| John Anthony McGuckin Repentance ANDREI PSAREV In Orthodox thought repentance is the blessed mourning of a person and longing for God (penthos) following after a sense of having moved away from him. It is a conversion to God and, as a result, is what scripture describes as radical change of mind or heart (metanoia, see Mk. 1.15 ). Christ came to save sinners having called them to repentance and belief in his gospel ( Mt. 9.13 ). The parable of the prodigal son ( Lk. 15.11 ) outlines the stages of how Orthodox understand the process of repentance: contrition, aversion from sin, repudiation of evil, confession, reconciliation with God and one’s neighbor. The words from the apostle about the impossibility of repentance for those who, by sinning, crucify Christ again (Heb. 6.4–6) reflect a dilemma of the early church; for in the 3rd and 4th centuries the Novatianists and Donatists permanently excluded from Eucharistic communion those who were guilty of serious sins. The greater church would not accept this rigorist approach, having prescribed in its canons various terms of abstinence from the Eucharist on account of grave sins; but no transgressor was ever to be deprived of the Eucharist at the time of their death (Nicea 1. Canon 13). There are no sins that may prevent a person from entering into the dedicated life of repentance which is monasticism (Quinisext Council. Canon 43). Repentance has been called in Orthodoxy the “second baptism.” Canon 12 of St. Gregory the Wonderworker (3rd century) defines how the church classifed penitents. In early times certain classes of sinners were debarred from full Eucharistic membership and had to stand apart from the community, in the narthex or outside the church building, sometimes for many years. St. Basil the Great (4th century) was not just occupied with the impact of sin on an individual, but also with the spiritual health of the entire congregation (St. Basil. Canon 88). In the same way as sin injures the body of the whole ecclesiastical community, through the healing of each member the entire church body acquires reconciliation with God ( 1Cor. 12.26 ). |
| There is no “age of the Fathers”; or, better, the historical life of the Church is the “age of the Fathers” – hence, the names of St Photius the Great, St Symeon the New Theologian, St Gregory Palamas, St Gregory of Sinai, St Symeon of Thessalonica, St Gennadius Scholarius, St Nilus of Sora are found on the patristic roll; or, in modern times, St Nectarius of Aegina, Alexi Khomiakov, Archbishop Anthony Khrapovitsky, Fr Justin Popovich, Archbishop Hilarion Troitsky, etc. have been honored as spokesmen for the Church. Christ will raise up Fathers for His People until His Return. They will offer the same witness, because they have the “Mind of Christ.” Whatever the language, whatever the style, whatever the challenge, the “mind” of the ancient, medieval and modern Fathers will never change, for “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever” (Heb. 13:8). Chapter II. The nature of Christian philosophy Historically, philosophy (“love of wisdom”) in the West has been a rational enterprise, the human attempt to discover the truths (i.e, the correspondence of thought and being) concerning material phenomena, human nature (anthropology), conduct (ethics), community (politics) and creativity (aesthetics), as well as the tools (logic) and symbols (religion) by which that truth or truths may be apprehended (epistemology) and the way in which the results are communicated. Philosophy was a legacy of the Greeks: the manner in which questions are asked, the certainty the intellect desires. The quest for “wisdom” took three forms in the ancient world: (1) as a description of the reality which lay behind phenomena: being, the unity of all things, their universal and necessary presupposition. Plato, therefore, styled the philosopher synoptikos – he who has apprehended τ ν presents a comprehensive and coherent vision of all things; and (2) philosophy as a system of thought which considers “the manifold of sense-experience” to be the source of all knowledge, with generalizations inductively drawn from it through observation and experimentation; and, finally (3), philosophy as an intellectual construct whose speculations depend wholly on the conclusions of the physical sciences, and consequently, deny the existence of rational knowledge beyond which the sciences have not determined to “exit.” |
| John Anthony McGuckin Old Testament EUGEN J. PENTIUC TWO TESTAMENTS, ONE BIBLE The Jewish Bible, also known as Tanakh or Hebrew Scriptures, is for the Orthodox Church the first part of the Christian Bible or Holy Scripture. It is called by Christians the Old Testament in a precise theological balance to the affirmation of the New Testament. These terms were first signaled by Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century and were developed into a theory of interpretation using Hellenistic hermeneutics where typology was used to read the Old Testament in the light of the New (Kannengiesser 2006). The early church’s struggle with Marcion of Pontus over the Old Testament’s place and role besides the emerging Christian scriptures occupied most of the 2nd century. Marcion (d. 160) rejected the Old Testament as having any authority for Christians. He argued that the God of the Jews was totally different from, and inferior to, the Christian God. His radical view, one that was often echoed by Gnostic teachers, accelerated the broader Christian embrace of the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole, and most scholars agree that the defeat of Marcion greatly helped to fix the church’s canon of received scriptures. Another early danger, supersessionism, discernible in the indictment of the Parable of the Wicked Tenants ( Mt. 21.33–46 ) and supported by Paul’s teaching that the coming of Christ put an end to the custodian role of the Law ( Gal. 3.24–5 ; Rom. 10.4 ; cf. Heb. 8.13), led to a premature devaluation of the Old Testament among some Christian commentators. The idea that the church and its new Scripture (New Testament) superseded the old Israel and its Hebrew Scripture is attested in many early Christian writings. Even so, the church as a whole has been able to keep the two Testaments in a dialectical unity, in the main avoiding factual reductionism and supersessionism as dangers. The centrality of the Christ event in Christian tradition, not least as a key hermeneutical principle, helped in reaching this objective. |
| “According to the Word of God, ‘greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends’ (Jn 15:13). And thousands of soldiers and officers of the Russian army gave their lives to save the people, with whom they were bound up by the common holy Orthodox faith. Inspired by the faith, they ‘became mighty in war, put foreign armies to flight’ (Heb. 11:34). Having shown an outstanding fortitude, courage and bravery, those warriors of Christ bought with their own blood the liberation of the ancient Christian country from the bitter, five-centuries-old non-Christian yoke.” “I am also praying today that the centuries-old spiritual ties between our peoples, revealed with special force 140 years ago, might always be inviolable and be manifested in the fraternal like-mindedness and the willingness to strive to strengthen the unity of the Holy Orthodoxy and to preserve Christian values and the Orthodox traditions established by our fathers. I cordially greet all of you with this remarkable date and the wonderful feast for the Bulgarian and Russian peoples.” Bulgarian President Rumen Radev also delivered an address, in which he thanked the Primates of the Russian and the Bulgarian Orthodox Churches and mentioned the moleben of thanksgiving celebrated earlier at the Monastery of the Nativity of Christ in Shipka. At the end of the ceremony, wreaths were laid on behalf of the President and other statesmen of Bulgaria, as well as on behalf of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, His Holiness Patriarch Neophyte and the Embassies of Russia, Belarus and other countries. The Primates of the Russian and the Bulgarian Orthodox Churches visited the Monument of Freedom at the mount’s top, where they laid wreaths to the grave of defenders of Shipka. Tweet Donate Share Code for blog His Holiness Patriarch Kirill Takes Part in the Celebrations on Mount Shipka on Bulgaria’s Liberation Day Natalya Mihailova On 3 March 2018, a commemorative ceremony marking the Liberation Day in Bulgaria took place on Mount Shipka. The 140th anniversary of the liberation of Bulgaria was celebrated under the auspices of the head of state. Among those who participated in the ceremony were Mr. Rumen Radev, President of ... |
| Two centuries later, Pseudo-Dionysius (early 6th century) wrote that the religions of the nations derived from their rejection of angels. God had assigned an angel to each nation for oversight and divine illumination (The Celestial Hierarchy 9.2–4; cf. Dan. 10.13–21 ), which for Pseudo-Dionysius, explains the priesthood of Melchizedek (see Gen. 14.18–20 ; Ps. 110.4 ; Heb. 5.6), in the sense that he was faithful to angelic revelation. However, the vast majority of the nations had wandered from their angelic overseers and turned to false gods. Only Israel remained faithful to their angel, Michael, and so received illumination. Thus, for both Athanasius and Pseudo- Dionysius, the religious state of the world was a result of free will. All the nations could have been endowed with the true worship which Israel accepted, but have chosen otherwise because of moral and intellectual failures. What this false worship would entail for the pagans at the Judgment was a matter of some reflection among the early fathers. A general sentiment, witnessed in the Egyptian desert literature, is that all followers of the cults were eternally lost. John of Damascus (655–750) summed up this view, teaching that repentance was not possible after death (On the Orthodox Faith 2.4). Gregory of Nyssa (331–95), following Origen (186–255), held that all things would make eternal progress towards God; though this has always been a minority position within Orthodoxy and was formally condemned as a dogmatic proposition in the 6th century. Nevertheless, Isaac of Nineveh (7th century) wrote in his recently discovered treatises (The Second Part) that God’s mercy was greater than could be imagined; and one is also reminded of the celebrated saying of Silouan the Athonite (1866–1938): “Lord stand me at the gates of Hell and I shall see no one ever enters» While uniformly rejecting “false gods,” “demons,” and “idols,” the Orthodox theologians, always within an active missionary and evangelistic awareness given to them by a vastly pluralistic ancient world, have generally sought to claim for themselves elements within other religions that they have regarded as culturally valuable, as partially “compatible” with Christian truth. |
| Theology and Mission Theology is evangelical. Unfortunately, the missionary responsibility of our Church continues to be undermined by ethnic chauvinism. Until it becomes clear to the Orthodox themselves that every local parish is, by definition, a missionary community and responsible for offering the Gospel to all people, theology will remain separated from life. Every parish must strive to be a center of spiritual and intellectual formation. Because theology seeks to proclaim the Gospel in time and space, it has by its very nature a missionary and evangelical quality. This means that Orthodox theology cannot be the possession of a particular people. It is universal in scope, offering the saving and transforming power of Christ’s gospel to all nations. Our history teaches us that as the Church sojourned in time and space, it used the culture of empires and nations to articulate a living theology. This is certainly the method employed by the Church Fathers. Knowing the language, art, philosophy, literature, science and politics of their time, they were able to convey the gospel to people of varying intellectual and social backgrounds. They were able to proclaim Christ who is the “same yesterday, today and forever” (Heb. 13:8), using the cultural tools that were at their disposal. Today Orthodox schools of higher learning, especially our academies and seminaries, need to promote and develop the patristic method of using culture for the proclamation of the Gospel. Because they knew their culture well, the Fathers were able to interact with its prevailing ethos. They were able to draw the knowledge of their surroundings into a vibrant ascetical spirituality that enabled them to communicate the Gospel freely and openly. A theology separated from the culture is ultimately a theology separated from the people. To respond to the culture, especially the challenges posed by the rapid development of science and technology, theology is compelled to creatively interact with its environment so as not to fall into a cultural vacuum. The voice of the Gospel and, therefore, the voice of Orthodox theology will be heard only when the theologian truly knows his audience. |
| This transition must have occurred early in the Palestinian church. The marana tha invocation of 1Cor 16 " is clear evidence that in the very earliest days the Aramaic-speaking church referred to Jesus by the title that in the OT belongs to God alone.» 2571 In other words, the title «is the ascription to Jesus of the functions of deity.» 2572 Yet apart from occasional asides by the narrator (11:2; 20:20) and the frequent but indeterminate use of the vocative, characters rarely call Jesus «the Lord» before the resurrection, even in John (20:2,13,18, 25; 21:7,12); this suggests some constraints established by historical tradition. Jesus» Deity in Early Christian Tradition We have noted some arguments against Jesus» deity from the synagogue leaders and rabbis above and we will address John " s particular focus on the issue in the many relevant texts in the commentary. Here, however, we consider the tradition and doctrine which early Christianity made available to the Fourth Gospel " s author, whose special contributions on the subject are best first understood in the context of early Christian views already existing in his day. The opponents of the Johannine community challenged its Christology; John makes that Christology the centerpiece of his message to the community. As God " s people had to respond obediently to each new stage of revelation in biblical history (Abraham, the law, successive generations of prophets), so now people were to respond to Christ (cf. Heb 1–10). Just as the dividing line between true and false Christians focused on their understanding of Jesus (1 John 2:22–23; 3:23–4:6; 2 John 7–11 ) and their response toward his community (1 John 2:9–11, 19; 3:10–23; 4:7–8, 12, 20–21; 3 John 9–11 ), the dividing line between the true and false heirs of Israel was the person of Jesus, response to whom was expressed by response to his Spirit and his community (cf. Rev 2:9; 3:9). 1. Greek Divinization or Jewish Monotheism? It has often been asserted that John " s high Christology is a late, Hellenistic development. |
| More to the point, the Jerusalem high priest no longer held the office for life. Some have suggested that the text could allude «to a Roman insistence on an annual confirmation of the Jerusalem high priest,» though this is unattested elsewhere. 7701 Others suggest that it simply means, «the (memorable) year in which Jesus was executed»; this seems the most common position. 7702 This view takes the genitive temporally («in that year»), probably emphasizing especially εκενου, «that.» 7703 One may compare «that day» (11:53), 7704 John " s words about Jesus» «hour» (e.g., 2:4; 7:30; 8:20) or «time» (7:6, 8), or John " s mention of other special moments in revelation (e.g., 4:53). This view accounts for the emphatic, threefold mention of the priesthood «in that year» (11:49, 51; 18:18) better than do proposals that John simply made a mistake 7705 or accommodated audience expectations here. If, however, John can presuppose some knowledge of Jerusalem politics on the part of transplanted Judeans in his audience, he may strike a note of irony: Rome could depose priests at will; deposed high priests like Caiaphas " s father-in-law Annas could still meddle in the city " s affairs (cf. 18:13); and only a high priest who cooperated well with Rome could rule so long. Perhaps John even cynically presents the high priest as a Greek-type caretaker, an honorary office, rather than a divine appointment; he recognized that the high priesthood was an honor no one should take to oneself (Heb 5:4). Thus, for example, whereas Egyptians had hereditary priesthoods, Romans allowed Greek temples in Egypt to perpetuate Greek customs, but these temples «had no clergy, only officiators and administrators, a laity that the métropolites selected from their own class, in annual rotation, to see to the physical upkeep and cultic requirements of the shrines.» 7706 He also may link this ρχιερες with the other αρχιερες of which he is a part; 7707 he acts on behalf of the whole corrupt group. John " s complaint against the Jerusalem elite, which he believes executed Jesus and prevented a wider acceptance of the Jesus movement among his people, is political as well as religious. 7708 2C. The Leaders» Reasoning (11:47–50) |
| In fact, Josephus may be following a standard sort of report of such events as portents of destruction. 10556 Some poetic writers engaged in poetic license in such reports, 10557 such as a giant Fury stalking the city and shaking the snakes in her hair; 10558 others were more sober historians citing reports for particular years. Portents included events we might regard as natural phenomena today, such as physical deformities at birth, lightning striking temples, comets, and so forth, 10559 but also included visions of celestial figures or armies. 10560 The armies were sometimes heard rather than seen; 10561 sights that were seen were often acknowledged as divine illusions rather than objects physically present; 10562 and the apparitions of armies did not draw near anyone. 10563 Such reports were normally not verified by citing witnesses, and the historians who report them sometimes express skepticism concerning their value, at times allowing for imagination in their production 10564 and at times pointing out that such reports fed on each other among the gullible. 10565 In any case, this phenomenon is quite different from meeting again and talking with a person one has personally known, which the Gospel accounts stress. But the difference again concerns the resurrection. To most ancient Mediterranean peoples, the concept of corporal resurrection was barely intelligible; to Jewish people, it was strictly eschatologica1. Yet once one grants, from a neutral starting point, the possibility of a bodily resurrection of Jesus within past history, the appearances would follow such an event naturally with or without parallels. In a Jewish framework, Jesus» resurrection within history must also signify the arrival of the eschatological era in some sense (e.g., Acts 1:3–6; «from among the dead ones,» Rom 1:4 ; 1Cor 15:20 ; Gal 1:4 ; Heb 6:5). 2B. The Angelic Testimony (20:11–13) The angels were at the head and feet of where Jesus had been, marking the holiness of the site of the resurrection. |
| If we extract separate texts and ideas from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, it is easy to find seeming contradictions in them. Genuine theology, in its understanding of revelation, always applied the principle of (if we can say so) “gnosiological catholicity.” The entire content of Scripture and Tradition expressed in so many books, texts, and ideas must be considered as one whole, of which each element depends on the others and on their totality. Only this understanding which unites the particular with the whole and comprehends everything in the light of the truth in the totality of its content is right. In Scripture and Tradition everything is complementary and each element explains the other. All is necessary for the understanding of the whole. But the foundation of theology is the knowledge of God. Theology must be built in the perspective of this knowledge. There is only one teacher and one true doctrine for the Church, that is: Jesus Christ and His teaching (Matt. 23:8). “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God” (II John: 9). The preservation of the purity – that is the Orthodoxy–of Christ’s teaching has exceptional importance ( Gal. 1:6–12; II Cor. 4:1–6). All teachers who do not follow Christ or who deform His teaching are useless even for themselves – as food of bad quality (Heb. 13:7–9). All the fleshly, worldly, purely human doctrines and all myths can be harmful (Col. 2:4–23; Phil. 3:17–21; II Tim. 4:2–5). St. Paul violentiy rejects Pharisaical Judaism ( Gal. 1:6–12 ; Phil. 3:1–11 ). Our Lord Jesus Christ proclaims that all that is purely human (inasmuch as it is consciously or unconsciously opposed to God), and Judaism (which is opposed to Him) is derived from Satan (Matt. 16:22–23; John 8:49 ). VIII. Catholicity and Ethics God is holy because His existence and life are perfect. If the life of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit is from the Father ( John 5:26, 15:26 ), their holiness is also from the Father. Is the Son of God not the truth and the Logos of holiness, and the Holy Spirit the very holy hypostatical life? 12 Thus divine holiness, like divine truth, is manifested in three hypostatical forms. |
|
|
