| 118 Cf. also H.Fries, “Die Eucharistie und die Einheit der Kirche” in Pro Mundi Vita. Festschrift zum eucharistischen Weltkongress, 1960, p.165f 120 The identity of the Servant of God is clearly applied by the Lord to Himself in Lk. 22:37 (= Is. 53:12 ), as also in all the passages concerning the sufferings of Jesus, while the correspondence between the story of the Servant and the account of the Lord’s Passion is amazing ( Mt. 27:38 or Mk. 15:27 or Lk. 23 :32f., 39= Is. 53:9 ). The view of this passage by modern exegetes as a vaticinia ex eventu (e.g. R.Bultmann, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, 1951, p.154 and Theologie des N.T., I, 1953, p.30), runs into insuperable difficulties, on which see O.Cullmann, Die Christologie des N.T., 1957, p.63f. More generally on the significance, only recently recognized, of the figure of the Servant in the Gospels, see W.Zimmerli – J.Jeremias, “ΠΑΙΣ” in T.W.N.T., V, 636f.; H.W.Wolff, Jesajia 53 im Urchristentum, 1950 (2ed.); and O.Cullmann, “Jésus, Serviteur de Dieu” in Dieu vivant, 16 (1950), 17f 121 The people of Israel appeared from the beginning as a strong unity in the formation of which strong religious and ethnic figures such as Moses and David had been a contributory factor. See V.Vellas, Personalities of the O.T. (in Greek), I, 1957 (2ed.), pp.58, 66, 70, 80f. 121 etc. This unity was considered so profound and strong as to make the people of God one entity in it, relationship with its God. Hence, the repeated description of Israel in the O.T. through images of living organisms such as the vine ( Is. 5 :1f., Hos. 10:1–2 , Jer. 12:10 , Ezek. 15:6 ), the cedar ( Ezek. 17:22 ), the olive tree ( Jer. 11:16 ), and indeed the son ( Ex. 4:22–23 , Hos. 11:1 , Is. 49:14 etc.) and wife of God ( Jer. 31:32 , Masoretic text). It was within the context of this sense of organic unity that there arose the tradition of the Servant of Yahweh of which we get a clear picture in the Book of Isaiah, 40–55. The discussion of how this figure is to be interpreted belongs to others (see V.Vellas, op.cit., p.295f.; P.Bratsiotis, The Prophet Isaiah (in Greek) 1956, p.8 and N.Bratsiotis, The Position of the Individual in the O.T. (in Greek), I. Introduction, 1962). But regardless of whether the individualistic or the “collectivist” interpretation of this paradoxical figure is correct, the relationship to the point of identity between the Servant and the “many” whose sins he takes upon himself is a clear characteristic of this figure. This is recognized today not only by Protestant theology but by Roman Catholic theology as well, as shown by J.de Fraine’s work Adam et son Lignage. Études sur la Notion de “Personalité Corporative” dans la Bible, 1959. This interpretation does not necessarily vitiate the individual characteristics of the Servant, which are beyond doubt, as V.Vellas proves (op.cit., p.295f.) |
| Paul also appeals to this concatenation of images, when he points out to those in his Corinthian community who were seduced by wisdom, that the folly of God (Christ lifted on the Cross, as the bronze snake lifted on the pole) overcomes the wisdom of the world, and, as such, Christ is the true wisdom and power of God. In another vein, but using the same scriptural, literary or inter-textual technique, Matthew describes Christ as a new Moses, going up a mountain to deliver the law, while Paul describes Christ as the new Adam, correcting the mistakes of the first Adam, whom Paul explicitly describes as being “a type of the One to come” (Rom 5:14). This is not to imply that the Gospel itself is, as Ricoeur claimed, simply “a rereading of an ancient Scripture”. The proclamation of the death and resurrection of Christ is not straightforwardly derivable from Scripture. Rather, the death and resurrection of Christ acts as a catalyst, which then enables a subsequent rereading of the Scriptures (the Old Testament), providing the terms and images, the context, within which the apostles made sense of what happened, and with which they explained it and preached it, so justifying the claim that Christ died and rose “according to the Scriptures”. And this is indeed what we find in the Gospels, where, in the Evangelists’ descriptions of Christ and His activity, there is constant allusion to scriptural imagery, most explicitly in John, when Christ states: “If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me” (Jn 5:46). Alternatively, in Matthew the same intertextuality is found in terms of prophecy-fulfilment structuring the narrative, while in Luke it appears as the hermeneutic, the principle of interpretation, taught by the risen Christ, enlightening his disciples: “Beginning with Moses and all the prophets, He interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Lk 24:27, cf. Lk 24:44-49). This literary enlightening of the disciples is paralleled in John when Christ breathes on his disciples the Holy Spirit, the one he had promised, who would remind them of all things concerning Christ, leading them into all truth (cf. |
| 20 сент. 1944 г. нем. оккупационными властями А. был насильственно эвакуирован в Сев. Германию в лагерь Омштеде под г. Ольденбургом. Там во временной лагерной церкви-бараке А. открыл первый зарубежный эст. приход. С волной беженцев Эстонию покинули 22 клирика и часть мирян ЭАПЦ. В др. лагерях Германии также появились временные храмы, в к-рых богослужение совершалось на родном для эстонцев языке. В марте 1947 г. А. получил разрешение поселиться в Швеции и до своей смерти проживал в Стокгольме. 15 янв. 1948 г. им был учрежден Синод для управления 17 эст. приходами в разных странах: Швеции (7), США (4), Канаде (3), Англии (1), Германии (1) и Австралии (1). В эмиграции А. по-прежнему считал себя главой автономной Церкви, продолжая до самой смерти именоваться митрополитом Таллинским и всей Эстонии, несмотря на то что Таллинскую кафедру в это время уже занимали канонические архипастыри, находившиеся в юрисдикции РПЦ. 25 окт. 1953 г. А. был похоронен на правосл. Лесном кладбище в Стокгольме. В его отпевании не принял участия никто из офиц. представителей К-польского Патриархата. После кончины А. приходы эст. диаспоры по их просьбе были включены в местные епархиальные структуры К-польского Патриархата. Лит.: Isa Aleksandri Paulus pühitsemine esimeseks Eesti iseseiswa kiriku peapiiskopiks//Uus Elu. Tallinn, 1920. N 4. Lk. 7-10; Laar A. Ülevaade Eesti Ap.-Õigeusu Kiriku elukäigust - Eesti abipiiskopist kuni iseseisvuseni//Ibid. Tallinn, 1923. N 7-8; Samon S. ü lempr., Salasoo S. M. Kiriku ajalugu. Tallinn, 1990 (ümbertrükk); Kaljukosk A. ü pr. Eesti Apostlik-Õigeusu Kirik. 1995 Pãevastik. Tallinn, 1994. Lk. 29-37; Цыпин В., прот. История Русской Церкви. М., 1997. С. 218-219, 290-292; Нарвский архиерей: Мат-лы к биографии епископа Нарвского и Изборского Павла (Дмитровского), впосл. архиепископа Таллинского и Эстонского. Нарва, 1997. С. 41-49; Алексий II, Патриарх Московский и всея Руси. Православие в Эстонии. М., 1999. С. 377, 378, 385-390, 393, 401-405. Свящ. Александр Вершинин |
| Después del sermón, cuando Nuestro Señor Jesucristo bajó de la montaña, una gran multitud lo siguió; sin duda la gente estaba muy impresionaba. Y como había ocurrido con anterioridad ( Mk. 1:40–45 ; Lk. 5:12–16 ), otro leproso se aproximó al Señor, rogando ser curado de aquella terrible enfermedad. Es necesario decir que, lejos de ser este el único caso de curación de leprosos, el Señor obró muchas curaciones milagrosas durante Su ministerio. Tampoco sorprende que este caso fuera similar al primero, ni que el Señor ordenase al leproso curado presentarse a un sacerdote para que éste, de acuerdo a la ley de Moisés, testimoniara oficialmente sobre la curación. Sin ello el leproso curado no podría reintegrarse a la comunidad de los sanos, pues todos lo evitarían con temor, sabiendo que era portador de tan cruel enfermedad. Algunos exégetas suponen que si el ahora sano no hubiese ido a Jerusalén, directamente al sacerdote, divulgando en cambio la noticia de su milagrosa sanación, esa información hubiese alcanzado Jerusalén antes de su arribo. Entonces los sacerdotes hostiles al Señor hubiesen afirmado que el hombre sanado jamás había estado enfermo. Curación del siervo del centurión. ( Mt. 8:5–13 ; Lk. 7:1–10 ). Luego, el Señor fue a Cafarnaum donde una vez más, realizó el milagro de curar al siervo del centurión romano, quien por lo visto, estaba al mando de la guarnición local de cien soldados. Algunas de las ciudades de Palestina eran custodiadas por guarniciones militares romanas. Aunque el centurión era pagano de origen, mostraba disposición hacia la religión judía, testimonio de lo cual era la sinagoga construida por él. Según san Mateo, su siervo se hallaba postrado por una parálisis, mientras que san Lucas – cuya narración es mas detallada – afirma que estaba al borde de la muerte. San Lucas relata que el centurión primero envió recado a Jesús con algunos notables de entre los judíos para que viniera y curase a su siervo; luego envió a unos amigos suyos y finalmente, como dice san Mateo, salió al encuentro del Señor cuando este se aproximaba a su casa. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Miracles VERA SHEVZOV Orthodox thinkers from Late Antiquity to modern times have understood miracles as actions or events that manifest or point to the presence of God. Orthodox Christians have associated miracles not only with individual experiences, but also with experiences of entire communities and even nations. Miracles are associated with healings, historical events, visions, dreams, and foresight, and with such phenomena as inexplicable displays of myrrh or tears on icons. Throughout history, Orthodox pastors and spiritual guides have drawn on accounts of miracles for pedagogical purposes. Such accounts provided lessons concerning vices and virtues along with lessons concerning “right faith.” In addition to the realm of lived Orthodoxy, where accounts of miracles have often resulted in the special veneration of certain icons and the veneration of saints and their relics, miracles have also figured in the Orthodox theological and philosophical considerations of history, science and nature, and anthropology. Reports of miracles have also periodically begged the question of authority in the church (who in the church is it that finds and declares them miraculous?). Although miracles may be integral to its worldview, Orthodox Christianity nevertheless is deeply nuanced in its approach to them. In part, the Orthodox understanding of miracles is rooted in the complex view of miracles reflected in the New Testament. On the one hand, patristic authors such as Origen of Alexandria (d. 254) and St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) maintained that Jesus’ miracles played a significant role in the establishment of the Christian faith. Signs, acts of power, and works testified to the power of God manifested in and through Christ. Accordingly, Orthodox writers maintained, miracles accompanied his words in order to confirm his identity for those who were unable to recognize his power and authority through his words alone. In this sense, miracles were a form of divine condescension. Following the death of Jesus, in this view, the apostles performed numerous miracles in Jesus’ name as a way further to cultivate the Christian faith. As Origen wrote in his mid- 3rd century treatise Against Celsus 1.46, had it not been for miracles, people would not have been persuaded to accept the new teachings. On the other hand, patristic authors also pointed to the more negative aspects of miracles in the gospel texts. Particularly objectionable was the pursuit of, and demand for, miracles as a condition for faith ( Mt. 16.4 ; Jn. 6.30–31 ) or as a curious spectacle ( Lk. 23.8 ). Even the Devil tempted Jesus to perform a miracle ( Mt. 4.1–11 ; Lk. 4.1–13 ). Finally, according to Jesus’ testimony, not every “wondrous sign” was from God ( Mt. 24.24–25 ; Acts 8.9–13); they could even be detrimental to believers by distracting or turning them from the path to salvation. |
| Guia Para El Estudio De Los Cuatro Evangelios Скачать epub pdf La Venida de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo al Mundo El prólogo del Evangelio: su autenticidad y propósito ( Lk. 1:1–4 ; Jn. 20:31 ) Los cuatro versículos iniciales del primer capítulo del Evangelio de san Lucas pueden ser considerados como el Prólogo de los Cuatro Evangelios. En ellos el santo Evangelista habla de «la rigurosa investigación efectuada sobre todo» lo transmitido por él y señala el propósito con el cual fueron escritos los Evangelios: «conocer el sólido fundamento de las enseñanzas cristianas.» A este propósito san Juan el Teólogo añade en su Evangelio ( Jn. 20:31 ): «para que creáis que Jesús es el Cristo, el Hijo de Dios y creyendo tengáis vida en su nombre». Como es evidente en el prólogo de san Lucas, él asumió la tarea de escribir su Evangelio pues para ese tiempo habían aparecido muchos relatos similares, pero carentes de autoridad y cuyo contenido no era muy satisfactorio. Él consideró que su deber era confirmar en la Fe al excelentísimo Teófilo y simultáneamente, claro está, a todos los cristianos en general. Por ello escribió un relato sobre la vida de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo verificando cuidadosamente toda la información proveniente de las palabras de los »testigos oculares y servidores del Verbo.» Debido a que san Lucas era uno de los setenta discípulos de Cristo le resultaba imposible ser testigo de todos los hechos , tales como el nacimiento de Juan el Bautista, la Anunciación, el Nacimiento de Cristo, la Presentación de Nuestro Señor en el Templo. Es indudable que una significativa parte del contenido de su Evangelio se basa en las palabras de testigos oculares, es decir, se fundamenta en la Tradición, tan categóricamente rechazada por los protestantes y los sectarios. El principal y mas importante testigo de los mas tempranos eventos de la historia de los Evangelios fue ciertamente, la Santísima Virgen María . No en vano san Lucas destaca en dos oportunidades que Ella mantenía el recuerdo de todos estos sucesos guardándolos en su corazón ( Lk. 2:19 y 2:51). |
| While Moses had to veil his face “because the people were afraid to come near him” ( Ex. 34.30 ), “When a man turns to the Lord, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being changed into his likeness from one degree of glory to another” ( 2Cor. 3.17–18 ). The experience uniquely given to Moses in the Old Testament is offered to all Christians. In the passages examined above, Orthodoxy understands the “splendor” or “glory” to be a real light with a physical manifestation, rather than metaphors for inward experiences – even though the light is at the same time supernatural: St. Gregory Palamas cites St. Basil of Caesarea to this effect, making clear that the manifestation of divine light had a specific historical moment which was at the same time an eschatological moment – the apostles on Mount Tabor “Were privileged to see with their eyes a foretaste of his advent” (Palamas 1988:252–3); that is, of his coming in glory at the end of the world. Most closely associated with deification in Orthodox teaching is the transfiguration or metamorphosis: when Jesus was transfigured on the mountain, the dazzling light emanating from him was experienced by the three apostles, St. Peter, St. James, and St. John ( Mt. 17.1–8 ; Mk. 9.2–8 ; Lk. 9.28–36 ). On the mountain (in Orthodox tradition, Mount Thabor), Christ was transfigured, shining with a supernatural brilliance ( Mt. 17.1–8 ; Mk. 9.2–8 ; Lk. 9.28–36 ). He manifested God’s glory, the uncreated light, to three chosen disciples. It continued to affect them throughout their lives, transforming them. St. Peter and St. John wrote in their own words, in their epistles, of their experience of the glory, an experience which marks their writings. The persecutor Saul was transformed into St. Paul the apostle through a manifestation of this same uncreated light (Acts 9.3–7; 22.6–8; 26.13–18). The liturgical poetry of the Feast of the Transfiguration bears witness to the historical circumstances of the event. The disciples, especially St. Peter, had been scandalized at the prospect of the Messiah, his master, submitting to death. Christ allowed the divinity to shine through the flesh in order that the disciples might be able to bear the crucifixion, by knowing Christ’s divinity (Ware 1990: 477–88). It brings together the texts relating to the history of salvation, by which God revealed himself to the human race. In the biblical texts for Vespers, the events prefiguring and prophesying the transfiguration are read. They are the texts about Moses and Elijah in which their encounters with the divine glory are narrated (Ware 1990: 472–4; see Ex. 24.12–18; 33.11–23; 34.4–6, 8; I Kgs. 19). |
| John Anthony McGuckin Theotokos, the Blessed Virgin ANTONIA ATANASSOVA The Blessed Virgin Mary has an indisputable place of honor in Orthodox Christianity. She is revered as “our all-holy immaculate, most blessed, and glorious Lady Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary,” for through her the Word of God becomes incarnate. In Scripture her special status is foretold in the words of the angel Gabriel for whom she is “blessed among women” and “full of grace” ( Lk. 1.26–38 ). Mary’s motherhood serves in restoring the relationship between God and the human race, in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of a virgin bearing a son who is “God with us” (Isa. 7.14). Her quiet acceptance of God’s will: “Here am I, the servant of the Lord; let it be with me according to your word,” her magnificent song of praise extolling God’s care for the lowly ( Lk. 1.46–55 ), and the blessing she receives from Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist, mark the incarnation as a pivotal moment of history, and Mary as the ideal follower of God. Throughout the course of her son’s ministry, the Virgin plays a central role, from its inception at the wedding in Cana, where her intervention leads to the first sign of Jesus’ exalted destiny, to its bitter fulfillment at the foot of the cross where Jesus commits her into the beloved disciple’s care ( Jn. 2.1–11; 19.25–7 ). In sum, the evangelists’ account of Christ’s life and mission recognizes the presence ofhis mother as no less than indispensable to the unfolding of the divine economy. Scriptural references to Mary are further supplemented by a variety of beliefs widely held in Orthodoxy, many of which stem from devotional practices. In the popular apocryphon The Protoevangelium of James, Mary is described as a “creature of exceptional purity” set aside for a divine purpose from the moment of her conception. We meet her parents, Joachim and Anna, who surrender their only child in service to the Temple in Jerusalem and leave her there throughout her childhood, to converse with angels and weave a scarlet and purple veil for the Holy of Holies. |
| 27 Or. ad Pulch. 27:11, 27:19, 27:21–22, 28:18, 36:25, 40:18, 40:26, 43:11, 43:33–34, 45:5–6, 45:10, 47:24, 47:35, 49:1, 52:4–5, 54:1, 55:15, 56:31, 57:6–7, 57:22, 57:29, 58:2–3, 59:3, 59:24–26, 60:30. 28 Or. ad Pulch. 32:5, 32:27, 32:33, 36:35–36, 37:9, 38:37, 43:7, 43:10, 50:6–7, 54:36, 54:13–14, 56:38–57:1. 30 Or. ad Pulch. 27:10, 28:23, 29:11, 29:12, 32:36, 33:27, 33:30, 33:33, 37:16, 38:23, 39:25, 41:2, 41:10, 42:14, 42:22, 42:24, 46:1, 46:32, 47:5, 49:21, 50:9, 56:11, 56:37, 57:1, 57:9, 58:2, 58:7, 61:11. Также, следуя за Евр. 2, 14 , «плоть и кровь» (Or. ad Pulch. 30:23, 30:32–33, 32:26, 33:9, 35:2–3, 41:8). Само вочеловечение Слова и Его искупительные деяния именуется «домостроительством с плотью» (Or. ad Pulch. 33:20, 33:24, 33:30, 34:16, 40:3, 42:1–2, 43:12, 44:25, 45:10, 47:23–24, 49:18–19). Для свт. Кирилла, который опирается в этом на книгу пророка Иоиля ( Иоил. 2, 28 ), «плоть» означает не что иное, как всего че- ловека: Лоуо? усу ove σρζ, τοντστιν νθpornos κατ ye το εκχε ττο τον πνευμα, τς μον Ιπι πσαν σρκα (Or. ad Pulch. 27:32–33; cp.: Or. ad Pulch. 33:33–34, 38:32, 56:4). Впрочем, можно отметить, как некоторую непоследовательность его богословского языка, что в рассуждении против аполлинариетов «плотью» названа только часть человека, отличная от души (Or. ad Pulch. 58:36, 59:1–2). 31 Or. ad Pulch. 27:12, 29:34, 36:33, 37:16, 38:11, 39:1–2, 40:27, 57:8, 58:33. При этом уточняется, что воспринятое тело имеет разумную душу (Or. ad Pulch. 27– 12, 37:16,58:33). 32 O r. ad Pulch. 27:27, 27:32, 28:18, 29:10, 30:4, 30:33, 33:25, 33:34, 37:11, 38:11, 39:23, 39:34,40:12, 41:7,45:32, 46:3, 47:1,47:36, 53:1, 53:23, 54:37, 56:3, 58:33. Однако подчеркивается, что Христос – не обыкновенный ( απλς, φιλς, κοινς ) человек (Or. ad Pulch. 32:24–25, 33:9, 38:17–18, 38:31, 41:28, 43:1, 43:23–24, 43:31, 49:30, 49:32, 59:16). 33 Or. ad Pulch. 37– 10, 38:32, 39:23, 40:25, 55:5. Также «условия человечества», то της νθρωτττητος μτρος (Or. ad Pulch. 28:27, 29:33, 30:7, 31:35, 39:36–37). |
| Нравственное состояние народа. Конечное торжество Бога Глава 28. Книги пророков Авдия, Ионы и Наума 28.1. Книга пророка Авдия 28.2. Книга пророка Ионы 28.3. Книга пророка Наума Глава 29. Книга пророка Аввакума 29.1. Первый вопрос пророка: почему зло остается безнаказанным? 29.2. Второй вопрос: почему для отмщения избран народ лукавый? 29.3. Пророческая песнь Глава 30. Книга пророка Иеремии 30.1. Общая характеристика книги 30.2. Изображение нравственного состояния жителей Иерусалима и Иудеи 30.3. Служение пророка Иеремии 30.4. Служение пророка после падения Иерусалима 30.5. Значение послушания 30.6. Символические видения и действия 30.7. Тема личной ответственности 30.8. Пророчество о пастырях Израиля 30.9. Пророчество о возвращении из плена и Новом Завете 30.10. Мессианские пророчества 30.11. Окончание книги: пророчества о языческих народах 30.12. Книга Плач Иеремии, Послание Иеремии и Книга пророка Варуха Глава 31. Книга пророка Иезекииля 31.1. Призвание к пророческому служению 31.2. Пророчества о гибели Иерусалима (символические действия) 31.3. Видение беззакония Иерусалима. Второе видение Славы Божией 31.4. Обетование спасения 31.5. Предсказание о переселении 31.6. Обличение лжепророков и старейшин-идолопоклонников 31.7. Обличительные и пророческие притчи 31.8. Притча о кедре и пророчество о Наследнике 31.9. Разорение Иудеи – подтверждение истинности Обетований 31.10. Тема личной ответственности 31.11. Пророчества о языческих народах. Царь тирский 31.12. Пророчества о Пастыре и Новом Завете 31.13. Пророчество о воскресении 31.14. Великая битва 31.15. Видение Нового Иерусалима Глава 32. Книга пророка Даниила 32.1. Даниил и Анания, Мисаил и Азария в Вавилоне 32.2. Сон Навуходоносора 32.3. Золотой истукан. Отроки в печи вавилонской 32.4. Безумие Навуходоносора 32.5. Пир Валтасара 32.6. Даниил во рву львином 32.7. Неканонические добавления 32.8. Видение четырех зверей 32.9. Видение овна и козла 32.10. Пророчество о седминах 32.11. Видение великой брани Глава 33. Книги пророков Аггея, Захарии и Малахии 33.1. |
|
|
