Stump the Priest: Dogma

Question: "How do we know whether or not something is dogma if it was not specifically affirmed by an Ecumenical council?"

We have to first consider the question of what we mean by dogma. Usually, in our time, when we speak of dogma we are thinking of formal proclamations of official doctrine, however the word has a wider range of meaning. The word is used by both Philo and Josephus in reference to both philosophical principles and imperial decrees (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 2:231). St. Basil the Great used it with reference to the internal teachings of the Church, in contrast with the public preaching of the Church which was intended for those both inside and outside of the Church. He was in a controversy with a group of people who denied that the Holy Spirit was a distinct person of the Godhead, and had argued that this was taught by the doxology: "Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit." His opponents countered that the doxology was not found in Scripture, and so he responded: 

"Of the dogmas and preachings [kerygmas] kept safely in the Church, we have some from written doctrine, and some from tradition handed down to us by the Apostles we have received in mystery, both of which have the same validity and force as regards the piety (i.e., the religion); accordingly, no one gainsays these, at least no one that has any experience at all in ecclesiastical matters. For if we should undertake to discard the unwritten traditions of customs, on the score that they have no great force, we should unwittingly damage the Gospel in vital parts.... (D. Cummings, trans., The Rudder of the Orthodox Catholic Church: The Compilation of the Holy Canons, Saints Nicodemus and Agapius (West Brookfield, MA: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1983), p. 853f [emphasis added]).from Canon 91, which is taken from his treatise On the Holy Spirit, 66-67).

St. Basil goes on to cite as examples of the unwritten tradition, the making of the sign of the Cross, baptism by triple immersion, praying while facing east, and the way that the Liturgy is served as examples of unwritten tradition that even the heretics he was arguing with did not dispute.

So while dogma, in the sense of official ecumenical decrees has the advantage of being clearly binding upon all in the Church, St. Basil says that the internal teachings of the Church, which have not, at least as of yet, been the subject of official decrees are none the less authoritative. For example, rejecting the use of Christian icons was always heretical, long before the Seventh Ecumenical Council weighed in on the matter. The only difference is that someone who disputed this prior to that Council might be less culpable for their errors than they would have been after it. And, as a matter of fact, holding a heretical opinion is not necessarily a grave personal sin, if one does so in ignorance -- but it certainly becomes one, if such a person refuses the correction of the Church.

The Seventh Ecumenical Council, when it pronounced a series of anathemas directed at the Iconoclasts, concluded with one final anathema:

"If anyone rejects any ecclesiastical tradition written or unwritten, let him be anathema!" (Richard Price, trans., The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), vol. 2 (Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press, 2018), p. 660).

Obviously, not all traditions would be included here. One often hears that there are big "T" traditions, and small "t" traditions, and depending on how one applies this distinction, it could be useful, but it certainly has been used to discount legitimate Church tradition. Broadly speaking there are four kinds of traditions in the Church (apart from Scripture itself, which is part of Tradition, even though we usually speak of it as being distinct from traditions preserved outside of Scripture): Apostolic Tradition, Ecclesiastical Tradition, traditions which may or may not be true, and local traditions, which are either local practice or local customs. Apostolic Traditions are without doubt binding and authoritative. The same is true for Ecclesiastical Tradition, when we are speaking of Traditions embraced by the whole Church. 

When we refer to local practices or customs with the word "tradition," we are not talking about either Apostolic or Ecclesiastical Tradition. These may have some authority on the local level, but that is another matter. Also, we sometimes might speak of something being "a tradition" in the sense that this is something that has been handed down, but not in a way that we can attribute a great deal of authority to. For example, there is a tradition that St. Joseph of Arimathea and Christ visited England when Christ was a young man. Such a tradition may or may not be true, but no one is required to believe that this tradition is true.

The Greek word for “tradition” is paradosis – which, though translated differently in some Protestant versions of the Bible, is the same word used when referring negatively to the false teachings of the Pharisees (Mark 7:3, 5, 8), and also when referring positively to authoritative Christian teaching (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6). The word itself literally means "what is transmitted" or “what is passed on.” The key difference between the traditions of the Pharisees and that of the Church, is the source. Christ made clear what the source of the traditions of the Pharisees was, when He called them "the traditions of men" (Mark 7:8). St. Paul on the other hand, in reference to Christian Tradition states, "I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and hold fast to the traditions [paradoseis] just as I delivered [paredoka, a verbal form of paradosis] them to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2). But where did he get these traditions in the first place? "I received from the Lord that which I delivered [paredoka] to you" (1 Corinthians 11:23). This is what the Orthodox Church refers to when it speaks of the Apostolic Tradition – "the Faith once delivered [paradotheise] unto the saints" (Jude 3). Its source is Christ, it was delivered personally by Him to the Apostles through all that He said and did, which if it were all written down, "the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:25). The Apostles delivered this knowledge to the entire Church, and the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became "the pillar and ground of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Ecclesiastical Traditions are rooted in Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18), that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all Truth (John 16:13), as well as the power Christ gave to the Apostles to bind and to loose (Matthew 18:18) -- and, of course, we do not believe that any of this was limited to the original apostles, but the apostolic ministry of the Church has continued through their successors. Furthermore, St. Paul tells us that the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is the head of the Church (Ephesians 5:22-33), and so we believe that it is impossible that the entire Church could fall into error, or affirm anything to be true which is in fact false. This understanding of the Church is not some late development either, but rather you find it clearly expressed in the Ante-Nicene father, St. Cyprian of Carthage, in his Treatise on the Unity of the Church.

So if we are talking about a teaching that the Church has universally affirmed, either in Councils, or simply by universal acceptance, it is binding on all.

Stump the Priest: Zapivka

 

Question: "What is the history behind the tradition of the bread and the wine on the table, to eat and drink after the Eucharist?"

The custom of eating some prosphora and drinking some wine mixed with warm water right after taking communion is called "the zapivka" in the Russian Church. "Zapivka" simply means "washing" or "rinsing," which in this case refers to washing down any remaining particles of the Eucharist.

It is not easy to find much written on the history of this custom, most likely because that is not a question that many people have thought worth exploring. There are many simple actions that we do all of the time in the Church, but unless someone objects to it at some point, or some controversy arises in connection to it, usually we just assume that this is how it is supposed to be.

Most Orthodox sources that mention this practice simply describe it briefly, and state when it is done, but not much else.

In the American context, this is a question that comes up, because the Russian practice is different than what you would typically see in a Greek or Antiochian parish. In those parishes, the laity usually only partake of prosphora after communing (though some parishes and monasteries do something similar to the Russian practice, such as distributing prosphora soaked in wine to the laity).

Interestingly, this is not true for the clergy -- especially for bishops. If you are in a parish with only one priest, he has to consume the remaining Gifts in the chalice, and so he does not do this separately from cleansing the chalice. But when clergy are concelebrating, those who are not going to consume the remaining Gifts, often do partake of wine with warm water, and a piece of prosphora -- and I am told that this is always prepared for bishops.

I am not sure why the practice is different for the laity -- it could be that it simply became common to extend this practice to the laity in Russia. However, I found two sources that stated that this custom goes back to St. John Chrysostom: one modern writer, and one far more ancient, though still many centuries after the time of St. John Chrysostom.

Archpriest Andrei Ukhtomsky, who teaches at the Kiev Theological Academy, states:

"The zapivka after Holy Communion was added during the time of St. John Chrysostom, who, due to a stomach ailment, ate a barley pita on the patriarchal throne. Due to the authority of the saint, such a practice spread further" (A Brief Historical Look at the Liturgy, translated by by Matfey Shaheen, October 29th, 2021 <https://orthochristian.com/130097.html>).

Unfortunately, he does not elaborate on where this tradition is recorded. This might also explain why the custom is more universally followed when it comes to bishops.

However, Nikon of the Black Mountain was a Byzantine monk who wrote a monastic text in the 11th century, called the Tacticon, which became very influential on Russian monasticism, and he wrote:

"It should be known that with respect to collation in church only those who take communion may partake of the collation privately at the sacristy, consisting of a little of the water only or of the wine if it is fitting, and a small piece of blessed bread—but the others not at all—just as the divine [St. John] Chrysostom permitted those partaking of the communion to taste a little something for the sake of a rinse. (Quoted from R. Allison, tr. Black Mountain: Regulations of Nikon of the Black Mountain. In: Byzantine Monastic Foundation Documents: A Complete Translation of the Surviving Founders’ Typika and Testaments. Edited by John Thomas and Angela Constantinides Hero with the assistance of Giles Constable. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks, p. 405).  

There may be other sources that shed more light on this (though they likely have not yet been translated into English), but so far, this is all I have seen on the subject.

It should be noted that as Nikon points out, the zapivka is only for those who have taken communion. Those who have not, are given prosphora at the end of the Liturgy when they come up to kiss the Cross. And this prosphora is called "antidoron," which means literally "instead of the gifts," because it was originally only given to those who did not receive communion at this time, so that they could at least have some prosphora as a blessing, though in current practice even those who did receive communion also receive a piece of prosphora at this time.

Stump the Priest: Baptism with Water and Baptism with the Holy Spirit

Question: "What is the difference between the Baptism in water and the Baptism by the "Holy Spirit and Fire" in Acts 1:5?"

In Acts 1:5, Christ said: "For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days hence," which is very similar to what St. John the Baptist said himself:

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire" (Matthew 3:11, cf. Luke 3:16). 

What St. John Chrysostom points out is that Christ did not say that the Apostles would be baptized with water in the upper room, because they had already been baptized with water unto repentance, but that this did not include the gift of the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit was not yet given. Being baptized with the Holy Spirit is the more essential part of baptism:

"...why does Christ say, “Ye shall be baptized,” when in fact there was no water in the upper room? Because the more essential part of Baptism is the Spirit, through Whom indeed the water has its operation; in the same manner our Lord also is said to be anointed, not that He had ever been anointed with oil, but because He had received the Spirit. Besides, we do in fact find them receiving a baptism with water [and a baptism with the Spirit], and these at different moments. In our case both take place under one act, but then they were divided" (Homily 1 on Acts). 

So in Christian baptism, we are baptized both with water, and with the Holy Spirit, which is why in the Orthodox Church we baptize a person in water, and anoint them with Holy Chrism, all in one service. The baptism of John foreshadowed Christian Baptism, and in Christ's baptism, He was both baptized in water, and affirmed by the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove.

This is made even more plain in Acts 19:1-7, where St. Paul encountered a group of people who had only been baptized with the baptism of St. John:

"And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, he said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Spirit. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied. And all the men were about twelve."

So in the case of these people, who had received only the shadow of Christian baptism, when they were given the reality which had been foreshadowed, they then received the Holy Spirit, which is the baptism of fire St. John the Baptist and Christ spoke of.

Stump the Priest: Tradition?

Question: "What's the working definition of "tradition" as far as the Church is concerned?" 

The English word "tradition" comes from the Latin word "traditio," which corresponds closely with the Greek word we find in the New Testament, "paradosis". The word itself literally means "what is transmitted." It is the same word used when referring negatively to the false teachings of the Pharisees (e.g. Mark 7:3), and also when referring to authoritative Christian teaching (1 Corinthians 11:2, 2 Thessalonians 2:15). So what makes the traditions of the Pharisees false and that of the Church true? The source! Christ made clear what was the source of the traditions of the Pharisees when He called them "the traditions of men" (Mark 7:8). Saint Paul on the other hand, in reference to Christian Tradition states, "I praise you brethren, that you remember me in all things and hold fast to the traditions [paradoseis] just as I delivered [paredoka, a verbal form of paradosis] them to you" (1 Corinthians 11:2), but where did he get these traditions in the first place? "I received from the Lord that which I delivered [paredoka] to you" (1 Corinthians 11:23). This is what the Orthodox Church refers to when it speaks of the Apostolic Tradition — "the Faith once delivered [paradotheise] unto the saints" (Jude 3). Its source is Christ, it was delivered personally by Him to the Apostles through all that He said and did, which if it all were all written down, "the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:25). The Apostles delivered this knowledge to the entire Church, and the Church, being the repository of this treasure thus became "the pillar and ground of the Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15).

Within the Church, we use the word "tradition" in a number of senses. Though we often speak of Scripture and Tradition as being two different things, there is a very real sense in Which Scripture is also Tradition. Much of Scripture existed in oral form before it was written down, and in some cases the gaps or hundreds and even thousands of years -- and so prior to being written down, these were oral traditions. Furthermore, Tradition has passed on what should be recognized as Scripture, Tradition has passed on the meaning of Scripture, and Tradition has in fact passed on the very text of the Scripture.

After Scripture, Apostolic Tradition is without doubt the highest form of Scripture, and it is from Apostolic Tradition that we derive the core of our liturgical and canonical practices, and even such things as making the sign of the Cross, facing east at prayer, and baptism by triple immersion, as St. Basil the Great points out in his treatise On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 27.

There are also what we could call Ecclesistical Traditions, which are not directly based on Apostolic Tradition, but which have been affirmed by the universal Church, and so are no less trustworthy. Such Traditions would include the canons and decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, as well as the canons of local councils and Fathers of the Church that have been affirmed by the Ecumenical Councils. This would also include universally received Liturgical Traditions.

Then there are what you could call local traditions -- and here we are getting into traditions that could also be categorized as "customs." For example, in the Russian Church, it is the tradition to kiss the chalice after you receive Holy Communion. In the Greek Church, they do not kiss the chalice. Both of these practices are motivated by a common piety regarding the Eucharist, but are expressed in opposite  ways. Neither custom is superior to the other, but when in Rome, one should do as the Romans do, and in the context in which one custom prevails or the other, one should respect that practice. But clearly, we are not talking about infallible traditions of the universal Church.

There is a popular distinction that is sometimes made between "big T" traditions" and "little t" traditions. I think this distinction is not far off, so long as one is careful about what they label as "big T" or "little t" traditions. I personally don't use this distinction, because I have too often seen people try to dismiss universally received traditions as "little t" traditions. 

Another important distinction that should be understood is that there is a big difference between saying "The Tradition of the Church is..." and "There is a tradition...." For example the Tradition of the Church teaches us that we should baptize by a triple immersion, and that is not something that you can either take or leave. There is a tradition that Christ travelled to England as a boy, which may or may not be true. 

So a tradition can either be a good and binding tradition, a bad and erroneous tradition, or a good local custom, but with a relative authority. The key questions are, what kind of tradition are we speaking about, what is its origins, and how universally received is the tradition in question? But when we are speaking of Apostolic Tradition, or Traditions which have been universally received, these are Traditions that we are to hold fast to, just as St. Paul tells us (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

See Also: Stump the Priest: Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible?

Stump the Priest: Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?

 

Question: "What is the understanding of the Church on Matthew 27:46? I have done some research myself and I have seen everything from the idea that Christ was abandoned by the Father, to arguments that Christ was not abandoned, nor was He distressed, but was proclaiming that in this darkest hour, so to speak, the Father is still with Him."

We find the text you reference in Matthew, as well as in Mark 15:34, but it is also clear that Christ is quoting from Psalm 21:1 (which is Psalm 22:1 in Protestant Bibles). The entirety of Psalm 21[22] is seen as a prophecy of the death and Resurrection of Christ by the Fathers, as is either clearly suggested or made explicit in the crucifixion accounts in all four Gospels. Psalm 21[22]:16-17 ("they have pierced my hands and my feet. They have numbered all my bones, and they themselves have looked and stared upon me") which is alluded to in John 19:37, and Psalm 21[22]:18 ("They have parted my garments amongst themselves, and for my vesture have they cast lots") is directly quoted by Matthew 27:35 and John 19:23-24, and clearly alluded to in Mark 15:24 and Luke 23:34.

And so to find the answer to this question we need to see what the Fathers say about these passages.

St. Gregory the Theologian (329-390) emphasizes that these words are spoken by Christ on our behalf, because He suffered on our behalf, but that there was no separation between the Father and the Son, and that Christ's humanity was never separated from His divinity: 

"It was not He who was forsaken either by the Father, or by His own Godhead, as some have thought, as if It were afraid of the Passion, and therefore withdrew Itself from Him in His Sufferings (for who compelled Him either to be born on earth at all, or to be lifted up on the Cross?) But as I said, He was in His own Person representing us. For we were the forsaken and despised before, but now by the Sufferings of Him Who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved. Similarly, He makes His own our folly and our transgressions; and says what follows in the Psalm, for it is very evident that the Twenty-first Psalm refers to Christ.

The same consideration applies to another passage, “He learnt obedience by the things which He suffered,” and to His “strong crying and tears,” and His “Entreaties,” and His “being heard,” and His” Reverence,” all of which He wonderfully wrought out, like a drama whose plot was devised on our behalf. For in His character of the Word He was neither obedient nor disobedient. For such expressions belong to servants, and inferiors, and the one applies to the better sort of them, while the other belongs to those who deserve punishment. But, in the character of the Form of a Servant, He condescends to His fellow servants, nay, to His servants, and takes upon Him a strange form, bearing all me and mine in Himself, that in Himself He may exhaust the bad, as fire does wax, or as the sun does the mists of earth; and that I may partake of His nature by the blending. Thus He honours obedience by His action, and proves it experimentally by His Passion. For to possess the disposition is not enough, just as it would not be enough for us, unless we also proved it by our acts; for action is the proof of disposition.

And perhaps it would not be wrong to assume this also, that by the art of His love for man He gauges our obedience, and measures all by comparison with His own Sufferings, so that He may know our condition by His own, and how much is demanded of us, and how much we yield, taking into the account, along with our environment, our weakness also" (Fourth Theological Oration 5-6).

St. John Chrysostom (347-407) adds that Christ, by citing this Old Testament prophecy, bore witness to the Old Testament, and showed that He was not in opposition to it, but that it bore witness to Him: 

"And for this reason, even after this He speaks, that they might learn that He was still alive, and that He Himself did this, and that they might become by this also more gentle, and He saith, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that unto His last breath they might see that He honors His Father, and is no adversary of God. Wherefore also He uttered a certain cry from the prophet, even to His last hour bearing witness to the Old Testament, and not simply a cry from the prophet, but also in Hebrew, so as to be plain and intelligible to them, and by all things He shows how He is of one mind with Him that begat Him" (Homily 88 on the Gospel of Matthew).

St. Jerome (347-420) in his commentary on Matthew, emphasizes the fact that Psalm 21 is clearly about Christ and no one else, and that the humility of the words cited point us to the scandal of the Cross (which St. Paul speaks of in 1 Corinthians 1:18-2:5):

"He has used the beginning of the twenty-first Psalm. Moreover, he leaves out what is read in the middle of the first verse: "Look upon me." For the Hebrew it reads: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Therefore, they are impious who think that this Psalm was spoken under the persona of David, or of Esther and Mordecai. For the evangelists understood the testimonies taken from it of the Savior, as for example: "They divided my garments among themselves and cast lots for my clothing"; and elsewhere: "They have pierced my hands and my feet." Do not marvel at the humility of the words and the complaint of the forsaken one. For by knowing the "form of a servant," you see the scandal of the cross" (The Fathers of the Church: St. Jerome, Commentary on Matthew, 4:27:46, trans. Thomas P. Scheck (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2008), p. 319).

Blessed Theophylact (1050-1107) expands on St. John Chrysostom's commentary, and then adds some additional insights:

"Jesus speaks prophetically in the Hebrew tongue to show that He does not contend with the Old Testament. He said, "Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" to show that He was truly man, and not just in appearance. For man avidly desires life and has a physical appetite for it.  Just as Christ agonized and was sorely troubled before the cross, showing the fear that is ours by nature, so now He says, "Why hast Thou forsaken Me?" displaying our natural thirst for life. For He was truly man and like us in all respects, but without sins. Some have understood it in this manner: the Savior spoke on behalf of the Jews and said, "Why hast Thou forsaken the Jewish race, O Father, that it should commit such a sin and be handed over to destruction?" For as Christ was one of the Jews, He said "forsaken Me," meaning, "Why hast Thou forsaken My kinsmen, My people, that they should bring such a great evil upon themselves?" (The Explanation of the Holy Gospel According to Matthew. Fr. Christopher Stade, Trans. (House Springs, MO: Chrysostom  Press, 1992), p. 247f).

Blessed Theodoret (393-458), in his commentary on Psalm 21[22] emphasizes the prophetic focus of the Psalm as a whole:

"This Psalm foretells the events of Christ the Lord's Passion and Resurrection, the calling of the nations and the salvation of the world" (The Fathers of the Church: Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Psalms, 1-72, trans. Robert C. Hill (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2000), p. 145).

And on the specific verse in question, he writes very much along the lines of St. Gregory the Theologian: 

"Now, it was while fixed to the wood that the Lord uttered this cry, using the very language of the Hebrews, "Eli, Eli, lema sachthani?" So how could the testimony of truth itself be found inadmissible? He says he has been abandoned, however, since, despite no sin having been committed by him, death prevailed after receiving authority against sinners. So he calls abandonment not any separation from the divinity to which he was united, as some suspected, but the permission given for the Passion: the divinity was present to the form of a slave in his suffering and permitted him to suffer so as to procure salvation for the whole of nature. Of course, it was not affected by suffering from that source: how could the impassible nature suffer? It is Christ the Lord as a man, on the contrary, who speaks these words..." (The Fathers of the Church: Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Psalms, 1-72, trans. Robert C. Hill (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2000), p. 146).

Cassiodorus (485-585), in his commentary on Psalm 21[22] echoes the other Fathers, and cites St. Cyril of Alexandria to reinforce them:

"He asks the Father why he has been abandoned by Him. These and similar expressions seek to express His humanity, but we must not believe that divinity was absent to Him even at the passion, since the apostle says: If they had known, thy would never have crucified the Lord of glory [1 Corinthians 2:8]. Though He was impassible, He suffered through the humanity which He assumed, and which could suffer. He was immortal, but He died; He never dies, but He rose again. On this topic Father Cyril expressed this beautiful thought: Through the grace of God He tasted death for all, surrendering His body though by nature He was life and the resurrection of the dead" [Cyril of Alexandria, Ep. 17 (MG 77.113B)]... He broadcasts the experiences of the humanity which He assumed, repelling words of blasphemy and impious mouthings, for He says that words begotten by sins are far from Him. The salvation of His sacred soul was not to embrace the speech of sinners, but gladly to endure by the virtue of patience what He suffered through God's dispensation" (Cassiodorus: Explanation of the Psalms, Vol. 1, trans. P. G. Walsh, (New York: Paulist Press,1990), p. 217).

So in summary, Christ Himself, by quoting the first words of Psalm 21 from the Cross, pointed us to the words of this prophetic Psalm, so that we would understand the meaning of His death, which He suffered for our sakes and in our place. There is no sense in which Christ was separated from the Father while on the Cross, but He voluntarily suffered the abandonment of the penalty for our sins in His humanity. And though this Psalm begins with words that speak of abandonment, and speak of cruel suffering, they end with words that speak of Christ's resurrection, his victory over death, and the salvation of the Church, which would be drawn from all nations:

"I will declare Thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I hymn Thee. Ye that fear the Lord, praise Him; all ye that are of the seed of Jacob, glorify Him; let all fear Him that are of the seed of Israel. For He hath not set at naught nor abhorred the supplications of the pauper, nor hath He turned His face from me; and when I cried unto Him, He hearkened unto me. From Thee is my praise; in the great church will I confess Thee; my vows will I pay before them that fear Thee. The poor shall eat and be filled, and they that seek the Lord shall praise Him; their hearts shall live for ever and ever. All the ends of the earth shall remember and shall turn unto the Lord, and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Him. For the kingdom is the Lord's and He Himself is sovereign of the nations. All they that be fat upon the earth have eaten and worshipped; all they that go down into the earth shall fall down before Him. Yea, my soul liveth for Him, and my seed shall serve Him. The generation that cometh shall be told of the Lord, and they shall proclaim His righteousness to a people that shall be born, which the Lord hath made" (Psalm 21:22-31).

Stump the Priest: Memory Eternal

 

Question: "Is it proper to say "Memory Eternal!" in reference to the non-Orthodox?"

When we sing "Memory Eternal!" at a funeral or a pannikhida, we are not praying that the memory of the departed will be eternal among those here on earth, but that God would remember them eternally. Of course, by this we do not mean to suggest that God might forget if we don't ask him to remember them. We are speaking of a particular kind of memory.

In the Gospels Christ tells us that on the day of judgment, many will be surprised to hear the words "I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity" (Matthew 7:22-23). And in the Scriptures when it speaks of "knowing" someone, it refers to the intimate knowledge that results from relationship, and so the point in this passage is that while the people in question professed to be followers of Christ, they did not have a real living relationship with Him. 

When we pray that God would make the memory of the departed eternal, we are also alluding to the prayer of the wise thief on the Cross who said to Christ: "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom" (Luke 23:42).

When considering whether it is proper to say "Memory Eternal!" with reference to someone who is not an Orthodox Christian, you should consider whether or not it would be proper to do the funeral service or a pannikhida for them. And the answer is "No." It is true that there is a very short order of service for a non-Orthodox Christian that can be done if they such a person has no one to bury them from their own faith, such as might happen in an Orthodox country. But such services simply consisted of singing the Trisagion, without any of the other prayers of a funeral or pannikhida, including "Memory Eternal!" And if we are not permitted to sing "Memory Eternal!" even at the burial of a non-Orthodox Christian under such circumstances, we should not say it with regard to them in other contexts either (see: On the Burial of the Heterodox).

We certainly can pray for them in our private prayers, and we do not preempt the judgment of God, and assume we know what it will be in their case, but "Memory Eternal! is a prayer that should be limited to baptized Orthodox Christians who have at least not renounced the faith in this life.

Update: St. John of Shanghai did allow "Memory Eternal!" to be sung, along with some other hymns, as "an exception for those persons who during their lives demonstrated goodwill towards the Orthodox faith and took part in its life to the best of their abilities..." It is not clear exactly what sort of person would fit into that category, although perhaps someone who had an interest in conversion, but had not yet completed the process would be such an example. But clearly, saying "Memory Eternal!" for those who had no connection with the Church would not fit, even as an exception.

For more information, see:

Stump the Priest: How do you Pray for the Non-Orthodox?

Stump the Priest: The Johannine Comma

1 John 5: 7-9 in the Codex Montfortianus

Question: "According to the Orthodox Church, Is 1 John 5:7 original or a later insertion? I've been studying the subject, but I would greatly appreciate your input."

In most contemporary translations of the Bible, you encounter portions of Scripture that are put in brackets or reduced to a footnote, and it is claimed that "the earliest and most reliable manuscripts" do not include the texts in questions. However, when you look further into these cases, you will generally find that the vast majority of Greek  manuscripts include the text. For example, in the case of the ending of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), there are only two 4th century Greek manuscripts that omit these verses, and one other manuscript that is much later in origin, while there are sources that pre-date the 4th century (such as the Diatessaron) that include these verses, not to mention ancient translations that predate that period. And when you add that to the fact that every other Greek Manuscript does include these verses, it makes the move to omit these verses highly questionable, despite all protests to the contrary.

In the case of 1 John 5:7-8, however, the evidence in favor of the longer reading is very weak, although there is some support for it, particularly in the Latin tradition.

The longer reading of 1 John 5:7-8 is as follows, in the King James text:

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

And so without the longer portion, the text would read:

"For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

When it comes to Greek Manuscripts, there are only eight that provide support for the longer reading, and they are all relatively late:

61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.

88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.

221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.

629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.

636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.

918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.

2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Romania.

A case can be made that the text is quoted in part by St. Cyprian of Carthage, however, this is disputable.

The longer reading is found in most Latin texts, and the Old Latin text was probably translated in Apostolic times, and so this is not an insignificant fact.

When printing was invented, Erasmus was the first to publish the Greek New Testament, and in his earlier editions, he did not include the longer reading. This is why Luther's translation never included this reading, and so this has never been much of an issue in the German speaking world. However, because the text had such strong support in the Latin, and this was the text of Scripture best known to western scholars of Erasmus' time, there was pressure for him to include it, and he eventually did include it in later editions, after a Greek manuscript was found that included the longer reader. This is why the longer reading is included in the King James Version.

If you look at a Greek Bible, published by the Orthodox Church in Greece, you will see that the longer reading is included, but is reduced to a smaller font, to indicate that it is questionable. I believe this is the only example of this that text.

Η Αγία Γραφή: Η Παλαιά Διαθήκη και Η Καινή Διαθήκη (The Holy Bible: The Old Testament and the New Testament), published by the Zoe Brotherhood of Theologians, Athens, Greece, 2004, p. 1051. 

On the other hand, the Slavonic Bible, the Slavonic Apostol (the Liturgical Epistle Book), and the Russian Synodal translation of the Bible all include the longer reading without any notes questioning its authenticity. This may be due to the influence of Erasmus' New Testament, or due to the influence of the Latin text. Latin was a key part of the the study of early Slavic seminaries. 

The Slavonic Apostol showing the section from 1 John 5 which includes the longer reading.

Obviously there is nothing to object to in terms of the content of the longer reading of 1 John 5:7-8, but given that the support for it is relatively weak, especially in the Greek textual tradition, it is not a text that one should cite authoritatively, given that doing so is more likely to side-track any discussion, rather than settle anything. On the whole, it seems unlikely to have been the original reading. It may have originated as an explanatory margin note that somehow found its way into the body of the text over time. As such, the text is not wrong, just not likely original. The fact there is a textual issue like this should not bother us. There is no single perfect text of Scripture, and yet, the Church has within its tradition the fullness of Scripture as God inspired it, and we can be sure that the Church has properly preserved and understood this text.

For More information See:

The Johannine Comma (Bible Researcher)

The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel According to St. Mark, by John Burgon

The Revision Revised, by John Burgon

Stump the Priest: The Reserved Sacrament

A Communion Set for bringing Communion to the Sick

Question: "With access to services being limited due to the Coronavirus lockdown, we have been told that we can be given communion from the Reserved Sacrament, but this is something I know almost nothing about. Is there some form of prayer or other service used when receiving communion in this way? How should I prepare or fast? Are there differences that may be applicable if one is healthy and receiving or ill? What exactly is the Reserved Sacrament? Does include the Blood or is it just the Body?"

What is the Reserved Sacrament?

The Reserved Sacrament is very similar to the Eucharist that the faithful partake of at the Presanctified Liturgy. The Presanctified Eucharist is prepared at a regular Liturgy. An additional Lamb (the Eucharistic Bread to be consecrated at the Liturgy) is prepared for each Presanctified Liturgy that will be celebrated in the coming week. Before the clergy commune, they take these Lambs, and they are intinctured, which means that the priest takes the spoon and carefully pours small amounts of the consecrated Blood on the Lamb, and then this is placed into an artophorion (αρτοφοριον, which literally means a "bread bearer").

An Artophorion similar to the one we have in our parish.

An artophorion is designed to allow the Presanctified Eucharist to dry, without it drying too much. The Reserved Sacrament is prepared in exactly the same way, but it is not immediately placed into an artophorion or a tabernacle (which is a larger container, that is normally kept on the altar year round).

A Tabernacle

How is the Reserved Sacrament Prepared

Ideally, the Reserved Sacrament is prepared on Holy Thursday (which commemorates the Mystical Supper and the Establishment of the Eucharist by Christ), but it can be prepared at any full Liturgy. The difference between preparing the Reserved Sacrament and what is done with a Presanctified Lamb, is that rather than putting the whole Lamb into an artophorion, after the Liturgy is concluded, the priest cuts this Lamb into pieces appropriate for communion people. Some priests simply leave this in a diskos that is covered, and allow it to dry in that way. Our service books tell us to heat these particles so that they are completely dry.

The service book does not spell out exactly how this is to be done, beyond saying that a brick is to be placed on the Antimins, and that the particles are to be heated over burning coals, stirred regularly, and removed from the heat, and then returned to the heat as many times as is necessary to dry them thoroughly, but without burning them.

There may be a better method of doing it than the one I came up with, but what I did was to take a tin coffee can, with the bottom removed (the can needs to be a bit wider than the brick, for the air to flow properly). I took a pair of pliers to put crimps along the top, to allow the flow of air, and then used a ceramic bowl, which with sand in the bottom of it (in order to elevate the coals), and so those parts are arranged as is seen in this picture:

I then place the bottom of a larger tin coffee can on top of that, which then allowed me to place a liturgical plate on top on top of it, which looks like this:

The liturgical plate with the Reserved Sacrament is placed on it, and stirred.

 I found doing it with about 5 minutes on, followed by 5 minutes off, and repeating this for about 30 to 40 minutes, worked well. This allowed me to use two plates, and to rotate them. The particles were constantly stirred with the liturgical spear, while over the heat.

In the Tabernacle, there is a drawer that slides out, into which these particles are to be placed. The service books say that if the material of the tabernacle is not gold or silver, it should be lined with paper. Ours is gold plated on the outside, but not inside of the drawer, and so I use a large index card, and cut it to line the drawer, and then placed these particles in it -- after, of course, allowing them to cool down and to air on a covered diskos for about a day.

How is the Reserved Sacrament Brought to People?

Normally, the Reserved Sacrament is used to commune people who are too sick to come to Church, but it is also used to commune people who cannot come to Church for other reasons. For example, it is used to bring communion to prisoners who do not have access to a liturgy in prison. There are Communion sets specifically designed for this purpose.

A communion set similar to one of the sets that we use in our parish.

These sets have a container sufficient to hold as many portions of the Eucharist as will be needed, a small spoon, and a small chalice. Often, they also have a container that can hold some communion wine. This set is further placed into a pouch of some sort that the priest can carry around his neck.

How Should Someone Prepare to Receive the Reserved Sacrament?

Normally, you should prepare in the same way that you would when you are preparing to receive communion at a regular Liturgy. If someone is sick, obviously, their ability to fast may be limited or non-existent. Also, if someone was near death, there would be no time for them to do pre-communion prayers, at least not at any great length. You should also prepare for confession.

What Happens When the Priest Arrives?

The first thing I do, is to find a sturdy table that I can place the holy things on. Often, this is the family dining table. I lay out one communion cloth on the table, and then open up the Communion Set, pour some wine into the chalice (this wine is not consecrated), and then place the portions of the Eucharist into the chalice that will be necessary to commune those present. Doing this first allows time for these portions to soak in the wine, so that they will be soft by the time Communion is given. While the wine poured into the chalice is not consecrated, the reason why there was an intincturing when preparing the Reserved Sacrament was so that both the Body and the Blood would be in the Reserved Sacrament.

I then hear the confessions of those who will be communed. Then, we use the service of "The Office When in Extreme Urgency Occasion Arises To Give Communion to a Sick Person," If there are other people present, I will ask them to hold the Communion Cloth under the chin of the person who is being communed. Communion is given to those who have prepared, the services is concluded, and then I cleanse the chalice, and put things away. Those who have communed can say the prayers of Thanksgiving right away, or after the priest leaves, but they should say it one way or another, unless they are too ill to do so. If someone is too ill to read prayers, someone can read the prayers aloud for them to hear.

Stump the Priest: Everlasting Destruction

Question: "The text of the King James Version for 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is: "Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." The Revised Standard Version, on the other hand, reads: "They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." Every other modern translation has it similarly. There's a big difference between "destruction from the presence of the Lord" and "destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord." The KJV version makes it sound like there's no lake of fire, etc, but instead Hell is a place where people suffer since they can't bear the presence of God. Growing up I always heard of Hell as "eternal separation from God." Has every modern translation added "and exclusion" to the verse? Is it there in the Greek?"

If you look at the Greek text, you will see that there is no word that means "exclusion":

"οιτινες  [who] δικην [a penalty] τισουσιν [will pay] ολεθρον [destruction] αιωνιον [eternal] απο [from] προσωπου [the face] του [of the] κυριου [Lord]  και [and] απο [from] της [the] δοξης [glory] της ισχυος [of might] αυτου [His]."

So the King James Version is, as is usually the case, a very literal translation of the Greek:

"Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power."

The use of "exclusion" in the RSV is an interpretation of what it means to be punished with everlasting destruction "from the presence of the Lord".

The English Standard Version reads: "They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from[a] the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." But it adds a footnote with an alternative translation: "Or destruction that comes from." And so their alternative reading of the text would agree with what you suggest. The problem with the RSV's translation is it makes the passage seem clearer than it actually is, and quite likely, the interpretation of the RSV is incorrect.

St. John Chrysostom commentary on this passage suggests the interpretation that the destruction is brought about by the presence of Christ at His coming:

"There are many men, who form good hopes not by abstaining from their sins, but by thinking that hell is not so terrible as it is said to be, but milder than what is threatened, and temporary, not eternal; and about this they philosophize much. But I could show from many reasons, and conclude from the very expressions concerning hell, that it is not only not milder, but much more terrible than is threatened. But I do not now intend to discourse concerning these things. For the fear even from bare words is sufficient, though we do not fully unfold their meaning. But that it is not temporary, hear Paul now saying, concerning those who know not God, and who do not believe in the Gospel, that “they shall suffer punishment, even eternal destruction.” How then is that temporary which is everlasting? “From the face of the Lord,” he says. What is this? He here wishes to say how easily it might be. For since they were then much puffed up, there is no need, he says, of much trouble; it is enough that God comes and is seen, and all are involved in punishment and vengeance. His coming only to some indeed will be Light, but to others vengeance."

Furthermore, in the next chapter, St. Paul says something similar about the effect of Christ's coming on the Antichrist:

"And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming" (2 Thessalonians 2:8).

And, St. John Comments on that passage as follows:

"And such is the nature of good things; they not only correct what is akin to them, but also destroy the opposite: and in this way is their power most displayed. For so both fire, not only when it giveth light and when it purifieth gold, but even when it consumeth thorns, doth very greatly display its proper power, and so show itself to be fire: and Christ too herein also doth discover His own majesty when He “shall consume” Antichrist “with the breath of His mouth, and bring him to nought with the manifestation of His coming” [Homilies on Second Corinthians 5.2].

I would not take this text to imply that there is no lake of fire. The teachings of Scripture and Tradition when it comes to the final judgment are more complicated than that, and they have to be taken together, as a whole. If you were only going to read one book (apart from Scripture) on this subject, my recommendation would be "Life after Death," by Met. Hierotheos (Vlachos).

It should also be pointed out that the meaning of "destruction" in this passage does not suggest annihilation, but rather ruin and perdition.

Stump the Priest: Cremation and Non-Orthodox Family

Question: "A lot of Orthodox are converts to the faith. Inevitably, we will have situations within the family that would seem to be at best uncomfortable or at worst divisive. One situation would be the final wishes of parents that are not Orthodox desiring cremation as a “cost effective” solution to the high costs of funerals. As Orthodox, do we do our duty and follow their wishes, or do we state our opposition risking confrontation within the family during that time?"

Cremation is on the rise for three primary reasons. One, as you mention, is the cost of a traditional burial; but the other two reasons are the increasing ignorance among Christians as to why we do not practice cremation, combined with an increasing indifference to Christianity altogether.

We should talk about funeral arrangements with any family member that we are likely to end up being responsible for at the time of their death. If you have a parent that is a Christian, but says that they want to be cremated, you want to talk to them about why Christians do not practice cremation (because of our faith in the resurrection and respect for the body, see Stump the Priest: Cremation), but usually, the costs of a traditional burial are the biggest factor. This is often because they cannot afford to make the arrangements themselves, or because they do not want to be a burden to their family.

The cost of a burial can be kept down significantly by pre-planning. You can usually set up a payment plan with a funeral home, and get insurance that would cover the full costs, if the death should happen before it is all paid off. You can also save a lot of money by educating yourself about lower cost options. A great resource for this is the book by Fr. Mark Barna "A Christian Ending: A Handbook for Burial in the Ancient Christian Tradition."

Here are two articles that have some useful tips on how to save money on burial costs:

7 ways to save on funeral costs (Market Watch)

11 Ways to Make a Funeral Affordable but Not Cheap (Money Talks News)

Furthermore, you (and your siblings, if you have any) can either help with the cost, or cover them altogether. When my mother passed, she had made no arrangements, and so my surviving brothers and I made the plans together, and split it three ways. Doing this when the person has already died is the least cost-effective way to do it, but splitting the costs made it manageable. Ideally, however, you would want to work with the loved one to make the plans ahead of time, and keep the costs down.

Another point you can make with your loved one is that when they are gone, you would like to have a grave to visit. Cremated remains usually end up on someone's fireplace mantel, and they often end up getting tossed out eventually. A grave is something that all the family and friends of the person will be able to visit, and to pray for them.

In most cases, if you explain the theological reasons against cremation, and address the cost issue, you will be able to persuade a loved one to not opt for cremation. However, if you have a family member who insists on being cremated, for whatever reasons they may have, it seems to me that you would have to respect their wishes, regrettably. Hopefully, it won't come to that.

Stump the Priest: Jacob Wrestling an Angel

Question: "Why did Jacob wrestle with an angel in Genesis 32, what does it mean?"

To understand this passage, you have understand the story of Jacob and Esau from the beginning (which begins at Genesis 25:19). They were twins, and rivals. Jacob's very name means "usurper" or "supplanter," because he was born grasping the heel of his brother who was born first. He then gained Esau's birthright in exchange for a pot of stew, when Esau was hungry after a long hunt, and then usurped the blessing he would have received from their father Isaac by trickery, and with the help of his mother. So Jacob's very name pointed to a flaw in his character. He left Canaan to go to his uncle Laban because his mother feared Esau would kill him. While in Haran, Jacob found himself on the receiving end of trickery, when his uncle tricked him into marrying Leah after seven years of laboring for the hand of Rachel. After laboring seven more years for Rachel, and then laboring more to gain cattle, Jacob finally left his uncle, and began the journey home.

On his way to Haran, Jacob had an encounter with God at Bethel, which was the beginning of his spiritual journey. This incident happened the night before Jacob would meet, after so many years, the brother he had wronged. All his family and all that he owned had crossed over the river, and he remained behind this night. He justly feared for his life and the lives of his family. And so during this night Jacob wrestled with an angel, which the Fathers tell us was the pre-incarnate Christ.

St. Ambrose writes:

"Therefore Jacob, who had purified his heart of all pretenses and was manifesting a peaceable disposition, first cast off all that was his, then remained behind alone and wrestled with God. For whoever forsakes worldly things comes nearer to the image and likeness of God. What is it to wrestle with God other than to enter upon the struggle for virtue, to contend with one who is stronger and to become a better imitator of God than the others are? Because Jacob's faith and devotion were unconquerable, the Lord revealed his hidden mysteries to him by touching the side of his thigh. For it was by descent from him that the Lord Jesus was to be born of a virgin, and Jesus would be neither unlike nor unequal to God. The numbness in the side of Jacob's thigh foreshadowed the cross of Christ, who would bring salvation to all people by spreading the forgiveness of sins throughout the whole world and would give resurrection to the departed by the numbness and torpidity of his own body. On this account the sun rightly rose on holy Jacob, for the saving cross of the Lord shone brightly on his lineage. And at the same time the Sun of justice rises on the person who recognizes God, because he is himself the everlasting Light" (Jacob and the Happy Life 7:30, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, Vol. II, Mark Sheridan, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2002) p. 218f)).

St. Augustine writes:

"So what does it mean, Jacob's wresting and refusing to let go? The Lord says in the Gospel, "The kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and those who act violently plunder it [Matthew 11:12]." This is what we were saying earlier on: struggle, wrestle, to hold on to Christ, to love your enemy. You hold Christ here and now if you have loved your enemy. And what does the Lord himself say, that is, the angel in the person of the Lord, when he had got the upper hand and was holding him fast? He has touched the hollow of his thigh, and it has withered, and so Jacob was limping. He says to Jacob, "Let me go, it is already morning." He answered, "I will not let you go unless you bless me.: And he blessed Jacob. How? By changing his name: "You shall not be called Jacob but Israel; since you have got the upper hand with God, you shall also get the upper hand with men." That is the blessing. Look, it is a single man; in one respect he is touched and withers and in another he is blessed. This one single person in one respect has withered up and limps; in another he is blessed to give him vigor" (Sermon 5:6, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, Vol. II, Mark Sheridan, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2002) p. 220)).

It is important to note that the Angel asked Jacob to state his name, which was in a sense a confession of his sinful past of usurpation and deception. He is given a new name, and this incident is an image of the spiritual purification and perfection that Christ can work in the lives of those who like Jacob, struggle for virtue, and prevail.

Stump the Priest: The Feast of Tabernacles

Question: "What is the meaning of the Feast of Tabernacles?"

The feast of Tabernacles (or Booths) was one the three great feasts of the Old Testament, along with Passover and Pentecost (Deuteronomy 16:16; Exodus 23:14; 34:23). Passover is obviously connected with the Pascha ("Pascha" being the Greek form of the Hebrew word for Passover "Pesach" (פֶּסַח)) of the New Testament. And Pentecost, which commemorated the giving of the Old Law, is connected with the giving of the Holy Spirit. However, the connection between the feast of Tabernacles and a New Testament counterpart is not nearly as obvious.

Josephus gives a good summary of how the Feast of Tabernacles was celebrated during the time of Christ:

"Upon the fifteenth day of the same month [the seventh month], when the season of the year is changing for winter, the law enjoins us to pitch tabernacles in every one of our houses, so that we preserve ourselves from the cold of that time of the year; as also that when we should arrive at our own country, and come to that city which we should have then for our metropolis, because of the temple therein to be built, and keep a festival for eight days, and offer burnt-offerings, and sacrifice thank-offerings, that we should then carry in our hands a branch of myrtle, and willow, and a bough of the palm-tree, with the addition of the pome citron: That the burnt-offering on the first of those days was to be a sacrifice of thirteen bulls, and fourteen lambs, and fifteen rams, with the addition of a kid of the goats, as an expiation for sins; and on the following days the same number of lambs, and of rams, with the kids of the goats; but abating one of the bulls every day till they amounted to seven only. On the eighth day all work was laid aside, and then, as we said before, they sacrificed to God a bullock, a ram, and seven lambs, with a kid of the goats, for an expiation of sins. And this is the accustomed solemnity of the Hebrews, when they pitch their tabernacles" (Antiquities of the Jews 3:10:4).

The historical significance of the feast was to recall the journey of the people of Israel from Egypt to the Promised Land. It also marked the end of the Harvest. Of all the feasts, this feast was celebrated with the greatest joy. Everyone spent the days of the feast outside in tents or booths, and there were celebrations that went late into the night. Every morning at the temple there was a drawing of water at the pool of Siloam by the High Priest, which was then carried in procession to be offered along with the appointed sacrifices and hymns (see The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, by Alfred Edersheim, Book 4, Chapter 7, for more detail), and this was the occasion for the events recorded in John 7. The Mishna, which recalls many of the traditions from the period before the Temple was destroyed, records this statement about this morning service, and the festivities that followed it each day: "He who did not see the rejoicing at the place of the water-drawing has never seen rejoicing in his life" (Mishna, Sukkah 51a).

The Venerable Bede, commenting on Nehemiah 8:13-17, explains the spiritual significance of the feast to Christians, which he sees as an image of the Christian journey through this life, on our way to our heavenly homeland:

"These matters are written about more fully in Leviticus [Leviticus 23:34-43], and it is also written that they were ordered to be done in memory of that very long journey, on which the Lord, leading his people out of Egypt, made them dwell in tabernacles in the desert for forty years, daily revealing to them the precepts of his law through Moses. Moreover it was ordered that the setting up of tabernacles (which in Greek is called skenopegia) was to be done every year for seven days, that is, from the fifteenth day of the seventh month to the twenty-second. It is well worth our while to make a thorough examination of the mystery of this observance through spiritual investigation, especially since in the Gospel the Lord deigned to attend the same feast and, as he addressed the people who gathered there, dedicated it with his most holy words [John 7:2-14]. Our ancestors too, therefore, were set free from slavery in Egypt through the blood of a lamb and were led through the desert for forty years that they come to the promised land when through the Lord's passion the world was set from from slavery to the devil, and through the apostles the primitive church was gathered and was led as it were through the desert for forty years until it came to the homeland promised in heaven, because in imitation of the forty-day fast that Moses and Elijah and the Lord himself fulfilled [Exodus 24:18; 34:28; Deuteronomy 9:9; 1 Kings 19:8; Matthew 4:2], the primitive church used to lead a life of great continence, thirsting always for its eternal homeland, and having set itself completely apart from all the distractions of this world, conducted its life as though in secret in daily meditation on the divine law. In remembrance of this time, we, too, ought to dwell in tabernacles leaving our homes, that is, having forsaken the cares and pleasures of the world, we ought to confess that we are pilgrims in this life and have our homeland in heaven and desire that we may arrive there all the more quickly; this, too, in a holy feast in the seventh month (i.e., in the light of celestial joy) when the grace of the Holy Spirit, which was commended by the prophet as sevenfold [Isaiah 11:2-3], fills our heart. We are ordered to remain in these tabernacles for seven days because during the entire time of this life, which we accomplish in as many days, we mus bear in mind that, like our ancestors. we are dwellers and pilgrims on earth in the eyes of the Lord" (On Ezra and Nehemiah 3:27, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament, Vol. V, Marco Conti, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2008) p. 355f).  

The Prophet Zechariah foretold of a time when the gentiles would also celebrate this feast:

"And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles. And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the Lord of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain" (Zechariah 14:16-17).

St. Cyril of Alexandria explains the meaning of this prophecy in a way very similar to the Venerable Bede:

"After saying that those making war on the churches and directing a lofty and arrogant attitude against holy Jerusalem would be caught up in penalties befitting them, he forecasts adoration by those left in their wake -- namely, adoration in Christ through faith. It is he, after all, who is the "expectation of the nations" [Genesis 49:10 LXX], as the patriarch put it; he is also set to be "light of nations, a covenant for the race, to open eyes of the blind, and bring out from their bondage those who are bound, and from prison those seated in darkness" [Isaiah 42:6-7]. Accordingly, he makes clear that, on leaving the gloom of idolatry and having broken the bonds of the devil's knavery, those from the nations will come to the light of truth and hasten to the yoke of the Savior. He means that the survivors from those who were punished, or those fighting against the churches, who are innumerable, will come up year by year to worship the King, the Lord almighty, and to celebrate the festival of Tabernacles. The Law of Moses, remember, ordered the feast of Tabernacles to be celebrated on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when the harvest had been brought in to the storehouses from the fields; consequently, he calls the feast "finale" since work in the fields was now complete. They were bidden take "fronds of palm trees, fruit of a handsome tree, dense foliage of a tree, willow branches," drink water from a brook, and rejoice in it.
     While the Law cited as the basis of the feast Israel's dwelling in tents when rescued from the oppression of the Egyptians [Leviticus 23:34-43], the event was in fact a type of the mystery of Christ. We too, in fact, were rescued from oppression by the devil, called to freedom through Christ, as I said, and became subject to him, the King and God of all, spurning the knavery of those formerly in power. We celebrate the real feast of Tabernacles, that is, the day of Christ's resurrection, when the bodies of all, despite being dissolved in corruption and in thrall to death, become solidified in him, as it were. After all, he is the resurrection; he is the life, the spoils of the dead, so to say, and "first-fruits of those fallen asleep" [John 11:25; 1 Corinthians 15:20], filling us with spiritual harvest and, as it were, causing the produce collected from the fields to be stowed in the storerooms on high. He it is who will rewards us with life and enjoyment in paradise  -- obviously of a spiritual nature -- now that we have conquered sin, exude spiritual fragrance, and bear the handsome and commendable fruit of the evangelical way of life by living in a pure and holy manner. A further sign of this would be having the palm fronds and fruit of a handsome tree combined with the other foliage. He is the brook of delights from which the God and Father has given us to drink; he is the fount of life and the river of peace, who directs to us those called from the nations [Psalm 35[36]:9; Isaiah 66:12].
     To these matters, however, there has been partial reference, by us in other places. Those coming up to worship the King, the Lord almighty, and to celebrate the festival of Tabernacles, therefore, are those who are justified through faith in Christ. Those not coming up, by contrast, he threatens with ruin and punishment equal to that sustained by the persecutors and abusers; those opting not to love will suffer the same fate as the enemy. In my view, this is the meaning of what Christ himself said, "He who is not with is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" [Luke 11:23]" (The Fathers of the Church: St. Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, Vol. 3, trans. Robert C. Hill (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2012),  p. 273f).

So the feast of Tabernacles is about our spiritual journey to the Kingdom of Heaven, and it may be that its full significance with be revealed when we come to the New Jerusalem:

"And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death" (Revelation 21:3-8).