Paul analyzes the specific offense in Corinth from the socio-cultural

point of view. He notes that there were schisms among the believers and for that reason the meal

they ate and drank was not the Lord’s Supper; rather, they celebrated a private meal which left

some gluttonous and drunk but others hungry (vv. 20−21). Paul begins by saying, “But in the

following instructions I do not commend you” (v. 17a), and then ends with a rhetorical question

in chiastic form, “Shall I commend you in this? No, I will not.” Instead, Paul declined to

commend the Corinthians because only those who partake of the Lord’s Supper in a ‘worthy

manner’ deserve praise.

Then, in the following section (v. 23−26), Paul describes the tradition of the Lord’s Supper,

adding his own theological comment (specifically on v. 26). The institution of the Lord’s Supper

begins with a Greek conjunction γάρ (v. 23a) to bind or develop the sense of continuation of the

second section (v. 23−26) from its previous section (v. 17−22). As a result of their divisions and

abuse of the body and the blood of Christ, the Corinthians stood against the tradition of the

Lord’s Supper. The gathering indicated their failure to grasp what the gift of the Eucharist meant

for them.

Similarly, in the third section (v. 27−32), Paul used another conjunction, ὥστε (therefore),

in the beginning of verse 27a, showing how the problem stated earlier resulted in unavoidable

168
consequences upon the Christians in Corinth. The sharing of the Eucharist in an ‘unworthy

manner’ (v. 27) brought God’s judgment upon them. This is the background for understanding

God’s inescapable judgment that resulted in sickness and death among the Corinthians. Once

again Paul used another conjunction, ὥστε, in verse 33a, which builds a strong tie between the

sections and ends the final section by providing pastoral and practical instructions (v. 33−34).

Some scholars such as Simon J. Kistemaker, and Ellingworth and Hatton, however,

separate 1 Cor. 11:23−32 from the immediate context (vv. 17−22 and 33−34) and interpret it as a

‘general statement’ or ‘theological principle’ implying that its interpretation and application may

not be governed by the specific social and historical problem in Corinth. 2 Paul might have made

a general/theological statement especially in verses 27−29; however, it is less convincing to

conclude that the general statement derives its deep spiritual meaning independent of and/or

contrary to the specific social and historical situation of first century Corinth and the syntactical

context of the text. Therefore, looking closely at the particles written at the beginning of each

section (γὰρ in v. 23, ὥστε v. 27, and v. 33) we can see that the themes of each section are

interrelated and strongly correspond to each other. 3 Any definitions and/or interpretations which

are derived out of this text must be framed within the overall historical and syntactical context of

the text that is surrounded by the situation of first century Corinth. 4 The basic literal meaning of

2
Simon J. Kistemaker, Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, New Testament Commentary
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 400; and Paul Ellingworth and Howard A. Hatton, A Handbook on Paul’s First Letter
to the Corinthians, 2nd ed. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1994), 265. Among the reformers John Calvin also
falls into this category. Please see John Calvin, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians,
trans. John Pringle (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 385, 394.
3
See more on Wallace for the grammatical explanation of the Greek conjunctions. Daniel Wallace, Greek
Grammar: Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 335−36.
4
For the sack of this thesis’ limitation, we will not take further the tension between the historical criticism
and traditional exegesis theories of interpretation. However, it is good to mention that the historical criticism
attempts to see biblical texts in their own place and time, while traditional exegesis read earlier parts of the Bible in
the light of later developments. Please see more on Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays, The Art of Reading
Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 71−86.

169
the text must be clearly established before one makes homiletical or practical applications, which

should emerge out of the text rather than being read into the text.

Historical and Socio-cultural Setting

The social stratification, which was prevalent in Corinth, manifested itself in divisions and

factions among Christians in Corinth. Most scholars agree that the house church was the norm in

Corinth, and Christians used to meet in individual’s houses as a community of believers for

worship. For example, Ben Witherington believes that the rich Christian patrons who were

providing their houses for worship were included in the celebration of the Eucharist. 5 They were

accustomed to such meal fellowship where the rich gathered for entertainment with people of

similar social class. 6 The great majority of Christians in the Corinthian church, nonetheless, were

among the category of the poor and those of low status. This is seen from several facts. For

example, they hardly appear as individuals by name in 1 Corinthians and Paul was impressed

how God chose the worldly insignificant persons (1 Cor. 1:28). Those few people Paul

mentioned by name were from the high social status group. For instance, Chloe had slaves and

dependent workers and was a patron to her clients (1 Cor. 1:11). Likewise, Priscilla and Aquila

were rich persons who ran their own business in tent making and provided hospitality even for

Paul (1 Cor. 16:19). Stephanus had a household (1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15) and people like him used to

provide a meeting place for worship and possibly for the celebration of the Eucharist within their

own private homes (1 Cor. 16: 15−19). The names we read about in 1 Cor. 1:14−16, Crispus,

5
Ben Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2
Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 30−32.
6
Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2009), 182−92. Smith has pointed out extensively about the meal practice of various kinds of clubs
for first century Corinth. Please see Dennis E. Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early
Christian World (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003), 87−125.

170
Stephanus, and Gaius, were among the upper strata of society and Paul himself initially had a

strong attachment to such persons, probably for hospitality. But in many ways Paul distanced

himself from the high-status members later on in his ministry by refusing to accept money from

them and being afraid of their influence upon his service (1 Cor. 9:1−18).

This shows that among Christians in Corinth the minority in number were from the upper

classes. Although they were few, they were the most influential, active, and important members

in the congregations and can be called the dominant minority. They were dominant not only

because of their wealth but also because of their family lineage. Fee writes, “It was not simply a

matter of the community being divided along socio-economic lines into the ‘haves’ and the ‘have

nots’; but rather it is an individualistic self-indulgence which is predicated on distinctions of

status, kinship and wealth.” 7

In the Greco-Roman world, those with lower status submitted to those with higher status

because the money was given to the poor by the powerful and influential. This is evident from

the social custom known us “patron-client-relationship” (a friendship between un-equals in

relation to exchange of gifts). 8 John K. Chow notes, “Social relationships in Roman Corinth,

from emperor to freedman, may be seen as networks of patron-client ties through which power,

honors and favors were exchanged, and that patronage can be found at work in different levels of

the society.” 9 The money always trickled down from the high social strata to the lower social

strata. The poor were thus forced to honor, and at times were enslaved by, the upper influential

7
Fee, First Corinthians, 534.
8
Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 41; Theissen, “Social Stratification in the Corinthian
Community: A Contribution to the Sociology of Early Hellenistic Christianity.” In Social Setting of Pauline
Christianity: Essays on Corinth (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 69−102, 107; see also John K. Chow for seven
different kinds of patron-client-relationship that he presented. Chow, Patronage and Power, 30−33.
9
Chow, Patronage and Power, 83. Please see the entire book for more explanation of the ‘Patron-client-
relationships’ in First Century Greco-Roman World.

171
classes. 10 This is clearly seen in 1 Cor. 5:1−13 where the lowly congregants were not able to

react against the wealthy incestuous man who sexually misbehaved among Christians in the

church at Corinth.

In the given text, the Corinthians administered the Eucharist as a private meal adopted from

the Greco-Roman eating practice. According to Rachel McRae, the quest of honor, rank and

status of someone at a private meal was apparent because “Roman society was extremely status

conscious, and the distinction between the various strata was scrupulously observed.” 11 Paul

criticized them (vv. 20−21) by contrasting the Lord’s Supper over against the Corinthian’s

supper. His criticism for eating not “the Lord’s Supper” but “one’s own meal” may also express

concern regarding the idea of ownership and who provides the meal. This is the question of the

provider being the Lord or the host. Thiselton confirms this fact and notes, “so the dynamics of

the celebrations of the Lord’s Supper in house groups in all probability generated the same spirit

of focusing on a patron or host to a group rather than exclusively on Christ.” 12 Similarly,

Theissen argues that the adjectival use of the term ἴδιον in verse 21 depicts the source (their own)

meal and the manner in which the meal was consumed in Corinth. 13 Such a secular and social

custom of the Greco-Roman world, which was adopted by the Corinthians into the service of the

Eucharist, is one of the factors for divisions and factions in Corinth which was also expressed in

dining customs, as we shall read in what follows.

10
Andrew D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and Exegetical Study
of 1 Corinthians 1−6 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 85−88; and Chow, Patronage and Power, 130−41.
11
Moyer Hubbard, Christianity in the Greco-Roman World: A Narrative Introduction (Grand Rapids, Baker,
2010), 144; and see also Rachel McRae, “‘Eating with Honor’ The Corinthian Lord’s Supper in Light of Voluntary
Association Meal Practices,” Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011): 165−81.
12
Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans), 850.
13
Theissen, “Social Integration,” 148.

172
 Discriminatory Dining Convention

The Corinthian’s supper practice was shaped after the design of the very hierarchical

dining convention around them. The design of the house church by and large discriminated

against the poor in its dining arrangement. Smith says, “Whom one dines with defines one’s

placement in a larger set of social networks.” 14 He goes on to say, “The guests were placed on

the couches according to their social rank, since each position at the table had an imputed

ranking attached to it.” 15 The food taking position indicated who was a free person or slave, and

created both the social boundaries and bond which left women and children to the lowest

positions.16 Such dining positions became a means of showing one’s social status and an

occasion for gaining honor therefore determining one’s exclusion or inclusion at the table. Such

discriminatory dining conventions, and the hurt it caused during the fellowship meal were

articulated in Martial, “Since I am asked to dinner, why is not the same dinner served to me as to

you? You take oysters fattened in the Lucrine lake, I suck a mussel through a hole in the shell;

you get mushrooms, I get hog funguses golden with fat, a turtledove gorges you with its bloated

rump; there is set before me a magpie that has died in its cage. Why do I dine without you

although, Ponticus, I am dining with you? Let us eat of the same fare (Martial, Epigram 3.60).” 17

The writings of Pliny the Younger (AD 61), who was from the upper classes but expressed

sympathy with lower classes, rejected such class distinction. He says:

14
Dennis E. Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2003), 9.
15
Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 33−34.
16
Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 42; and Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 244.
17
Eric Svendsen, The Table of the Lord: An Examination of the Setting of the Lord’s Supper in the New
Testament and Its Significance as an Expression of Community (Atlanta, GA: New Testament Restoration, 1996),
45. The same text was also cited in Smith’s writing. Please see Smith, From Symposium to the Eucharist, 45.

173
 I happened to be dining with a man—though no particular friend of his—whose
elegant company, as he called it, seemed to me a sort of stingy extravagance. The
best dishes were set in front of himself and a select few, and cheap scraps of food
before the rest of the company. He had even put the wine into tiny little flasks,
divided into three categories, not with the idea of giving his guests opportunity of
choosing, but to make it impossible for them to refuse what they were given. One lot
was intended for himself and for us, another for his lesser friends (all his friends are
graded) and his and our freedmen. 18

Modern biblical scholars have argued for and associated the discriminatory dining conventions

with the situation in 1 Corinthians. In the first century it was common to divide participants of

the feast according to their social status. Theissen notes, “The Hellenistic congregations of early

Christianity, as we find them in Corinth and Rome, display a marked internal stratification.” 19

According to the Greco-Roman dining custom, only the highest and wealthiest people had the

access to eat at the dining room. 20 The various conflicts within the first century church had been

socially conditioned, and the disparity between the wealthy and the poor guests was not only one

of seating; rather it was also of the qualities and quantities of the meal. This privileged place was

reserved for the host and a few chosen guests of the same status in order for them access the best

quality foods and drinks apart from the ordinary people, so that they consume as much as they

like.

Archeological evidence testifies that the Corinthians utilized house churches which were

18
Pliny, Letters 2.6 cited in Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, 50 (Waco, TX:Word Books, 1983), 109−11.
The same text is also cited in Fee. Please see Fee, First Corinthians, 542. According to some scholars, another factor
that divided the Corinthians was the famine which took place in the middle of the first century which caused social
inequality of meal observance in Corinth. Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 7:26 is evidence indicating the stress which the
famine had caused upon the Corinthians. Please see further on this Bruce W. Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 157,
216−25; See also Bradley Blue, “The House Church at Corinth and the Lord’s Supper: Famine, Food Supply, and
the Present Distress,” Criswell Theological Review 5, no. 20 (1991): 221−39.
19
Theissen and Schutz, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 146. They attest further how the then
social gathering was discriminatory even in its religious association. Please see more on pp. 147−162. See also
Edwin A. Judge, The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century (London: Tyndale, 1960), 60−63.
20
Thiselton, First Corinthians, 861; and Richard B. Hays, First Corinthians (Louisville, KY: Westminster
John Knox, 1997), 196.

174
composed of two different rooms. One, called a triclinium (a dining room consisting of three

couches around the meal table), and the other one was called an atrium, (a larger room without

couches outside the dining room). 21 The privileged used to sit in a laid back position, making the

act of reclining during the meal a social marker between the rich and poor and free and slave. 22

According to Smith, the category of guests based on status was customary to the Corinthians in

which people of higher status ate with the host in the triclinium, while the rest of the church

members ate in the atrium. 23 Both Murphy-O’Connor and Hays argue that in the old Roman

villas, it was impossible for more than nine persons to comfortably dine in the triclinium at a

time. 24 Witherington argues that the maximum number that could have met in the triclinium of

the rich homes in Corinth was about ten to fifteen persons who could comfortably dine all at

once. 25 Such distinction of rooms with different luxuries must have also contributed to divisions

among the believers.

Thus, the Corinthian gathering was colored by the social values of rank, status, and honor,

and the related seating and food arrangement that made a sharp distinction between the poor and

21
Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, 178.
22
Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 115.
23
Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 42.
24
Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth, 178−80. After comparing various excavator findings in Ancient
Corinth, O’Connor gave extensive measurements of the villas during Paul’s time. According to him, the triclinum-
5.5 x 7.5 meters having 41.25 square meters for a floor area and the atrium - 5 x 6 meters where no more than 20 to
40 persons could tighten together. See also O’Connor, Keys to First Corinthians, 182–85; and see also Jerome
Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth: Texts and Archeology (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1983), 153−64,
and 180; and see also Hays, First Corinthians, 196.
25
Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 30; Smith, From Symposium to Eucharist, 24−25; and
see also Moyer Hubbard, Christianity in the Greco-Roman World: A Narrative Introduction (Grand Rapids: Baker,
2010), 222. Other scholars have proved the possibility of rented dinning space in a barn or tent which could have
possible included a hundred people who would have gathered at the same time and place. Please see Edward Adams,
The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses? (London: T&T Clarks, 2014), 26–30; and Mark
Seifrid, “Gift of Remembrance: Paul and the Lord’s Supper in Corinth,” Concordia Journal 42, no. 2 (Spring 2016):
122−23.

175
the rich. The social divisions indicated in discriminatory dining arrangements of guests in

separate rooms further contributed to the factions among the Corinthians which was reflected in

the context of sharing the Lord’s Table together at the Corinthian church. Such abuse of the

gathering led Paul to warn the Corinthian to bring their communion meal practice into harmony

with the path of the Gospel.

Contextual and Socio-Historical Analysis

Paul starts this text with sharp criticism against the Corinthians. He explains why the

communion meal is not worthy of his praise, because their coming together did more harm than

good. Paul repeated the verb συνέρχομαι (come together) five times in this pericope, and the

repetition of the key word gives emphasis on the gathering of God’s people as a church for the

service of the Lord’s Supper. 26 Further, Paul made use of strong language stating that the

assembling of the church caused more harm which led him to sharply criticize them.

Paul tells the reason why the Corinthians’ meeting as a church was more harmful in verse

18 where he urges them to avoid σχίσματα. Division among Christians was Paul’s chief concern

since the beginning of the Epistle (1 Cor. 1:10), which is a possible thesis statement of the whole

book. The nature and the context of division in 1 Cor. 1:10−12 and the factions mentioned in this

pericope are different. The former schisms seemed to reflect “tensions between different ethnos

of different house groups,” and the splits were somehow external to the groups, “although

internal to the whole church of Corinth.” 27 However, in this text the very house meeting itself

reflects σχίσματα between the rich and the poor members of the church when they gathered at

26
Fee, First Corinthians, 536; for a similar argument see Thiselton, First Corinthians, 856.
27
Thiselton, First Corinthians, 857; and see also Witherington, Conflict and Community, 248.

176
the same place for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

Paul detects that such a gathering that divided the body of Christ was worse than no

assembly at all because the σχίσματα abolished the very purpose of the gathering at the church

for worship. The gathering contradicted what the Lord’s Supper proclaims, which is Christ’s

sacrificial giving of his life for others. Although what Paul is saying in verse 19 is not as clear

given the context, perhaps he used the term δεῖ necessitating the σχίσματα in relation to the

eschatological judgment. Fee and Barrett believes that there appears to be some divine purpose

in the divisions necessitating that these factions occur to separate true and false believers. 28

Consequently, Paul sharply rebukes by using the emphatic and comprehensive term οὖν

(verse 20a) which directs his previous rebukes of σχίσματα at the church. The repetition of the

term συνερχομένων ὑμῶν (when you come together) signifies a church assembly, and this

genitive absolute is modified by the phrase ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ or having the idea of “meeting together at

the same place.” 29 Their divisive gathering is emphatically implied by the negative word οὐκ (v.

20b). The church should have been gathered to partake of the Lord’s Supper and share the agape

meal being formed by the self-giving love of Christ for sinners, but their gathering was not to eat

the Lord’s Supper but their own meal. The term κυριακὸν is a possessive adjective in accusative

singular form, giving the idea that the host of the Supper is the Lord, not the rich patrons. For

Fee, the word could be more honorific, having the connotation of “consecrated to the Lord.” 30

The δεῖπνον which was supposed to belong to the Lord had become a private meal used for a

28
Fee, First Corinthians, 538; C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Harper’s New Testament
Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, 1968), 262. Pauline uses of the term δεῖ elsewhere in the Corinthian
correspondence conveys an eschatological connotation (see 1 Cor. 15:25, 53; and 2 Cor. 5:10).
29
Thiselton, First Corinthians, 862.
30
Fee, First Corinthians, 540.

177
show of status for the rich. Their problem mostly lies in their broken relationship in the body of

Christ, as their act stood at odds with the teaching of the Lord’s Supper tradition (vv. 23−26).

The debate on the sequence of the meal depends on the translation of the Greek term

προλαμβάνει (take beforehand) in verse 21. The argument concerns what could be the exact

meaning of the term lexically, and scholars propose various views on how the Corinthian meal

was structured. For some scholars, the term προλαμβάνει refers to the act of beginning the meal

practice beforehand which is what Paul is criticizing. 31 In this case the term could carry a

temporal idea in reference to the fact that when the wealthy members arrived at the house church

with better means of transportation and with food of great quality, while the slaves who were

engaged in hard labor arrived late with no food, or food of a lesser quality. 32 By the time the

church completely assembled, there was little food and wine left for the poor while the wealthy

members had already overindulged. Those who argue for the temporal meaning of the word

think that Paul’s final advice ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε (v. 33) should be also translated as ‘wait for

one another’ in its temporal sense. 33

The way the Corinthians adopted eranos (a Greco-Roman meal custom translated as

‘potluck dinner’) extends the σχίσματα into different food sizes and qualities, different starting

31
Arndt William, Bauer Walter and F. Wilbur Gingrich Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001), 872.
32
Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 31; Jerome Murphy-
O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth: Text and Archaeology, ed. Schutz John H (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2002),
160−61; see Peter Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, trans. and ed. Daniel P. Bailey, and Jostein
Ådna (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 403−4.
33
Gunther Bornkamm, “Lord’s Supper and Church in Paul:” In Early Christian Experience (New York:
Harper & Row, 1969), 123−51; and Richard C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles
to the Corinthians (Minneapolis: Augsburg,1963), 457−58; Please see Lenski’s argument for the same (meal-bread-
cup) order while having different understanding on the termπρολαμβάνει.

178
points, and separate seating for the fellowship. 34 Thus, the offense which occurred at the

Corinthian Lord’s Supper happened when the wealthy started eating their private meal prior to

the arrival of the ‘have-nots,’ and when the temporal interpretation of the verb is in force. 35

However, an argument can be made against the temporal translation of προλαμβάνει which

mainly argues for a different starting point for the common meal before the arrival of the poor.

The temporal view falls short to adequately explain itself because, if the Corinthians consumed

the meal before the arrival of the poor, one must ask why Paul asked them if they had homes to

eat and drink in beforehand (v. 22a). If the rich patrons were consuming prior to the arrival of the

poor, what upsets Paul that much (vv. 17, 22c)? It is less probable for Paul to critically challenge

the Corinthians if the rich had consumed their own private meal in the absence of the whole

gathering of the church. Instead, the offence at Corinth took place while the whole congregation

assembled as a church at the same time and place. This is evident in the text συνερχομένων οὖν

ὑμῶν (when you come together) and ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ (in the same place) for table fellowship (v. 20).

The Greek word προλαμβάνει should not be simply translated as ‘prior to’ or ‘goes ahead

with’ to refer to a past action of the rich before the arrival of the poor. Instead, προλαμβάνει can

possibly be translated non-temporally to mean “begin with,” in reference to the act of eating and

drinking while the poor keep watching the rich hoping for the leftovers (v. 22b). 36 The

34
Peter Lampe, “The Eucharist: Identifying with Christ on the Cross,” Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and
Theology 48, no. 1 (1994): 38−39. Read Lampe for an extended explanation about eranos meal custom as a Greco-
Roman cultural setting that explains the Corinthians’ behavior better.
35
For example, Lietzmann explains two possibilities. First, each participant brings his own food and the rich
contribute their share and consume together with their kind, while the poor wait until the rich finish and then they all
celebrate the sacrament together. Or else, each high-status participant consumed privately without waiting for late-
comers and by the time the poor arrived the rich had already overindulged and gotten drunk. See Hans Lietzmann,
Mass and Lord’s Supper: A Study in the History of the Liturgy, trans. by Robert Douglas Richardson (Leiden: Brill,
1953), 185. Lietzmann argues that in both cases the Corinthian had such fellowship in the table setting which was a
violation of church unity when excluding fellow Christians from the table fellowship.
36
Andrew Das prefers the non-temporal reading of προλαμβάνω and translates it ‘eating in front of’ based on

179
humiliating act of the rich against the poor is best seen in the context of both parties being

gathered in the same worship setting. It is in this context that Paul holds rich patrons accountable

for despising the church of God and humiliating the poor (v. 22). Likewise, Hofius has translated

προλαμβάνω non-temporally, having the meaning of ‘take,’ such that it is identical in meaning to

the simple λαμβάνω (to take). According to both Fee and Winter, the translation ‘devour’ builds

on the non-temporal translation but takes the prefix (προ) to be intensive in force, such that

προλαμβάνω coupled with δεῖπνον does not mean simply ‘to eat’ but rather ‘to devour.’ 37 The

gathering of both parties at the same time and place for the purpose of sharing the divine gift fits

best with Paul’s critical warning in the context.

The text itself (vv. 24 and 25) supports the non-temporal argument because Paul mentions

that Jesus took the bread first and after celebrating the supper then he took the cup. This is clear

enough for one to argue for the bread-meal-cup sequence which took place in the presence of the

rich and the poor at the same time and place. Both Paul’s and Luke’s context follows the bread-

meal-cup sequence. In verse 25a Paul testifies that Jesus’ institution of the cup follows the eating

of the supper. The Greek grammatical structure of μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι could possibly mean ‘when

they had eaten the supper,’ which refers then to the common/agape meal of the congregants

being placed in the middle of the sacramental elements. 38

The problem at Corinth was that the ‘haves’ irresponsibly consumed the meal and become

drunk while the poor stayed hungry after partaking of the bread. Then, the ‘have nots’ waited for

the ‘haves’ to finish their common meal and got drunk so that the entire body could then partake

the context of the poor being ashamed by the rich. See Andrew Das, “1 Corinthians 11:17−34 Revisited,” Corcordia
Theological Quarterly 62, no. 3 (July 1998):190.
37
Fee, First Corinthians, 542; Winter, After Paul Left Corinth, 147; and see also Bruce Winter, “The Lord’s
Supper at Corinth: An Alternative Reconstruction,” Reformed Journal of Theology 37, no. 3 (1978): 74−78.
38
Thiselton, First Corinthians, 882.

180
of the cup altogether. In this case, the rich and poor could come together and then the

‘sacramental’ bread would be blessed and eaten first. After this the communal meal and drink

began, wherein the rich who sat in the triclinium got the best quality food and drink with larger

quantities and consumed it first while the poor had to wait at the atrium for the leftovers. 39 Then

the cup was blessed with the entire congregation present at the end.

Paul’s pastoral response in verse 33 confirms the above interpretation when he seeks to

conclude his argument urging the rich and high-status Christians at Corinth to “welcome” and

“receive” the poor as a beloved part of the body of Christ. Scholars who translate προλαμβάνει

temporally have also interpreted ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθε temporally, implying that one must avoid a

premature starting point for the rich Christians at Corinth. However, the historical, contextual,

and exegetical effort presented above questions a mere temporal interpretation of ἀλλήλους

ἐκδέχεσθε to simply mean “to wait for one another.” Instead, Paul attempts to solve the root

cause of the problem by urging them ‘to welcome’ and ‘receive’ other parts of the body when

they came together to eat and drink the Lord’s Supper. 40 His command to ‘wait for one another’

makes little sense to the overall context; rather the alternative translation, ‘welcome one another’

and/or ‘share with one another’ (as over against ‘devouring your own meal’) fits the specific

problem in Corinth conveying a message that those who have the security of an abundance of

food during a difficult period such as a famine should share with those who could have otherwise

contributed to the common meal according to their means. 41 Paul’s instruction to eat privately at

39
Mark P. Surburg, “The Situation at the Corinthian Lord’s Supper in Light of 1 Corinthians 11:21: A
Reconsideration,” Concordia Journal 32, no 1 (2006): 33−37; Similarly, Lampe and Hofius have argued for bread-
meal-cup order. See more on Lampe, “The Eucharist,” 37 and 134; and Otfried Hofius, “Lord’s Supper and the
Lord’s Supper Tradition: Reflections on 1 Corinthians 11:23b−25.,” In One Loaf, One Cup: Ecumenical Studies of 1
Cor. 11 and Other Eucharistic Texts (Louvain: Peeters, 1993), 88.
40
Fee, First Corinthians, 568.
41
Gunther Bornkamm, Early Christian Experience (London: SCM, 1969), 128.

181
home before they assembled together (v. 22) was not to command them to individually consume

their food at home without considering the poor. Rather, in addition to sharing the God given

resources to the needy, Paul commands the rich to respect and embrace the poorest part of the

body by eliminating cultural, social, and economic barriers among the Christian community who

partake of the same body and blood of the Lord.

Therefore, Paul made clear the harmony between the Lord’s Supper and its manner of

celebration because the partaking in a meal that undermines the fellowship of the believers has

no value. The socio-cultural and economic inequality in Corinth, which undermines the koinonia

aspect of the gathering, contributed to the divisions and factions among Christians, which made

the celebration of the Lord’s Supper ἀναξίως. The entire sociological problems we have

presented above are the background for Paul’s theological moves against the Corinthians in the

section to follow.

Ἀναξίως and Self-Examination (vv. 27−28)

Paul criticized the Corinthians for eating and drinking the Lord’s Supper in an

“unworthy/careless manner,” i.e., the way of eating and drinking in Corinth was the primary

criticism. Alternatively, the adverb ἀναξίως could mean eating and drinking the Lord’s Supper

without acknowledging the unifying and purifying effects of the Meal. It could also mean

partaking of the Lord’s Supper irreverently, 42 greedily (in a way that dishonors Christ), and

unrepentantly. The attitudinal quality of the word ἀναξίως, as opposed to a legalistic or pietistic

tendency of the term, is much more compelling in the immediate context (1 Cor. 11:17−34).

Martin Chemnitz says, “Paul is not speaking in a general way about guilt, but specifically about

42
Living Bible translation translates ἀναξίως as ‘without proper reverence.’

182
the way in which one draws guilt upon himself in the Supper, namely, unworthily eating inflicts

upon the body of Christ injury and shame no less than those who beat and killed Him.” 43 The

rich Corinthians, who desecrated the Lord’s Supper through their celebration in ἀναξίως, became

guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

Gordon Fee points out, “Unfortunately, this adverb was translated as “unworthily” in the

KJV (unfortunately repeated in the NAB). Since that English adverb seems more applicable to

the person doing the eating than to the manner in which it is being done, this word became a dire

threat for generations of English-speaking Christians.” 44 Fee instead prefers ἀναξίως to be

translated as ‘in an unworthy manner’ rather than ‘unworthily,’ because this rendering may be

less open to a legalistic or pietistic misinterpretation, for it mainly centers around the manner of

eating and drinking rather than on the worthiness of an individual based on human works.

The term ἀναξίως is a ἅπαξ λεγόμενον in the entire New Testament; 45 however, other

Pauline use of the adverbial term ἀξίως instructs Christians to live or to walk in a manner worthy

of their calling, worthy of the Gospel of Christ, worthy of the Lord, and worthy of the God who

calls them (Eph. 4:1; Phil. 1:27−30; Col. 1:10; and 1 Thess. 2:12) respectively. In none of these

occurrences does the term ἀξίως have the sense of ‘equal to in value or quality’ or a

legalistic/pietistic tendency; instead, the translation ‘corresponding to’ or ‘appropriate to’ fits the

context better, as ἀξίως is used as the fruit and upshot of God’s grace and calling. 46 In this text

Paul is calling the Corinthians to partake of the meal in a manner worthy of or suitable to the

43
Martin Chemnitz, The Lord’s Supper: De Coena Domini (St. Louis: Concordia, 1979), 131.
44
Fee, First Corinthians, 619.
45
Garland, Firsts Corinthians, 550. The term ἀναξίως occurs only in 2 Macc. 14:42 and 1 Cor. 11:27).
However, latter scribes have added the adverbial Greek tern ἀναξίως on 1 Cor. 11:29.
46
Mark P. Surburg, “Discerning the Body: An Exegetical Examination of 1 Cor. 11:17−34,” (Master of
Sacred Theology thesis, St. Louis Concordia Seminary, 2000), 123.

183
Sacrament.

In 1 Cor. 6:2, Paul used the term ἀνάξιοί in its adjectival form conveying the sense of ‘not

being qualified’ or ‘not being good enough.’ In Rom. 1:32, Paul used the adjective ἄξιος to show

how sinners are worthy (ἄξιος) of death because of their disobedience. 47 The writer of the Book

of Revelation uses the adjective ἄξιος to mean ‘deserving something’ or ‘being good enough for

something’ (Rev. 4:11). Also, the adjectival understanding of ἄξιος is common in Christian

liturgy when praising Jesus saying that “you are worthy, O Lord, to receive praise, glory and

honor, and power for you were slain.” 48 Thus, it is imperative that we make a clear distinction

between ἀναξίως and ἀνάξιοί when speaking about worthy admission to the Eucharist.

Regarding textual criticism, there is no ancient textual witness for ἀναξίως to be translated

as ἀνάξιοί. All textual manuscripts render the term ἀναξίως as an adverb which qualifies the

action verb, meaning the act of eating and drinking. 49 The point is then, the adverbial meaning of

the original translation of the word ἀναξίως directly goes with the activity of those rich and

influential Christians who abused the practice of eating and drinking of the Lord’s Supper.

Eating the Lord’s Supper while divided as a community is abusing the Supper by nullifying the

significance of Christ having died for others, because the message of the Lord’s Supper requires

one to be oriented towards other parts of the body.

The word Ὥστε is a strong inferential which tightly ties verse 27 with the previous sections

of the text rendering the conclusion to be drawn from the preceding argument against the

47
Paul says, “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death,
not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them” (Rom.1:32 KJV). Although those people whom Paul
mentioned in Rom 1:32 know God’s decree that those who do sin deserve to die, they not only do them but approve
those who practice them.
48
Thiselton, First Corinthians, 889.
49
See the Apparatus in Nestle-Aland 28 ed. David Trobisch, A User’s Guide to the Nestle-Aland 28 Greek
New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013).

184
Corinthians. Paul is now resuming the main discussion from the previous arguments. The

Corinthians’ egocentric manner which caused selfishness and schisms has both undermined the

very character of the sacrament as ‘grace’ (a broken body for you) and undermined the Words of

Institution, “This is my body.” The question in verse 27 concerns what it means to eat and to

drink in an ‘unworthy manner.’ To answer this question, we must understand ἀναξίως in line

with the whole context of 1 Cor. 11:17−34.

Unfortunately, the term ἀναξίως has been taken out of context and seriously misinterpreted.

It has often been misunderstood to mean that only those members who are ritually clean and do

good works are entitled to partake of the Eucharist. Then the call to self-examination in verse 28

has been heard as a call for ‘intense introspections.’ 50 A close reading of this verse indicates,

however, that the main concern for Paul is not that one should be personally sinless via rituals

and/or good works as a precondition to qualify for the Lord’s Supper. But rather, Paul’s warning

straightforwardly points to those rich patrons in Roman Corinth who disregarded those ‘who

have nothing’ (v. 22b) and created divisions among God’s community (v. 18) when celebrating

the Eucharist. For Hays, “To eat the meal unworthily means to eat it in a way that provokes

divisions, with contemptuous disregard for the needs of others in the community.” For Garland,

the term ἀναξίως could mean “doing something that does not square with the character or nature

of something.” Thiselton notes, “Paul’s primary point is that attitude and conduct should fit the

message and solemnity of what is being proclaimed.” 51 Paul’s accusation should be understood

in the sense of the manner of eating and drinking the Sacrament.

50
Hays, First Corinthians, 200; Alternatively, Marshall argues that the word ‘unworthy’ has to do with verse
29 where the person is failing to realize the representative nature of the elements and its implication sufficiently. See
more on, Marshall, Last Supper, 114.
51
Hays, First Corinthians, 200; Garland, First Corinthians, 550; and see Thiselton, First Corinthians, 889.

185
 The celebration of the Lord’s Supper in Corinth was ἀναξίως because the sociological

problem we presented earlier has caused a serious theological error which undermined the

Sacrament itself. Thus, the Corinthian’s bad treatment of their poorer members is the same as

misusing of the Lord’s Supper itself. Had the Corinthians recognized that treating fellow

Christians selfishly is abusing the self-giving of Christ in the sacrament, they would have

welcomed the poor. The Corinthians would have probably understood that in the celebration of

the Eucharist believers eat and drink the body and the blood of Christ and thus become one body.

In the preceding chapter, Paul had already told the Corinthians that when believers partake of the

Eucharist they participate in the body and the blood of Christ which enables them to maintain

their unity with all believers (1 Cor. 10:16−17).

Paul called them to abandon their arrogance, self-commendation, and self-praise, but

instead to humble and examine themselves. The meal which the rich Corinthians wanted to use

for their own arrogant commendation was instead meant to be used for the humble examination

of the self. And those who eat without examining themselves through repentance and confession

caused factions among the body of Christ. They are the ones who eat and drink in an ‘unworthy

manner’ and inflict injury and insult not only on the gathering but also on the very body and

blood of Christ.

Paul’s advice for self-examination is not setting up an ecclesial practice in which only

those with a certain level of spiritual virtues may become ἀνάξιος and can partake of the

Eucharist, contra the EOTC. Indeed, virtue and holiness are crucial themes for Paul; however,

the point of self-examination in this context does not refer to one’s effort in doing good works to

qualify for the Eucharist. Paul warned the Corinthians to mind their unity and examine

themselves prior to partaking of the Eucharist; otherwise, it would have the opposite effect of the

186
primary desire of union with God and with the body of Christ. This is why Paul calls the

Corinthians to repentance. The lack of repentance or proper self-examination yields bad results

for both the individual as well as the whole congregation. This advice of Paul should be a call to

be in a state of God’s grace when receiving the Sacrament. The question is then what did the

self-examination in the Corinthian specific situation entail? Did lack of self-examination make

the partakers ἀνάξιος or ἀναξίως?

Unlike the EOTC’s interpretation, Paul does not presuppose a sort of ritualistic

precondition to be ἀνάξιος for partaking in the Eucharist; rather the appeal for self-examination

within the immediate context is referring to the selfish act of the gluttonous Christians which

dehumanized a part of the body of Christ as they celebrated the Lord’s Supper. Those rich

members of the church in Corinth are the ones who ate without examining themselves and

became guilty of that which they violated by eating ἀναξίως. The self-examination in this verse

then should refer to the high-status Corinthians who caused divisions among the body of Christ

and humiliated the poor in the way they celebrated the Sacrament.

Paul’s exhortation for self-examination does not change the adverbial reading of ἀναξίως

into an adjective (ἀνάξιος), nor did it set the observance of rituals as a criterion and a

precondition for partaking of the Eucharist. Rather the way the Corinthians celebrated the meal

undermined and nullified their unity in Christ as well as the very essence of the Lord’s Supper

itself. The σχίσματα subverted their new covenant relationship in the Sacrament, because their

selfishness against the brethren undermined the ‘for you” dimension of the shed blood and the

broken body of Jesus.

The self-examination should primarily be seen in terms of a call for repentance that enables

believers to partake of the Eucharist in ἀναξίως. Tiews notes, “Therefore whoever, wants to

187
receive the Holy Supper in a ‘worthy manner’ and for his salvation must already have come to

repentance and faith beforehand; he must already have received grace and become a true

Christian beforehand, must already beforehand have been awakened to life through God and

been born again.” 52 But whoever partakes of the Holy Supper without repentance will not only

not receive the grace which lies in it, but will also find wrath instead of grace, death instead of

life, curse instead of blessing, and finally, the partaker will be guilty of the body and blood of the

Lord.

The call for self-examination is a warning that all partakers must solely depend on the

grace of God as presented in and through the Sacrament rather than invoking social rank, status,

human achievements, spiritual maturity and moral excellence or any other human works that

become a cause for divisions, boasting, and self-commendation, such as occurs in the EOTC.

Paul requires that the Corinthians surrender themselves to the humbling judgment of God and

judge themselves to be undeserving recipients of God’s grace who gather around the common

table of grace.

Paul’s Concept of Holiness in First Corinthians

The discussion of “holiness” in First Corinthians, which we need to analyze in the

following section, is essential for the argument of the thesis and the question at stake in relation

to the EOTC. The concept of holiness is one of the crucial theological themes in Pauline writings

when dealing with the relationship between God and humankind. In Paul’s writing, one can

generally find two kinds of holiness: divine holiness, and human holiness. Whenever, Paul

mentions holiness in his epistles, he either refers to the divine holiness which has been fully

52
Christian Tiews, “C.F.W. Walther on Admission to the Lord’s Supper.” In Closed Communion? Admission
to the Lord’s Supper in Biblical Lutheran Perspective (St. Louis: Concordia, 2017), 295.

188
manifested to humankind through Christ or the holiness accomplished in humans.

Divine holiness describes God as being fully pure in thought and deed. This holiness is the

characteristic which only God has by nature (being) which He makes manifest to us through His

justice and righteousness, love, and faithfulness as expressed in the crucifixion of the Christ.

Christ has become the center of God’s plan of redemption and salvation and being delivered to

death on behalf of sinners he demonstrates God’s absolute holiness.

Human holiness is one of Paul’s concerns insofar that Christians should pursue holiness in

their daily lives as a necessary goal to their relationship with God and humankind. He notes,

“Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body

and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1). 53 Paul exhorts

believers to pursue a life of holiness, and to reorient themselves in their thoughts and actions by

demonstrating and perfecting holiness as they reflect God’s moral purity in their life and heart. 54

Paul’s appeal for human holiness, however, is enclosed within the doctrine of sola fide and

sola gratia. He states that believers are made holy, and salvation has already been secured for

them and a new humanity has been created in the likeness of God. Human holiness is the result

of God’s declaration; salvation which is a gift of grace made possible through the sacrificial

death of the Lord grasped by faith alone. The foundation for human holiness is upon the work of

God in Christ, and it is only afterwards that believers are sanctified by God and can pursue

human holiness. Paul addressed believers as holy ones because they have already been sanctified

by Christ. He notes, “To the church of God in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and

called to be his holy people, together with all those everywhere who call on the name of our Lord

53
In 1 Thessalonians, Paul mentioned the purpose of believers’ calling saying, “For God has not called us
for impurity, but in holiness” (1 Thess. 4:7).
54
Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 413.

189
Jesus Christ—their Lord and ours” (1 Cor. 1:2 NIV, cf. Eph. 1:4). Believer’s holiness becomes

the very purpose of God’s choice so that they may live God’s demand of holiness (Gal.

5:22−25).

Paul preached both the gospel and told the Corinthians that Christians’ behavior should

correspond to the gospel. Stuhlmacher notes, Paul teaches about “not only the obedience of faith

to the gospel ... but also the obedience of deeds to the Lord Jesus Christ and his instruction.” 55

After Paul let Christians know about the saving content of the gospel, he urged them to live a life

that corresponded to that gospel (Cf. Phil. 1:5, 7, 12 with Phil. 1:27−30). Stuhlmacher notes,

“The Apostle’s Paraclesis is an essential part of the gospel; it reveals Christ’s saving act and his

claims of lordship,” 56 referring both to the gospel and a life lived in the direction of the gospel.

In 1 Cor. 3:16−17, Paul clearly states that believers are God’s holy temple. Just like the

temple in the Old Testament was characterized as a holy place, believers are made holy and

share in divine holiness because of the works of Christ. They spiritually become the temple of

God in whose heart the Holy Spirit dwells. God no longer dwells in the handmade building;

rather the gathered community who begins to exercise their holiness is the true temple in whom

God permanently dwells. After Paul mentions that the Christians’ body is the temple of God, he

then urges them to serve God with complete bodily devotion (Rom. 12:1−2).

In 1 Cor. 7, Paul says that holiness can be transferred from a believing husband to an

unbelieving wife or vice versa. He notes, “For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of

his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise, your

children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy” (1 Cor. 7:14). The holiness that counts for

55
Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 415
56
Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 410.

190
the unbelieving spouse, however, should not be understood in the Levitical and ritual sense of

the Old Testament, where defilement or holiness transfers by touching objects such as a dead

body, 57 as the EOTC might understand it. Paul’s idea of holiness should be understood in a sense

of “…the position in consecration in which the non-Christian spouse is at once placed by his

determination to remain united to this Christian spouse,” 58 and that holiness counts for the non-

Christian spouse so long as he or she remains in that consent and lives with the believing spouse.

Further, Paul notes that children born of such a family become holy by virtue of the bond

which unites that baby with the faith of a believing parent. The state of holiness for those kinds

of children becomes effective even if a believing spouse and an unbelieving spouse remain

united in marriage. This may imply that children of a Christian parents are placed in the

temporary situation of holiness where the benefit of becoming holy ones is already given to

parents and passed to the children by virtue of the God-given family bond which may be

effective until the child disbelieves in God and His redemptive work in Christ. 59

In his writings, Paul intentionally exhibits both forensic and cultic images of holiness in

order to explain the divine salvific act of holiness manifested in Christ. This divine holiness

makes a believer ἄξιος of the body and the blood of the Lord by means of faith in Christ. In its

cultic sense, Paul strongly urges believers to pursue holiness in their daily life and notes, “Do not

be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you

may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom. 12:2).

57
Frédéric Louis Godet, Commentary on First Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), 38, 43.
58
See further the discussion of Conzelmann on this verse. Hans Conzelmann, 1 Corinthians, trans. James W.
Leitch, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 340. For similar argument see also Godet, First Corinthians,
338−40.
59
Godet notes that those children’s “fitness for baptism arises from the solidarity of life which unites them to
their parents, and through them to the covenant of grace founded in Christ, and in which these live.” Godet, First
Corinthians, 346.

191
However, Paul did not say that mankind’s attempt to live a holy life makes them άξιοί for the

Lord’s Supper. After all, human holiness is achieved by the help of the Holy Spirit because

without God’s help and his divine act in humans, holiness cannot be achieved by human works

apart from faith and the help of the Holy Spirit. Christ delivered believers from the power of sin

and the devil and now “In the Spirit Christ is with and in believers, helping them by their

fulfillment of the law to realize the freedom given to them (cf. Rom. 8:4−11).” 60 This holiness is

oriented by an eschatological reality that is awaiting Christians in the future (1 Cor. 1:8 and 5:5),

because holiness in the sanctification of daily life must be understood in the framework of the

imminent second coming of Jesus and the crown awaiting those who pursue human holiness.

Stuhlmacher correctly says, “The ethical consequences of this Christological view of the future

show themselves in the Apostle’s call to distance and detachment from the present world.” 61

In sum, we are made holy already here and now without reserve or qualification by what

God has done in Jesus; our life in holiness depends entirely on our grasping this truth, i.e., faith.

Paul states that believers are called to be holy ones because they are already made holy in Christ

and then, pursuing human holiness is God’s will for them. Human holiness has been already

accomplished by the divine plan and action, but at the same time Christians must stay in that

state of holiness specifically through ‘self-examination’ and ‘discerning the body’ and exercising

a life characterized by the gospel.

An Argument on Paul’s Use of Σῶμα (verse 29)

Since Paul did not explicitly offer the definition of ἀναξίως in verse 27, his use of the term

60
Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 414.
61
Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 416.

192
σῶμα (verse 29) has been a matter of debate among modern scholars about what σῶμα exactly

meant. Some interpret the term in reference to ecclesiology while others argue for the

sacramental meaning of σῶμα. For example, Hays, Horrell, Fee, Witherington, O’Connor,

Lampe, and others prefer the ecclesiological reading of σῶμα, meaning the Corinthians failed to

recognize or receive one another as beloved brothers and sisters in Christ; instead, they treated

the poor with contempt and not as part of the body of Christ. 62 Paul accused the Corinthians

because they failed to ‘discern the body’ as part of the corporate body of Christ which is the

church. For them, partaking of the Eucharist is not an individualistic matter; rather, it is a

corporate body matter which requires Christians to commune as one body of the Lord. Paul is

urging the Corinthians to “recognize what characterizes the body as different, i.e. to be mindful

of the uniqueness of Christ, who is separated from others in the sense of giving himself for

others in sheer grace.” 63 Dale Martin notes that the primary problem in this text is failure to

‘discern the body;’ the unity of the body of Christ, which is the Church. 64 James Dunn, in

support of the above argument, concluded that the Corinthians’ problem is primarily social rather

than theological. 65 Lampe notes, “The ethical implications of the Eucharist were far more vital

than the later intricate theological discussions of how Christ might be present in the Lord’s

Supper.” 66

62
Hays, First Corinthians, 200−6; David G. Horrell, The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence:
Interests and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996); Fee, First Corinthians;
Witherington, Conflict and Community in Corinth, 251−52; O’Connor, First Corinthians, 226−29; and see Lampe,
“The Eucharist,” 36−49.
63
Thiselton, First Corinthians, 893.
64
Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 195−96.
65
James Dunn, 1 Corinthians: New Testament Guides (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1996), 79.
66
Lampe, “The Eucharist,” 43. The text does not give any hint if the division in Corinth was between those
who argue for the real presence against those who argue for spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharistic elements.

193
 The omission of the term αἷμα in verse 29, as well as the sociological and the historical

context we have presented earlier, favors such understanding. If what the Corinthians had to

correctly discern was meant to be understood sacramentally then Paul would have stated both

‘the body’ and ‘the blood’ not just ‘the body.’ Blomberg notes, “Probably [body] refers to the

corporate body of Christ, the church, particularly since Paul does not refer to both body and

blood.” 67 Thus, the scholars I quoted above argue that the phrase διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα implies the

need to recognize and welcome the community of believers as one corporeal body of the Christ

rather than the Sacrament.

Other scholars such as Lietzmann, Dunn, Marshall, Das, Garland, Gibbs, Pfitzner,

Lockwood, and others interpret τὸ σῶμα sacramentally, meaning the lack of judgement or

discernment regarding the sacred nature of the Lord’s Supper made the Corinthians partake of

the Supper in an ‘unworthy manner.’ 68 One’s failure to discern Christ’s body and blood in the

elements prevents a worthy reception and brings down God’s judgment. 69 The term σῶμα

therefore primarily refers to the body of Christ that is presented in and through the bread and the

wine. 70 Paul mentioned just σῶμα in verse 29 as the short hand form of ‘the bread’ and ‘the

67
Blomberg, First Corinthians, 231. (Emphasis mine).
68
Hans Lietzmann, Mass and Lord’s Supper: A Study in the History of the Liturgy, trans. Robert Douglas
Richardson (Leiden: Brill, 1953); James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1998), 609−10; Marshall, Last Supper, 114−15. Alternatively, Marshall argues that the word ‘unworthily’ has to do
with verse 29 where the person is failing to realize the representative nature of the elements and its implication
sufficiently. Das, “1 Corinthians 11:17−34 Revisited,” 198; Fee, First Corinthians, 561−62; Garland, First
Corinthians, 552; Commission on Theology and Church Relations, Admission to the Lord’s Supper, A Report of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church−Missouri Synod (St. Louis: The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod, 1999). https://www.lcms.org/about/leadership/commission-on-theology-and-church-
relations/documents; and Pfitzner, First Corinthians, 185.
69
Lockwood, First Corinthians, 400.
70
Evnie V. Lassman, “1 Corinthians 11:29: ‘Discerning the Body.” In Closed Communion? Admission to the
Lord’s Supper in Biblical Lutheran Perspective, ed. Matthew C. Harrison and Pless T. John (St. Louis: Concordia,
2017), 334; and Chemnitz, Lord’s Supper, 129−35.

194
wine’ because he had already used both ‘the body’ and ‘the blood’ in the previous verses and did

not want to bore readers with unnecessary repetition. Likewise, in 1 Cor. 10:17, Paul had already

used the term ‘one loaf’ as a shorthand for the ‘one cup.’ 71

Paul’s exhortation to ‘discern the body’ in verse 29, however, can possibly be interpreted

both ways, referring to the church as signified by the breaking and distribution of the bread and

Christ’s real body and blood as presented in and through the Sacrament. The effect of both

problems hindered the Corinthians reception of the Sacrament and even made them liable to

God’s judgment. 72 Das concluded that “Paul’s advice, therefore, is to discern the Lord’s body

and blood. First, this means recognizing the objective reality, that Christ’s body and blood are

truly present. This should create a sense of reverence instead of a partisan spirit when the church

comes together for worship. Second, Christians must equally recognize what the Sacrament is

intended to nurture and represent, the oneness of believers in unity (1 Corinthians 10:17).” 73

If the problem in Corinth was just the social or ecclesiological one, Paul would have told

the rich to share their food with the poor and then the problem would have been solved.

However, the problem was not just social but also theological. The judgment Paul predicted goes

beyond their act of despising the poor because it was very serious, to the point of jeopardizing

their lives leaving many among them sick, weak, and even fallen asleep or dead. They were

liable to God’s judgment because they despised the Lord’s body and blood in their unworthy

71
Barrett, The First Epistle, 274−75; and see also Das, “1 Corinthians 11:17−34 Revisited,” 200.
72
See also Bornkamm for similar argument. Bornkamm, “Lord’s Supper,” 123−30. Das concluded that
“Paul’s advice, therefore, is to discern the Lord’s body and blood. First, this means recognizing the objective reality,
that Christ's body and blood are truly present. This should create a sense of reverence instead of a party spirit when
the church comes together for worship. Second, Christians must equally recognize what the Sacrament is intended to
nurture and represent, the oneness of believers in unity (1 Corinthians 10:17).” See Das, “1 Corinthians 11:17−34
Revisited,” 203.
73
Das, “1 Corinthians 11:17−34 Revisited,” 203.

195
manner of partaking of the Eucharist. When the Corinthians came together in such a divisive

manner, they were not actually eating and drinking the Lord’s Supper. They were very much

blinded, busy with their own social meal and ignorant in recognizing what participation in the

body of Christ implies. The true body and blood of which they partook would have nurtured their

unity both with God and with other parts of the body of Christ. To further justify this argument,

we need to see both the immediate and wider contexts of the text.

Before we argue either for the sacramental or the ecclesiological reading of σῶμα, we must

let the context determine its meaning. In 1 Cor. 11:27 and 10:16, Paul used σῶμα in reference to

the sacramental body of Christ. Any time Paul uses σῶμα, its meaning must be primarily

determined by the immediate context and then looked at from the viewpoint of its wider context.

The immediate context (vv. 23−32), especially the verses containing the words of institution (vv.

23−26) proves that σῶμα refers to the Sacrament, the body and blood of the Lord. This

immediate context has more influence on the meaning of σῶμα in verse 29 than forcing the text

to adhere to the more distant context found in chapter 12. 74 If Paul had to use the term ἐκκλησία

instead of σῶμα in verse 29, he would have used it because he had already used the same term

(ἐκκλησία) in verses 16, 18, 19 and 22.

On the other hand, everything Paul is about to say concerning the guilt of the Corinthians

follows not only from the Words of Institution (1 Cor. 11: 23−26), but also from the socio-

cultural problems in Corinth. The Pauline analogy of σῶμα could possibly be taken as an

ecclesiological organism, meaning a call for an organic unity in the community without

necessitating uniformity. In 1 Cor. 11: 17−22, 33−34, we see the social problem in the

74
Ernie V. Lassman, “Discerning the Body,” Closed Communion? Admission to the Lord’s Supper in
Biblical Lutheran Perspective, ed. Matthew C. Harrison and John T. Pless (St. Louis: Concordia, 2017), 336−39.

196
background which jeopardized the Corinthians’ unity as one church of Christ. The class division

during the celebration of the Lord’s Supper is the manifestation of their ignorance and inability

to comprehend what sharing in one body implies about their unity. When we look at the wider

context (1 Cor. 10:17; 12:12−31), Paul used σῶμα in reference to the ecclesiastical body which

is the church. 75 Paul notes, “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we

all partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). Theissen correctly notes that the term ‘the body of

Christ’ in the wider Pauline writings is a reminder for social cohesion for the different classes

within the community at Corinth. 76

Both the sacramental and the ecclesiological aspect intersect when Christians eat and drink

the body and the blood of the Lord. Robertson and Plummer have argued for such a reading of

σῶμα and note, “No definition of ‘unworthily’ is given; but the expression covers all that is

incompatible with the intention of Christ in instituting the rite. It is quite certain that selfish and

greedy irreverence is incompatible. But what follows shows that not only external behavior but

also an inward attitude of soul is included. There must be brotherly love towards all and sure

faith in Christ.” 77 Kent Brown argues against the tendency of overriding one view in opposition

to the other and notes, “to fail to discern the body of Christ in the people for whom he died is

tantamount to profaning the body of Christ in the bread.” 78

75
For the Lutherans, the frequent use of σῶμα in chapter 12 clearly refers to the church; however, since
σῶμα in the later text was not written in the context of the Lord’s Supper, it should not determine the use of σῶμα in
chapter 11:29.
76
Theissen, Social Setting, 36−37 and 96−99; see also Dale Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Heaven:
Yale University Press, 1995), 92−96.
77
Archibald Robertson and Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of
St. Paul to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1929), 250.
78
Kent E. Brower, Living as God’s Holy People: Holiness and Community in Paul (Milton Keynes:
Paternoster, 2009), 72. Nash said, “Very probably, Paul means both Christ’s’ physical body given on the cross, as
proclaimed in the bread and cup of the meal, and the church as his continuing body. For Paul, the two are joined
together.” See Nash, First Corinthians, 341−42.

197
 The complete meaning of the text can only be grasped from an interpretation that combines

both the immediate and wider context of the text. Recognizing the sacramental nature of the

Eucharist is one part of the problem and another is the factions that risk their unity in the body of

Christ. Looking at the immediate context, the term σῶμα primarily refers to Christ’s physical

body in the Sacrament; however, even if the term σῶμα does not directly refer to the

congregation gathered in the immediate context, it certainly has “an echo of its meaning further

away in the wider context, where it refers to the church (1 Cor. 10:17; 12:12−27). 79

We may conclude then interpreting ἀναξίως depends greatly upon what σῶμα refers to;

however, given the immediate and wider context of the passage, Paul must have been referring

both to Christ who is present in the element and to the church as his corporate body. The

understanding of one alternative should never neglect the other reality. Perhaps Paul deliberately

used the term in anticipation of its dual application of the expression. The divisions and lack of

loving care for the poorer members of the body have the effect of tearing apart the body of

Christ, nullifying its sacrificial character of Christ as presented in and through the elements.

Central to our thesis, neither the sacramental nor the ecclesiological reading of σῶμα

enforces the EOTC’s idea that the Old Testament’s cultic rituals and purity laws are a decisive

factor in making a partaker ἀξιος for the Eucharist. Thus, the text deals with two different issues

that are interrelated and inseparable: first the divisions between Christians (vv. 17−22, and

33−34), and then failure to recognize Christ’s body and blood in the Sacrament and what that

implies in believer’s lives (vv. 23−32). There is nothing here about any of purification or cultic

ritual.

79
Lockwood, First Corinthians, 408; see also Commission on Theology and Church Relations,
Admission to the Lord’s Supper, A Report of the Comminion on Theology and Chrurch Relations of The Lutheran
Church—Missouri Synod. (St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1999), 17.

198
 Σῶμα as Participation in Christ

On the contrary, when looking from a distance at the wider context, Paul’s exhortation to

‘discern the body of Christ’ may not be restricted to the sacramental and/or ecclesiological

aspects of the term; rather, discerning the body could possibly be a call to a full participation in

the life of the incarnated logos. It is an invitation to participate in Christ’s incarnation, life and

ministry, crucifixion, resurrection and his second coming into which each believer is called.

Further, it invites Christians to participate in the entire sacrificial life of Christ and his second

coming. This is a far cry from fearing participation in the sacrifice of Christ, as the EOTC has

interpreted the text. If anything, it is an invitation to a new sacrificial life by the very One who

was sacrificed for us and we receive the benefits of his sacrifice through faith.

What is at issue then and how do Christians fully participate in Christ? Paul told Christians

in Corinth that they are called and sanctified in Christ (1 Cor. 1:2) and have begun their new life

journey in baptism. He notes, “you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the

Name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). Christians become

partakers of the nature of God through the Holy Spirit and their participation in Christ is evident

through their true baptism. Stuhlmacher correctly notes, “The body of Christ is a reality into

which one is baptized (1 Cor. 12: 13), and Christ is as closely united with the church that forms

his body as are a man and wife, who become one flesh in marriage (Cf. Gal. 3:27−28; 1 Cor.

6:13, 16−17; Col. 1:18; 2:19; Eph. 5:29−33).” 80

Paul notes that Christians are crucified and buried with Christ into death and gain a share in

his resurrection (Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12). They identify themselves with the incarnated logos and

perceive themselves as daily dying with him on the Cross. Rather than the sacrifice taking place

80
Stuhlmacher, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, 393.

199
on the altar, the sacrifice occurs every time we die to self and live for Christ. Paul notes, “I have

been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I

now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me”

(Gal. 2:20). From the time of their baptism, believers are subordinated to Jesus and called to no

longer serve sin but the righteousness that conforms to the will of God. The faithful are no more

slaves to sin, but rather they can overcome various temptations from the devil, their sinful nature,

and the world through their koinonia with the risen Christ which enables them to ascend into a

sanctified life.

Lampe correctly notes, “One only develops close contact with the risen Christ if one enters

into communion with his death on the cross; and the risen Christ, with his saving power, is also a

judging Lord to whose reign the Eucharistic participant is subjected.” 81 In this sense then, Paul’s

attempt to connect the Eucharist with the Christians’ ethical responsibilities makes much sense

and echoes Chrysostom’s homilies that we studied earlier. Through the sharing of the

Sacraments (baptism and the Eucharist) the faithful become united with Christ and Christ

implants his own life in the faithful who partake of his own flesh and blood. The reality of dying

with Christ is not just an abstract concept but rather, it brings visible behavioral changed marked

by altruism. Paul notes, “And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its

passions and desires” (Gal. 5:24).

The faithful partakers of the Supper are united with Christ and share both the divinity and

the humanity of Jesus on a level befitting man (2 Pet. 1:4), but this should not be confused with

human’s becoming gods in the same way that Christ is God. Believers are united in another

manner because they have become partakers of his divine nature through the Spirit. Through the

81
Lampe, “The Eucharist,” 46

200
sharing of the Lord’s Supper the faithful members become con-corporal with Christ’s life and

ministry, which is also the foundation for being partners with other members as the result of their

participation in the incarnated body of the Lord.

Christians’ union in the body of Christ can be a boundary marker between believers and

nonbelievers. Jerome Neyrey notes that Christ’s body could be taken as a ‘bounded system’ in

which schism is not allowed by the community among those who have been redeemed and have

shared in the life and resurrected body of Christ. 82 Paul compares the Corinthians’ identity

before and after being Christian and compelled them to clean out the old leaven (1 Cor. 5:7)

while urging them to live distinctively as people sanctified and justified in Christ. Their sins

were washed away in Baptism (1 Cor. 6:11), they were sanctified in Christ Jesus (1 Cor. 1:2),

and by faith in Christ’s atoning blood they are cleansed and sanctified so that they may become

people who are dedicated to God. What they had become by faith (clean, sanctified, and holy),

they also should become in practice by maintaining their unity in the body of Christ.

Paul’s experience and call to ‘die with Christ’ (1 Cor. 15:31) is more than an individual

experience of mystical spirituality; rather it has to do with sharing the experience of the destitute

because the effects of participating in the death of Christ are not just spiritual but also physical,

as Chrysostom exhorted his congregation. Paul’s identification with Christ crucified ties his

strong theology of dying with Christ to the sharing of that life with others in most unfortunate

situations, a sharing that reflects a Christ-like attitude and commitment to live a way of life that

is marked by dying.

The historic incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, and the second coming of Christ, into

82
Jerome Neyrey, Paul, in Other Words: A Cultural Reading of His Letter (Louisville: Westmenister, 1990),
116−17; see also Barrett, First Corinthians, 42−49, 281−97.

201
which Christians are called, therefore, unifies all members of the church regardless of their

diversified situations. The union is both vertical and horizontal, meaning the faithful are

incorporated into both a spiritual and physical union with Christ and with each other. The

crucified Christ is the bond of union not only between believers and Christ in the sharing of the

sacrament but also between other members of the body in sharing the need of each other.

In general, Paul’s exhortation to ‘discern the body’ must be principally seen within the

immediate context as primarily referring to the body and blood of Christ as presented in and

through the elements. However, there is the possibility of considering the wider context where

Paul implies an ecclesiological sense of the term σῶμα. Such understanding of σῶμα

deconstructs the ideology of power and status through the picture of Christ crucified, which

acknowledges the life of diversity within the Christian community. Besides, the call to ‘discern

the body’ could mean that one can have a full share in the life of the incarnate, crucified, and

resurrected logos as well as to be united to God and to the community of those who share in the

same body and blood of the Lord. The fact that the Corinthians are sanctified and called into

Christ describes a way of life which is participation in the body of Christ. The ἀξίως

participation in the Lord’s Supper is a witness to the resurrection and ascension of the human

nature in Christ and the life and unity of the faithful nurtured by the actual eating of the body and

drinking of the blood of the Lord that has no other meaning apart from being united in Christ.

Conclusion

The problem in Corinth could possibly be both sociological and theological in nature. Paul

did not just condemn the Corinthians “on the basis of their lovelessness over against the spiritual

body of Christ, against the fellow members of the community; at the same time, he was

condemning them for having sinned against the gift, which was extended to them under the

202
special bread and the blessed wine.” 83 The Corinthians most probably knew that what they were

eating and drinking was the Lord’s Supper. The text does not give any hint of the Corinthians

skepticism that they were eating the true blood and body of Jesus; however, the way they related

to each other exposed their ignorance of the fact that eating and drinking the Lord’s body

ἀναξίως was sinning against the gift itself. 84

Whether one integrates the sociological or the theological aspects of the problem in

Corinth, or prioritizes one over the other, does not alter the adverbial meaning of ἀναξίως (the

manner of eating and drinking the Lord’s Supper) into an adjective (worthiness achieved by

human works). Those people who needed to discern the body of Christ were those rich Christians

at Corinth who primarily became guilty of abusing the blood and the body of Christ in the

manner they celebrated the Lord’s Supper. The judgment that Paul predicted is towards the same

Christians who had taken the gift of the Sacrament for granted and made use of the Lord’s

Supper for the benefit of their own social status and self-promotion. They became guilty of the

body and the blood of Christ because by tearing apart the body of Christ into ‘the haves’ and the

‘have nots’ they undermined the self-giving presence of Christ in the Supper. The Corinthians

needed to understand that it is Christ’s body and blood that unites the poor and the rich

Christians together as one body and one community of believers (1 Cor. 10:16−17), because one

of the effects and purposes of the Eucharist is preservation of the unity of all believers.

The whole emphasis in Paul is upon ‘eating and drinking’ and upon the commandment not

to celebrate the Lord’s Supper in an ‘unworthy manner.’ Sinning against the brother in the

83
Albrecht Peters and Thomas Trapp, Commentary on Luther’s Catechisms (St. Louis: Concordia, 2012),
188.
84
Robert S. Nash, First Corinthians (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2009), 341. Nash says, “Eating the meal
‘appropriately’ means embodying in their [the Corinthians’] own behavior the same selflessness the meal
proclaims.”

203
context of the celebration is sinning against the Sacrament and against Christ, because the

sacramental food has the purpose and effect of uniting the many members into one body. In

Paul’s mind then, the deepest offense that the Corinthians committed was against the body and

the blood of the Lord as manifested in the factions and divisions between parts of the one body.

The call to ‘self-examination’ is not primarily a call to deeply judge oneself as to whether

one is ritually clean or not, contra the EOTC. The realities involved in the Eucharist are not

created or altered by human achievement or even by the faith of those who are eating and

drinking; rather, the efficacy of the forgiveness of sins is set forth for Christians in the Words of

promise and can only be grasped by grace through faith. Those who do not ‘examine themselves’

thoroughly, ‘discern the body’ rightly, and honor the Sacrament by means of concrete actions

still receive the Lord’s Supper but in an ‘unworthy manner’ for their condemnation.

Therefore, reading the term ἀναξίως outside of the context leads one to assume incorrectly,

as in the case of the EOTC, that Paul was primarily commanding an individualistic and

introspective examination of one’s commitment to observe cultic rituals to ensure one’s

worthiness. Paul’s primary pastoral concern, however, was to reunite those divided parties and

give humans value through the self-giving act of Christ as presented in and through the sharing

of the Sacrament. Paul’s final exhortation to accept or receive one another as beloved brethren in

Christ (vv. 33−34) reflects the message of Christ’s self-sacrificial offering implied in the eating

and drinking of the Lord’s Supper. It is into this self-sacrificial love that each Christian likewise

is called to walk because in the sharing of the Sacrament, believers die with Christ.

204
 CHAPTER SEVEN

CONCLUSION

In this conclusion, we shall first summarize the discussions of each chapter and then

present the implications of the research findings. We shall demonstrate the implications of the

findings by describing the proper relationship between the worthy admission to the Eucharist and

the concept of sola fide. Finally, we shall offer our suggestion for a better and equivalent

Amharic word for the adverbial term ἀναξίως so that the Bible Translation Society in Ethiopia

may start the dialogue to include the proper term in the upcoming Amharic revised version of the

Scripture.

Summary of the Research

We have argued in this thesis that ancient Ethiopian traditions and their broader context

decisively shaped the way the EOTC has interpreted the Holy Scriptures across the centuries.

The Church’s biblical interpretation was shaped and developed under the substantial influence of

the Church’s ancient tradition in Ethiopian’s historical and cultural context. To prove the fact, we

first presented the pre-Christian historical affiliation between Israel and Ethiopia. Before the

coming of Christianity in Ethiopia, the northern part of the country had already accepted the

monotheistic belief of Judaism, and the Ethiopians had identified themselves as God’s chosen

people. The Ethiopians confirmed this when Menelik I brought the True Ark of the Covenant to

Ethiopia after the historic encounter between the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon. Later,

when Christianity came to Ethiopia, the influence of Judaism was evident through the

maintenance of certain rituals such as fasting and almsgiving, dietary laws, the practice of

circumcision, the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, and all of the Mosaic restrictions that

pertained to clean and unclean people, animals, and even sacred spaces—essential teachings of

205
the Church up until today. More important to our discussion, the EOTC adapted Judaism to the

doctrine and practice of its Eucharist teaching and defined worthy admission to the Eucharist in

terms of the adherent’s commitment to observe the rituals.

Then, we examined the EOTC Qeddassé and the Fetha Nagast, which are authoritative

ecclesiastical documents in Ethiopia which inform its liturgy and church practice. We have

argued that the EOTC’s liturgy, which preserves the anaphoras of the early church fathers,

reveals the impact and influence of the Coptic Egyptian and Syrian liturgical forms of teachings

and traditions. The Qeddassé and the Fetha Nagast strictly teach that the Old Testament concept

of holy things for holy people and the requirement of cleanliness and purity must be worked out

by those who intend to partake of the Sacrament. In addition to the call for purity and

cleanliness, both documents stress the danger of partaking of the Eucharist when ritually

unworthy. Specifically, the parallel drawn between the ‘Eucharistic sacrifice’ and ‘the coal of

fire’ causes fear and intimidation in those who intend to partake of the Eucharist. Thus, in

addition to the rigorous obligation of observing the rituals, the picture of the Eucharist as a

consuming fire that burns sinners for all of eternity terrifies the members, instead of welcoming

them to celebrate God’s love, forgiveness, and the life he promised for sinners through the

sharing of the Sacrament.

To further justify the argument, we evaluated the interpretation of the term ἀναξίως in the

EOTC’s Andemta Commentary (AC) tradition. Since the Antiochene and Alexandrian

interpretative traditions influenced the EOTC’s interpretative tradition in AC, it was essential to

identify the two school’s interpretative traditions before examining the interpretative traditions of

the commentary. Therefore, in chapter three, we argued against the conventional hostility drawn

between the two schools regarding the Antiochene and Alexandrian interpretative traditions.

206
According to the conventional view, the Antiochenes held that the text gives the details of the

historical event in the text seeking a single sense of the given text. But the Alexandrian

interpretative tradition believes that the word of the text refers to the spiritual truth found outside

of the text, which may also carry various spiritual meanings independent of the historical account

of the text. Nevertheless, we argued that both schools understood that the interpretive task should

account for the spiritual understanding of the text that is deeply rooted in the historical reality

recorded in the text. On the bases of such understanding the early exegetes from both traditions

tried to interpret the Eucharistic sacrifice, found in the Book of Hebrews, in light of the Old

Testament sacrifices, which received their perfect fulfillment in the sacrificial death of Christ.

After we established the interrelatedness of the earlier exegetical traditions of both schools,

we showed how those earlier biblical interpretative traditions were woven into the unique

Ethiopian interpretative traditions preserved in the AC corpus. We demonstrated that the

commentary was formed and developed under various theological and exegetical traditions and

created a unique exegetical tradition that dwells within the Ethiopian context. While some

scholars conclude that the AC follows the literal interpretive method, others have asserted that

the allegorical interpretive methods should be employed in the commentary. However, we have

argued the case that the influence of both the allegorical and literal interpretative methods are

apparent in the Ethiopian interpretative tradition. Moreover, we have also shown how the

EOTC’s biblical interpretation has been extensively influenced by an allegorical approach

combined with its own unique tradition sometimes deviating from the historical meaning of the

text. This was exemplified in our study by looking at the interpretation of the term ἀναξίως in the

Andemta Commentary and its subsequent versions of the Scripture in Ethiopian languages.

We discovered that the translation and interpretation of the term ἀναξίως in the Ethiopic

207
documents substitutes the adverbial meaning of the term ἀναξίως with an adjectival form that

distorts the meaning of Paul’s discussion of participation in the Eucharist in 1 Corinthians,

leading to an emphasis on ritual purity rather than the evangelical intent Paul had in mind. We

did this through an exegetical analysis of 1 Cor. 11:17−34. Detailed exegetical work was

dedicated to 1 Cor. 11:27−29 in order to help us understand what the text meant by ἀναξίως in

light of Paul’s exhortation for self-examination and discerning the body. We have argued that

Corinth’s social and theological problems are inseparably interrelated, leading the Corinthians to

celebrate the Eucharist in an unworthy manner. In other words, the term ἀναξίως in the

Corinthian’s context refers to the unworthy manner of celebrating the Lord’s Supper rather than

referring to the attendee’s commitment to the Old Testament rituals, purity, and cleanliness

codes as it has been the case in the EOTC.

Summary of Findings

The findings of this study show that Ethiopian Christianity and culture have a substantial

number of shared cultural and religious elements that are from Judaic, Greek, Syrian, and Coptic

sources; however, in all periods of Ethiopian history, the receptivity of foreign religious and

cultural traditions in Ethiopia has never been a passive and literal borrowing. Specifically, as it is

the case for this dissertation, the EOTC is unique in the fact that it has retained several Judaic

customs which pervade the Church’s public life and have often resulted in the preservation of a

characteristic of the Old Testament observance of rituals and worship, where religion and culture

are viewed as indivisible elements of one unit.

These findings show that Christianity in the EOTC’s context is not only a personal

adherence to a particular creed, but it is also an all-inclusive way of life strongly tied to various

rituals and aspects of national identity and communal life. In other words, the practice and the

208
life of faith in Ethiopian Orthodox Christianity emphasizes the religious customs of rituals and

social conventions, not just the custom of doctrine.

Therefore, we conclude that the integration of Judaism and Christianity in the EOTC is a

unique experience of non-Hellenized Christianity that manifests itself through the peculiar

Hebraic-Jewish character of the Ethiopian religious assimilation, which is uncommon to the rest

of the world. Since the encounter with Christianity does not abandon all Jewish forms of spiritual

practices and traditions, on the one hand, there are some elements that are unique to EOTC

Christianity that can be celebrated for their distinct contribution to the Ethiopian way of life and

her piety which is, in many ways, tied up with her continuation of any number of Jewish rituals

that cement a living connection between the people of the Old Covenant and those of the New.

However, the strict enforcement of observing the Old Testament rituals in the EOTC is

problematic when the value of observing such rituals becomes a formative factor of one’s worthy

admission to or rejection from the service of the Eucharist, turning what was meant to be Gospel

into Law. In other words, some of the rituals tied to the worthy admission to the Eucharist in the

EOTC can be a helpful external discipline of the body; however, it is unsupportive when it

becomes a barrier for Christians to come to the Lord’s Table. In the Old Testament, God required

the Jews to observe certain rituals before worship and offering sacrifices in the temple. However,

in the New Testament, Christ is the true and holy sacrifice who offered himself on behalf of

sinners (Col. 2:9).

It should be clear that a Christian is not under any obligation to do as the laws require of

him in order to make himself clean and righteous before the service of the Eucharist. If

Christians think that they need to be sinless to partake of the Eucharist, then not only do they

have a works-based view of God and salvation, but they also have disqualified everyone from

209
ever participating in the Eucharist. In other words, when Christians judge worthiness based on

human works, instead of completely trusting and depending on Christ’s work on their behalf,

they put the Gospel itself at stake.

On the other hand, the Gospels and the early church fathers have emphasized the need for

Christian virtue after one becomes saved and becomes a Christian, not just from time to time

before partaking of the Eucharist, but as a way of life. It should be underlined that living a life

worthy of the Eucharist is not the same as making oneself worthy to partake in the Eucharist,

though the two should not be separated from each other. In other words, living in a ‘worthy

manner’ [ἀξίως] of the Eucharist is not the same as making oneself ‘worthy’ [ἀξιος] for the

Eucharist by mean of good works. Therefore, the EOTC teaching about the need for good works

in relation to the worthy admission to the Eucharist must be understood within the notion of sola

fide, which is the center of good works.

Jesus and the Unclean

Jesus’s treatment of the so-called ‘unclean people’ differs from the EOTC’s treatment.

Similar to the EOTC, during Jesus’ time, the concept of purity was a binary opposite as

evidenced by the systematic structures, classifications, and evaluations of a group of people

which made external boundaries in order to distinguish clean and unclean people, just as the

EOTC make boundaries between a worthy and unworthy member of the church prior to

admitting them to the Eucharist. During Jesus’ time, Pharisees, scribes, the chief priest, and all

other religious leaders strictly observed the purity laws and defined their rank of holiness in

terms of their commitment to the Old Testament purity system.

Nevertheless, the synoptic gospels tells us that Jesus’ meal fellowship with the unclean

people of the community was a radical experience contrary to the existing norm. He had table

210
fellowship with sinners, the poor, tax collectors, sick people, prostitutes, Samaritans, and with

those who were considered ceremonially unclean (Luke 1:46−55; 5:27−32; 7:36−50). Such

radical meal customs are greatly emphasized much in Luke’s gospel. Such customs also

contributed to Jesus’ rejection by the Pharisees and the high priests. 1 The gospels also clarify the

ignorance, failure, weakness, and sins of even the disciples participating in the Lord’s Supper.

The disciples’ failure before and after the Last Supper celebration is emphatically stressed in

Mark’s gospel. 2 Their ignorance regarding the cost of discipleship is shown in their argument

about who will be the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven (Mark 9: 33−34). Jesus told the

disciples about his crucifixion at Jerusalem (Mark 8:32−38; 9:32−37; 10:35−45); however, in all

the cases, they misunderstood and even rejected his mission.

In the Last Supper context, Jesus predicted the failure of all the disciples, saying, “You will

all fall away” (Mark 14:27). Especially to Peter, “I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “today-

yes, tonight-before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times” (Mark

14:30). Towards the end of Jesus’ life, all the disciples denied Jesus and turned from their

mission (Mark 14:32−72). Mark ends the gospel with no one among the disciples at the cross of

Jesus. Even the young man following Jesus to the end fled naked (Mark 14:51−52). Mark says

that the (eleven) disciples were not the first persons who saw the empty tomb; instead, the

women were the first witnesses (Mark 16:1−8), but even then, they did not believe (Mark 16:13).

That is why even after the resurrection, Jesus rebuked the disciples for not believing and

recalling what Jesus’ told them during his earthly ministry (Luke 24:25).

1
Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke: The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 21−24, 577−86; and see D. A. Carson, and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New
Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 119−21.
2
Francis J. Moloney, A Body Broken for a Broken People: Eucharist in the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1997), 34−35.

211
 Especially, but not only, Markan theology of the Eucharist is also closely related to his

view on the weakness and falling character of the original disciples indicating their

unworthiness. Likewise, a Christian community gathers fallen and failing people looking

forward to their healing as they share the Eucharist. That is why Jesus never excluded any of the

disciples from celebrating the Last Supper, although he already knew their weakness and failure

in advance. Moloney correctly says, “the vocation to live through the mystery of failure,

depending only upon the greater mystery of the love and power of God shown to us in Jesus,

stands at the heart of the message of the Gospel of Mark.” 3

Looking back to the passion narrative, we observe the contrast between Jesus’ self-offering

unto death and the failure of the disciples to recognize him and his mission. Moloney rightly

notes, “The failure of the disciples is a message about the overpowering need for dependence

upon Jesus and trust in God’s saving power through him,” 4 rather than being confident in making

themselves clear and pure through observing rituals. It should be underlined that the shed blood

and broken body of Jesus, offered on behalf of sinners, is the only thing that cleans and makes

Christians worthy to partake in the Lord’s Supper.

Even though Jesus had contact with people characterized as unclean, in all of His contacts

with unclean people He did not bring uncleanness or impurity upon Himself. Instead, He

imparted cleanness to them. An example of this is when the menstruating woman who touched

Jesus was healed from her bleeding (Mark 5:28−29). When he touched the leper, Jesus was not

made unclean; but rather Jesus being “moved with pity, He stretched out His hand and touched

him and said to him, “I will; be clean.” And immediately leprosy left him, and he was made

3
Moloney, Body Broken for a Broken People, 56.
4
Moloney, Body Broken for a Broken People, 36.

212
clean” (Mark. 1:41−42). Likewise, when Jesus touched the corpse of Tabitha, He did not become

unclean; instead, the dead body was made alive again (Mark 5:41−42).

Thus, while the gospels present Jesus as a figure who challenged the Jewish purity system,

the gospels also describe Jesus as a reformer who was in favor of other core values which were

more inclusive. These core values insist that Jesus alone makes sinners holy, the sick whole, and

the ritually unclean clean. Jesus’ incarnation, ministry, death, and resurrection are to reform the

unclean and make them clean through faith alone. According to Jesus, purity does not reside on

the lips or hands but in the heart; purity is measured by one’s faith in Christ and in what He did,

not by the traditional codes of men. Thus, pollution does not come by violating dietary rules or

eating without washing hands (Matt. 15:1−20), but by the lack of faith in Christ and in what He

has done on our behalf.

Ἀναξίως vs. Sola Fide

The implication of this finding leads us to question whether sola fide is the proper

preparation for one to worthily partake of the Eucharist. Our research indicates that it is wrong to

conclude that sola fide is enough preparation for partaking in the Lord’s Supper in a worthy

manner. Instead, one must demonstrate that faithful Christian living matches the implication of

the Eucharist. Paul’s final exhortation and solution to the problem of eating the Lord’s Supper in

an unworthy manner in verses 33 and 34 never suggests sola fide to be the sole solution. Instead,

Paul’s primary pastoral concern was to exhort and reunite those divided parties and give human

value through the self-giving act of Christ as presented through and in the sharing of the

Sacrament. Moreover, the love principle that Paul proposes at the end of the text is the reflection

of Christ’s self-sacrificial character for others which is meant to be displayed among the

Christian community in a welcoming, respecting, and sharing of their resources.

213
 Martin Luther interprets the lexical word ἀναξίως as an adjective, and this is evident in the

way he sought to solve the problem by insisting on sola fide as the solitary means to be worthy

for the Sacrament. Although Luther seems to have read the Greek lexical form of ἀναξίως as an

adjective, he correctly tries to solve the problem (of personal struggles to be worthy) by insisting

on sola fide as the only condition to make a Christian ἀξιος (in its adjectival sense) and for one to

benefit from God’s grace offered through the Sacrament. Unlike Paul’s context in 1 Cor. 11:17–

34, Luther, being influenced by the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of salvation by faith plus

good works, correctly argued for the sufficiency of sola fide to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper.

Therefore, neither Paul nor Luther believes sola fide is enough preparation for the

partaking of the Eucharist ἀξίως (in its adverbial sense). For both of them sola fide, or faith in

Christ, is the foundation and the primary focus for the question of worthiness in its adjectival

sense. Based on this foundation, Paul uses the adverbial term ἀναξίως in its secondary sense,

meaning about how the Lord’s Supper was being shared communally in Corinth. Likewise,

Luther’s interpretation of 1 Cor. 11:17–34 and his teaching about worthiness are informed by

Pauline theology. Besides, a solid biblical and Lutheran understanding of the term ἀναξίως never

enforces cultic rituals as a decisive factor in answering the question of what it means to be ἀξίως.

For example, Luther knew it was essential to offer a clear-cut answer concerning the condition

for worthiness when the very heart of the Gospel was at stake. Luther correctly sought to solve

the individual’s struggle to be personally worthy by insisting on the adequacy of sola fide as

opposed to works righteousness in the 16th century Roman Catholic Church. However, Luther

agrees with Paul that the concept of sola fide, in its primary sense, as opposed to works

righteousness, is not within the scope of Paul’s specific criticism of eating and drinking of the

Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner in Corinth.

214
 Amharic Term for Ἀναξίως

The finding of the research requires us, finally, to offer an equivalent translation of the

term ἀναξίως in the Ethiopian language. In addition to the Judaic influence that we explored

earlier, the idea that no ‘unworthy’ Christian must take part in the Eucharist in the EOTC has

been generated from misinterpretation and mistranslation of the word ἀναξίως in the AC and the

subsequent Ethiopic Bible versions, which mainly depend on the ancient Ge’ez translation and

interpretation of the Scripture preserved in the commentary.

Therefore, በማይገባ ሁኔታ or አግባብ ባልሆነ መንገድ, meaning in an unworthy manner or

inappropriately, is possibly a more comparable Amharic word for the Greek term ἀναξίως than

the current term, which we have stated in chapter five of this dissertation. Moreover, it is most

likely accurate to the specific historical context in Corinth and the overall syntax of the text. The

Amharic root word for ἀξίως is ግቡ (worth or appropriate), and its various dictionary meanings

are የሚገባ, ደንብ, አገባብ, 5 which carries an adverbial meaning modifying an action verb than

referring to the subject of a sentence.

The alternative Amharic word, therefore, supplies a better equivalent translation

determining ἀναξίως to be read as an adverb primarily qualifying the action of eating and

drinking of the Lord’s Supper in a communal setting. Unlike the Ethiopic Bible translations and

its interpretation of the word ἀναξίως that lead Christians to trust in and depend on their careful

observance of the rituals, we may argue that the external preparation distinctively adopted from

Judaism and practiced in the EOTC can be taken as an outward discipline of the body which is

the result of the inner faith of the heart.

5
Aba Yohanse Geber Egeziabehar, Mezegeb Kalat: Ethiopian Dictionary Tigrigna-Amharic (Asemera: Bete
Mahetem Areti Gerafik, 1948), 744.

215
 The Scripture tells us that all Christians were strangers alienated from God and could be

brought into the new covenant only through the costly act of God’s radical grace and granted to

them through faith (Rom. 3:23−25). Therefore, the Church should teach and correct those who

are proud of themselves for being personally worthy based on their good works and judge others

as unworthy for failing to keep one or more of the required rituals. Likewise, the Church should

encourage those members troubled by the thought of the preconditions that make them worthy by

emphasizing the significant role of confession and absolution before the Sacrament and the

forgiveness of sins and salvation offered in and through the sharing of the Eucharist. Therefore,

both groups—the so-called ‘worthy’ and ‘unworthy’—must depend on the works of Christ on

the cross and believe in God’s grace and mercy so that they may have perfect unity with one

another and live a life worthy of the Sacrament.

Moreover, those who voluntarily and frequently withdraw themselves from partaking of the

Eucharist should understand that they are dividing themselves from the corporal body of Christ,

which is the Church. When they intentionally and frequently withdraw from participating in the

Lord’s Supper, they also risk their identity as Christians. They should know that the Lord’s

Supper is, first of all, an offer of grace, not condemnation, and realize that in any case, they

cannot ultimately avoid accountability to God by staying away from the gift of the Sacrament

which is given for them for the forgiveness of their sins (1 Cor. 11:23−26).

Dividing the body of Christ, which is the Church, into the worthy and unworthy group

based on one’s commitment to the rituals stands against the unity of all believers. It also leads

the Church to suffer from a lack of Christian unity from within. Thus, there is evident

paradoxical tension displayed in the EOTC’s liturgy and traditions between the call to worthiness

and God’s declaration of worthiness through confession and absolution in the liturgical prayer.

216
We have also observed the unintended consequences and misapprehension that faulty

interpretation, translation, and understanding of worthiness can perpetuate if left unchecked, as it

has indeed been among the members of the EOTC. They erroneously rejected the whole service

of the Sacrament to avoid God’s judgment. Therefore, we argue that the EOTC’s unity of all

believers is most likely at stake (like the Corinthian Church) when the attendees’ good works

determine their reception to the Holy Altar. As the unity of all believers was the primary concern

of Paul’s advice and warning to the Corinthians, the current writer also has the same concern for

the unity of all believers, which is at stake within the EOTC.

217
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abba Goergoryos. የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን ታሪክ: The History of the Ethiopian
Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Addis Ababa: EOTC, 2012.

Ahmad, Abdussamad H. “Priests Planters and Slavers of Zege (Ethiopia), 1900−1935.”

International Journal of African History Studies 29, no. 3 (1996): 543−56.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/221360.

Allmen, Jean-Jacquae Von. The Lord’s Supper. Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1969.

Althaus, Paul. The Theology of Martin Luther. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966.

Ambrose. On the Mysteries and the Treatise on the Sacraments. Translated by T. Thompson.
Edited by J.H. Strawley. New York: Macmillan, 1919.

Ambrosiaster. Commentary on Romans and 1−2 Corinthians. Translated and edited by Gerald L.
Bray. Ancient Christian Texts. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

An, Keon-Sang. An Ethiopian Reading of the Bible: Biblical Interpretation of the Ethiopian
Orthodox Tewahido Church. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015.

Appleyard, David. “Ethiopian Christianity.” In The Blackwell Companion to Eastern

Christianity, edited by Ken Parry, 117−36. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Assefa, Kifle. The Significance of St. Yared’s Music in the Age of Globalization, Orthodox
Archdeacon. Columbus: University of Ohio, 2009.

Atiya, S. Aziz. History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church: Known as the History of the
Holy Church. Le Caire: Societe Darcheologie Copte, 1948.

———. A History of Eastern Christianity. London: Methuen, 1968.

Barrett, K. Charles. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Harper’s New Testament
Commentaries. New York: Harper & Row, 1968.

Baur, John. 2000 Years of Christianity in Africa: An African History 62−1992. Nairobi: Paulines,
1994.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation. Vol. 4. Edited
by John Bolt. Translated by John Vriend. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008.

Beale, G. K., and Carson D.A, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Belai, Giday. Ethiopian Civilization. Addis Ababa: B. Giday, 1992. Belayneh, Mulgeta. The
Nature of Hermeneutics in EOTC and Attitude towards it Today. Addis Ababa: Holy
Trinity Theological College, 2001.

218
Berga, Petros S. What Happened to the Original Christian Unity in Ethiopia? Towards the
Restoration of Our Original Unity in Christ. St. Ottilien: EOS, 2006.

Binns, John. An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2002.

Blidstein, Moshe. Purity, Community, and Ritual in Early Christian Literature. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2017.

Bonacci, Giulia. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the State 1974−1991: Analysis of an
Ambiguous Religious Policy. London: Centre of Ethiopian Studies, 2000.

Bornkamm, Gunther. “Lord’s Supper and Church in Paul.” In Early Christian Experience,
translated by Paul L. Hammer, 123−60. New York: Harper & Row, 1969.

Boylston, Tom. The Stranger at the Feast: Prohibition and Meditation in an Ethiopian Orthodox
Church Community. Berkley: University of California Press, 2018.

Bradshaw, Paul F. Eucharistic Origins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Brege, Daniel J. Eating God’s Sacrifice: The Lord’s Supper Portrayed in Old Testament
Sacrifice. Decatur, IN: Daniel J. Brege, 2009.

Bray, Gerald L. 1−2 Corinthians. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Brooks, Miguel F. ክብረ ፡ ነገሥት ። Kebra Nagast: (The Glory of Kings). Lawrenceville, NJ: Red
Sea Press, 1995.

Brower, Kent E. Living as God’s Holy People: Holiness and Community in Paul. Milton Keynes,
UK: Paternoster, 2009.

Bruce James. Travel to Discover the Source of Nile: In the Years 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772,
and 1773. London: Forgotten Books, 2018.

Budge, Ernest A. Wallis, A History of Ethiopia, Nubia & Abbysinia. Vol. 1. London: Methuen,
1928.

———. The Book of the Saints of the Ethiopian Church: A Translation of the Ethiopic
Synaxarium, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928.

———. Amulets and Superstitions. London, Oxford University Press, 1930.

———. Amulets and Talismans. New York, Collier Books, 1961.

———. The Queen of Sheba and Her Only Son Menyelek: Kebra Nagast. Cambridge: Ethiopian
Series, 2000.

———. The Kebra Nagast. New York: Cosmio Books, 2004.

219
Burke, Raymond L. “Canon 915: The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Communion to
Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin.” Periodica de re Canonica 96
(September 10, 2007): 3−58. http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/holycom/denial.htm

Cabie, Robert. The Church at Prayer: An Introduction to the Liturgy. Vol. 2, The Eucharist.
Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1986.

Calvin, John. Commentary on the Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Vol. 1.
Translated by John Pringle. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.

Carson, D. A. and Douglas J. Moo, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1992.

Chaillot, Christine. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Tradition: A Brief Introduction
to Its Life and Spirituality. Paris: Inter-Orthodox Dialogue, 2002.

Chemnitz, Martin. The Lord’s Supper: De Coena Domini. Translated by J. A. O. Preus. St.
Louis: Concordia, 1979.

Childs, Brevard S. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary. Philadelphia:

Westminster, 1974.

Chow, John K. Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth. Edited by Stanley
E. Porter. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.

Chrysostom, John. St. John Chrysostom on Wealth and Poverty. Translated by Catharine Roth.
Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 1984.

———. “Homily XXVII on 1 Corinthians 11:27.” In Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles
of Paul to the Corinthians, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the
Christian Church 12, edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal
Library, 1893.

Clapham, Christopher. Transformation and Continuity in Revolutionary Ethiopia. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Clarke, Andrew D. Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical and

Exegetical Study of 1 Corinthians 1−6. Leiden: Brill, 1993.

Clendenin, Daniel B. Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary Reader. 2nd ed. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2003.

Cohick, Lyn. “Melito of Sardis’s PERI PASCHA and Its Israel,” Harvard Theological Review
91, no. 4 (1998): 351−72.

Collins, Raymond F. First Corinthians. Sacra Pagina Series. Vol. 7. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical
Press, 1999.

220
Collins, John. Encounters with Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005.

Commission on Theology and Church Relations. Admission to the Lord’s Supper. A Report of
the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church—Missouri
Synod. St. Louis: The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, 1999.
https://www.lcms.org/about/leadership/commission-on-theology-and-church-
relations/documents.

Cowley, Roger W. Ethiopian Biblical Interpretation: A Study in Exegetical Tradition and

Hermeneutics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

———. New Testament Introduction in the Andemta Commentary Tradition. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1974.

———. Traditional Interpretation of the Apocalypse of St. John in the Ethiopian Church.
Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1983.

———. “Old Testament Introduction in the Andemta Commentary Tradition.” Journal of

Ethiopian Studies 1, no. 13, (1974): 133−75.

Crummey, Donald. Priests and Politicians: Protestant and Catholic Missions in Orthodox
Ethiopia, 1830−1868. Oxford: Clarendon, 1972.

———. “Sacred Contagion.” In Reading Leviticus: A Conversation with Mary Douglas, edited
By John F.A. Sawyer, 86−106. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996.

Dallen, James. The Reconciling Community: The Rite of Penance. New York: Pueblo, 1974.

Dalmais, Irenee-Henri. Eastern Liturgies. Translated by Donald Attwater. New York: Hawthoren
Books, 1960.

Daoud, Marcos. The Liturgy of the Ethiopian Church. Addis Abeba: Berhanena Selam, 1954.

Das, Andrew. “1 Corinthians 11:17−34 Revisited.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 62, no. 3
(July 1998): 187−208.

Day, Peter D. Eastern Christian Liturgies: The Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, and Syrian Rites:
Eucharistic Rites with Introductory Notes and Rubrical Instructions. Shannon: Irish
University Press, 1972.

Derat, Marie-Laure. “Lalibela,” in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: He-N. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz

Verlag, 2007.

Desta, Alemayehu. Introduction to the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Faith. Bloomington, IN:
Author House, 2012.

Dix, Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy. London: Dacre, 1945.

221
Douglas, Mary. Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo.
London and New York: Routledge, 1966.

Driver, John. Understanding the Atonement for the Mission of the Church. Scottdale, PA:
Herald, 1986.

Duffor, Xavier. Sharing the Eucharistic Bread: The Witness of the New Testament. Mahwah:
Paulist Press, 1987.

Dunn, James D.G. 1 Corinthians: New Testament Guides. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996.

Elowsky, Joel. “With a View to the End: Christ in the Ancient Church’s Understanding of
Scripture.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 70, no.1 (2016): 63−83.

Eshete, Tibebe. “Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Djibouti.” In Christianity in Sub-Seharan Africa,
edited by Kenneth R. Ross, J. Kwabena Asamoah-Gyadu, and Todd M. Johnson.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2020.

Esler, Philip F. Ethiopian Christianity: History, Theology, Practice. Waco, TX: Baylor
University Press, 2019.

Ephraim, Isaac. “The Significance of Food in Hebraic–African Thought and the Role of Fasting
in the Ethiopian Church.” In Asceticism, edited by Vincent L. Wimbush and Richards
Valantasis, 329−42. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Eriksson, Anders. Traditions as Rhetorical Proof: Pauline Argumentation in 1 Corinthians.

Coniectanea Biblica New Testament 29. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1998.

Estelle, Bryan D. “Passover and the Lord’s Supper: Continuity or Discontinuity?” In Children
and The Lord’s Supper, edited by Guy Waters and Ligon Duncan. 31−58. Fearn, UK:
Mentor, 2011.

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. New International Commentary on the New
Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Finlan, Stephen. The Background and Content of Paul’s Cultic Atonement Metaphors. Atlanta,
GA, Society of Biblical Literature, 2004.

Finlan, Stephen and Vladimir, Kharlamov. Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology. Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. First Corinthians. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.

Florovsky, Georges. “St. John Chrysostom: The Prophet of Charity.” In Aspects of Church
History. 79−89. Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1975.

Fritsch, Emmanuel. The Liturgical Year of the Ethiopian Church. Ethiopia: Master, 2001.

222
———. Encyclopedia Aethiopica. Edited by Siegbert Uhlig. Vols. 3−4. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz Verlag, 2007.

Froehlich, Karlfried. Sensing the Scriptures: Aminadab’s Chariot and the Predicament of
Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.

Galaw, Sirgu. The Kebra Nagast: Ge'ez and Amharic. Addis Abeba: Berhanena Selam, 2005.

Gallant, Tim. Feed My Lambs: Why the Lord’s Table Should Be Restored to Covenant Children.
Grande Prairie, Canada: Pactum Reformanda, 2002.

Garland, David. 1 Corinthians. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2003.

GeberEgeziabehar, Aba Yohanse, and Mezegeb Kalat. Ethiopian Dictionary Tigrigna - Amharic.
Asemera, Ethiopia: BeteMahetem AretiGerafik, 1948.

GebreAmanuel, Mekere Selase, Beluy Seyefe Selase Yohanns, Berhanu GebreAmanuel, and
Meleak Tabor Teshome Zerihun, የኢትዮጵያ ኦርቶዶክስ ተዋህዶ ቤተክርስቲያን ታሪክ ከልደተ
ክርስቶስ እስከ ፳፳፻ ዓ.ም (2000): The History of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church
from the Birth of Jesus to AD 2000. Addis Ababa: EOTC, 2000.

Gebremedhin, Ezra. Life-Giving Blessing: An Inquiry into the Eucharistic Doctrine of Cyril of
Alexandria. Uppsala, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1977.

Gebru, Mebratu Kiros. Miaphysite Christology: An Ethiopian Perspective. Piscataway, NJ:

Gorgias, 2010.

Gennep, Arnold. The Rites of Passage. Translated by Monica Vizedom and Gabrielle Caffee.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.

Gerhard, Johann. On Sacred Scripture: On Interpreting Sacred Scripture. Translated by Joshua

J. Hayes. St. Louis: Concordia, 2017.

Gidena, Mesfin. “Developments in the Oral and Written Traditions about Makeda and
Solomon.” Masters thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 2009.

———. Makedda and Solomon in the Eye of Ethiopian Traditional Accounts. A Developmental
Analysis. Saarbrucken: VDM Verlag, 2010.

Glancy, Jennifer A. Corporal Knowledge: The Early Christian Bodies. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2010.

Gennep, Arnold. The Rites of Passage. Translated by MonicaVizedom and Gabrielle Caffee.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960.

Grant, Robert M. Paul in the Roman World: The Conflict at Corinth. Louisville, KY: John Knox,
2001.

223
Graves, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2017.

Gray, George B. Sacrifice in The Old Testament: Its Theory and Practice. New York: Ktav,
1971.

Green, Joel B. The Gospel of Luke: The New International Commentary on the New Testament.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester:

InterVarsity Press, 1994.

Haile, Getatchew. “The 49 Hour Sabbath of the Ethiopian Church.” Journal of Semitic Studies,
23, no. 2 (1988): 233−54.

Hammerschmidt, Ernst. Studies in the Ethiopic Anaphoras. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961.

———. “Jewish Elements in the Cult of the Ethiopian Church.” Journal of Ethiopian Studies 3,
no. 2 (1965): 1−12. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41965723.

Hanson, Kenneth. C. “Blood and Purity in Leviticus and Revelation:” Listening: Journal of
Religion and Culture 28, no 3 (1993): 215−300.
https://jbburnett.com/resources/hanson_bloodandpurity.

Harrison C. Matthew, and Pless T. John, eds. Closed Communion? Admission to the Lord’s
Supper in Biblical Lutheran Perspective. St. Louis: Concordia, 2017.

Hausman, Gerald. The Kebra Nagast: The Lost Bible of Rastafarian Wisdom and Faith from
Ethiopia and Jamaica. New York: St. Martin, 1997.

Hyatt, Harry. The Church of Abyssinia. London: Luzac, 1928.

Hays, Richard B. First Corinthians. Interpretation. Louisville, KY: John Knox, 1997.

Heine, Ronald E. Reading the Old Testament with the Ancient Church: Exploring the Formation
of Early Christian Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007.

Heldman, Marilyn E. “Architectural Symbolism, Sacred Geography and the Ethiopian Church.”
Journal of Religion in Africa 22, no 3 (1992): 222−41.
https://doi.org/10.1163/157006692X00158.

Heldman, Marilyn E. and Grierson, Roderick, eds. African Zion: the Sacred Art of Ethiopia. New
Haven: Yale University Press. 1993.

Hetzron, Robert. Ethiopian Semitic: Studies in Classification. Manchester: Manchester

University Press, 1972.

Hoben, Allian. “Social Stratification in Traditional Amhara Society.” In Social Stratification in

Africa, edited by Arthur Tuden and Leonard Plotnicov, 187−224. New York: Free Press,
1970.

224
———. Land Tenure among the Amhara of Ethiopia: The Dynamics of Cognatic Descent.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1973.

Horrell, David G. The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interests and Ideology
from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

Hubbard, David A. “The Literary Sources of the Kebra Nagast: Another Look.” PhD Thesis, St.
Andrews University, St. Andrews, 1956. http://research-
repository.standrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/544.

Hubbard, Moyer. Christianity in the Greco-Roman World: A Narrative Introduction. Grand

Rapids: Baker, 2010.

Humphrey, Caroline and James Laidlaw. The Archetypal Actions of Ritual. Oxford: Clarendon,
1994.

Hunt, Lucy-Anne. “Eastern Christian Iconographic and Architectural Traditions: Oriental

Orthodox.” In The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity, edited by Ken Parry,
388−419. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.

Huntingford, George W. B. The Glorious Victories of Amda Seyon: King of Ethiopia. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1965.

Interim Secretariat Oriental Orthodox Conference, ed. The Oriental Orthodox Churches Addis
Ababa Conference. Addis Ababa: Artistic Printers, 1965.

Isaac, Ephraim. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahido Church. Trenton, NJ: Red Sea Press, 2013.

Jembere, Abera. An Introduction to the Legal History of Ethiopia 1434−1974. Hamburg,

Germany: Munster, 2000.

Jeremias, Joachim. The Eucharistic Words of Jesus. London: SCM Press, 1966.

Johnson, Maxwell E. Liturgy in Early Christian Egypt. Cambridge: Grove Books, 1995.

Judge, Edwin A. The Social Pattern of Christian Groups in the First Century. London: Tyndale,
1960.

Jungmann, Josef A. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Missarum
Sollemnia). Translated by Francis A. Brunner. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, 1951.

Justin, and Barnard, Leslie W. The First and Second Apologies. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist, 1997.

Kalu, Ogbu. African Christianity: An African Story. Pretoria: University of Pretoria, 2005.

Kannengiesser, Charles. Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity.

Leiden: Brill, 2004.

225
Kaplan, Steven. The Monastic Holy Man and the Christianization of Early Solomonic Ethiopia.
Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1984.

———. The Beta Israel (Falasha) in Ethiopia: From Earliest Times to the Twentieth Century.
New York: New York University Press, 1992.

———. “The Social and Religious Functions of the Eucharist in Medieval Ethiopia.” Annales
d’Ethiopie 19 (2003): 7−18. https://doi.org/10.3406/ethio.2003.1036.

Keller, Edmond. Revolutionary Ethiopia: From Empire to People’s Republic. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 1991.

Kharlamov, Vladimir and Finlan, Stephen, Theosis: Deification in Christian Theology. Eugene,
OR: Wipf & Stock, 2006.

Kidane, Habtemichael. Encyclopaedia Aethiopicaz. Edited by Siegbert Uhlig. Vol. 2.

Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2005.

Kidner, Derek. Sacrifice in the Old Testament. London: Tyndale, 1952.

Kilmartin, Edward. The Eucharist in the Primitive Church. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall,
1965.

Kistemaker, Simon J. Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. New Testament
Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.

Krentz, Edgar. The Historical-Critical Method. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1975.

Lampe, Peter. “The Eucharist: Identifying with Christ on the Cross.” Interpretation: Journal of
Bible and Theology 48, no. 1 (January 1994): 36−49.
https://doi.org/10.11588/heidok.00025937.

Lassman, Evnie V. “1 Corinthians 11:29: ‘Discerning the Body.” In Closed Communion?

Admission to the Lord’s Supper in Biblical Lutheran Perspective. Edited by Matthew C.
Harrison and Pless T. John. St. Louis: Concordia, 2017.

Lathrop, Gordon. Holy Things: A Liturgical Theology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993.

Lawler, G. Michael. Symbol and Sacrament: A Contemporary Sacramental Theology. New

York: Paulist, 1987.

Lee, Ralph. “Symbolic Interpretations in Ethiopic and Ephremic Literature.” PhD thesis, SOAS
(School of Oriental and African Studies). University of London, 2011, 40−53.
http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/12742/.

———. Symbolic Interpretations in Ethiopian and Early Syriac Literature. Vol. 24. Leuven,
Paris: Peeters, 2017.

226
Lenski, Richard C. H. The Interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second Epistles to the
Corinthians. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1963.

Leslau, Wolf. Comparative Dictionary of Ge’ez (classical Ethiopic): Ge’ez-English/English-

Ge’ez, with an Index of the Semitic Roots. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1987.

Levering, Matthew. Participatory Biblical Exegesis: A Theology of Biblical Interpretation. Notre

Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008.

Levine, David Wax and Gold: Tradition and Innovation in Ethiopian Culture. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1965.

Levine, Donald. Greater Ethiopia: The Evolution of a Multi-Ethnic Society. Chicago: Chicago
University Press, 1974.

Leyerle, Blake. Theatrical Shows and Ascetic Lives: John Chrysostom’s Attack on Spiritual
Marriage. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.

Lietzmann, Hans. Mass and Lord’s Supper: A Study in the History of the Liturgy. Translated by
Robert Douglas Richardson. Leiden: Brill, 1953.

Lobo, Jerome. A Voyage to Abyssinia. London, Paris, New York & Melbourne: Cassell, 1887.

Lockwood, Gregory J. 1 Corinthians. Concordia Commentary. St. Louis: Concordia, 2007.

Lubac, Henri de. Corpus Mysticum: The Eucharist and the Church in the Middle Ages:
Historical Survey. Translated by Gemma Simmonds CJ, Richard Price, and Christopher
Stephens. Faith in Reason: Philosophical Enquiries. Notre Dame: University of Notre
Dame Press, 2013.

Malieckal, Louis. The Eucharist, Gift and Task. Bandra: St. Pauls, 2011.

Margerie, Bertrand De. An Introduction to the History of Exegesis. Vol. 3. Peru, IL: Saint Bede
Abbey, 1991.

———. An Introduction to the History of Exegesis: The Greek Fathers. Translated by Leonard
Maluf. Vol. 1. Peru, IL: Saint Bede Abbey, 1993.

Marshall, I. Howard. Last Supper and Lord’s Supper. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981.

Martin, Dale B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Mazza, Enrico “The Eucharist in the First Four Centuries.” In Handbook for Liturgical Studies.
Vol. 3. 19−48. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1997.

McCain, Paul Timothy, et al, eds. Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions, A Reader Confession
of the Book of Concord. 2nd ed. St. Louis: Concordia, 2006.

227
McGowan, Andrew B. Ancient Christian Worship: Early Church Practices in Social, Historical,
and Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014.

McRae, Rachel “Eating with Honor’: The Corinthian Lord’s Supper in Light of Voluntary
Association Meal Practices.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 1 (2011): 165–81.

Mebner, Reinhard and Martin Lang. “Ethiopian Anaphoras Status and Tasks in Current Research
via an Edition of the Ethiopian Anaphora of the Apostles.” In Jewish and Christian Liturgy
and Worship New Insights into its History and Interaction, edited by Albert Gerhards and
Clemens Leonhard. 185−206. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Mehari, Tirfie. Yeqedus Pawlos Metsihaf Nebabu Kene Teregumu. Addis Ababa: Tensae
Zeguba’ae Matemiya Bet, 1948.

Melito, and Alistair C. Stewart. On Pascha: With the Fragments of Melito and other Material
Related to the Quartodecimans. Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 2001.

Mellaku, Hailegebriel. The Future of Religious Studies in Ethiopia and Eritrea. Addis Ababa:
Ethiopian Review of Cultures, 1995.

Merahi, Kefyalew. The Order of Marriage and Social Ethics. Addis Ababa: OSSA, 1990.

Mercer, Samuel A. B. The Ethiopic Liturgy: Its Sources, Development, and Present Form.
Milwaukee: Young Churchman, 1915.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume
to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament. 4th Revised edition. Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.

Mikias, Paulos. Ethiopia: Africa in Focus Series. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC−CLIO, 2011.

Miller, Samantha L. Chrysostom’s Devil: Demons, the Will, and Virtue in Patristic Soteriology.
Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2020.

Molnar, Enrico S. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church; A Contribution to the Ecumenical Study of
Less Known Eastern Churches. Pasadena: Bloy House Theological School, 1969.

Moloney, Francis J. A Body Broken for a Broken People: Eucharist in the New Testament.
Revised edition. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.

Murphy-O’Connor, Jerome. Keys to First Corinthians: Revisiting the Major Issues. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009.

———. St. Paul’s Corinth: Text and Archaeology. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1983.

Nash, Robert S. First Corinthians. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2009.

Neyrey, Jerome. Paul, in Other Words: A Cultural Reading of His Letter. Louisville:
Westminster, 1990.

228
Norden, Herman. Africa’s Last Empire: Through Abyssinia to Lake Tana and the Country of the
Falasha. London: Witherby, 1930.

Oden, Thomas C. Classical Pastoral Care: Ministry Through Word and Sacrament. Vol. 2. New
York: Crossroad, 1987.

O’Keefe, John J. and Russell R. Reno. Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian
Interpretation of the Bible. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005.

Pankhurst, Richard. A Social History of Ethiopia: The Northern and Central Highlands from
Early Medieval Times to the Rise of Emperor Tewodros II. Addis Ababa: Red Sea Press,
1992.

Pankhurst, Sylvia. Ethiopia: A Cultural History. Essex: Lalibela House, 1955.

Pawlikowski, John T. “The Judaic Spirit of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church: A Case Study in
Religious Acculturation.” Journal of Religion in Africa 4, no. 4 (January 1972): 178−99.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1594844.

Pedersen, Kristen. “Jerusalem,” in Encyclopaedia Aethiopica: He- N. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz

Verlag, 2007.

Peters, Albrecht and Thomas H. Trapp. Commentary on Luther’s Catechisms. St. Louis:
Concordia, 2012.

Phillipson, David W. Ancient Churches of Ethiopia: Fourth-fourteenth centuries. London, New

Heaven: Yale University Press, 2009.

———. Foundations of an African Civilization: Aksum & the Northern Horn 1000 BC−AD
1300. London: James Currey, 2012.

Portella, Mario A. Ethiopian and Eritrean Monasticism: The Spiritual and Cultural Heritage of
Two Nations. Pismo Beach: BP Editing, 2015.

Rey, F. Charles. The Real Abyssinia. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1935.

Ridderbos, Herman. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. Translated by John Richard De. Grand.
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.

Robertson, Archibald, and Alfred Plummer. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First
Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1929.

Rordorf, Willy. The Eucharist of the Early Christians. New York: Pueblo, 1978.

Rudnick, Milton L., Erwin J. Kolb, Jane L. Fryar, and Robert C. Baker. 1 Corinthians. St. Louis:
Concordia, 2007.

Rufinus of Aquileia, The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia. Books 10 and 11. Translated by
Philip R. Amidon. New York: Oxford University, 1997.

229
Ruth, Lester, Carrie Steenwyk, and John D. Witvliet. Walking Where Jesus Walked: Worship in
Fourth Century Jerusalem. The Church at Worship. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010.

Salvo, Mario Di. The Basilicas of Ethiopia: An Architectural History. London, UK: Bloomsbury,
2016.

Sasse, Hermann. This is My Body: Luther’s Contention for the Real Presence in the Sacrament
of the Altar. Adelaide, Australia: Lutheran, 1975.

———. We Confess the Sacraments. Vol. 2. Translated by Normal Nagel. St. Louis: Concordia,
1985.

Scerri, Hector. “The Social Morality of John Chrysostom: The Contribution of Adalbert
Hamman (1910−2000).” Scholarly Works – FacTheFDT Collection, 2005.
https://www.um.edu.mt/library/oar//handle/123456789/720

Schmemann, Alexander. For the Life of the World: Sacraments and Orthodoxy. Crestwood, NY:
St. Vladimir’s Seminary, 1973.

Selassie, Sergew Hable. Ancient and Medieval Ethiopian History to 1270. Addis Ababa: Haile
Selassie I University Press, 1972.

Shaw, Teresa M. The Burden of the Flesh: Fasting and Sexuality in Early Christianity.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998.

Sheerin, Daniel. The Eucharist: Message of the Fathers of the Church. Wilmington: Michael
Glazier, 1986.

Shemelis, Hailemariam. ኦርቶዶክሳዊ ቅዱሳት ሥዕላት። ታሪክ፤ መንፈሳዊ ትርጉም፤ የሊቃውንት

አስተምህሮ እና ሌሎችም: ‘Orthodox Saintly Paintings: History, Spiritual Meaning,
Teachings of Religious Intellectuals and Others.’ Addis Ababa: Mahibere Qidusan, 2007.

Simonetti, Manlio Hughes. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical

Introduction to Patristic Exegesis. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994.

Six, Veronika. A Second Version of the Pictorial Presentation of the Journey of the Queen
Makǝdda. in Ethiopian Studies. Selected Papers of the 16th International Conference of
Ethiopian Studies, Trondheim July 2007, edited by H. Aspen et al. Aethiopistische
Forschungen 72. 42−51.Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2011.

Smith, Dennis E., Form Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World
Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.

Stern, Henry A. Wanderings Among the Falashas in Abyssinia, Together with a Description of
the Country and Its Various Inhabitants. London: Cass, 1968.

Strauss, Peter L., ed. The Fetha Nagast: The Law of the Kings. Addis Ababa: Faculty of Law,
1968.

230
Stuhlmacher, Peter. Biblical Theology of the New Testament. Trans. and eds., Daniel P. Bailey,
and Jostein Ådna. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018.

Surburg, Mark P. “The Situation at the Corinthian Lord’s Supper in Light of 1 Corinthians
11:21: A Reconsideration.” Concordia Journal 32, no. 1 (2006):17–37.

———. “Discerning the Body: An Exegetical Examination of 1 Cor. 11:17–34.” Master of

Sacred Theology thesis, St. Louis Concordia Seminary, 2000.

Takla-Haymanot, Ayala. The Ethiopian Church and its Christological Doctrine. Addis Ababa:
Graphics, 1981.

Tamiru, Ayalew. YeEtiopia Emnet BeSostu Hegegat: The Faith of Ethiopia According to the
Three Laws. Addis Ababa: Berhanena Selam, 1960.

Tappert, Theodore G, ed. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran
Church. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959.

Tefera, Amsalu. “Colophonic Reflections on Dersana Ṣeyon and Kebra Nagast,” Aethiopica.
International Journal of Ethiopian and Eritrean Studies 17, no. 1 (2014): 78−89.

———. The Ethiopian Homily on the Ark of the Covenant: Critical Edition and Annotated
Translation of Dersana Seyon. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Teigen, Bjarne Wollan. The Lord’s Supper in The Theology of Martin Chemnitz. Brewster, MA:
Trinity Lutheran, 1986.

Tensae Matemiya Derejite. Metsihafe Qidasie: Keqedemo Abatotch Siwerede Siwarde Yemtawe
Nebabu Kene Teregumu. Addia Ababa: Tenesae Matemiya Derejete, 1987.

Theissen, Gerd, and John H. Schutz. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on
Corinth. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999.

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church. Addis Ababa:
Ethiopia, EOTC, 2012.

———. The Liturgy Book of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church: Preparatory Service,
Anaphora of the Apostles and Anaphora of St. Dioscorus. Haile Selase University: The
Lion of Judah Society’s Imperial Publishers, 2012.

———. The Church of Ethiopia: A Panorama of History and Spirituality. Addis Ababa: The
Ethiopian Orthodox Church, 1970.

———.የቅዱስ: ጳውሎስ: መጽሐፍ: ንባቡ: ከትርጓሜው: Saint Paul’s Book: Its Reading with
Interpretation. 2nd ed. Addis Ababa: Berhanena Selam, 2007.

231
———. YaItyopya Ortodoks Tawahedo Bétakerestiyan: Emnat Sereata Amlekotena Yawec
Geneñunat: The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church Faith, Order of Worship and
Ecumenical Relations. Addis Ababa: Tensae Masatamiya Derejet, 1996.

Theodore, and Alphonse Mingana. Commentary of Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Lord’s Prayer
and on the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist. Cambridge: Heffer&Sons, 1933.

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Toom, Tarmo. Patristic Theories of Biblical Interpretation: The Latin Fathers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2016.

Torrance, Thomas F. Divine Meaning: Studies in Patristic Hermeneutics. Edinburgh: T&T

Clark, 1995.

Tovey, Phillip. Inculturation of Christian Worship: Exploring the Eucharist. Aldershot, Hants,
England: Ashgate, 2004.

Ullendorff, Edward. Ethiopia and the Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967.

———. “Hebraic-Jewish Elements in Abyssinia (Monophysite) Christianity.” Journal of

Semantic Studies 1, no. 3 (July 1956): 216−56.

———. The Ethiopians: An Introduction to Country and People. London: Oxford University
Press, 1960.

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1996.

Welker, Michael. What Happens in Holy Communion? Translated by John F Hoffmeyer. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Wet. L. Chris de “The Priestly Body: Power-Discourse and Identity in John Chrysostom’s De
Sacerdotio.” Religion & Theology 18, no 3 (2011): 351−59.
https://doi.org/10.1163/157430111X614736

William, Arndt, Walter Bauer, and F. Wilbur Gingrich Frederick W. Danker. A Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Winter, Bruce W. After Paul Left Corinth: The Influence of Secular Ethics and Social Change.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001.

———. “The Lord’s Supper at Corinth: An Alternative Reconstruction.” In Reformed Journal of

Theology 37, no. 3 (1978): 73–82.

232
Witherington, Ben. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1
and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

———. Making a Meal of It: Rethinking the Theology of the Lord’s Supper. Waco, TX: Baylor
University Press, 2007.

Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: Comprehending a
Complete Body of Divinity. Reprint, Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbeyterian & Reformed, 1975.

Wondmagegnehu, Aymro, and Joachim Motovu, eds. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Addis
Ababa: Ethiopian Orthodox Mission, 1970.

Worqineh, HabteMariam. Tintawi Ye Ethiopia Serate Timehrt. Addis Ababa: Tinsae, 1971.

Yarnold, Edward. Cyril of Jerusalem. The Early Church Fathers. London: Routledge, 2000.

Yesehaq, Abuna. The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church: An Integrity African Church. New York:
Vantage, 1989.

Young, Frances M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Zernov, Nicholas. Eastern Christendom. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1961.

233
 VITA

Tibebu Teklu Senbetu

April 26, 1978

Debre Birhan, ETHIOPIA

Collegiate Institutions Attended

Mekane Yesus Seminary, Addis Ababa Ethiopia, Bachelor of Theology, 2005

Graduate Institutions Attended

Torch Trinity University, Seoul: South Korea, Master of Divinity, 2010

Ethiopian Graduate School of Theology, Addis Ababa: Ethiopia, Master of Theology, 2014

Previous Theses and Publications

“An Exegetical Analysis of 1 Corinthians 11:17−34 with a Focus on ‘Unworthily Eating and
Drinking of the Lord’s Supper’ and ‘Paedocommunion’ in the EECMY Context.” At the
Ethiopian Graduate School of Theology, MTh Thesis, 2014.
“Righteousness Neither by Faith nor by Works: Retrieving the Biblical and Lutheran Theology.”
International Journal of Arts and Humanity. Vol. 5. No. 1 January 2019.
“Being Nicene in the Context of Christian Muslim Dialogue in Addis Ababa.” International
Journal of Arts and Humanity. Vol. 5. No. 2 April 2019.

Current Memberships in Academic Societies

International Journal of Arts and Humanities

234