| The Lord’s Conversation with the Samaritan Woman All four Gospels speak of the Lord’s departure to Galilee. St. Matthew and St. Mark note that this took place after John’s imprisonment, while St. John adds that the reason for this was the rumor that Jesus was acquiring and baptizing more disciples than John the Baptist, although the Evangelist explains that it was not He Himself Who was baptizing them, but His disciples. After John’s imprisonment, the Pharisees’ entire hostility focused on Jesus, Who began to seem to them more dangerous than the Baptist. Since the time of His suffering had not yet arrived, Jesus leaves Judea and goes to Galilee, in order to avoid persecution by His envious opponents. Only one Evangelist, St. John, tells the story of Christ’s conversation with the Samaritan woman that occurred on the way to Galilee. The Lord’s way lay through Samaria, the area located to the north of Judea and formerly belonging to three tribes of Israel: Dan, Ephraim, and Manasseh. There was a city in this area called Samaria, the former capital of the Israelite government. The Assyrian king Shalmaneser had conquered the Israelites and led them into captivity, settling pagans from Babylon and other places in their place. It was from the mixing of these settlers with the remaining Jews that the Samaritans arose. They accepted the Five Books of Moses and worshipped Yahweh, but did not forget their own gods. When the Jews returned from the Babylonian captivity and began to restore the Temple of Jerusalem, the Samaritans also wanted to take part, but the Jews rejected them. Therefore they erected their own temple on Mount Gerizim. While accepting the Books of Moses, the Samaritans rejected the writings of the Prophets and the entire tradition. For this reason, the Jews treated them as worse than pagans, avoiding any contact with them whatsoever, loathing and despising them. Passing through Samaria, the Lord and His disciples stopped to rest near a well that, according to tradition, had been dug by Jacob near a town named Shechem, which St. |
| Was Moses Really the Author of the Pentateuch? How should the Orthodox be? I would suggest, above all, not imposing grievous ties on oneself by confusing the stubbornness of Protestant fundamentalism with Patristic Tradition. For them, the authority of Scripture is based upon a literal interpretation of Revelation: God dictated these words to the great Prophet Moses, and therefore they are trustworthy. But for them, on the other hand, there is no such thing as Tradition. The average Orthodox reader of the Bible doesn’t think about questions such as the authorship or dating of individual books. The first five books of the Bible, the Pentateuch of Moses? Of course, the Prophet Moses wrote it – after all, that’s what it’s called, and that’s what Scripture and Tradition teaches. And whoever doesn’t agree is an impious atheist. But then this Orthodox reader might come up against arguments from the other side. He either rejects them out of hand, starting directly from the conclusions without bothering with the arguments, or… he considers them and agrees with some of it. Does this then mean Scripture and Tradition are unreliable? Some draw this conclusion. Let’s stop and think about it. Tradition is a difficult and diverse thing; in it one can find all kinds of different statements (for instance, about a flat earth, the sun revolving around the earth, and the marriages of hyenas with morays), but only some of them are in fact of doctrinal significance. The question of the authorship of Biblical books clearly is not one of them. But what about the name the “Pentateuch of Moses”? Doesn’t it indicate an author? Not necessarily. Thus, the Psalter bears the name of King David, but David definitely didn’t write Psalm 136, “By the waters of Babylon,” simply because he died long before the Babylonian captivity. It’s unlikely that Jonah, Ruth, and Job themselves wrote the books that bear their names. And the Prophet Samuel certainly didn’t write the two books bearing his name in the Hebrew tradition (First and Second Kings in ours [i.e., in the Septuagint]) simply because he died in the middle of the first book. |
| Critical Problems of Composition and Authorship Most modern readers of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible that constituted the Hebrew law, or Torah, are aware of something of the results of modern scholarship as to composition and authorship. For nearly two centuries it has generally though not universally been held that the Pentateuch was compiled in the postexilic period (that is, after the exile or Babylonian captivity, which lasted from about 597 to 539 B.C.), making use of earlier materials – histories, legends and law codes–and giving them a narrative structure beginning with the creation of the world or perhaps working them into an already existing narrative structure. The basis for this theory (for it is no more than that) is the existence of parallel passages in which the same event seems to be treated twice and the way in which God is referred to in different passages. So, in the chapters we are concerned with, there seem to be two accounts of creation, Genesis 1:1–2 :4a and one beginning with Genesis 2 :4b that starts with human creation and continues with an account of the fall. Also, in the account of the flood, there are discrepancies in the number of animals taken into the ark: one account seems to envisage pairs, while the other envisages two groups of animals, those ritually clean and those ritually unclean, the former being preserved in groups of seven, while the latter are preserved in pain (cf. Gen 6:18–22 with Gen 7:1–5 ). The difference in the way God is referred to appears in our chapters in that in Genesis l:l-2:4a, 5:1–32, 6:9–22, 7:6–10, 8:1–19 and 9:1–17 God is referred to as God (Hebrew elohim; Greek theos). Elsewhere God is reffered to by using the sacred Tetragrammaton, YHWH (translated into Greek as kyrios, “Lord,” a practice preserved in English translations until recently and written in capitals, Lord, as in the RSV text), the divine name, only pronounced by the priest in the temple liturgy (as a result we do not know how it is pronounced and can only guess). Following up these clues, scholars have distinguished several different sources for the Pentateuch, often referred to by initials: J (the Yahwist, or Jahwist, source, where God is called from the beginning by the divine name YHWH), E (the Elohist source that calls God elohim), D (the Deuteronomic source, connected with the reform just prior to the exile) and P (the Priestly source, much concerned with liturgical and legal matters). |
| Christ and History From a series of sermons by Fr. John Whiteford, the rector of St. Jonah Orthodox Church, Spring, Texas Fr. John Whiteford We just heard the beginning of the Gospel of Matthew, which came to be at the beginning of the New Testament. It should be noted that the Gospel of Matthew does not begin with the words along the lines of, “once upon a time”, but with the words, The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham . If you read the Book of Genesis especially, you find this phrase repeated whenever is introduced a new figure, or basically a new chapter in the history of God’s people. St. Matthew traces Christ’s human genealogy from Abraham to David. From David to the Babylonian captivity and from the Babylonian captivity to of Christ, and by doing so he is placing Christ squarely in the midst of a real human history of the people of Israel. And these events are the big events in the life of Israel. There is the calling of Abraham, and his covenant with God, that God promised through him all nations would be blessed, the establishment of the kingdom, or the monarchy, of which David was the prime example, and the Messianic prototype, or type of Christ. Then we have the Babylonian captivity, one of the crucial events that you really need to understand if you want to understand the Old Testament, and really, the whole Bible. And then from the captivity, to Christ. In St. John’s Gospel he speaks of Christ’s divine origins, and he begins with the words, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. St. John is also echoing back to Genesis, and he is also beginning his Gospel with the very words that the Book of Genesis began with. But even though he’s focused in on Christ’s divine origins, he’s also seeing Christ in history, because he says, In the beginning was the Word. He didn’t say that the Word began to be. He said in the beginning was the Word. Christ is eternal, but time had a definite beginning. |
| Tweet Нравится The Apple of the Almighty’s Eye Deacon Pavel Serzhantov The return to the homeland after the Babylonian captivity was not easy. Seventy years had passed in a foreign land, far from the Promised Land . The people of God returned to the ravaged Jerusalem and prepared to restore the Temple and establish a life. And they were confronted with many obstacles, both internal and external, from neighboring tribes for whom their return was not to their liking. From here it is clear that the first post-exilic years were not marked by inspiration and enthusiasm. On the contrary, despondency ruled in the people of God: “How can we restore all that’s been lost? How can we withstand our enemies? Where shall we find strength?” In these painful years comes a word of encouragement from the Lord. The Lord sends the prophet Zachariah. Looting of the First Temple by the Babylonians The whole book of the prophet Zachariah radiates consolation, infusing strength into the languishing, despondent people. How necessary was the prophet Zachariah at that time… And how much do we need words of encouragement now! In our land [Russia], over the course of seventy years, Orthodox churches and monasteries were destroyed and many theological schools were closed. It was not easy in the 1990s to gather funds for building and reopening seminaries and theological courses and to find the strength to restore Church life. The enemies of the Church were also on the alert. They tried to prevent the restoration of Orthodox life, impeding it in word and deed. And in the 1990s there was not a little opposition, and just a year ago a real information war against the Church began running wild. It’s a sad fact, but we will not despond. Let us listen to what the holy prophet Zachariah says. His words apply to us as well. To begin with, the prophet explains why the Lord allowed the Babylonian captivity. The Lord appeals to the people: Turn ye now from your evil ways … but they did not hear, nor hearken unto me, saith the Lord (Zech. 1:4). And the Lord’s anger against the unrepentant sinners waxed hot. Catastrophe overtook the people—the invasion of hordes from the east, the devastation of the land, and the bitter captivity. Many years passed in captivity, and finally, the opportunity to return home appeared. And returning, they were faced with such hardships that many lost heart. What to do? Turn ye unto me, saith the Lord of hosts, and I will turn unto you, saith the Lord of hosts (Zech. 1:3). |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy “The Third Rome”: From Eschatology to Political Myth Pavel Kuzenkov, candidate of historical sciences, specialist in Church history and historical chronology. Docent at the history faculty of Moscow State University and Sretensky Theological Seminary, lecturer at Sretensky Theological Academy. “Moscow – the Third Rome.” This expression is to be heard often in various contexts. Some see in it Russia’s claims to be a world superpower, while others view it as an attempt to ascribe primacy to the Moscow Patriarchate, while others still see in it a link in the continuity between Russian and Byzantium and the latter’s predecessor the Roman empire. But if we investigate the history of this “formula”, we discover that its meaning is far deeper and bears no relation neither to political supremacy, nor, even more so, to any claims to a special status on behalf of the Russian Orthodox Church. The meaning of the “Third Rome” is profoundly mystical and hidden, and it is rooted in biblical eschatology. The Prophet Daniel and Worldly Kingdoms The idea of human history as a procession of “worldly kingdoms” begins with the Old Testament Book of Daniel. This book tells of the life and prophecies of St. Daniel, a Hebrew who lived at the time of Babylonian captivity and who served at the court of king Nebuchadnezzar II (605-562 BC) and his heirs. Among other stories in the Book of Daniel, we find the tale of the prophet’s interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the great statue (Dan 2.1-49). The Babylonian king experienced a strange dream which alarmed him, yet none of the wise men could explain its meaning. And Daniel alone not only could tell Nebuchadnezzar in detail what he had dreamt but also explained its meaning to him: the golden head of the statue made fr om fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, its legs of iron and its feet partly of iron and partly of clay symbolized the kingdoms which would replace each other. And the stone which “without help by human hands” tore away from the mountain and crushed the chaff signifies the kingdom which will be raised up by God and which “will never be destroyed.” |
| Christ and the Samaritan Woman Priest Konstantin Kravtsov 13 May 2012 We see Christ speaking with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well, on the road from Jerusalem to Galilee. Samaria is located between the two; the road that goes through it is the shortest, but Jews normally avoided going this way, instead bypassing it through the Jordan Valley. Exactly the same thing takes place now: to drive in cars with Israeli numbers through the territory of the Palestinian Authority, to which Samaria belongs, is not without danger. The Samaritans, just as thousands of years ago, still slaughter a Passover lamb on Mount Gerizim and read the very same Torah in ancient Hebrew. If one does not notice the conveniences ushered in by technological progress – used by both the Bedouins of the desert and the Aborigines of Australia – a traveler finding himself in Samaria during Passover will feel transported back to Biblical times before the Nativity of Christ, times when the division between the Samaritans and Jews took place. This occurred when the Jews, having returned from the Babylonian captivity, found the central territory of their country occupied by a people that had arisen from the mingling of Jews and pagans and that professed Judaism in a quite peculiar manner. The Samaritans, who considered themselves the true descendants of Abraham, were not pleased by the Jews’ return from Babylon, just as they were not pleased by the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. They believed that it was more proper to worship God on Mount Gerizim than on Mount Sion, as the Samaritan woman recalls when speaking with the Savior. It is to this conversation that we now turn. Then , writes the Evangelist John, cometh He to a city of Samaria, which is called Sychar, near to the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour. There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water . For us there is nothing strange in this. But any resident of the Middle East would be puzzled by this appearance. This is the hottest time of the day, time for the afternoon rest. Girls and women of the East do not go to wells in broad daylight; they prefer the morning and evening hours. The fact that this woman comes for water in the scorching heat shows that she has reasons not to meet with her fellow villagers; what follows will clarify why. Moreover, from the perspective of an Eastern person, a person of patriarchal culture, something even stranger takes place: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. (For His disciples were gone away unto the city to buy food.) Then saith the woman of Samaria unto Him, How is it that Thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans . |
| Forgiveness Sunday Forgiveness is not the same as finding excuses for the actions of another. Making up excuses for the actions of another person is not forgiveness, but judgment, thinly veiled with a search for " mitigating circumstances. " Such a man looks for excuses for his own sins as well; he is sure of his " righteousness " and is not able to accept God " s forgiveness and healing. Priest Sergei Sveshnikov 28 February 2009 Matthew 6 (RSV): 14 For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; 15 but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses. In the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Dear brothers, sisters, and children in Christ, Tomorrow we enter the holy days of Great Lent, and the Church calls us to ask forgiveness of one another with repentance and humility in our hearts. We will enter a holy place and time. The fast is not a weight loss diet, nor is it a socio-economic necessity. The fast is a sacrament of our earthly life. Not satisfied with the generous fruit of the Garden of Eden, Adam had to till the desert of his soul through the sweat of his brow, irrigating it with repentant tears, yet only receiving weeds and thorns for his labor (Genesis 3:17-18). Having lost the sweetness of Paradise, Adam had to taste the bitterness of the fast in order to return to his Father’s house- now not only as the image of God, but also His likeness. The fast of not a punishment for a crime, but a salvific medicine that helps cure the illness of sin and rid one of dependency on passions. The seventy day period of the Lenten Triodion from the week of the publican and Pharisee to Great Saturday reminds us of the seventy years that Israel spent in Babylonian captivity (Jeremiah 25:11). Since they had forgotten God and bowed down to strange idols, the Hebrew people brought repentance and tears to irrigate the desert of their souls while on the banks of the rivers of Babylon (Psalm 136:1), remembering the glory of Jerusalem as Adam had once remembered the sweetness of lost paradise. Could it be that for a similar falling away from the will of God, the Russian people had to suffer under the yoke of communism for seventy long years? |
| Soon after his wife's death, Fr. Basil was transferred to Moscow, to the church of St. Nicholas on Silver Lane, near the Arbat. Three children died, and he was left with two daughters and his son Boris. Boris finished the Moscow Theological Academy, but he did not become a priest, for the First World War began and he went to the front. The Church of St. Nicholas " The Appeared " , on Silver Lane, near the Arbat, Moscow. 19th Century photo. This church was destroyed by the Bolsheviks. In 1922, the soviet government, utilizing the famine along the Volga, launched a persecution of the Orthodox Church. GPU agents were sent here and there to summon chance people, passersby, or train passengers for conversation about the confiscation of church valuables, and often arrested people upon hearing an answer that did not agree with the agent's point of view. Increasing their activities in the churches, the GPU agents strove to hear all the sermons. What they did not understand they asked the parishioners, and made reports based on their answers. These reports often bore no relation to the truth, but by the time they had reached the sixth, secret department of the GPU, they no were longer subject to doubt or scrutiny. On the fourth of March, Priest Christopher Nadezhdin of the Church of St. John the Soldier, in explaining the meaning of the coming Sunday—the Sunday of the Triumph of Orthodoxy—said that " Disobedience in the Church leads to disaster and God's wrath, as we can see from contemporary life … the people have so sullied themselves with sins that God's Judgment justly threatens in the form of this proposed confiscation of Church items, and in the fact that these items may not fall into the hands of the hungry… " The agent wrote the report in his own way. When the commission for the confiscation of Church valuables came to the Church of the Appearance of St. Nicholas, Fr. Basil Sokolov asked them not to confiscate those items necessary for Divine services, for without them it is difficult to serve Communion. The commission categorically refused his request. The priest's heart was engulfed in bitterness and sorrow. We " must not grieve … over material loss, " he said in a sermon, " especially since these things are designated to help the hungry. But parishioners cannot help but grieve over the fact that the confiscated church vessels may be turned into articles of domestic use… The situation of the faithful is now similar to that of the Babylonian captivity. Then the Jews turned to God in the hope that He would punish their captors for the evil they had wrought, and the parishioners may hope that God will also so punish those who have allowed these ecclesiastical valuables confiscated from the churches to be used for evil purposes. " |
| The Lord’s Robe in Russia On July 23 [N.S.] the Russian Orthodox Church celebrates the Deposition of the Precious Robe of our Lord Jesus Christ in Moscow, in memory of the acquisition of this sacred object in 1625. Before coming to Russia, this honored relic changed hands more than once. According to the Gospel account, one of the soldiers acquired His chiton [inner tunic] – the Lord’s Robe – by lot: They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted My raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots (John 19:24). The Deposition of the Precious Robe of the Lord in Moscow The long road to Moscow The circumstances of the translation of the Lord’s Robe from Jerusalem are described in various Eastern accounts from Armenia, Georgia, and Syria. According to tradition, the soldier who acquired the Lord’s Robe was Georgian and subsequently brought it back to his country. According to another account, a community of Jewish immigrants had settled in Iberia (Georgia) during the Babylonian captivity; their descendents lived in Mtskheta, the ancient capital of Iberia. The Jews of Mtskheta sent envoys to Jerusalem each year to participate in the celebration of Passover. One of them, named Elioz, witnessed the suffering of Jesus Christ on Golgotha and came to believe in Him. He was able to acquire the Lord’s Robe from the soldier who had won it by lot; he then returned with it to Mtskheta. The Lord’s chiton remained in Georgia until the beginning of the seventeenth century. The subsequent fate of the Lord’s Robe is closely bound up with the history of the relations of three states: Georgia, Persia, and Russia. When the Persian Shah Abbas I conquered Georgia in 1616-1617, Tsar Mikhail Fydorovich of Russia took King Teimuraz of Georgia under his protection by the latter’s request. In 1622, during negotiations on the future of Georgia and King Teimuraz, the Shah informed the Russian envoy that he was in possession of the Lord’s Chiton, which he claimed to have seized in Georgia, and that he intended to send it to Moscow, to Tsar Mikhail Fyodorovich and Patriarch Philaret Nikitich. |
|
|
