| Orthodox Christians throughout the world sympathize with their fellow Christians and all those subjected to persecution in this region, and call for the working out of a just and final solution to the region’s problems. Also condemned are wars inspired by nationalistic motives and which lead to ethnic cleansing, the changing of state borders and the seizure of territory. 5. The Attitude of the Church Towards Discrimination. 1. The Lord as King of peace (Heb. 7:2-3) rejects violence and injustice (Ps. 10:5) and condemns the inhuman treatment of one’s neighbour (Mk. 25:41-46; James 2:15-16). In his Kingdom, which is reflected in and is present on earth in his Church, there is no place for division, enmity or intolerance (Is. 11:6; Rom. 12:10). 2. The Orthodox Church takes a firm position on this issue. She believes that God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation (Acts 17:26) and that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal. 3:28). To the question Who is my neighbour? Christ replies with the parable of the merciful Samaritan (Lk. 10:25-37), thereby teaching us to reject barriers built up by hatred and prejudice. The Orthodox Church confesses that every person, regardless of the color of his skin, religion, race, gender, nationality and language, is created in the image and likeness of God and is an equal member of the human community. In following this belief, the Orthodox Church rejects discrimination according to the aforementioned reasons which presuppose a difference in dignity between people. 3. The Church, in respecting, the principles of human rights and equal treatment of people, values the application of these principles in the light of her teaching on the sacraments, the family, the position of both genders in the Church and the value of Church Tradition as a whole. |
| John the Baptist also, seeking to bring Israel to an awareness of this relationship, says of Christ, “He who has the bride is the bridegroom…” (Jn.3:29). Moreover, in the Book of Revelation, this type is continued and made even more clear in the verses about the Second Coming: “Let us be glad and rejoice and give honour to Him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His spouse has made herself ready. (19:7) However a testament or covenant is established, it is clear that God intended it to be understood as a spousal relationship, not a juridical legal agreement, and that human gender and marriage are revelations about this relationship. Clearly, the man is a revelation of Christ and the woman is a revelation about the Church. This occurs not only in the case of the unfaithful wife, but also in the case of those who were faithful and devout. Human gender and the spousal relationship are prophetic, and were given to us by God in the very beginning as a form of revelation. This is the essence of the mystery of human gender and of the roles of men and women in life and in the Church. This is also the essence of our redemption. Christ did not come to earth on a juridical expedition to “satisfy God’s justice.” He came, like Prophet Hosea, to redeem His bride from bondage and whoredom. He came to redeem back to the Father’s house that which had been alienated from it, being “sold under sin” (Rm.7:14). He did this for no other reason than that He loves us and desires us to enter into His Holy Church and be saved. The image of a faithful and loving husband and wife living together chastely, is an image and revelation about our redemption. The Revelation of the Great Women Prophets In the resurrection, they are neither married nor given in marriage (Mt.22:30). There is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal.3:28) When we think of the Old Testament prophets we are inclined to think only of the male prophets. We often lose the context of the great women of the Old Testament as prophets also. |
| Some Anglicans accuse Orthodox theology of confusing justification and sanctification, teaching that salvation can be earned, but that is a false charge. In the Byzantine Rite, after a baby is baptized, the priest says to him, " Thou art justified. Thou art illumined. Thou art sanctified. Thou art washed in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. " Justification is the beginning of the Orthodox Christian life. Eastern Orthodox theologian Dr. Bradley Nassif is a representative of the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of North America, and serves on the Orthodox-Lutheran Bi-lateral Dialogue in North America. He writes, " In this liturgical setting [the Rite of Baptism] the evangelical theology of the Orthodox Church is vividly confessed... No mistake can be made about the free gift of salvation given by the unmerited favor of God " s grace, or the sufficiency of the redemptive work of Christ on the cross and his triumph over sin, death and the devil. Reflecting a strongly Pauline and Johannine theology, the liturgy confesses that through baptism we enter into the inner life of the Trinity (Matt. 28:19-20) and thus are saved (I Pet. 3:2), regenerated (John 3:5; Titus 3:5-6), united with Christ in his death and resurrection (Rom. 6:3-8; Gal. 3:27), adopted (Rom. 8:23; Gal. 4:5), justified (Rom. 5:12-6:12), incorporated into his body, the church(I Cor. 12:13), and made partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4). All of these biblical and liturgical images are different ways of showing how God makes us his own through Jesus Christ " (Three Views of Eastern Orthodoxy and Evangelicalism, pp. 70-71). Those who accuse Orthodox theology of being Pelagian do so because Orthodox theology, like classical Anglican theology, teaches synergism rather than monergism. Synergism teaches that God woos us, and that we must cooperate with God " s grace. Calvinist monergism teaches that God ravishes us, and that His grace is irresistible. Pelagius was a British monk and pelagianism was primarily a Western heresy. The controversy did not really effect Eastern Christendom, so it is hardly on the Orthodox radar. The Orthodox Church does recognize the condemnation of pelagianism though, and Orthodox theology is not pelagian. |
| PROPHET One who proclaims the will of God and/or who foretells the future, especially the coming and mission of Christ, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. See Deut. 18:18; Acts 28:25. PROPITIATION An offering that results in atonement, redemption, and reconciliation. Christ offered Himself on the Cross as a propitiation for our sins, to liberate humanity from sin and death. See Rom. 3:21-26; Heb. 2:17; 1 John 2:2; 4:10. PROSELYTE Literally, " one who comes toward. " A proselyte is a convert to the Faith, usually from another religion. In the New Testament, the word usually refers to a Gentile convert to Judaism (see Acts 2:10; 13:43). PROVIDENCE God’s sovereign care in governing His creation, especially His care for the faithful (Rom. 8:28). PURIFICATION The Old Testament rite whereby one is cleansed of ritual impurity caused by such things as contact with leprosy or a dead body, or sexual functions. This cleansing consisted of making a sacrifice or being sprinkled with " water of " (Num. 19:9). Christ liberated the faithful from these rites. Christians are purified by the sacraments and by their spiritual struggle towards transforming their passions. See Lev. 12:6; Num. 19:9-21; Matt. 15:11; Luke 2:22-33; Acts 10:9-16; 15:1-29. RAPTURE The gathering of the Church on earth in the presence of Christ when He comes again to judge the living and the dead (1 Thess. 4:15-17). Orthodox theologians reject the recent minority view that the Church will be taken out of the world before the time of trouble preceding the Second Coming. Christ specifically teaches the faithful will experience the trials of tribulation (Matt. 24:4-28). See also SECOND COMING . RECONCILIATION The removal of hostility and barriers between humans and God, and between individuals, accomplished by Christ (Rom. 5:11; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19). REDEMPTION The deliverance of humanity from sin and death by Christ, who humanity by His Incarnation, conquered sin and death by His life-giving death and glorious Resurrection, releases those who are in captivity to the evil one, and unites humanity to God by His Ascension (Gal. 3:13; Heb. 9:15). See also DEIFICATION and SALVATION. |
| Non esse ad gratiam concionandum, 653–62.). In martyres, 661–66. In S. martyrem Julianum, 665–76. Laudatio S. Barlaam martyris, 675–82. Laudatio SS. Drosidis martyris, 683–94. Laudatio SS. Martyrum ægyptiorum, 693–98. In S. Phocam martyrem, 699–706. In omnes sanctos martyres, 705–12. De terræ motu, 713–6. De proditione Judæ, 715–20. Dubia, 719–86. Spuria, 785–822. Savitii et Ducæi notæ, 823–24. 51 (III). In parabolam debitoris, 17--30. In illud Pater si possibile, 31–40. De angusta porta et in orat. dom., 41–48. In paralyticum demissum per tectum, 47–64. In principium Actorum 1: 65–76. 2: 77–88. In principium 3 (de utilitate Jectionis), 87–98. In principium 4 (cur acta legantur in Pentecoste), 97–112. De mutatione nominum in illud Saulus adhuc, 1–4, 113–56 (1: 113–24; 2: 123–32; 3 (de ferendis reprehensionibus) 131–44; 4 (Paulus vocatus) 143–56. De gloria in tribulationibus (Rom., V, 3), 155–64. In illud Scimus quoniam diligentibus (Rom., VIII, 28), 165–72. In illud Si esurivit inimicus (Rom., XII, 20), 171–86. In illud Salutate Priscillam (Rom., XVI, 3), 1–2, 187–96; 195–208. In illud Propter fornicationes, 1 (1 Cor., VII, 2), 207–218. In illud Mulier alligata est, 2 (1 Cor., VII, 39–40), 217–26. Laus Maximi et quales uxores ducendæ 3, 225–42. In illud Nolo vos ignorare (1 Cor., X, 1), 241–52. In illud Oportet hæreses esse (1 Cor., XI, 19), 251–60. De eleemosyna, 261–72. In illud Habentes eumdem spiritum, 1–3 (271–82; 281–90; 289–302). In illud Utinam sustineretis (2 Cor,, XI, 1), 301–10. In illud Sive per occasionem (Phil., I, 18), 311–20. In illud Vidua eligatur (I Tim., V, 9), 321–38. In Heliam et viduam, 337–48. De futuræ vitæ deliciis, 347–54. De non evulgandis fratrum peccatis, 353–64. Non esse desperandum, 363–72. In illud In faciem ei restiti (Gal., II, 11), 371–88. 52 (III 1 ). Opuscula de motibus CP. et exsiliis. In Eutropium 1, 391–96. In Eutropium 2 (de divitiarum vanitate), 395–414. Gum Saturninus et Aurelianus in exsilium acti, 413–20. De regressu Joannis ex Asia latine, 421–24. |
| 17 R.L. Wilken considers the Adam/Christ typology to be a “Pauline idea,” an opinion not without some currency. “Most patristic writers,” he informs us, “though claiming to expound the Pauline text, actually go far beyond Paul in employing the typology in new theological and exegetical settings.” At the same time, Wilken bemoans the paucity of Adam/Christ typology in the Fathers. The available literature, he concedes, is “very sketchy” (Judaism and the Early Christian Mind: A Study of Cyril of Alexandriás Exegesis and Theology. New Haven, 1971, p. 91, 95). Wilken ignores several facts. If the available literature is “very sketchy,” then, his conclusions are argumentum adsilentio, especially since many patristic texts are lost. Again, the Adam/Christ typology originated with Jesus Himself (Luke 24:27, 44; Acts 28:23). St Paul, the first to mention the typology ( I Cor. 15:45–47 ), proclaimed that his teachings were inspired by God Himself ( Gal. 1:11–12 ). Throughout their writings, the Fathers, although not always concerned with this typology, often make subtle allusions to it. Moreover, Wilken seems to have dismissed the importance of the liturgical disciplina arcana, the “hidden teachings” of the Church, reserved for Christian “initiates,” the “enlightened” or “newly–baptized”: the “discipline” or doctrine about which the Fathers and even ordinary Christians were ever silent before outsiders. Thus, St Dionysius the Areopagite’s exhortation, “Do not betray the holy of Holies... Keep the holy things of God unshared and undefiled and let not the uninitiated share in them. Let the holy befit the holy. Speak only to holy men about them and only in holy illumination” (Eccl. Hier., I, 1 PG 3 372A; also II, 8 404CD). See also St Irenaeus. Adv. Haer. Ill, xvii, 16 NPNF; St Athanasius. Ora. c. Ar., I,44 PG 26 101C; St Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. V, 12 FC; St Ambrose, In Luc. IV, 1 SC; St Hilary of Poitiers. Trac. Mys., I, 3 SC; St Methodius of Olympus, Symp., Ill, 3–4 PG 18 65B–68A, etc.). On account of the many theological controversies in the Church and the general spread of Christianity, the disciplina arcani were gradually disclosed to the world. |
| Ýusup magalasy bilen Müsüre gaçýar 13 Müneçjimler gidenden so, Rebbi bir peridesi Ýusuby düýüne girip: «Tur! Çaga bilen ejesini al-da, Müsüre gaç. Özüm habar berýänçäm, ol ýerde gal, sebäbi Hirod çagany öldürmek üçin Onu gözlegine çykmakçy bolýar» diýdi. 14 eýlelikde, Ýusup turdy-da, çaga bilen Onu ejesini alyp, ol gije Müsüre tarap ýola düdi. 15 Ol tä Hirod ölýänçä, ol ýerde galdy. unlukda, Rebbi: «Oglumy Müsürden çagyrdym» diýip, pygamber arkaly aýdan sözi berjaý boldy. 16 Müneçjimleri aldanyny bilip, Hirod gahar-gazaba mündi. Ol müneçjimlerden sorap anyklan wagtyna görä, Beýtullaham bilen onu da-töweregindäki obalarda doglan iki ýayndaky we iki ýaa ýetmedik erkek göbekli çagalary ählisini öldürtdi. 17 eýdip, Ýermeýa pygamberi u aýdanlary berjaý boldy: 18 «Ramadan bir ses eidildi, agy we ajy perýat sesleri, Rahel çagalary üçin aglaýar, teselli berilmegini islemeýär, çünki olar indi ýok». Ýusup magalasy bilen Nasyra gaýdyp gelýär 19 Hirod ölenden so, Rebbi bir peridesi Müsürde Ýusuby düýüne girip: 20 «Tur, çaga bilen Onu ejesini al-da, Ysraýyla dolan, sebäbi çagany janyny kastyna çykanlar öldi» diýdi. 21 Onso Ýusup çaga bilen ejesini alyp, Ysraýyla gaýtdy. 22 Ýöne Arhelany öz atasy Hirody ýerine Ýahudyýany patyasy bolanyny eidip, ol ýere barmaga gorkdy. Düýü üsti bilen duýdury berlenso, ol Jelile welaýatyna tarap ýola düdi. 23 Ol ýere baryp, Nasyra diýen äherde mesgen tutdy. eýdip, pygamberler arkaly: «Oa nasyraly diýler» diýip aýdylan söz berjaý boldy. 3-nji bap Ýahýa çümdürijini wagzy (Mark 1:1-8;Luka 3:1-18;Ýohanna 1:19-28) 1 ol günlerde Ýahýa çümdüriji peýda bolup, Ýahudyýa çölünde wagyz etmäge balady. 2 Ol: «Toba edi, sebäbi Gögü alygy golaýlady» diýýärdi. 3 Ine, Iaýa pygamberi ol hakynda: «Çölde bir ses gygyrýar: „Rebbe ýol taýýarla! Onu ýodalaryny dogrula!“ diýýär» diýip aýdan ol adamy Ýahýadyr. 4 Ýahýany düýe ýüünden eikleri, bilinde gaýydan guagy bardy. Onu iýmiti çekirtge bilen meýdan balydy. 5 Tutu Iýerusalimi, Ýahudyýany we Iordan etrabyny ähli halky onu ýanyna gelýärdi. 6 Olar günäleri üçin toba edip, Ýahýa tarapyndan Iordan derýasynda çümdürilýärdiler. |
| Spirituality and its expressions are always mysterious and difficult to understand, since they involve a relationship with Him Who is beyond our comprehension. Yet, there appear to be some gender-dependent patterns, which are not always recognizable on an individual level, but can be observed in large groups. Whatever the source of the differences between men and women, they are both fascinating to observe and important to recognize in a pastoral setting. Perhaps my observations and reflections will contribute to the important conversation on the unique gifts that men and women bring to the Orthodox Church, even as the discussion about the role of women in the Church, and by extension that of men, continues to take shape. God created men and women differently with unique qualities that do not compete, but compliment or help each other (cf. Gen. 2:18-22). Men tend, perhaps not exclusively, to be more sober in matters of spirituality and approach them with caution. Women, on the other hand, also not exclusively, tend to have a heightened sense of connection to the spiritual world and to the community of the faithful; they put more emotion and zeal into their religious life. Whether because of our corrupt nature or Satan’s doing, these gifts and virtues given to us by the Creator can get corrupted. Men can become hard-hearted and lazy in their spiritual life, and tend to diminish the significance of religious matters through rationalization. Women, on the other hand, may become so blinded by emotion that they begin to substitute the true meaning of religious principles and observances with a shallower, artificial one. Whether by adding extra clauses to God’s commandments or to Church canons, in elevating “young elders” to the status of Holy Fathers or handkerchiefs to that of sacred objects—women tend to express their spirituality in ways not typical of most men. These differences, while non-essential to our salvation or relationship with God, may prove meaningful in the life of the Church, which is both heavenly and earthly, divine and human, triumphant in Christ’s eternal glory and suffering with Him on the Cross, exclaiming with the Apostle Paul “There is neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28), while remembering that he was “a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law a Pharisee” (Phil. 3:5). |
| Философско-богословское учение Л. вызвало в истории христ. мысли неоднозначные оценки (см.: Hieron. De vir. illustr. 80; Idem. Ep. 58. 10; 70. 5; 84. 7; Idem. In Eph. II 4; Idem. In Gal. 4:6; Damas. Ep. 9). Идеи и лит. стиль Л. повлияли на речи, послания и законы имп. св. Константина Великого (см.: Digeser. 1994. P. 35-38; Idem. 2000. P. 133-138). Его «Слово к сообществу святых» (Oratio ad sanctorum coetum), сохраненное еп. Евсевием Кесарийским ( Const. Magn. Or. sanct.), представляет собой не что иное, как резюме учения Л., отраженного в «Божественных установлениях». Мн. идеи и выражения из «Божественных установлений» Л., направленные против язычников, заимствовали непримиримый никеец сер. IV в. Луцифер еп. Каралитанский, в полемике с имп. Констанцием II и арианами (см.: Lucifer. Calar. Moriund.//CSEL. Vol. 14. P. 234, 286-295, 299-315 и др.), а также популярный итальянский проповедник Зинон , еп. Веронский (см.: Zeno Veron. Tract. I 3, 12, 16; II 2; и др.). Положительно отзывались о Л. и мн. последующие зап. отцы Церкви и церковные писатели V-VIII вв.: блж. Августин Гиппонский ( Aug. De doctr. christ. II 61), широко использовавший «Божественные установления» при написании труда «О граде Божием» ( Idem. De civ. Dei. I 17; V 21, 24, 25; XVIII 23; и др.), Геннадий Марсельский ( Gennad. Massil. De script. eccl. 15; Idem. De eccl. dogm. 25), Кассиодор ( Cassiod. De inst. div. lit. 28), Исидор Севильский ( Isid. Hisp. Differ. XVII 47, 72, 82; XXIX 94; Idem. De nat. rer. XVII 47; и др.), Григорий Турский ( Greg. Turon. De cursu stell. 12), Алкуин ( Alcuin. De sanct. Eubor. eccl. 1552), поэты Пруденций ( Prudent. Apoth. 402-404, 412; Cathem. II 105-112; V 118; X 61-68; и др.), Авзоний ( Auson. Ep. 20. 9), Сидоний Аполлинарий ( Sidon. Apol. Ep. IV 3. 7) и др. Вместе с тем в т. н. декретах Римских пап Геласия (Decret. Gelas. 5. 7) и Гормизда ( Horm., papa. Ep. 125. 5. 11) о канонических и неканонических книгах сочинения Л. наряду с сочинениями Арнобия были отнесены к разряду апокрифических. |
| 27 Danlar Mikany ýasan sede edilýän zatlaryny hem-de onu öýünde ýaan ruhanyny alyp, Laýya tarap gitdiler. Ol ýere baryp parahat we aladasyz ýaaýan halky gylyçdan geçirip, galany otladylar. 28 Ol ýerdäkilere kömek eden tapylmady, sebäbi olar Sidondan uzakdady, hiç kim bilen aragatnayk saklamaýardylar. Ol gala Beýtrehoby golaýynda ýerleýärdi, danlar galany täzeden gurdular-da, ol ýerde ýaap baladylar. 29 Olar Ýakuby ogly Dany hatyrasyna ol gala Dan diýen at berdiler; galany öki ady Laýydy. 30 Danlar sede edilýän buty oturtdylar. Musany agtygy Geromy ogly bolan Ýonatany özi we onu ogullary tä ýurt ýesirlige alynýança danlara ruhanylyk etdiler. 31 Hudaýy öýüni iloda bolan wagtyny bütin dowamynda, Mika tarapyndan ýasalan sede edilýän but ol ýerde saklandy. 19-njy bap Benýamin tiresi masgara i edýär 1 ol döwürde ysraýyllary patyasy ýokdy. Efraýym daglygynda bir lewi ýaaýardy. Ol Ýahuda ýurduny Beýtullaham galasyndan bir gyrnak aýaly getirip, onu bilen ýaap balady. 2 Ol aýal öýkeläp, lewini ýanyndan öz atasy öýüne, Beýtullaham galasyna gitdi; ol atasy öýünde dört aýlap boldy. 3 Sora adamsy aýaly bilen ýarayp, ony getirmek üçin yzyndan ugrady. Onu ýanynda bir hyzmatkäri bilen iki sany eegi bardy. Aýaly adamsyny atasy öýüne saldy. Gaýynatasy ony güler ýüz bilen garylap, öz öýünde saklady. 4 Gaýynatasy giýewsini öýünde galmaklyga yrdy. Olar bu ýerde iýip-içip, üç gün ýatdylar. 5 Dördünji gün olar ir oýandylar, ol adam turup gitmekçi boldy. Aýaly kakasy öz giýewsine: «Bir döwüm çörek iýi, ýürekse edini, so hemmäiz bile gidersiiz» diýdi. 6 Olar oturyp, bile iýip-içdiler. Aýaly kakasy öz giýewsine: «Ýene bir gün gal, keýpii sazla» diýdi. 7 Ol adam ýene turup gitmekçi boldy, emma gaýynatasy ony galmaklyga yrdy. Ol ýene bir gije ýatdy. 8 Bäinji gün, irden ol turup gitmekçi boldy. Aýaly kakasy oa: «Bir zatlar garbany, öýleden so gidersiiz» diýdi. Olar bile iýip-içdiler. 9 Ol adamy özi, gyrnak aýaly we hyzmatkäri gitmekçi bolup, ýerlerinden turanda, aýaly kakasy giýewsine: «Seret, gün ýayp, agama golaýlap barýar. Bu gije-de bu ýerde ýaty, dem-dynjyyzy alyp, öýüize ertir ir bilen turup gidersiiz» diýdi. 10 Emma ol adam ýatmaga razy bolman, turup gidiberdi. Ol Ýabusa, ýagny häzirki Iýerusalime tarap gitdi. Onu ýanynda ýükli eekleri, gyrnak aýaly bardy. |
|
|
