| And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth (Gen. 7:6). And Noah lived after the (beginning of the) flood three hundred and fifty years. And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died (Gen. 9:28-29). The correctness of the inserted words is confirmed by the sum 600 + 350=950. By analogy, Shem was an hundred years old (as the flood came upon the earth) , and begat Arphaxad two years after the (beginning of the) flood (Gen. 11:10); that is, at the age of 102. Further (cf. Gen. 11:12-25), Arphaxad live 135 years and begat Cainan. After 130 years Cainan begat Salah; in 130 year Salah begat Eber; in 134 years Eber begat Peleg: in 130 years Peleg begat Reu; in 132 year Reu begat Serug; in 130 year Serug begat Nahor; in 79 years Nahor begat Terah. It follows that Terah was born in year 2162 + 102 + 135 + 130 + 130 + 134 + 130 + 132 + 130 + 79=3394 from the creation of man. And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran ; the eldest of them was Haran (cf. Gen 11:26-29). Inasmuch as Terah died in Haran at the age of 205, when Abram was 75 (cf. Gen. 11:31-32; 12:4-5), then Terah begat Abram at the age of 205 – 75=130. Abram-Abraham begat Isaac at age 100 (cf. Gen. 17:1-6; 21:5). Isaac begat Jacob at age 60 (cf. Gen. 25:25-26; 35:28); that is, in the year 3394 + 130 + 100 + 60=3554 from the creation of man. Jacob begat Joseph (cf. Gen. 30:22-24). At age 17 Joseph was sold by his brothers into Egyptian slavery (cf. Gen. 37:2-28): Prof. A. P. Lopukhin designates that at age 30, Joseph had been a slave for 13 years. At age 30, Joseph was presented to Pharoah (cf. Gen. 41:14-16, 46); after seven years of plenty and two years of hunger (cf. Gen. 41:25-30; 45:4-11) Joseph sent his brothers to bring his father, giving them wagons, according to the commandment of Pharaoh, and … provision for the way (Gen. 45:21). Jacob, arriving in Egypt with his family, was presented to Pharoah at age 130 (cf. Gen. 47:7-9). It follows that Jacob-Israel (cf. Gen. 32:28) begat Joseph at age 130 – (30 + 7 + 2)=91. And inasmuch as his brothers who came to Egypt at Joseph’s request called themselves Pharoah’s slaves (cf. Gen. 46:33-34; 47:3-4), then the beginning of captivity of the future people of Israel should be considered the year 3554 + 91 + 17=3662 from the creation of man. |
| Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 91 col. 465c On temptations and the passions Nothing created by God is evil. It is not food that is evil but gluttony, not the begetting of children but unchastity, not material things but avarice, not esteem but self-esteem. It is only the misuse of things that is evil, not the things themselves. As man I deliberately transgressed the divine commandment, when the devil, enticing me with the hope of divinity (cf. Gen. 3:5), dragged me down from my natural stability into the realm of sensual pleasure; and he was proud to have thus brought death into existence, for he delights in the corruption of human nature. Because of this, God became perfect man, taking on everything that belongs to human nature except sin (cf. Heb. 4:15); and indeed sin is not part of human nature, In this way, by enticing the insatiable serpent with the bait of the flesh. He provoked him to open his mouth and swallow it. This flesh proved poison to him, destroying him utterly by the power of the Divinity within it; but to human nature it proved a remedy restoring it to its original grace by that same power of the Divinity within it. For just as the devil poured out his venom of sin on the tree of knowledge and corrupted human nature once it had tasted it, so when he wished to devour the flesh of the Master he was himself destroyed by the power of the Divinity within it. Various Texts on Theology, the Divine Economy, and Virtue and Vice 1.11, The Philokalia: The Complete Text (Vol. 2) The demons attack the person who has attained the summits of prayer in order to prevent his conceptual images of sensible things from being free from passion; they attack the gnostic so that he will dally with impassioned thoughts; and they attack the person who has not advanced beyond the practice of the virtues so as to persuade him to sin through his actions. They contend with all men by every possible means in order to separate them from God. Four Hundred Texts on Love 2.90 Let yourself die while striving, rather than living in laziness. For those who die while trying to keep the commandments are just as much martyrs as those who died for Christ’s sake. |
| As a shepherd, Peter must face death (21:18–19), as his good shepherd had (10:11, 15, 17–18); as one of the sheep, 10945 Peter must «follow» Jesus (21:19; 10:4–5, 27)–even to death (13:36–37). 10946 Peter would not always have the vigor that he had devoted to Jesus that morning (cf. 21:7, 10–11; 1 John 2:14 ). Other ancient texts also present powerlessness in terms of dependence; 10947 Diogenes the Cynic reportedly told a man whose servant was putting on his shoes that he would ultimately have to depend on the man to wipe his nose as well j Diogenes Laertius 6.2.44). A third-century Palestinian Amora opined that God might punish a person by withdrawing the person " s control over his members so that another would have power to do that person harm (Gen. Rab. 67:3). The description of dependence here could apply simply to old age, 10948 which could sometimes incline judges and observers toward mercy; 10949 but the language of «stretching out the hands» probably suggests more than merely the dependence of old age. Usually it indicates the image of supplication, 10950 but here it may refer to voluntarily submitting onés hands to binding, which preceded execution. 10951 In view of 21:19, Jesus is explaining that when Peter is old and dependent, he will suffer execution. Second Peter 1:14, probably independently of John, suggests the tradition that Jesus showed Peter that he would die. Early Christian tradition reports that Peter died by crucifixion, 10952 probably upside down, 10953 finally «following» (21:19) Jesus fully (13:36); early Christian texts applied «stretching out onés hands» to crucifixion. 10954 Many commentators thus see crucifixion implied here. 10955 Whether the specific picture of crucifixion is present here or not (it probably is), Peter " s martyrdom certainly follows Jesus. Jesus explained here by what sort of death Peter would glorify God (21:19), just as he had earlier explained by what sort of death (12:33, also using σημανων) he himself would glorify God (12:23; 13:31–33; just as Lazarus " s death glorified Jesus by allowing him to raise Lazarus, 11:4). Jewish hearers might express little surprise that Jesus would predict the manner of Peter " s death for him. 10956 That Peter understands that Jesus refers to his death is likely; this is why he wants to know the beloved disciplés fate, but Jesus refuses to comment on that disciplés death (21:21–23). Peter had earlier volunteered to «follow» Jesus to the cross (13:37), but Peter had failed to do so (13:38); now Jesus explains to him that he will in fact be able to «follow» Jesus to the cross later, as he had told him more ambiguously before (13:36). 10957 The Beloved Disciplés Future (21:20–23) |
| So, according to St. Paul’s teaching, we are to present ourselves as living sacrifices to God. In so doing, our “old man,” our “man of sin” dies, and our “new man” lives (cf. Rom. 6:6; Eph. 4:22; Col. 3:9). We put to death our sinful passions, so that Christ can live in us. We die to ourselves, so that we can be reborn in Christ. Our death and rebirth are first marked at Baptism, when, according to St. Paul, we die with Christ and are resurrected with Him (cf. Rom. 6:3-4). In Baptism, we receive the Grace of the Holy Spirit within us, united with our soul, as Adam and Eve had it within themselves before the Fall. This is the beginning of our salvation and deification in Christ; but it is only the beginning. We are to continually put to death the remnants of our “old man,” in order to be continually transformed into the likeness of Christ. That is why St. Paul said: I die daily (I Cor. 15:31). Christ offered Himself on the Cross as a sacrifice for us. In order to truly know Christ, we must enter into His self-emptying and offer a sacrifice in return. An inward sacrifice which is the act and sign of our love for God and neighbor. It is the sacrifice of our hearts and minds to God. The sacrifice of our egos, our pride, our earthly attachments and our passions. The sacrifice of our time and energy for our fellow human beings, to whom we dedicate ourselves for the sake of Christ. As we allow Christ to put our egos to death, our fleshly selves are consumed on the altar of love, and the sacrifice rises like incense to God. And as this occurs, we are actually re-created by Christ into new beings: spiritual beings with an entirely new way of seeing reality, different from that of lovers of this world. The sacrifice is painful. Our “old man,” our “man of sin” does not want to die on the altar of sacrifice. The pull of our fallen nature is strong. The Holy Fathers teach that the Fall of man resulted from two motives. The first is self-esteem or self-love (in the day ye eat [of the fruit of the tree] ye shall be as gods—Gen. 3:5), and the second is love of sensual pleasure (the tree was good for food, and pleasant to the eyes—Gen. 3:6). All sins in the world, the Fathers say, stem from these two causes. We do not inherit the guilt of Adam’s sin, but we do inherit the tendency or inclination toward sin. That inclination belongs to our “old man,” the man of ego, the fleshly man, whom we have indulged over the years. When we try to put him to death, he will fight for his right to exist. That is why the sacrifice is so painful. |
| 8:29). The New Testament shows us that the demons dwell in demon-possessed people (cf. Matt. 8:28), that they can enter into animals (Matt. 8:32), but the main place of their habitation and reign is “under heaven”. As we read earlier, the war between people and the powers of evil continues according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience (Eph. 2:2). That is, ruling in the air, he (the devil) acts on earth “now in the children of disobedience.” And it remains for us to weep along with the prophet Jeremiah and pray to God, Persecute them in anger, and … consume them from under the heaven, O Lord (Lam. 3:66). The devil’s power over the earth will be restored only during the days of antichrist and only for three and a half years (cf. Rev. 20:7). Earlier we noted that the martyrs and perfect saints ascend unhindered to the heavens after their death. But in the Bible are also described two bodily ascents into the Heavens: righteous Enoch and the prophet Elias. And again the description leaves no doubt about the reality of an ascent to the Kingdom of Heaven through the space between our sky and our earth. It is written: And Enoch was well-pleasing to God, and was not found, because God translated him (Gen. 5:24); and also: And it came to pass as they were going, they went on talking; and, behold, a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and it separated between them both; and Elias was taken up in a whirlwind as it were into heaven. And Elisha saw, and cried, Father, father, the chariot of Israel, and the horseman thereof! And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his garments, and rent them into two pieces. And Elisha took up the mantle of Elias, which fell from off him upon Elisha; and Elisha returned, and stood upon the brink of Jordan; and he took the mantle of Elias, which fell from off him… (4 Kings 2:11-14). Coming next: Part 2. Patristic Testimony of the Tollhouses Archpriest Oleg Stenyayev Translation by Nun Cornelia (Rees) Pravoslavie.ru 21 октября 2016 г. |
| Крестообразное благословение . Taken from Faber, In Festo Ascensionis Domini, No. 2 «Triumphus ascendentis Christi», sect. 7 «Cum purpura, diadem ate, et annulis»: «Crucem denique in manu gerit, quia elevatis manibus benedixit suis per signum crucis, opinor; quo modo etiam Iacob cancellatis in crucis formant manibus benedixit moriturus Ephraim et Manasse, Gen. 48 ut sentit Gretserus 1. de Cruce.» Любовь 23 . Taken from Faber, Dominica 17 Post Pentecosten, No. 9 «Mysteria [on the Gospel for the day, viz. Matt. 22.35–46]», sect. 5 «Quomodo oportet diligere proximum sicut teipsum»: « " Charitas vera est, inquit S. Greg. hom. 38. in Evang. cum et in Deo diligitur amicus, et cum propter Deum diligitur inimicus.» Любовь ко врагом . This poem is located in A immediately after Любовь 23 and is loosely based on the same passage in Faber. Молитва 41 . Taken from Meffreth, Dominica 5 Post Pascha, No. 3. The poem expresses the moral at the end of an anecdote similar to the one which is the basis of Молитва 42 (cf vol. II, p. 619). The elder says to the monk who is beset by sinful thoughts: «Impossibilie est a te discedere spiritum fornicationis alijs pro te orantibus, nisi tu ipse laborem assumas, ieiunijs, orationibus & vigilijs orans Dominum cum gemitu» (Pars aestiv., p. 120). Молитва грешнаго . Taken from Meffreth, Dominica 5 Post Pascha, No. 2. 11. 1–4 cf Meffreth: «Sed diceret aliquis, Nunquid orantes peccatores Deus exaudit?» 11. 5–12 cf Meffreth: «Primo, Deus non exaudit peccatores ad salutem.» 11. 13–16 cf Meffreth: «Alio modo Deus exaudit peccatores propter triplicem rationem. Primo, propter eorum faciliorem conuersionem.» 11. 17–18 cf Meffreth: «Secundo, propter prosperiorem successum rerum temporalium, ita vt eis eo prosperius succédât in temporalibus, & per hoc priuabuntur aeternis.» 11. 19–20 cf Meffreth: «Tertio, propter maiorem alleuiationem aeternae damnationis, quam habebunt in futuro» (Pars aestiv., P- И З). Мудрость 2 . Taken from Faber, Feria 2 Pentecostes, No. 4 «Eadem Spiritus Sancti dona aliter exponuntur», sect. 1 «Donum sapientiae, Doctrice Aquila». The poemsummarises this section without quoting it verbatim: «Laboramus plerique stultitia in congnoscendo summo bono et ultimo fine, Deo rebusque ad eum ordinandis. Communiter enim de rebus nostris iudicamus secundum rationes humanas, mundi opinionem, et hominum iudicia, ac si his conformentur actiones nostrae, rem bene gestam arbirtramur: ad Deum, divinam et aeternam regulam non attendimus, utrum ipsi placeant ipsiusque voluntati sint conformes. Atque haec mundi sapientia, quae secundum terrena et corporalia iudicat, terrena et animalis sapientia vocatur, ut docet D. Thomas 2.2. q. 45. art 1.» |
| John Anthony McGuckin Paradise PETER C. BOUTENEFF The Greek Paradeisos (cf. the Persian Pardez, meaning “enclosure”) in the Septuagint refers to any enclosed garden (cf. Num. 24.6 ; Neh. 2.8; Eccl. 2.5 ; Jer. 29.5 ), but remains particularly associated with the Garden in Eden ( Gen. 2–3, 13.10 ; also Is. 51.3 ; Ezek. 28.13 ). In Second Temple Jewish literature (e.g., 1 Enoch 60.8, 23, 61.12; Apoc. Abraham 21.3, 6; 3 Baruch 4.10) as well as in the New Testament ( Lk. 23.43 ; Rev. 2.7), Paradise comes to refer also to the destination of the righteous, whether it is an earthly or heavenly topos. St. Paul’s mystical experience which associates Paradise with the Third Heaven ( 2Cor. 12.2–3 ) has deeply influenced the Greek patristic literature, and is frequently cited. PARADISE AS THE GARDEN OF HUMAN ORIGINS Paradise as the earthly garden in Eden, into which the first-created humans were placed, and which Genesis 2 locates on Earth (in what is modern-day Iraq), is treated variously in the Greek fathers. Theophilus of Antioch, almost unique among the early writers for the absence of a typological (christological) exegesis of the Paradise narrative, is concomitantly almost unique in attempting to pinpoint the chronological dating of the events narrated in Genesis 1–3 (as did Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Chronicle, no longer extant). Conversely, and possibly following Philo (cf. Laws of Allegory 1.43), Origen practically mocks anyone who would interpret Paradise as an actual place with physical trees and chewable fruit (On First Principles 4.3.1). Precisely this notion, however, featured strongly in Ephrem’s Hymns on Paradise (Brock 1990). Gregory of Nazianzus is open and provisional in his interpretation: God placed the human person in Paradise, “Whatever this Paradise actually was,” and introduced him to trees which Gregory supposes might represent contemplation (theoria) (Oration 38.12). Contemporary Orthodox theologians tend to follow the fathers in paying scant attention to the question of the physical historicity of the Paradise of Genesis 2–3 , focusing rather on its existential significance or more often on its christological sense. |
| The tragedy of Man The tragedy of our times lies in our almost complete unawareness, or unmindfulness, that there are two kingdoms, the temporal and the eternal. We would build the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, rejecting all idea of resurrection or eternity. Resurrection is a myth. Source: Orthodox Outlet for Dogmatic Enquiries The tragedy of our times lies in our almost complete unawareness, or unmindfulness, that there are two kingdoms, the temporal and the eternal. We would build the Kingdom of Heaven on earth, rejecting all idea of resurrection or eternity. Resurrection is a myth. God is dead. Let us go back to Biblical revelation, to the creation of Adam and Eve and the problem of original sin. ‘God is light, and in him is no darkness at all’ (1 John 1.5). The commandment given to the first-called in Paradise indicates this and at the same time conveys that, although Adam possessed absolute freedom of choice, to choose to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would entail a break with God as the sole source of life. By opting for knowledge of evil, by savouring evil- Adam inevitably broke with God, Who can in no way be joined with evil (cf. 2 Cor. 6.14-15). In breaking with God, Adam dies. ‘In the day that thou eatest thereof’, thus parting company with me, rejecting my love, my word, my will, ‘thou shalt surely die’ (Gen. 2.17). Exactly how Adam ‘tasted’ the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not important. His sin was to doubt God, to seek to determine his own life independently of God, even apart from Him, after the pattern of Lucifer. Herein lies the essence of Adam’s sin- it was a movement towards self-divinisation. Adam could naturally wish for deification- he had been created after the likeness of God- but he sinned in seeking this divinisation not through unity with God but through rupture. The serpent beguiled Eve, the helpmeet God had made for Adam, by suggesting that God was introducing a prohibition which would restrict their freedom to seek divine plenitude of knowledge- that God was unwilling for them to ‘be as gods knowing good and evil’ (Gen. 3.5). |
| Homily On The Birth Of Christ by St. Philaret of Moscow (Given by Archimandrite Philaret in the St. Alexander Nevsky Lavra) St. Philaret of Moscow Great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh (I Tim. 3:16) The New Adam comes forth from virgin earth. Woman, the source of the curse, bears the dew of blessing. The true Noah has appeared, Who shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed (Gen. 5:29). Melchizedek, without father, without mother, without descent (Heb. 7:3), comes to inherit the eternal Kingdom and Priesthood. The long night of fear and universal expectation finally passes, and the morning light penetrates the darkness of the Old Testament Sanctuary, opened not daily, but eternally to the East. The Heavenly Manna is poured forth from the vessel which contained it. The rod of Jesse blossoms forth in place of the fading rod of Aaron. Christ is born. Come, meek shepherds, and kiss the Lamb and Shepherd—the Lamb, tended by the shepherd, and the Shepherd, Who is able to gather into one peaceful fold the lambs with the wolves, and the calves with the lions. Come, wise men, and bow down before the mystery of the ancient Child; learn from the unspeaking Word, taste of the angelic bread at the table of the speechless animals and see that the Lord is good. Choirs of heavenly hosts who have praised the Lord since the creation of the stars, double and triple your doxology before your Sun, Who has risen for us. Christ is born. Christ is born in Bethlehem: is this the reason for all the present joy and all the glory to God in the highest? Glory to God: He is also born for us, unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given (Is. 9:6). Amid the celebration of His birth, the Church suffers pains of birth, until Christ be formed in us (cf. Gal. 4:19). Let us not disdain the joyful sorrow of our Mother: let us take at least a few traits from the image of the birth of Jesus and let us place them in our hearts. |
| 3298 Cf. Irenaeus Haer. 1.26.1, on Cerinthus; Hippolytus Haer. 6.28–29, on Valentinians. Although the gnostic view of creation reflected Platonic ideas (e.g., Marcus " s creation after an invisible image, Irenaeus Haer. 1.17), the neoplatonist Plotinus found it severely wanting (Plotinus Enn. 2.9.8) 3299 See Cohn-Sherbok, «Mandaeans,» who cites t. Sanh. 8:7; Gen. Rab. 8:10. This may suggest a proto-Mandaic idea later incorporated into Mandaism; but its evidence may derive from a gnostic source, which may have been influenced by the Christian doctrine of the second Adam as well as rabbinic Adam speculation. Further, the polemic against minim in t. Sanh. 8may not address Adam at all; rabbis did polemicize against dual powers in creation (Gen. Rab. 1:7), but this could oppose Christians or the male-female dyad principle of some pagan (e.g., Varro L.L. 5.10.58; cf. Gen. Rab. 8:9; Pesiq. Rab. 20:2) as well as gnostic (Irenaeus Haer. 1.1.1) thought, and a polemic against gnostic or Philonic angelic mediation (cf. Urbach, Sages, 205) need not involve proto-Mandaism in particular. 3301 Confusion 171, 179; Flight 69; cf. also Papias frg. 7 (from Andreas Caesariensis, ca. 500 C.E., in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:155). God created through assistants so that if his creation went astray, the assistants would be blamed (Creation 75). 3302 Despite disagreement on when angels were created, later rabbis agreed that God did not create them on the first day (contrast the earlier claim in Jub. 2:2), lest schismatics claim that angels aided in creation (Gen. Rab. 1:3; Justin Dia1. 62; cf. Gen. Rab. 8:8; Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 1:26 ; Williams, Justin, 129; Barnard, «Judaism,» 404; Urbach, Sages, 1:203–4; for other traditions on days of creation, cf. t. Ber. 5:31; houses dispute in p. Hag. 2:1, §17; cf. Gen. Rab. 1:15), although God did consult with them (b. Sanh. 38b; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 23:1; Gen. Rab. 8:3–4,8; 17:4; Lev. Rab. 29:1; Num. Rab. 19:3; see Urbach, Sages, 1:205–7). This clearly represents polemic against an existing interpretation of the plural in Gen. 1 (contrast Jub. 2:3, second century b.C.E.; the plurals of Gen. 1and 11include angels–Jub. 10:22–23; cf. 14:20); polemicists before the rabbis may have also objected to the Jubilees chronology (cf. L.A.B. 60:3; 2 En. 29A; 29:3–5 J). |
|
|
