Question: "Is the Church the new Israel? I heard this idea disparaged as "Replacement Theology." Also, how are we to understand the the term "New Jerusalem"? Is it Heaven? The Church? A literal city? All three?"
St. Paul's teaching in Romans 11 is clear that those Jews who rejected Christ are like branches cut off from the olive tree, which represents the people of God -- and that gentile converts are like wild olive branches that have been grafted on to that same tree. The Church is the Israel of God (Galatians 6:16), the Israelites formed the Church of the Old Testament, but the New Testament Church is in continuity with the old. However, Romans 11 is equally clear that there is still a future in God's providence for those who are the physical descendants of the Old Testament Israel, who rejected Christ and so have been cut off from the Church, but who will one day be saved. And so we do speak of the Church as the new Israel, but this does not mean there is no sense in which we can still speak of the Israel according to the flesh.
We do not accept the notion of some Protestants that teach that there is still a separate covenant for the Jews, and that they may be saved by the Old Covenant, while Christians are saved by the New. Nor do we believe that the descendants of those who rejected Christ have some special claim on the Holy Land that entitles them to steal land from Arab speaking Christians, many of whom are no doubt descended from those Jews that embraced Christ. Christians are children of Abraham in the truest sense, and as such are the true heirs of God's promise to him:
"Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham" (Galatians 3:7-9).
Because we do not equate the modern state of Israel with the Israel of the Old Testament, some Protestants attempt to argue that this constitutes antisemitism, but we reject this claim. Furthermore, I would argue that this abuse of the label of antisemitism in an attempt to defend even the most indefensible actions of the state of Israel only cheapens the term, and has the effect of providing greater credibility for real antisemitic voices.
As for the term "New Jerusalem," we find this phrase in Revelation 21:2:
Here are examples of what the Fathers say this phrase means:
"The heavenly Jerusalem is the multitude of the saints who will come with the Lord, even as Zechariah said: "Behold my Lord God will come, and all his saints with him [Zechariah 14:5 LXX]" (Apringius of Beja, Tractate on the Apocalypse 21:2, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XII, William C Weinrich, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2005) p. 355).
"By Jerusalem he symbolized the blessed destiny and dwelling of the saints, which he figurately calls Jerusalem both here and in the following passages (Oecumenius, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 20:13-21:2, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XII, William C Weinrich, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2005) p. 355).
"The city is constructed of the saints concerning whom it is written, "Holy stones are rolled upon the land, [Zechariah 9:16 LXX]" and it has Christ as it cornerstone. It is called a "city," since it is the dwelling place of the kingly Trinity -- for [the Trinity] dwells in it and walks in it, as he promised -- and it is called "bride," since it is joined to the Lord and is united with him in the highest, inseparable conjunction" (St. Andrew of Caesarea, Commentary on the Apocalypse, 21:2, quoted in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XII, William C Weinrich, ed. (Downers Grove, IL: Intervasity Press, 2005) p. 356).
We find something similar in Hebrews 12:22 ("But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem"), as well as Galatians 4:26 ("But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all"). In context, both of these passages are contrasting the heavenly Jerusalem with the Old Covenant and those refusing to embrace the New Covenant.
And so, from these passages, and from what the Fathers say about them, I think we can say that the New Jerusalem refers to the Church, to all the saints in heaven, and to heaven itself.
More recently, Jason Wallace appeared on "The Dividing Line," with James White, and discussed his videos, but focused on the question of Cyril Lukaris, on an episode entitled "Let’s Make Cyril Lucaris Great Again!"
This latest video doesn't warrant another lengthy video rebuttal, but there were a number of erroneous things asserted that should be corrected.
To sum up his argument, he claims that Cyril Lukaris was in fact a Calvinist, and that the Orthodox tried to cover up this fact because supposedly this would call into question our understanding of Apostolic Succession, he asserts that the Orthodox Church has affirmed that the Council of Jerusalem and the Confession of Dositheus are on the same level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils and Scripture, and that the Orthodox Church has recognized Cyril Lukaris as a saint, despite the fact that he was a Calvinist, and thus a heretic from an Orthodox perspective. All of this, he claims, proves that the Orthodox Church has contradicted itself and is therefore not infallible, as it claims.
Was Cyril Lukaris a Calvinist?
In Jason Wallace's interview with James White, he claimed that I had asserted that the Confession of Cyril Lukaris was a forgery, but the clip he refers to clearly shows that I said "There is an argument to be made that his confession was a forgery, or that it was altered." I put it this way precisely because the arguments I had read were clearly not proof that this was this case, but they seemed reasonable to me at the time. But I would still say that there is an argument to be made to that effect. Jason Wallace's video does present a strong case that this is not true. The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter that much. Heretical occupants of the patriarchal throne of Constantinople are no novelty in the history of the Church.
The historical context here is very complicated, and there was a lot intrigue going on. The Church of Constantinople was under the thumb of the Turks, and so outside powers, both Protestant and Catholic, were able to manipulate Sultans who were more than happy to remove a Patriarch so that they could extract money from whoever wanted him replaced, and so that is why Cyril was removed five times from that position. In that context, lots of people presented one face to one group, and a different one to another. Cyril may well have been such a person.
Stephanie Falkowski, in her dissertation "Not Quite Calvinist: Cyril Lucaris a Reconsideration of His Life and Beliefs," makes the case that Cyril was not as much of a Calvinist as has been generally claimed, but that he was trying to get help from Calvinists, and so tried to sound like as much of a Calvinist as he could, though he often used ambiguous language to accomplish that purpose. I won't take the time to lay out the case that she does, but would recommend those interested give her dissertation a read.
If Cyril Lukaris was In Fact a Calvinist, Would This Disprove Apostolic Succession?
Most of those who have been labelled as heresiarchs (the founder of a heresy or the leader of a heretical sect) have in fact been bishops, and several were Patriarchs of Constantinople. We do not hide this fact. On the Sunday of Orthodoxy, bishops recite the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, and pronounce anathemas on the most prominent of these heretics. So if Cyril Lukaris was a Calvinist, this would be not be an anomaly in Church history.
Wallace asserts that the reason why Orthodox people, going back to the time of the Council in Jerusalem in 1672, have argued that Cyril Lukaris was not a Calvinist because (he mistakenly believes) this would prove Orthodoxy to be false, but even if we assume Cyril was a full blown Calvinist, the reason why the Council of Jerusalem may have argued otherwise is simply because this was not the face he showed to his flock, and so many had positive memories of him. One of the reasons why he would have sought out specifically Protestant allies is that he had spent much of his ministry battling Jesuits who were promoting Uniatism in Ukraine, which was obviously something the Orthodox would have seen as a very laudable part of his history.
Wallace noted that the Council of Jerusalem cited sermons of Cyril Lukaris without providing the dates these sermons were delivered, as if this was an intentional way of clouding the facts. Modern footnotes are relatively recent things. They certainly are often helpful, but the fact that the council didn't provide modern footnotes doesn't prove anything, other than that they were not accustomed to later conventions. It may also be that the texts of these sermons simply were not dated. The fact that this Council argued that his Confession was either forged or altered was not necessarily because they knew this was false. There was a lot of confusion that reigned during this time, and so there are good reasons why they probably believed this to be the case, even if, in fact, this was not true.
Did the Orthodox Church Recognize Cyril Lukaris as a Saint?
Jason Wallace seems to think that the fact that the local Church of Alexandria glorified Cyril Lukaris as a saint means that, if he in fact was a Calvinist, the Orthodox Church would be guilty of error, and it its infallibility would be thus disproven. The problem is that the decisions of one local Church have never been considered to be necessarily infallible. The only way the decisions of a local Council to glorify a saint could be claimed to be approved by the whole Church, would be either for the whole Church to affirm that decision in an Ecumenical Council (and that would entail a Council both claiming to be Ecumenical, and that Council being received by all the local Churches as Ecumenical); or he would need to be officially recognized by all of the local Orthodox Church as a saint. Neither of these things have happened.
I have seen references to the Patriarchate of Constantinople recognizing Cyril Lukaris as a saint in 2022, but I have been unable to find anything that actually demonstrates that this happened. But even if it did, that would still be only two local Churches, and there is no guarantee that such a decision would be infallible. The Orthodox Church has never claimed that it was impossible for a local Orthodox Church to fall into error. This is also no novelty in the history of the Church.
Is the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 an Ecumenical Council?
Jason Wallace stated that the conciliar work of the Orthodox Church continued uninterrupted in history through the later councils of universal authority, but there have been no Ecumenical Councils outside of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, that both claimed to be Ecumenical and have been universally received in the Orthodox Church to be such. One does find references to the Eighth and to the Ninth Ecumenical Councils, and they would certainly be the best candidates to be labeled such, but while these councils have been universally received as authoritative, they have not been universally received as being on the same level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
One of the things Jason Wallace highlighted as objectionable in the Confession of Dositheus was what is said in Question 1 of the Confession:
"Question 1
Should the Divine Scriptures be read in the vulgar tongue [common language] by all Christians?
No. Because all Scripture is divinely-inspired and profitable {cf. 2 Timothy 3:16}, we know, and necessarily so, that without [Scripture] it is impossible to be Orthodox at all. Nevertheless they should not be read by all, but only by those who with fitting research have inquired into the deep things of the Spirit, and who know in what manner the Divine Scriptures ought to be searched, and taught, and finally read. But to those who are not so disciplined, or who cannot distinguish, or who understand only literally, or in any other way contrary to Orthodoxy what is contained in the Scriptures, the Catholic Church, knowing by experience the damage that can cause, forbids them to read [Scripture]. Indeed, it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats."
This statement was in the context of the Greek speaking Church, at a time when the Turks suppressed the education of Christians. Cyril Lukaris had published a translation of the New Testament into modern Greek, and this translation was objected to by many. Protestants have many people who still object to updating the King James Version, but these bishops were not objecting to replacing an older translation of the New Testament with a new one -- they were objecting replacing the inspired original text of the Greek New Testament with a modern translation. Greek Orthodox Christians continue to use the original text of the Greek New Testament to this day. It does require some effort for a modern Greek to be able to fully understand it, but I used to have a Greek auto mechanic who had a copy of the Orthodox Bible in Greek, which consisted of the Septuagint text for the Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, which he read regularly. When I admired his copy, he gave it to me, and it is well worn. While one might ridicule people who insist on exclusively reading a 400 year old English translation of the Bible, it should be understandable why Greeks would want to maintain the use of the inspired original Greek text.
Nevertheless, other bishops did object to the way this question was answered in the Confession of Dositheus, and so it was corrected in 1723 to read:
Question 1. – Should all Christians read the Holy Scriptures?
Answer. We know that all Scripture is God-inspired and beneficial, and so necessary that without it it is absolutely impossible to be pious; but not all are able to read it, but only those who know how to test the Scriptures, to study them, and to understand them correctly. Thus, every pious person is allowed to hear the Scriptures, in order to believe in the truth with his heart and confess with his lips unto salvation, but not everyone is allowed to read certain parts of the Scriptures, especially the Old Testament, without guidance. To indiscriminately allow the unskilled to read the Holy Scriptures is the same as to offer infants the use of strong food.
This is the wording reflected in the text of the Confession published by St. Philaret of Moscow. And, you will note that the beginning word "No" has been removed. And as a matter of fact, St. Philaret of Moscow oversaw the publication of the Russian Synodal translation of the Bible, and encouraged people to read it, especially the New Testament. This translation is still used by many Russian speaking Protestants, by the way. When this text speaks of guidance being necessary for the Old Testament, Protestants who constantly published study Bibles for that same purpose should hardly find that objectionable. Providing such guidance has long been one of the primary focuses of catechetical instruction provided to young Orthodox laymen, as one could see by looking at texts, such as "The Law of God: For Study at Home and School," by Fr. Seraphim Slobodskoy, which is 651 pages in length in the English translation, and close to half of that text is about the content of the Bible, and about half of that is focused on the Old Testament (as can be seen online, here).
Wallace argues that the Orthodox Church declared the Council of Jerusalem to be an Ecumenical Council at the Council of Crete in 2016, having "universal authority, just like the Ecumenical Councils," this is incorrect. For one thing, the Churches of Antioch, Georgia, Bulgaria, and Russia did not attend this council, and so far more than half of Orthodox world was not represented -- contrary to Wallace's assertion that "You had Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, and Moscow, Bulgarians... basically everyone represented." Secondly, even if you look at the Encyclical which Wallace assumes to have referenced the Council of Jerusalem, it actually refers to a council held in Constantinople in 1672, which was held prior to the Council of Jerusalem:
"...and furthermore through the Holy and Great Councils convened in Constantinople, in 1484 to refute the unionist Council of Florence (1438-1439), in 1638, 1642, 1672 and 1691 to refute Protestant beliefs, and in 1872 to condemn ethno-phyletism as an ecclesiological heresy" [Emphasis added].
All of the councils referenced here were held in Constantinople. And while it does cite these councils as being part of the ongoing conciliar work of the Church, it does not actually assert that they are on the same level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils, contrary to Wallace's claim.
Archbishop Vasily (Krivoshein), in his "Symbolic Texts in the Orthodox Church," points out that the Council in 1672 held in Constantinople was attended by 40 bishops, and produced a statement against Calvinism. Later, in that same year, Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem, who had participated in that council took advantage of a gathering of clergy and laity for festivities held at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, and presented his Confession. Only 8 bishops were present and signed this document, and so to even speak of a "Council of Jerusalem" is a debatable point, but it was hardly on the same level as an Ecumenical Council, and as stated, was later corrected by a subsequent council, and so while the corrected Confession of Dositheus is a document of some authority, neither that council nor this document was ever seen as an infallible.
Jaroslav Pelikan, who was a preeminent scholar on the history of Christian doctrine (who was a Lutheran most of his life, but converted to Orthodoxy in 1998) discusses in some detail the status of texts like the Confession of Dositheus in his book "Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition," which has a chapter on the Orthodox Church (which includes a telling subsection entitled "The Ambivalence of the Orthodox Church Toward "Symbolic Books"). Toward the end of that chapter, Pelikan sums things up as follows:
"Drawing upon this liturgical confession of the faith of the church and shaping it in turn, the doctrinal decisions and formulations of the seven church councils between 325 and 787 stand as the formal deposit of normative dogma for Eastern Orthodox teaching. "The West incessantly asks us for the symbolical books of Orthodoxy," the Bulgarian Orthodox New Testament scholar Nikolaj Nikaronovic Glubokovsky once observed with some annoyance. "We have no need of them. The faith of the seven first councils is sufficient for us." In one sense, therefore, the sacred tradition of the seven ecumenical councils... is a legacy that Eastern Orthodoxy shares with Roman Catholicism, as well as with those other Western confessions in which the validity of the ecumenical councils is acknowledged, albeit with varying degrees of authority being assigned to them.
In another sense, however, the Eastern Orthodox view of the councils is peculiar to the East. One reason for this is that no later actions of any church, neither those actions that lay claim to the title "ecumenical" in Western dogmatics and canon law nor even the actions of the East itself since 787 at "provincial synods" nor the Eastern Orthodox "confessions" may be ranked on a level with the seven councils" (Credo: Historical and Theological Guide to Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003), p. 413f).
Only God knows the future. The day may come when a new Ecumenical Council is held and is received as being on the same level as the first seven, but that day has not come yet. The Church managed for nearly three centuries without an Ecumenical Council, and so having had Seven, the urgency for another is not as great as many would like to imagine.
Do the Orthodox See the Services of the Church as Being on the Same Level as Scripture?
Another claim Wallace makes is that we see the services as being on the same level as the Scriptures, and cites as an example an Akathist to St. Constantine the Great which states that St. Constantine was baptized by St. Sylvester of Rome, despite the fact that Eusebius and other contemporary writers stated that he was baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was later condemned as an Arian. He claims that this is an example of the Orthodox Church trying to re-write history to cover up uncomfortable facts.
First off, it is the Orthodox Church that preserved texts, like Eusebius' History of the Church, and so obviously the Church is not engaged in any cover up there. Secondly, the fact that a bishop who was in good standing with the Church at the time later was condemned as a heretic does not mean that those who were baptized by him were heretics, or that the baptism was invalid.
I am not sure where Wallace got the impression that we put the services of the Church on the same level as Scripture, but we do see universally received services as being part of the Tradition of the Church, as are the Scriptures. However, not all parts of the Tradition of the Church are on the same level of authority, nor would we affirm that everything that is true of the Scriptures is equally true of the services. Even within Scripture, not all the Scriptures are on the same level. The book of Esther, for example, is not on the same level of authority as the Gospels -- though we would affirm that all Scripture is inspired and inerrant.
When it comes to the services, not all services are on the same level of authority. Akathists, aside from the Akathist to the Mother of God, are not appointed to be served in the regular services of the Church. They are a popular genre, because they are easy for laymen to use on their own. However, most of them have not been endorsed by even a single local Orthodox Church, much less the entire Church. The texts of the liturgies of St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, and the Presanctified Liturgy are certain held in very high regard. Menaion services vary in their authority, because not all of them are used universally in the Church. But we would affirm that any service that is used universally does not contain doctrinal error, and they certainly do lay out our Faith.
The principle of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi -- which means "the rule (or law) of prayer is the rule of Faith," was first articulated (at least so far as we have it in writing) by St. Prosper of Aquitaine, who wrote:
"Let us consider the sacraments of priestly prayers, which having been handed down by the apostles are celebrated uniformly throughout the whole world and in every Catholic Church so that the law of praying might establish the law of believing" (Patrologia Latina 51:209-210).
And this stands to reason. I would encourage those who want to dig into this question to read the book "The Shape of the Liturgy," by Dom Gregory Dix. In that book he makes the compelling case that all the ancient Liturgies of the Church have a common order, that this order is rooted in Jewish worship, and so this order is apostolic in origin. It is not as if Christians in 350 would have looked over the shoulder of non-Christian Jews and would have started copying their forms of worship. The only time in Church history that Jewish forms of worship could have entered the Tradition of the Church is the time of the Apostles themselves. And so this is a clear example of Apostolic Tradition which has been preserved by the Church.
Does the Orthodox Church Anathematize All Protestants?
The Church certainly condemns Protestant heresies, but we do not pass judgment on individuals who are outside of the Church. Furthermore, when an anathema is proclaimed, unless it names specific people, it is not a judgment on any individual. There are many people in the Church who hold opinions that are heretical, but in most cases, this would simply be due to ignorance. If an Orthodox laymen stated something that was a condemned heresy, they would only be subject to an anathema, if they refused to be corrected. Anathemas and canons do not work like landmines, which go off on their own accord when someone tramples on them. Similarly, when you have a speed limit sign, the sign does not write you a ticket -- a police officer has to write you a ticket, and then you have an opportunity to dispute the ticket in court. Likewise, if someone says or does something contrary to a canon or an anathema, there are things that the authorities in the Church have to do to make the respective penalty apply to an individual.
This is made very clear in the most authoritative compilation of the Ecumenical Canons:
"We must know that the penalties provided by the Canons, such as deposition, ex- communication, and anathematization, are imposed in the third person according, to grammatical usage, there being no imperative available. In such cases in order to express a command, the second person would be necessary. I am going to explain the matter better. The Canons command the council of living bishops to depose the priests, or to excommunicate them, or to anathematize laymen who violate the canons. Yet, if the council does not actually effect the deposition of the priests, or the excommunication, or the anathematization of laymen, these priests and laymen, are neither actually deposed, nor excommunicated, nor anathematized. They are liable to stand trial, however, judicially, here as touching deposition, excommunication, or anathematization, but there as touching divine vengeance. Just as when a king commands his slave to whip another who did something that offended him, if the slave in question fail to execute the king’s command, he will nevertheless be liable to trial for the whipping. So those silly men make a great mistake who say that at the present time all those in holy orders who have been ordained contrary to canons are actually deposed from office. It is an inquisitional tongue that foolishly twaddles thus without understanding that the command of canons, without the practical activity of the second person, or, more plainly speaking, of the council, remains unexecuted, since it does not act of itself and by itself immediately and before judgment. The Apostles themselves explain themselves in their c. XLVI unmistakably, since they do not say that any bishop or presbyter who accepts a baptism performed by heretics is already and at once actually in the state of having been deposed, but that they command that he be deposed, or, at any rate, that he stand trial, and, if it be proved that he did so, then “we command that he be stripped of holy orders by your decision,” they say" (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. 5f [emphasis added]).
Of course if someone is guilty of sin, either in terms of moral failures or of intentionally harboring heretical views and refusing the correction of the Church, even if the authorities in the Church never take any action either because they are kept hidden, or the authorities neglect their duties, this does not mean that the person will not go to hell as a result, if they refuse to repent. But this does mean, contrary to Donatism, that even if a bishop or priest is secretly living a double life for which they should be removed from the clergy, so long as the Church allows them to continue to function in their role, the sacraments they perform continue to have the grace of God, because the grace of God is not dependent on the worthiness of those performing them. Otherwise, one could never be sure that they ever received any sacrament.
Conclusion
I am sure Jason Wallace is a sincere man, but I would encourage him to spend more time studying what we actually believe, before he comments any further about the Orthodox Faith. He no doubt believes what his own church teaches. I am sure he thinks he is doing the work of the Lord by defending his own beliefs, and attacking what he perceives to be errors in the teachings of the Orthodox Church, but anyone who is familiar with what we believe cannot fail to notice how frequently he fails to understand even some of the most basic teachings of our Faith.
Press Conference Held on the Visit of the Holy Relics of SS Elizaveta and Varvara to Russia
The Fund of St Andrew the First-called will soon publish a documentary on the visit to Russia of the holy relics of Holy New Martyrs Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna and Nun Varvara, as reported by the Fund's President, Alexander Melnik, during a press conference held on February 24 in Moscow.
The Holy New-Martyr Barbara
During the last seven months, an unprecedented procession of the cross traveled through 61 dioceses both in Russia and the countries of the CIS.
"She has not been forgotten; in the hearts of the Russian people, she lives on. While the entire world is moving further from Christ, these New Martyrs are saving the Russian land from this," said Bishop Michael of Boston, who escorted the relics throughout the entire procession.
The Grand Duchess Elizabeth in 1894
Bishop Alexander of Dmitrovsk, Vicar of the His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All-Russia Alexy, expressed the opinion that "the visit of the relics has done more [for the two parts of the Russian Church—ed.] than any negotiations."
The large reliquary with the right hand of St Elizaveta will return to Jerusalem on February 28, whence it embarked in June of last year to Russia, and then will be taken to the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Sign in New York.
Portions of the relics of the Holy New-Martyrs Elizabeth and Barbara have been taken throughout Russia and the other nations once part of the Soviet Union.
A smaller reliquary containing the relics of the saints will be given to Marfo-Mariinsky Convent in Moscow when the monastery is completely restored. "This reliquary itself is a holy item," remarked Bishop Michael. "The reliquary is made of the boards from the coffins in which the honorable relics of the saints were transported from Bolshevist Russia through China and Egypt to the Holy Land. The reliquary holds not only the relics of the holy women, but also earth from Darmstadt, where Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna was born, soil from Gethsemane, where SS Elizaveta and Varvara were interred since 1921, and soil from Alapaevsk, where they were crowned with martyrdom. In addition, the reliquary is adorned with a medallion given to the Grand Duchess by Emperor Nicholas II on the day of her conversion to Orthodoxy."
The large and small reliquaries will be held at Christ the Savior Church, where a midnight service will be held on the last day of their visit, concluding in a Divine Liturgy, during which many clergymen and laity will partake of the Holy Gifts.
Question: "In the Orthodox Study Bible and in other places online, I've seen a chart comparing the Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox canon of Scripture. My question is from what canon of what council does Orthodoxy draw her canon of Scripture from?"
On the one hand we have a precisely defined New Testament Canon, about which there is no dispute... at least not since the 4th century. On the other hand we have an Old Testament canon that has a precisely defined core, and fairly well defined next layer, and then less clearly defined edges. So why the precision in the case of the New, but not the Old?
The New Testament Canon is fixed, largely due to the false canon of the heretic Marcion. The Old Testament canon has been less precisely defined, and so one still encounters some disagreement on the fringes of the list... though most of the books are not questioned at all. The Church simply has not felt the need to be more precise... but this can be an uncomfortable thing for some folks to deal with. However, if you have the proper understanding of Tradition, it becomes much less of an issue.
If you think of the Tradition as a target, with concentric circles, you could put the Gospels in the middle, the writings of the apostles in the in the next ring, maybe the Law of Moses, in the next, the prophets in the next, the writings in the next, the deutrocanonical books in the next, the writings of those who knew the Apostle in the next, the Ecumenical Canons in the next, etc. The only debate would be which ring to put them... and ultimately, is that the most important question? For a Protestant, this is a huge question. For the Orthodox, it is not so much, because we see Scripture as being part of Tradition, not as something separate to it, and certainly not as something opposed to it.
The term "Deuterocanon" is actually of Roman Catholic origin, but I think it is a useful term. In Russian texts, and some patristic texts, you find the phrase "non-canonical" books, but by this, the distinction is between the Hebrew canon and the books excluded by the Hebrew canon which the Church has embraced. Another term is "Readable book", which means a book can be read in Church.
Yet another term is "apocrypha", which we generally do not use with reference to these books, but Origen had some interesting comments on the origin of the the term "apocrypha." In his letter to Africanus (ANF v. IV, pp 386ff.) he was responding to the question of why he quoted from the portion of the book of Daniel which contain the story of Susanna, which is not found in the Hebrew text. Origen responded that he was not unaware of this fact, and he proceeded to defend its authenticity. His response is detailed, but let me highlight a few points:
"And, forsooth, when we notice such things we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our Churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery?! Are we to suppose that that providence which the sacred Scriptures has ministered to the edification of all the Churches of Christ, had no thought for those bought with a price, for whom Christ died; whom, although His Son, God who is love spared not, but gave Him up for us all, that with Him He might freely give us all things? In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember the words, "Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy fathers have set." Nor do I say this because I shun the labor of investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and noticing various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it, I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability, laboring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various readings; while I paid particular attention to the interpretation of the Seventy, lest I might to be found to accredit any forgery to the Churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek such a starting point for gratifying their desire to slander the common brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in our community. And I make it my endeavor not to be ignorant of their various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use of what is found there, even although it should not be in our Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for their ignorance of the true readings as they have them. So far as to the History of Susanna not being found in the Hebrew."
Skipping further on in the text we find Origen saying that the reason for many of the omissions in the Hebrew text are because the Scribes and Pharisees omitted things that made them look bad:
"The answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people as many of the passages which contained any scandal against the elders, rulers, and judges as they could, some of which have been preserved in the uncanonical writings (apocrypha) [which gives new meaning to the term "hidden books"]. As an example, take the story told about Isaiah, and guaranteed by the epistle to the Hebrews, which is found in none of their public books. For the author of the Epistle to the Hebrew, in speaking of the prophets, and what they suffered, says "They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the sword"."
He goes on to mention that, by a tradition contained in the Apocryphal books, we know that the Prophet Isaiah was sawn in half.
The Orthodox Study Bible list of Old Testament books is based on the books included in the Greek Editions of the Scriptures, published by the Church of Greece. The Church of Greece based their decision in part on the decree of the Synod of Jerusalem:
"What Books do you call Sacred Scripture?
Following the rule of the Catholic Church, we call Sacred Scripture all those which Cyril [Lucar] collected from the Synod of Laodicea, and enumerated, adding thereto those which he foolishly, and ignorantly, or rather maliciously called Apocrypha; to wit, “The Wisdom of Solomon,” “Judith,” “Tobit,” “The History of the Dragon,” “The History of Susanna,” “The Maccabees,” and “The Wisdom of Sirach.” For we judge these also to be, with the other genuine Books of Divine Scripture, genuine parts of Scripture. For ancient custom, or rather the Catholic Church, which hath delivered to us as genuine the Sacred Gospels and the other Books of Scripture, hath undoubtedly delivered these also as parts of Scripture, and the denial of these is the rejection of those. And if, perhaps, it seemeth that not always have all been by all reckoned with the others, yet nevertheless these also have been counted and reckoned with the rest of Scripture, as well by Synods, as by how many of the most ancient and eminent Theologians of the Catholic Church; all of which we also judge to be Canonical Books, and confess them to be Sacred Scripture.." (The Synod of Jerusalem (1672) (from the Confession of St. Dositheus).
The Synod of Jerusalem was held in large part to respond to Protestantism, and in this case, they were responding to the general Protestant position on the canon of the Old Testament, which was to adopt the Hebrew Canon, and to reject any Old Testament books not included by the Jews as "apocrypha." The Council of Jerusalem called these books canonical, not non-canonical, or deuterocanonical. However, the Greek Bible used by the OSB includes several more books, which were not mentioned by that council (see: http://my.execpc.com/~gto/Apocrypha/Summaries/table.html) And you will see that the Russian Bible includes some more yet. The Synod of Jerusalem did not specifically address them. The Greek Church probably included them because editions of the LXX have long included these books. The Russian Church probably also included 2nd Esdras (aka 3rd Esdras) because it was included in the canonical list found in the canons of the Holy Apostles, and is also found in the Latin Vulgate (see: http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon2.html). Which is also why it was included among the "Apocrypha" of the original editions of the King James Version.
Why is there no absolutely definitive list? The Church has not felt the need to create one... for the Old Testament. It did in the case of the New because of Marcion, and you do find statements, such as that of the Synod of Jerusalem which defended certain books specifically rejected by the Protestants. But for us, whether or not 2nd Esdras is canonical, deuterocanonical, or simply an appendix, reflecting a book considered to be of traditional importance, is not nearly so big of a deal. But most of the books of the Old Testament are canonical, and there is no dispute about them, and so we do have certainty, just not for every book.
If you have a Revised Standard Version or New Revised Standard Version Bible that includes the "Apocrypha," then you can look at the introduction to each of the books and see who accepts them. The Greeks do not include 2nd Esdras (note the comments below about confusion over the titles of the books of Esdras/Ezra (in the Russian Bible it is called 3rd Esdras). The Russian Bible does not include 4th Maccabees. By the way, neither 4th Maccabees nor 2nd/3rd Esdras is to be found in the Orthodox Study Bible.
Now, if you look at the Orthodox Study Bible, you will see that it has 1st Ezra and 2nd Ezra. Why they did this, and without better notes in the introduction is beyond me. What they call 1st Ezra is a deuterocanonical book, found in the Latin Vulgate and the Septuagint, but not considered deuterocanonical by the Roman Catholic Church. In the Vulgate, and the in the King James, RSV, and NRSV Apocrypha, this book is 1st Esdras. What they call 2nd Ezra, is the book that is called "Ezra" in just about any Bible in English -- and so if you are trying to find a passage in the book of Ezra that most English speakers will have in mind, you will need to look in 2nd Ezra... but most people, who don't look closely, will probably think that 2nd Ezra is either 1st or 2nd Esdras.This is one of my complaints about the OSB: they opted to use non-standard names for many of the Old Testament books, and so they are going to confuse a lot of people who are trying to find a passage of scripture in this or that book. I also think they made a huge mistake adopting the Greek order of the books. They should have used the Vulgate order, because that is the basic order we have used in English Bibles for the past 400+ years.
Question: "Does the Orthodox Church teach that the Septuagint is more reliable than the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. If so, why is that?"
In the "Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs" of 1848, which was a reply to the epistle of Pope Pius IX, "To the Easterns," the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, along with the other assembled bishops stated: "Our Church holds the infallible and genuine deposit of the Holy Scriptures: of the Old Testament a true and perfect version, of the New the divine original itself." And so we have always held that the Septuagint is the authoritative version of the Old Testament.
"...the basis of the Old Testament text in the Orthodox tradition is the Septuagint, a Greek translation by the "seventy interpreters" made in the third to second centuries BCE for the Alexandrian Hebrews and the Jewish diaspora. The authority of the Septuagint is based on three factors. First of all, though the Greek text is not the original language of the Old Testament books, the Septuagint does reflect the state of the original text as it would have been found in the third to second centuries BCE, while the current Hebrew text of the Bible, which is called the "Masoretic," was edited up until the eighth century CE. Second, some of the citations taken from the Old Testament and found in the New mainly use the Septuagint text. Third, the Septuagint was used by both the Greek Fathers of the Church, and Orthodox liturgical services (in other words, this text became part of the Orthodox church Tradition). Taking into account the three factors enumerated above, St. Philaret of Moscow considers it possible to maintain that "in the Orthodox teaching of Holy Scripture it is necessary to attribute a dogmatic merit to the Translation of the Seventy, in some cases placing it on equal level with the original and even elevating it above the Hebrew text, as is generally accepted in the most recent editions" (Orthodox Christianity, Volume II: Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church, (New York: St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 2012) p. 34).
And in the above quote, I think there may be a translation problem, though I don't have the Russian text, and my Russian would probably be too limited to tell for sure by myself -- but when it says "some of the citations taken from the Old Testament and found in the New mainly use the Septuagint text," it is awkwardly worded enough for me to guess that Metropolitan Hilarion meant to say that most (not just "some") of the quotes of the Old Testament in the New Testament are based on the Septuagint... because as a matter of fact, that is true.
"...it is clear why the Church prefers the Septuagint and Peshitta translations for the authoritative text of the Old Testament, and principally the first, for the Septuagint text was produced under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the concerted effort of the Old Testament Church" (The Law of God: For Study at Home and School (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1994) p. 440).
There was a time when many Protestant scholars assumed that the Septuagint was an often loose translation of the Hebrew text, and that when it differed from the Masoretic text, it was due to changes made by the translators. However, since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now know that the Septuagint is based on a different, and older Hebrew text than the Masoretic text.
The Hebrew Text that has served as the basis for most translations of the Old Testament into English is based almost entirely on the Leningrad Codex, which dates from 1008 A.D. In comparison to the textual evidence that we have for the New Testament Greek text, this is a very late manuscript. It is an example of the Masoretic recension, which is usually dated to have been shaped between the 6th and 10th centuries A.D. This is well after the Septuagint was translated (3rd century before Christ), the Peshitta (1st and 2nd Centuries A.D.), or the Latin Vulgate (4th Century A.D.). According to Christian tradition, the non-Christian Jews began making changes in the Old Testament text to undercut the Christian use of Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming of Christ. In any case, the Hebrew Text that we now have was preserved outside the Church. The Septuagint and Peshitta texts were preserved within the Church, and so the Church believes that the text of the Old Testament was been authoritatively preserved in these textual traditions.
Furthermore, it is clear that the text that Christ and the Apostles used most closely matches the Septuagint rather than the Masoretic text. For example, in Acts 7:43, the Protomartyr Stephen quotes from the book of Amos as follows:
“Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them” (Acts 7:43, KJV).
But when you look this quote up in Amos 5:26 in most translations, you will find that the quotation doesn’t match:
"You also carried Sikkuth your king and Chiun, your idols, the star of your gods, which you made for yourselves.” (NKJV).
Compare the above with the Latin Vulgate:
"But you carried a tabernacle for your Moloch, and the image of your idols, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves” (Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate).
And then with the Septuagint:
“Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Raephan, the images of them which ye made for yourselves” (Sir Lancelot Brenton translation of the Septuagint).
Also, there are several sections of the Hebrew text that are simply unreadable without keeping one eye on the Hebrew text and one eye on the Septuagint. For example, if you look at the footnotes for the book of Habakkuk in the NRSV there are 5 places in which it states that the Hebrew text is uncertain, and 3 times in which they state that they are simply translating from the Septuagint, Peshitta, and/or the Vulgate, because the Hebrew text is so unclear.
Another example of a clearly corrupt reading in the Masoretic text is 1st Samuel 14:41, which reads as follows:
"Therefore Saul said unto the LORD God of Israel, "Give Thummim". And Saul and Jonathan were taken: but the people escaped.”
Several modern translations correct this clearly erroneous text based on the Septuagint and Vulgate to read:
“Therefore Saul said, "O LORD God of Israel, why have you not answered your servant this day? If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, O LORD, God of Israel, give Urim. But if this guilt is in your people Israel, give Thummim." And Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people escaped.”
The Masoretic text simply makes no sense, and obviously at some point a scribe skipped an entire line or two of the text. This is obvious because of the reference to the Urim and Thummim, which were two objects used by the priest of the Old Testament for discerning the will of God on matters such as that described in 1st Samuel 14.
Another example is the text quoted in Hebrews 1:6 (“And let all the angels of God worship him”) which is nowhere to be found in the Masoretic text, but is found in both the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew text in Deuteronomy 32:43.
It should be pointed out that the Hebrew text should not be ignored entirely. Particularly when the Septuagint and the Hebrew text are in agreement, we will better understand the Septuagint as a translation if we compare it with the Hebrew text that it is clearly a translation of. It is extremely helpful to understand the range of meaning of the original Hebrew text (when we clearly have it). For example, it is helpful to know that Hebrew does not have a past or future tense, but only a perfect and imperfect tense… and so just because an English translation is clearly in either the past, present, or future tense, it does not necessarily mean that this is what is implied by the Hebrew original. One often encounters the use of the “prophetic perfect”, where a prophecy of something that has not yet come to pass is in the perfect tense, and so is often translated with the English past tense, e.g. “…with His stripes, we were healed” (Isaiah 53:5), when from the perspective of the prophet, he was speaking of something in the future.
That the Septuagint is the most authoritative text in the Orthodox Church is something that is confirmed in just about any Orthodox catechetical text you could consult. The Septuagint text is the text that the Church has preserved. The Masoretic text is a text that has not been preserved by the Church, and so while it is worthy of study and comparison, it is not equally trustworthy. We have the promise that the Holy Spirit will guide us into all Truth (John 16:13), and so can indeed affirm that "Our Church holds the infallible and genuine deposit of the Holy Scriptures" ("Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs" of 1848).
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 free 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 must 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 me 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).
Most English Bibles translate three different Greek words as "Hell," but these terms do not all mean the same thing.
The word "Hades" (ᾅδης) is the term that the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament normally used to translate the Hebrew term "Sheol" (שׁאול), which refers to the abode of the dead, whether righteous or unrighteous, prior to Christ's Resurrection. The Greek term itself is taken from Greek Mythology, because the concept of Hades and Sheol were roughly equivalent. The parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) shows us how Hades/Sheol was understood by Christ. Both righteous and unrighteous men were understood to go there, but they did not experience the same thing.
The word "Tartarus" (τάρταρος) is used only once in the New Testament, in 2 Peter 2:4. This word likewise comes from Greek mythology, where it refers to a place of torment for the wicked.
The term "Gehenna" (γέεννα) is found very frequently in the New Testament, but is not found in the Old Testament, though the idea of a final place of torment for the wicked certainly is (e.g. Isaiah 66:24). We also do not find the word in Josephus. Philo likewise does not use this word, but he does use the word "Tartarus."
The term comes from an association with the Valley of Hinnom -- but not the one usually repeated. The common explanation is that the Valley of Hinnom (which is on the southern edge of the old city of Jerusalem) served as the city garbage dump, and that there was a perpetual fire there to burn garbage. This explanation originated from Rabbi David Kimchi's explanation that dates to around 1200 a.d., but this explanation is not supported by either archaeological evidence, or literary evidence from before or after that time (see The Myth of the Burning Garbage Dump of Gehenna).
The reason that the Valley of Hinnom became associated with the place of eternal torment is that this was a location in which child sacrifice was practiced (2 Kings 23:10; Isaiah 30:33; Jeremiah 7:32; Jeremiah 19:6).
Joachim Jeremias, in the entry for the word "Gehenna" (γέεννα) in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament explains:
"This name [Gehenna] was given to the Wadi er-rababi, in South Jerusalem, which later acquired a bad reputation because sacrifices were offered in it to Moloch in the days of Ahaz and Manasseh (2 King 16:3; 21:6). The threats of judgment uttered over this sinister valley in Jer. 7:32; 19:6, c.f. Isaiah 31:9; 66:24, are the reason why the Valley of Hinnom came to be equated with the hell of the last judgment...." (The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume 1, ed. Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1964-1976), p.657).
No one is currently in Gehenna. The wicked go to Hades when they die, and experience a foretaste of the judgment that awaits them. They experience this apart from their bodies. At the Resurrection, they will be raised with their bodies, and will experience what is called "the second death," in Gehenna:
"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation" (John 5:28-29).
"And death and hell [hades] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" Revelation 20:14.
"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 21:8).
So when we think of Hell, we are generally thinking of what the term "Gehenna" is referring to, and that term is equivalent to the terms "Tartarus," and "Lake of fire."
The saints, after Christ's Resurrection are with Him in Paradise. If one dies in a state of sanctity they do not go to Hades. However, if someone dies in a state of repentance, but without having had a chance to bring forth all the fruits of repentance, we believe that they are not ready to enter immediately into the presence of God, but that at some point, through the prayers of the Church, they will be. They are given some period of time by God to grow in grace. They also experience a foretaste of what awaits them, before they actually enter into the presence of God.
Several prominent scholars who were interviewed in a bitterly contested documentary that suggests that Jesus and his family members were buried in a nondescript ancient Jerusalem burial cave have now revised their conclusions, including the statistician who claimed that the odds were 600:1 in favor of the tomb being the family burial cave of Jesus of Nazareth, a new study on the fallout from the popular documentary shows.
The dramatic clarifications, compiled by epigrapher Stephen Pfann of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem in a paper titled "Cracks in the Foundation: How the Lost Tomb of Jesus story is losing its scholarly support," come two months after the screening of The Lost Tomb of Christ that attracted widespread public interest, despite the concomitant scholarly ridicule.
The film, made by Oscar-winning director James Cameron and Emmy-winning Canadian filmmaker Simcha Jacobovici, prompted major criticism from both a leading Israeli archeologist involved in the original dig at the site as well as Christian leaders, who were angered over the documentary's contradictions of main tenets of Christianity.
But now, even some of the scholars who were interviewed for and appeared in the film are questioning some of its basic claims.
The most startling change of opinion featured in the 16-page paper is that of University of Toronto statistician Professor Andrey Feuerverger, who stated those 600 to one odds in the film. Feuerverger now says that these referred to the probability of a cluster of such names appearing together.
Pfann's paper reported that a statement on the Discovery Channel's Web site, which previously read "a statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters...concludes that the probability factor is 600 to 1 in favor of this being the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth and his family," in keeping with Feuerverger's statement, has been altered and now reads, "a statistical study commissioned by the broadcasters... concludes that the probability factor is in the order of 600 to 1 that an equally 'surprising' cluster of names would arise purely by chance under given assumptions."
Another sentence on the same Web site stating that Feuerverger had concluded it was highly probable that the tomb, located in the southeastern residential Jerusalem neighborhood of Talpiot, was the Jesus family tomb - the central point of the film - has also been changed. It now reads: "It is unlikely that an equally surprising cluster of names would have arisen by chance under purely random sampling."
Israeli archeologists have said that the similarity of the names found inscribed on the ossuaries in the cave to the members of Jesus's family was coincidental, since many of those names were commonplace in the first century CE.
The film argues that 10 ancient ossuaries - burial boxes used to store bones - that were discovered in Talpiot in 1980 contained the bones of Jesus and his family. The filmmakers attempt to explain some of the inscriptions on the ossuaries by suggesting that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and that the couple had a son, Judah.
One of the ossuaries bears an inscription reading "Yeshua son of Yehosef" or "Jesus son of Joseph;" a second reads "Mary;" a third is a Greek inscription apparently read by one scholar as "Mary Magdalene;" while a fourth bears the inscription, "Judah, son of Jesus." The inscriptions are in Hebrew or Aramaic, except for the one in Greek.
But Shimon Gibson, who was part of the team that excavated the tomb two and half decades ago and who appeared in the film, is quoted in Pfann's report as saying he doubted the site was the tomb of Jesus and his family.
"Personally, I'm skeptical that this is the tomb of Jesus and I made this point very clear to the filmmakers," Gibson is quoted as saying.
"We need much more evidence before we can say that the Talpiot tomb might be the family tomb of Jesus," he added.
In the film, renowned epigrapher Prof. Frank Moore Cross, professor emeritus of Hebrew and oriental languages at Harvard University, is seen reading one of the ossuaries and stating that he has "no real doubt" that it reads "Jesus son of Joseph." But according to Pfann, Cross said in an e-mail that he was skeptical about the film's claims, not because of a misreading of the ossuary, but because of the ubiquity of Biblical names in that period in Jerusalem.
"It has been reckoned that 25 percent of feminine names in this period were Maria/Miriam, etc. - that is, variants of 'Mary.' So the cited statistics are unpersuasive. You know the saying: lies, damned lies, and statistics," Cross is quoted as saying.
The paper also notes that DNA scientist Dr. Carney Matheson, who supervised DNA testing carried out for the film from the supposed Jesus and Mary Magdalene ossuaries, and who said in the documentary that "these two individuals, if they were unrelated, would most likely be husband and wife," later said that "the only conclusions we made were that these two sets were not maternally related. To me, it sounds like absolutely nothing."
Furthermore, Pfann also says that a specialist in ancient apocryphal text, Professor Francois Bovon, who is quoted in the film as saying the enigmatic ossuary inscription "Mariamne" is the same woman known as Mary Magdalene - one of the filmmakers' critical arguments - issued a disclaimer stating that he did not believe that "Mariamne" stood for Mary of Magdalene at all.
Pfann has already argued that the controversial inscription does not read "Mariamne" at all.
The burial site, which has been contested from the start by scholars and church officials alike, is some distance from the Church of the Holy Sepulchrr in the Old City, where many Christians believe Jesus's body lay for three days after he was crucified.
According to the New Testament, Jesus rose from the dead on the third day after his crucifixion, and an ossuary containing Jesus's bones - the explanations of the movie director notwithstanding - would contradict the core Christian belief that he was resurrected and then ascended to heaven.
The Prophet Nathan confronts King David with his sin.
Question: "I have often been perplexed by the last two sentences of Psalm 50. Is this thought to me a Messianic psalm? If so, I find difficulty in the culmination of the psalm being animal sacrifice. How ought we to incorporate this psalm in our daily prayers in light of this verse?"
Psalm 50 [51 in Protestant Bibles] is not really a Messianic psalm in the usual sense. It is a penitential psalm. In fact, you could say that it is THE penitential psalm We not only pray this psalm daily, but usually we pray it several times a day in the services, as well as in our private prayers.
To understand the ending, you need to keep in mind the context of the entire Psalm. We are told in the superscription that it is "a psalm of David, when Nathan the Prophet came unto him, when he went in unto Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah." We read about this in 2 Samuel 11:1-12:23. There we are told that it was "the time when kings go forth to battle" and yet, for the first time in his adult life, David the King did not go into battle with everyone else, but rather "David tarried still at Jerusalem." Then, in his idleness, one evening, being unable to sleep, David walked upon the roof of his house, "and from the roof he saw a woman washing herself; and the woman was very beautiful to look upon." And rather than put up any resistance to this temptation, he had someone find out that she was Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. And not allowing the fact that she was married to another man to dissuade him, he seduced her, and got her pregnant. Then hoping to cover up his sin, he called for Uriah to return to Jerusalem (who was one of his own soldiers, putting his own life on the line for his king and the nation of Israel), hoping that he would sleep with his wife, and then believe that her child was his own. But Uriah proved to be a better man than David, because he would not allow himself the comforts of home while his fellow soldiers were fighting in the field. He told David:
"The ark, and Israel, and Judah, abide in tents; and my lord Joab, and the servants of my lord, are encamped in the open fields; shall I then go into mine house, to eat and to drink, and to lie with my wife? as thou livest, and as thy soul liveth, I will not do this thing."
David even called for Uriah to eat with him, and he got him drunk, but even then "he went out to lie on his bed with the servants of his lord, but went not down to his house."
Nevertheless, rather than admit his own guilt, David sent Uriah back to the battle, and wrote to Joab, his general:
"Set ye Uriah in the forefront of the hottest battle, and retire ye from him, that he may be smitten, and die."
Joab did as he was told, Uriah was killed in battle, and word was sent back to David. Then David took Bathsheba as a wife, and perhaps thought that he had gotten away with it... but he had not.
King David was, we are told "a man after God's own heart" (1 Samuel 13:14), and "the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of Israel" (2 Samuel 23:1), and yet he fell into not only adultery but murder. How was this possible?
"And the prophet was found in adultery, the pearl in the mud. However, he did not yet understand that he had sinned; the passion ravaged him to such a great extent. Because, when the charioteer gets drunk, the chariot moves in an irregular, disorderly manner. What the charioteer is to the chariot, the soul is to the body. If the soul becomes darkened, the body rolls in the mud. As long as the charioteer stands firm, the chariot drives smoothly. However, when he becomes exhausted and is unable to hold the reins firmly, you see this very chariot in terrible danger. The exact same thing happens to man. As long as the soul is sober and vigilant, this very body remains in purity. However, when the souls is darkened, this very body rolls in mud and in lusts. Therefore, what did David do? He committed adultery; yet neither was he aware nor was he censured by anyone. This occurred in his most venerable years, so you may learn that, if you are indolent, not even old age benefits you, nor, if you are earnest, can youthful years seriously harm you. Behavior does not depend on age but on the direction of the will. Although David was twelve years old, he was a judge; his predecessors, however, who were old in years, committed adultery; and neither did old age benefit them nor youth injure this one. So you may learn that the affairs of prudence rely upon the will and do not depend on age, just remember that David was found in his venerable years falling into adultery and committing murder; and he reach such a pathetic state that we was unaware that he had sinned, because his mind, which was the charioteer, was drunk from debauchery" (The Fathers of the Church: St. John Chrysostom, On Repentance and Almsgiving, 2:2:5-7, trans. Michael P. McHugh (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1998), p. 18f).
St. John tells us, that since when a physician falls ill another physician must cure him, likewise, when one prophet fell into sin, another Prophet was sent to cure him. He did not immediately confront him, lest having his sin publicly exposed at once, he become defiant. Instead, he used a story to cause the King to pronounce judgment over himself:
"And the Lord sent Nathan unto David. And he came unto him, and said unto him, "There were two men in one city; the one rich, and the other poor. The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds: But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up: and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat, and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter. And there came a traveller unto the rich man, and he spared to take of his own flock and of his own herd, to dress for the wayfaring man that was come unto him; but took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him." And David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, "As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die: And he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity." And Nathan said to David, "Thou art the man!" (2 Samuel 12:1-7).
St. John Chrysostom observes:
"What did the king say? "I have sinned against the Lord." He did not say, "Who are you who censures me? Who sent you to speak with such boldness? With what daring did you prevail?" He did not say anything of the sort; rather, he perceived the sin. And what did he say? "I have sinned against the Lord." Therefore, what did Nathan say to him? "And the Lord remitted your sin." You condemned yourself; I [God] remit your sentence. You confessed prudently; you annulled the sin. You appropriated a condemnatory decision against yourself; I repeal the sentence. Can you see that what is written in Scripture was fulfilled: "Be the first one to tell of your transgressions so you may be justified" [Isaiah 43:26 LXX]? How toilsome is it to be the first one to declare the sin?" (The Fathers of the Church: St. John Chrysostom, On Repentance and Almsgiving, 2:2:9, trans. Michael P. McHugh (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1998), p. 20f).
So you find in Psalm 50 the full expression of the Prophet David's repentance. Towards the end of the psalm, we find the references to animal sacrifices. The Prophet, having come to see the depth of his sin, recognized the inadequacy of simply offering animal sacrifice to be reconciled with God:
"For if Thou hadst desired sacrifice, I had given it; with whole-burnt offerings Thou shalt not be pleased. A sacrifice unto God is a broken spirit; a heart that is broken and humbled God will not despise" (Psalm 50 [51]:16-17).
St. Augustine comments that this foresees the time when these sacrifices would be replaced by the reality that they pointed towards:
"David was living at that time when sacrifices of victim animals were offered to God, and he saw these times that were to be. Do we not perceive ourselves in these words? Those sacrifices were figurative, foretelling the One Saving Sacrifice. Not even we have been left without a Sacrifice to offer to God. For hear what he saith, having a concern for his sin, and wishing the evil thing which he hath done to be forgiven him: “If Thou hadst willed,” he saith, “sacrifice, I would have given it surely. With holocausts Thou wilt not be delighted.” Nothing shall we therefore offer? So shall we come to God? And whence shall we propitiate Him? Offer; certainly in thyself thou hast what thou mayest offer. Do not from without fetch frankincense, but say, “In me are, O God, Thy vows, which I will render of praise to Thee.” Do not from without seek cattle to slay, thou hast in thyself what thou mayest kill. “Sacrifice to God is a spirit troubled, a heart contrite and humbled God despiseth not” (ver. 17). Utterly he despiseth bull, he-goat, ram: now is not the time that these should be offered. They were offered when they indicated something, when they promised something; when the things promised come, the promises are taken away. “A heart contrite and humbled God despiseth not.” Ye know that God is high: if thou shalt have made thyself high, He will be from thee; if thou shalt have humbled thyself, He will draw near to thee" (Exposition on the Psalms, Psalm 50 [51], 21).
The psalm ends with these words:
"Do good, O Lord, in Thy good pleasure unto Zion, and let the walls of Jerusalem be builded. Then shalt Thou be pleased with a sacrifice of righteousness, with oblation and whole-burnt offerings. Then shall they offer bullocks upon Thine altar" (Psalm 50[51]:18-19).
Blessed Theodoret sees in these verses not only a prophecy of the Babylonian captivity (which happened several centuries after the time of King David, and the subsequent return and restoration of Jerusalem and Temple; but also a prophecy of the coming of the Church:
"From these words we are taught more clearly that the psalm is full of prophecy: the verses bear on those compelled to dwell in Babylon, longing for liberation from slavery and bewailing the desolation of the city. They beg that the city be granted some pity and recover its former good fortune, with the ramparts repaired, and the liturgy performed according to the Law. As it is, he is saying, it is not possible for those living in foreign parts to offer to you the prescribed sacrifices, as the Law is clear about sacrificing in that city alone. But if we were to be granted the return and were to rebuild the Temple, then we would offer to you the prescribed sacrifices. Now, very applicable to them is the verse, You will open my lips, O Lord, and my mouth will declare your praise: theirs is the cry, "How shall we sin the Lord's song in a foreign land? [Psalm 136 [137]:4]" The conclusion of this psalm contains, however, a further prophecy as well. You see, after setting forth above the gifts of the all-holy Spirit, he went on to show the God all to be not pleased with the sacrifices according to the Law, and his prayer is for the new Zion to emerge, the heavenly Jerusalem to be built on earth, and the new way of life to be inaugurated as soon as possible, offering not irrational victims but the offering and sacrifices of righteousness, and rational and living holocausts, of which blessed Paul says, "I urge you brethren, through the mercies of God to present your bodies as living sacrifice, holy, pleasing to God, your rational worship [Romans 12:1]." The most divine David, you see, in so far as he had learned the obscure and hidden things of the wisdom of God, was aware that the New Testament contains the complete forgiveness of sins, and yearned for rapid and complete liberation from sins. And in his longing to attain in his own case the rapid and generous purification, he spoke these verses" (Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on the Psalms, 1-72, trans. Robert C. Hill (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2000), p. 302f).
So while this psalm is not a Messianic psalm per se, it certainly does has prophetic elements that relate to the work of the coming Messiah.
.jpg)
