| 78. Ориг. Прот. Цел. I, 2, 46–47. 79. Голубев, Обозр. Посл. Кор. 209. 80. «Учение 12 апостолов», гл. 10. 81. ср. 2 Кор 8, 19. Игн. к Филад. 10, Смирн. 11. 82. Уч. 12 ап. 15. Ср. Климент Римский. 1 Кор 44: «почитаем несправедливым лишать служения епископов». 83. ср. Деян 13, 2 и выше стр. 84. Деян 2:4, 11, 13. 85. Деян 10, 44; 19, 6. 86. Lange-Braune, D. Kor.-Br. 235. 87. 1 Кор 14, 4, 5. 12, 16. 88. 1 Кор 14, 14, 15. 89. 1 Кор 14, 16. 90. 1 Кор 14, 2. 91. 1 Кор 14, 14, 15, 16. 92. 1 Кор 14, 28. 93. 1 Кор 12, 10, 30. 94. 1 Кор 14, 13. 95. 1 Кор 14, 4. 96. 1 Кор 14, 10. 97. Иуст. Апол. 1, 9. Ирин. Прот. ер. I, 6. Тер.. Прп. Марк. 5. Ориг. на Исх 13, 2. О мол. 2, на посл. к Рим. 7, 6. Кир. Иер. Огл. 17, 16. Иоанн Златоуст. на 1 Кор бес.29. Григ. Богосл. Сл. 41, на Пятидесятницу. Августин. Сл. 5, на Пятидесятницу. Близко к этому мнение Ляйтфута, что в Коринфе языкоговорение состояло в чудесной способности говорить на древнем еврейском языке, тогда уже не употреблявшемся (Ligthfoot, Horae hebraicae et talmudicae in ep. priorem ad Corinthios, Opera, 917 sq). 98. Billroth. Commentar zu den Briefen des Paulus an die Korinther, Leipz. 1833, по Lange 200. 99. Аристотель, De arte poeticac. 21. Гален, Exeges. glossar. Hippocr. prooem. Квинтилиан. Inst. orat. 1, 8. 100. Bleek. в Theol. Studien und Kritiken. 1829, S. 17 f. 101. Eichhorn в Allgemein. Biblioth. der biblischer Literatur I, 91 f. и др. 102. Wieseler в Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1838, 378 f. 103. Edwards, A. Commentary of the first epistle to the Corinthians, Lond. 1884, p. 319. 104. У Поллукса, греч. музык. Phetis, Histoire de la musique, t. IV, p. 281. Фивейский. Духовные дарования, 45. 105. У Аристоксена, Плутарха и др. Там же. 106. Плутарх. De musica 36. 107. 1 Кор 12, 31. 108. У Аристоксена и Плутарха. De def. огас. Phetis III, 46. Фивейский 99–100. 109. Деян 2, 4; слав. и рус. провещевати. 110. Ирин. Прот. ер. III, 17, 2. 111. Аристотель. Probl. Фивейский 47. 112. К этому мнению склоняются Schultz, Die Geistesgaben и особенно Фивейский, указ. соч. |
| 10931 As suggested, e.g., by Augustine Tr. Ev. Jo. 123.5; Westcott, John, 303; Sandmel, Judaism, 389. Threefold repetition of a basic question with a threefold answer also appears in Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.16 (with the third answer the most honest), though that work " s earliest possible date is a generation after John. 10934 Héring, Corinthians, 135 n. 4 (though wrongly differentiating it too much from φιλα; it obviously differs from ρως). 10938 Tälbert, John, 261. The two terms for «ear» are distinct diminutive forms of one term, almost certainly neither retaining diminutive force. 10939 E.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 343; Thiselton, «Semantics,» 93; Culpepper, John, 248; Ridderbos, John, 665–66; cf. Smith, John (1999), 218 (on 11:3, 5). 10942 Hunter, John, 196, noting that Peter claimed his loyalty greater than theirs (13:37); but «these» is in the genitive, not the nominative. 10945 One could likewise view Moses and Aaron as sheep from the flock (1 En. 89:18). Begg, «Sheep,» thinks the three sheep of 1 En. 89refer to Zerubbabel and Joshua, plus either Ezra or more likely) Nehemiah. 10947 Slaves and prisoners of war regularly had to act at others» bidding, e.g., Homer I1. 6.455–458. 10948 That the dependence of old age is at least partly in view is frequently noted, e.g., Hunter, John, 196. 10949 E.g., Sophocles Oed. tyr. 402–403, 1153; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 10.29.1; Cornelius Nepos 19 (Phocion), 4.1; Herodian 2.5.8; Dig. 47.21.2; 2Macc 6:21–22; Mart. Po1. 9.2. 10951 E.g., Livy 1.26.7,11 ; Ovid Amores 1.2.19–20. Many regarded it as shameful to die at another " s hand (e.g., Cornelius Nepos 23 [Hannibal], 12.5). 10952 Tertullian Scorpiace 15 (including his binding, though this could reflect John 21:18 ); Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 2.25.5–8; see Bruce, History, 403; on Peter " s martyrdom, see 1 Clem. 5. Other evidence also supports his stay in Rome, e.g., Ign. Rom. 4.3; perhaps Falasca, «Bones.» 10953 Acts of Peter; Origen according to Eusebius Hist. ecc1. 3.1 (for crucifixion in this posture, see also Seneca Consolation to Marcia 20; references from Talbert, John, 262; Culpepper, John, 249). |
| This latter point, regarding the misconception of sin offerings, points to a larger misconception regarding sacrifice, that it is centered around the act of killing. When looking at the sacrificial system as a whole, it becomes very clear that many of the sacrificial offerings, such as grain and drink offerings, or offerings that involve bread or cakes, cannot be killed, and have no blood. Rather, what every sacrificial offering, throughout the sacrificial system, has in common is that it is food. Sacrifices are therefore not bloody acts of killing, but rather meals offered to God, and participated in by the eating of portions of the sacrifice by the priests and the worshippers. This is why the result of the burning of these offerings is described throughout the Law as an ‘aroma pleasing to the Lord’ (Gen 8:21, Lev 1:9, 2:2, 23:18). The same language is applied both to animal offerings and to grain offerings. The same language is also applied by St. Paul to the sacrifice of Christ himself (Eph 5:2). For an animal to become part of a meal, it must be killed and appropriately butchered according to the commandments, but these are secondary to its role as meal. The traditional Protestant argument, therefore, that the Eucharist is a meal not a sacrifice, can be seen to be completely incoherent from the point of view of the apostles. Sacrifices from their perspective were communal meals, leading to the very early crisis regarding meat offered to idols (as dealt with primarily in Acts and 1 Corinthians). The fate of the sacrificial commandments, and their ongoing application in the life of the church becomes clear when the language used in the apostolic era regarding sacrifice is understood. In Greek translation, Numbers 10:10 refers to the sin offerings of the tabernacle as ‘remembrances’. Not because in offering these offerings the worshippers remember some past event, or remember their own sins, but because through offering a pleasing offering, they bring themselves and their need for mercy to the remembrance of God. This language is picked up in the New Testament, for example, in Acts 10. The centurion Cornelius receives a vision urging him to send for St. Peter in order to receive the gospel and baptism at his hands. What has occasioned this angelic visitation is that his prayers and his giving of alms have gone up before the Lord as a ‘remembrance’. Prayer and almsgiving are here associated with sacrifice. More importantly, however, when Christ institutes the celebration of the Eucharist, his command to his disciples and apostles is to ‘do this as my remembrance’ (Luke 22:19, 1 Cor 11:24). This is not to say that the Eucharist has replaced the sacrificial system, but that in Christ’s voluntary self-offering, the sacrificial system has been fulfilled, and the Eucharist is the application in the church of those sacrificial commandments. |
| -. The Patriarch and the Prince: The Letter of Patriarch Photios of Constantinople to Khan Boris of Bulgaria. Edited by Despina Stratoudaki White and Joseph R. Berrigan. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982. 102 p. (The Archbishop Iakovos library of ecclesiastical and historical sources; n. 6.) Bibliography: p. 91–95. -. Patriarch Photios of Constantinople: His Life, Scholarly Contributions, and Correspondence Together with a Translation of Fifty-Two of His Letters. Despina Stratoudaki White, ed. and comp. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1982. 234 p. (The Archbishop Iakovos library of ecclesiastical and historical sources; n. 5.) Bibliography: p. 204–222. Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. First series. Edited by Philip Schaff in connection with a number of patristic scholars of Europe and America. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978–1979. 14 v. English translations, with notes. Reprint of the 1886–1890 ed. published by Christian Literature Co., New York. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. See especially: 9. St. Chrysostom: On the Priesthood; Ascetic Treatises; Select Homilies and Letters; Homilies on the Statues. 10. St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. Matthew. 11. St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans. 12. St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Epistles of Paul to the Corinthians. 13. St. Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. 14. St. Chrysostom: Homilies on the Gospel of St. Joh n and the Epistle to the Hebrews. Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. Second series. Translated into English with prolegomena and explanatory notes, under the editorial supervision of Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. NY: The Christian literature company, 1890–1900. 14 v. Vols. 1–7 edited by Schaff and Wace. Vols. 9 and 14: New York, C. Scribner’s sons; [etc., etc.] See especially: 1. Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine. 1890. 2. Socrates, Sozomenus: Church Histories. 1890. 3. Theodoret, Jerome Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings, etc. 1892. 4. St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters. 1892. 5. Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, etc. 1893. 7. St. Cyril of Jerusalem. St. Gregory Nazianzen. 1894. 8. St. Basil: Letters and Select Works. 1895. 9. St. Hilary of Poitiers, Joh n of Damascus, 1899. 10. St. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters. 1896. 11. Sulpitius Severus. Vincent of Lerins. Joh n Cassian, 1894. 12. Leo the Great. Gregory the Great. 1895. 13. Part II. Gregory the Great. Ephraim Syrus. Aphrahat. 1898. 14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. 1900. |
| Capita moralia de alterationibus animæ et corporis, 687–94. De tribus modis orationis, 701–10. De confessione, 95, 283–304. De sobrietate et attentione, 150, 899. JOANNES MAUROPUS, Programma in leges, , 120, 1144–5. EUSTATHIUS THESSALONICENSIS. De emendanda vita monachica, 135, 729–910. Dialogus Theophilus et Hierocles, 909–26. Ad stylitam quemdam, 136, 217–64. De simulatione, 373–408. Contra injuriarum memoriam, 407–500. De obedientia magistratibus debita, 136, 301–58. NICEPHORUS (NATHANAEL). Sermo consolatorius ad filiam. 140, 1437–50. Testamentum, 1465–98. Nicetas Pectoralus, 129, 851–1010. NICETAS PECTORATUS, 129, 851–1010. NICEPHORUS BLEMMYDA. Sermo ad monachos, 142, 585–606. THEOLEPTUS. De abscondita operatione in Christo, 143, 381–404. Canticum compunctionis, , 403–8. GR. PALAMAS. De расе, 151, 9–18. De tentationibus, 151, 401–12. De virtutibus et passionibus, 411–24. De mease spirituali 1–2, 331–54. ARSENIUS AUTORIANUS. Testamentum, 140, 947–583. CALLISTUS ET IGNATIUS XANTHOPULI. Opuscula ascetica, 147, 635–812. CALLISTUS TELICUDES. De quieta conversatione, 147, 817–26. De oratione et attentione, 827–32. THEODORUS MELITENES. Ethicon, 149, 883–988. CALLISTUS CATAPHYGIOTA. De vita contemplativa, 147, 835–942. , NICEPHORUS MONACHUS. De sobrietate et cordis custodia, 147, 945–66. GEORGIUS CYPRIUS. Proverbiorum collectio, 142, 445–70. GEORGIUS LAPITHA. Carmen morale, , 149, 1009–46. NICOLAUS CABASILAS. De vita in Christo, libri 1–7, 160, 493–726. PHILOTHEUS. De mandatis D.-N. J.-C., 154, 729–46. DEMETRIUS CYDONIUS. De contemnenda morte, 154, 1169–1212. GEORGIUS GEMISTUS PLETHO. De virtutibus, 160, 865–82. MANUEL PALÆOLOGUS. Capita compunctionis, , 156, 575–6. BESSARION. Compendium S. Basilii Asceticorum, 161, 525–32. MICHAEL APOSTOLIUS, Proverbia, PGLT., 80, 639–820. B) DE VIRGINITATE ЕТ CONT1NENTIA CLEMENS. Epistolæ 1–2 ad virgines, 1, 379–416; 417–52. HIPPOLYTUS. De virgine corinthiaca, 10, 871–74. METHODIUS. Convivium decem virginum, 18, 27–220. ATHANASIUS. De virginitate, 28, 251–82. |
| She upholds both “devotion” to God as well as “concern” for spiritual matters. The Church exhorts corporate worship and obedience to religious duties, as well as encouraging individual wrestling with understanding and developing the Faith. She leads us both by consensus (corporate religious accountability) as well as by conscience (individual spiritual conviction). Growth is horizontal and vertical. Socially, She is exclusive when it comes to matters of morality and safeguarding the truth, but inclusive when it comes to caring for people regardless of race or creed. Therefore, the true Church is both conservative and liberal. The first response you give to those who are anti-religious is that when the Church is fully exemplifying our Lord and Savior, She is both religious and spiritual. Unfortunately, over the centuries the Church has sometimes failed to accurately portray itself to the populace in the above ways. As an institution governed by the frailty of men, the Church has at times been overly religious, with all its negative connotations, rather than also being spiritual. The pharisaical religious milieu of Jesus’ time reflects an insincere, pretentious, self-righteous form of faith that is lacking in spiritual depth, grace, and humility (Matthew 23:13-36). However, you can have profound spiritual experiences without pleasing God through keeping religious commandments. St. Paul wrote of the Israelites: “Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness” (1 Corinthians 10:1-5). Yet regardless of how imbalanced the Church may be at times, the New Testament clearly states we are not submitting to God if we do not participate in the Church (Hebrews 10:25). |
| We have noted the divergent eschatological perspectives above, which probably constitute the strongest argument for distinct authors. Beyond this primary and pervasive distinction, however, most theological differences are more relative. The extreme theological discrepancies some have alleged to exist between undisputedly Johannine literature and Revelation presuppose a reading of these works that does not appear entirely coherent with the data within them. 1082 Differences in vocabulary and syntax may sometimes obscure deeper relationships on the level of meaning. Moreover, a writer or community may express different emphases in different works without assuming that those emphases are mutually exclusive. One can use surface inconsistencies to deconstruct even a unified letter (for instance, Paul speaks of the Corinthian Christians as «sanctified in Christ» [ 1Cor 1:2 ] yet calls their behavior fleshly on the basis of an internal theological coherence deeper than the apparent contradiction; cf. 6:8–11). To argue that a document rejects what it omits or does not emphasize is to argue from silence, and such arguments are always tenuous. 1083 Theological Similarities. The two books have similar pneumatologies, 1084 although the Fourth Gospel develops the theme much more fully. The Spirit and prophets play an important and connected role in both (cf. Rev 1:3, 10; 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 11:6, 18; 14:13; 16:6; 18:20, 24; 19:10; 22:6, 17; perhaps 1:19). 1085 The divine breath gives life (Rev 11:11; John 20:22 ). Spiritual worship is vital (Rev 1and repeated scenes of worship in the heavenly temple; John 4:24 ), and Jesus and the Father are worshiped equally (Rev 5:13–14; John 9:38 ; contrast Revelations worship of the beast), even using similar wording (cf. Rev 4with John 20:28 ). The sealing idea is common to both, although Revelation develops the nuances in several directions, perhaps in typical Johannine double entendre (Rev 5–7; 20:3; John 3:33; 6:27 ). Both documents share the water of life (Rev 7:17; 21:6; 22:1,17; John 7:38 ), following the Lamb (Rev 7:17; 14:4; John 10:4 ) and the Lamb guiding them (Rev 7[Isa 49:10]; John 16:13 ), although, in typically Johannine fashion, the terms are developed in different temporal directions. |
| References 1 . Storozhevaya bashnya: vozveshchaet tsarstvo Iegovy. Brooklyn, N. Y.: Wachtturm Bibel-und Traktat-Gesellschaft der Zeugen Jehovae, 1994. Vol. 115, 1.06.1994. S. 28–31. 2 . Deissmann Α. Light from the Ancient East. The New Testament Illustrated by Recently Discovered Texts of the Graeco Roman World (4th ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1978; reprint of 1927 ed.). 3 . Lenski R. C. H.The Interpretation of I Corinthians (Lenskís Commentary on the New Testament (LCNT)). Augsburg: Fortress Press, 2008. 792 p. 4 . Dalman G. Die Worte Jesu: mit Berücksichtigung des nachkanonischen jüdischen Schrifttums und der aramäischen Sprache, Band 1. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1898. 319 p. 5 . Bousset W. Kyrios Christos. Geschichte des Christusglaubens von den Anfängen des Christentums bis Irenaeus. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1913. 474 p. 6 . Baudissin W. W. (Graf von). Kyrios als Gottesname im Judentum. 4 Bd. Giessen, 1929. 7 . Fitzmyer J. A. The Semitic Background of the New Testament Kyrios Title//A Wandering Aramaen: Collected Aramaic Essays. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979, pp. 115–42. 8 . Hurtado L. W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. xxii + 746 pp. 9 . Quell G. Kyrios//Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. V. III. p. 1066. 10 . Bietenhard H. “Lord, Master”//The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 2, ed. Collin Brown. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1976. pp. 508–519. 11 . Slovarnaya stat " ya «Gospod " » [B. Witherington III]//Iisus i Evangeliya: Slovar»/Pod red. Dzhoelya Grina [i dr.; Per. s angl. Andrei Bakulov i dr.]. M.: BBI, 2003. 826 s. 12 . Fitzmyer J. A. To Advance The Gospel. New Testament Studies. Second Edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K.1998. 421 p. 13 . Khazarzar R. (Smorodinov R.A.) Syn Chelovecheskii. Volgograd: PrinTerra-Dizain, 2004. 624 s. 14 . Ilarion (Alfeev), episkop Kerchenskii. Svyashchennaya taina Tserkvi: Vvedenie v istoriyu i problematiku imyaslavskikh sporov. V 2 t. SPb.: Aleteya, 2002. 1231 s. |
| 1.3 Personal salvation is a process. There is a multitude of places in the Scripture testifying to the fact that salvation is not a single act but extended in time: “He that endureth to the end shall be saved” (Matthew 10:22), “To us who are being saved” (1 Corinthians 1:18), etc. Christ Himself indicates that salvation is a life-long journey: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me” (Matthew 16:24). Apostle Paul exhorts the Phillippians to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12). One can get closer to or farther from salvation: “…Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed” (Romans 13:11). Striving to become righteous, one can progress through various degrees: “…Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20). Christ links entering the kingdom of heaven – that is, eternal salvation – to the level of righteousness one is able to acquire. “…Our Church, however, teaches that our personal salvation is neither a gift, nor a simple work, but rather a process and an undertaking that matures or develops gradually and is realized in the cooperation of two persons: God and man.” 1.4 The essence and the goal of personal salvation is deification (theosis). This process of the restoration of our original communion with God is our “personal salvation”. As Christians, we seek not simply blessings from God but God Himself – and our salvation is the experiential knowledge of God. “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). “…The knowledge of God and eternal salvation… are inseparable from each other” (St. Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata”). Growing in the knowledge of God, in communion with God, one becomes more and more deified – “in the sense that the Holy Spirit dwells within Christian believers and transforms them into the image of God in Christ, eventually endowing them in the resurrection with immortality and God’s perfect moral character.” |
| It is exactly the same with the words of Maximus and Symeon. The image of Christ as the Bridegroom and the Church—both men and women—as His bride was ingrained in the culture in which these Fathers wrote. The notion that homosexual acts were sinful was similarly ingrained, and these two Holy Fathers assumed that none of their hearers would assume otherwise simply because they used nuptial images from Christ’s parables of the wedding banquet and from the Song of Solomon to illustrate their points. Sanfilippo insists on putting these images to a use that the Fathers would have emphatically repudiated, since they, along with the rest of the Church, could “fixate on” and read such Scriptures as Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. There are other exegetical errors as well, such as investing Maximus’ ο πιστευων with an emphatically male significance. In fact, the masculine here simply indicates the universal, just as the Scriptural αδελφοι/ adelphoi /“brothers” in Philippians 1:14 simply meant Christians, regardless of gender, and not just male Christians. Anyone of my vintage knows that. The old Anglican “prayer for all conditions of men” was offered for all people , not just for all males. But such ineptitude pales beside Sanfilippo’s major error, which is to sexualize practically everything. To a hammer everything looks like a nail, and to Sanfilippo everything in Scripture and the Fathers looks homosexual. How else to account for his extraordinary misreading of the Fathers and of the Scriptures? His analysis of the prophetic parable in Hosea 2:14f is a case in point. He writes, that in this text God “lures an eponymously male bride named Israel into the desert to seduce him/her”. Such a conclusion is breathtakingly perverse: in this passage, the people are spoken of as exclusively feminine throughout, and the name “Israel” is in fact not even mentioned. It is the same with Sanfilippo’s conclusions derived from St. Paul’s use of nuptial imagery in Ephesians 5:23f. Sanfilippo concludes that Paul means that “Christ the Bridegroom ‘marries’— and takes into His marriage bed —not only the Church, but each of us individually; and not only each woman and girl, but also each man and boy” (italics original). Sanfilippo’s conclusion—which if taken at face value justifies not only homosexuality but also pedophilia (“also each man and boy ”)—simply doesn’t follow. It is yet another example of his failure to distinguish metaphor from reality. Here the Church as a whole is typologically feminine, but this does not mean that the men within it are somehow female or feminine. Such a suggestion would overthrow the very point which Paul makes about husbands loving their wives as Christ loved the Church. |
|
|
