Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

Friday, March 31, 2017

The God of Joshua ~ Fr. Lawrence Farley



The God of Joshua

In the rough and tumble of world of online polemics against Christians, it is common for our detractors to object that our Faith is fatally simplistic and essentially violent.  Many say that religion is the cause of all the wars that were ever fought (possibly forgetting that the greatest blood-lettings in the twentieth century, World Wars One and Two, were not fought over religion and that the death camps and gulags in which many perished were run by those opposed to religious faith). The Christian religion is said to be especially prone to violence.  Here the example of the Crusades is invoked, though the last Crusade was fought almost a thousand years ago (in 1272).  As an example of the violence inherent in religion, many cite the example of Joshua.

Admittedly when one reads the Biblical Book of Joshua one finds plenty of violence.  It opens with Israel gathered to invade the land of Canaan by God’s direct order, and with His promise to their leader Joshua that “no man shall be able to stand before you all the days of your life.  Be strong and of good courage, for you shall cause this people to inherit the land which I swore to their fathers to give them” (Josh. 1:5-6).  Israel then invades the land of Canaan with the goal of conquering it and taking it over through holy war, in which entire populations are put to the sword as a manifestation of the judgment of God.  The first city to fall is Jericho, concerning which it is recorded, “They utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep and donkeys, with the edge of the sword” (Joshua 6:21).  It should be noted that in Joshua’s campaign in Canaan, not all met this fate.  The inhabitants of nearby Gibeon made a covenant with Israel and accordingly were spared, as were the prostitute from Jericho along with all her family, since she aided the Israelite spies.  But there is no denying that the Conquest of Canaan (as the books call the wars of Joshua) involved tremendous slaughter and what we would today term genocide.

Thoughtful Christians have long struggled with this.  No less a thinker and theologian than Metropolitan George Khodr of the Patriarchate of Antioch and bishop of the diocese of Mount Lebanon has written about the evils of war.  In an article titled, “Exorcising War”, printed in the Sourozh magazine of the Russian Patriarchal diocese of that name in Britain, Metropolitan George writes that in the Book of Joshua “it is God Himself Who is portrayed as carrying out a ‘scorched earth’ policy…the Lord Himself Who reflects the thirst for an all too human conquest on the part of a confederation of Semitic tribes…. There is no possible transition from the god of Joshua to the Father of Jesus Christ.  The power of ancient Israel cannot prepare the way for the power of God on the Cross.”

For the Metropolitan of Mount Lebanon (a thoughtful and justly-famous advocate for peace in an area desperately in need of his witness), the Old Testament Book of Joshua simply misrepresents God.  The Metropolitan is of course aware of the patristic tradition that interprets the acts of such “a blood-thirsty God” simply as typologies and prophetic symbols of Christ, with the war against the Canaanites being simply a symbol for our spiritual warfare against the demons.  But he suggests that “such exegesis can obscure the historic meaning of the Scriptures.”  In other words, he is too thoughtful and honest a scholar to take such an easy way out.  He prefers what he calls “a kenotic reading of the Scriptures,” one which acknowledges the imperfections of the historical text and “the subjectivity of the author.”  Bluntly put, he admits and asserts that these Old Testament passages do indeed misrepresent God and give us not God’s Word so much as the “all too human” views, prejudices, and agendas of an ancient confederation of Semitic tribes.

That is certainly one approach to the ancient text.  But there are two problems with it.  One is that it in the debate with our detractors who aver that Christianity is inherently violent because its Bible is inherently violent, we are simply giving up and agreeing with them that, well, yes, our Bible is morally repugnant in many places.  This is problematic because it leaves us with no snappy comeback when they make their next move, which is to reject the religion which reverences this Bible.  If Christ and His apostles believed in the Bible (which they clearly did; read Matthew 5:17-19), then how can they or their followers retain any credibility?  One can see our detractors’ point: if the Bible is as all-too-human as all that, how can the religion based on it claim to be divine?

Some try to wiggle out of the impasse by drawing a thick line between the Old Testament and the New, by sharply differentiating between the blood-thirsty God of the Law and the loving and sweet God of the Gospel—that is, by more or less dumping Judaism to save Christianity.  It is certainly easy enough to do:  the God of the Old Testament is the God who sends His Israel to war, who commands them to stone the adulterer, who commands them to execute one who gathers sticks of the Sabbath.  The God of the New Testament is the God who tells us to love our neighbour, to turn the other cheek, and to forgive our enemies.  The Old Testament is thus morally inferior to the New, and can be written off when it becomes embarrassing.  It is indeed easy enough to do, (though perhaps this approach will present something of an ecumenical problem when next we meet with our Jewish friends in Jewish-Christian dialogue).  But this serene rejection of much of the Old Testament presents another problem as well.

Basically, the approach that pits the bad Old Testament against the good New Testament and sharply differentiates between the blood-thirsty Yahweh and the loving Father of Jesus Christ has been tried before—and rejected.  Its historical name is “Marcionism,” after a second century personality who said that the Old Testament God was in fact not the Father of Jesus Christ, but an inferior deity.  The Church of that time gave him a hearing and then soundly rejected his approach.  That is why the Creed opens with the counter-blast, “I believe in one God, creator of heaven and earth” — i.e. in the God of the Old Testament.  In saying that the God whom we worship is the Creator, we affirm that He is the God revealed in the Old Testament, the God of Israel.

Admittedly the new Marcionism we have been discussing above does not go quite as far as the classic Marcionism.  This new Marcionism (a kind of “Marcion lite”) would agree that the God of the Old Testament is the Father of Jesus Christ.  But it can only do this because it divides the Old Testament Scriptures into various bits (as modern secular scholarship has long taught us to do), rejecting the bad bits we don’t like while retaining the good bits we prefer.  Thus we are not so much scrapping the God of the Old Testament as scrapping sections (large sections) of His Scriptures.  So, when the Old Testament says that God created the world, this is the Word of God.  When it says that God called Abraham out of Ur into Canaan, this is the Word of God.  But when it says that God commanded Joshua to conquer Canaan, this is not the Word of God, but rather simply a story by the men of that day, presenting a view we now condemn as morally repugnant.  How then can we decide which bits are the bad ones and which are the good ones?  Some would answer:  by the bits which resemble the Gospel.  Even here, though, let’s be honest.  What we really mean is:  by the bits our culture teaches us to like, and which we therefore identify with the Gospel.  But however we struggle with our hermeneutic, there is another problem with this approach to the Old Testament.

Namely, that the Church’s historic Faith, rooted as it is in the words of Christ and His apostles, give us no leave to divide the Scriptures of either Testament into the bits we can retain and the bits we can reject.  When Christ spoke about the Law and the Prophets as being more durable than heaven and earth (in Matthew 5:17-19), He was speaking about the Old Testament.  Does anyone really think that the Lord or any of His first-century compatriots would countenance jettisoning large chunks of the Law and the Prophets like this?  The New Testament and the Fathers, down to the last man, confessed the entire Scriptures to be divine.  We may not so easily carve it up like this and sit lightly on the parts that embarrass us as if somehow they were not really Scripture.

So then, what to do with these parts?  I do agree with the Metropolitan of Mount Lebanon that simply labeling them “typology” as if this solved everything will not do.  But I think the path forward lies not in rejecting them as somehow less than Scripture, but in refining our view of what Scripture actually is.
Scripture is not the timeless record of God’s unchanging will, not a revelation of God’s first and last word on every subject.  That is how the Qur’an views Scripture, but not how we view it.  Our Christian approach is more paedological.  That is, it records how God worked with His people throughout the centuries to lead them, as children, from immaturity to maturity, but infancy, through childhood, to adulthood.  Thus Saint Paul writes that before Christ came, Israel was confined under the Law, so that the Law was Israel’s custodian, taking care of them like a tutor cares for a young child (Galatians 3:23-4:3).  The Law with its provisions was never meant to be God’s final word to His people.  It was a stage through which they had to pass on their way to mature adulthood in Christ.  It suited them then and was necessary for their development at the stage they were once at, but it was never meant to be the goal of their national life.  That goal, that end (Greek telos) was Christ (Romans 10:4).

The Law with its provisions was given to Israel as it became a nation after the Exodus at the foot of Mount Sinai.  We say this and affirm that Israel was God’s nation, but often do not stop to reflect on what this nationhood necessarily involved.  In a word, it involved Israel beginning its national existence with military combat, fighting for its existence and for a place to live in the same way and using the same methods that everyone else used at that time.  That is where all the hard parts of the Book of Joshua come in.  For Israel to survive as a nation, there was no other way.  All Canaan was occupied by peoples bigger, stronger, better-armed, and crueler than they.  Peaceful co-existence was not on anyone’s agenda back then.  The options available to Israel as an infant nation entering Canaan they way they did, were either to conquer to retain their identity, or to be assimilated to the other nations, or be annihilated by them.  There was ultimately no other happy option, and the provisions of the Law presuppose their existence in this hard and cruel world.  Those laws—with commands to conquer, and kill, and to build altars and sacrifice animals, to circumcise the young, to keep certain food laws—were not the final goal of the nation’s existence.  Christ was the final goal.  The Old Testament is the divine record of how God worked with His people until Christ came.  The God of Joshua did transition to the Father of Jesus Christ.  Israel did prepare the way for the divine power of the Cross.  The Old Testament, with all its hard parts, was part of that preparation.

thanks to source:

https://oca.org/reflections/fr.-lawrence-farley/the-god-of-joshua

Understanding Violence in the Old Testament: Critical and Patristic Perspectives ~ Eric Jobe




Understanding Violence in the Old Testament: Critical and Patristic Perspectives


02550_hires
One of the thorniest issues that people deal with when trying to understand the Bible is what to make of the brutal violence depicted in the Old Testament. A recent interview of Paul Copan, author of the book Did God Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms With the Justice of God, reveals just how difficult in may be to come up with satisfying answers. Questions and answers search for any kind of handle on the situation in order to deal with the natural discomfort that is felt by people today in the age of terrorist and anti-terrorist ideology. One snippet of the interview proceeded thusly:
RNS: In these passages, the text says God told them the Israelites to slaughter children, women, even animals. How do we even begin to process this?
PC: We must first understand that the Canaanites engaged in acts that would be considered criminal in any civilized society–incest, infant sacrifice, ritual prostitution, bestiality. Also, God waited over 400 years for Canaan to hit moral rock-bottom before commanding they be driven out (Gen. 15:16).
Answers such as this are poorly thought out, and the implications of such ideas are not considered. For example, may we say, then, that genocide is just and proper if the targeted people are barbarous in their behavior? Exactly how bad must they be before we proceed with our genocide? Is life sacred only to a point, a point where genocidal killing becomes defensible?
These answers also miss the ancient Near Eastern context of holy war. The Hebrew term ḥērem used of the wars of Joshua in the conquest of Canaan indicates a ritual warfare by which the enemy was devoted to God as a sacrifice. If the Canaanites deserved to be killed because of their child sacrifices, what then of the Israelites who sacrificed men, women, and children to God through holy war? In a world ravaged by militant jihad, is it so easy to find justification for it, when we find it in our Bible?
Thankfully, we do not have to resort to such handwaving excuses to justify our Bible, and herein we find a case where critical scholarship of the Bible and the patristic tradition of biblical interpretation may be found to be in harmony.

Critical Interpretations

Biblical scholarship has generally settled upon a theory of composition of the books Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings, known as the dual redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. The theory states that through a series of redactions (either two or three major periods), this series of books was shaped according to a consistent ideological and theological tradition. For example, it is hypothesized that an early edition of Joshua, chapters 1-12, was written during the time of King Josiah of Judah as he sought to retake Benjaminite territory previously captured by the Assyrians. Josiah wished to present himself as a new Joshua, taking back territory that rightly belonged to the people of God. Subsequently, the book of Joshua was expanded by Jews taken into exile in Babylon, who looked to their own eventual return to the Land of Israel as a reconquest of Canaan in the manner of Joshua and the Children of Israel who entered the Land after the Exodus. The Exilic Jews were awaiting their own Exodus that would allow them to return to the Promise Land.
Now, it is expected that traditionally-minded Orthodox Christians might take issue with this scenario as I have presented it (in a very simplified form), but I caution jumping to conclusions too quickly, for we find that such a scenario may enable us to more closely approximate patristic interpretation of the Book of Joshua. In positing a redaction of the Book of Joshua during the time of Josiah and the Exile, we are able to move away from an overly literal, historical-factual reading of the book. If indeed the book was composed in order to express certain ideological and theological ideas, then such a historical-factual reading would in that case not even be “literal.” If Joshua was composed to promote the ideology of Jewish kingship and the hopes of an exilic community awaiting their own “Exodus” and return to the Land, then a properly “literal” reading will take these ideas into account.

Patristic Interpretations

If we do so, we may approach a more patristic style of exegesis. We may, for example take the ideology of kingship and apply it to the King of Kings, Jesus Christ. As Joshua is depicted conquering the land of Benjamin, so Josiah wished also to view himself as a new Joshua taking back land that had been captured by the Assyrians. In the same way, Christ, the New Joshua (Yeshua), leads the people of God to reclaim the “Land” of their heart, overtaken and captured by sin. He leads His people into the promised land of the Kingdom of God, which is found in the heart, and he establishes His kingship there.
If we understand the hopes of the Jews in exile in Babylon, and we interpret Joshua as reflecting their hopes of reentering the Land of Israel, we may also see in this a type of Christ who leads us out of the bondage of sin and the exile of godlessness into the Promised Land of the Kingdom of God. Within this Kingdom, that is externally the Church and internally within our hearts, we must drive out the Canaanites, which is interpreted to be sin.
This is indeed how the Fathers understood the book of Joshua. St. John Chrysostom writes:
The name of Jesus [Joshua] was a type. For this reason then, and because of the very name, the creation reverenced him. What then! Was no other person called Jesus [Joshua]? But this man was on this account so called as a type… He brought in the people into the promised land, as Jesus into heaven; not the law; since neither did Moses [enter the promised land] but remained outside. The law has not the power to bring in, but grace. (Homilies on Hebrews 27.6)
From Ode VI of the Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete:
Like Joshua the son of Nun, search and spy out, my soul, the land of thine inheritance and take up thy dwelling within it, though obedience to the law.
Rise up and make war against the passions of the flesh, as Joshua against Amalek, ever gaining the victory over the Gibeonites, thy deceitful thoughts.
O my soul, pass through the flowing waters of time like the Ark of old, and take possession of the land of promise: for God commands thee.
Many more quotations could be provided from patristic and liturgical texts, but these should suffice to illustrate the matter. When we read and are repulsed by the slaughter and carnage in the Bible, we may take some solace in the very real possibility that these texts do not record history exactly as it happened, but rather they represent the ideology and theology of the Israelites and Jews as they struggled to take possession of the Land of Israel. Seeing it this way brings us closer to the manner in which the Fathers interpreted these things, in a spiritual fashion, not literalistic.
Origen offers his explanation:
You will read in the Holy Scriptures about the battles of the just ones, about the slaughter and carnage of murderers, and that the saints spare none of their deeply rooted enemies. If they do spare them, they are even charged with sin, just as Saul was charged because he preserved the life of Agag king of Amalek. You should understand the wars of the just by the method I have set forth above, that these wars are waged by them against sin. But how will the just ones endure if they reserve even a little bit of sin? Therefore, this is said of them: “They dd not leave behind even one who might be saved or might escape.” (Homilies on Joshua 8.7)
 

What to Take Away

  • Critical scholarship does not have to be conceived as an enemy to proper biblical interpretation in the Church, for it often enables us to follow patristic exegetical techniques by allowing us to see more clearly non-literal meanings in the text.
  • When we encounter violence in the Old Testament that unsettles us, we may take some solace in the possibility that these texts were never intended by their authors as reporting factual history. Rather, they reflect theological and ideological concerns as encountered by the communities that first read these books.
  • While the Fathers did not have recourse to modern critical scholarship, they nevertheless interpreted the Bible in non-literal ways which are able to work harmoniously with critical scholarship, in that both allow us to transcend literalist readings.
  • This is a pastoral issue. There are many people out there who reject Christianity because of such literalist readings of the Bible. It is incumbent upon Orthodox Christian leaders to assure them that the God we believe in is not a genocidal maniac, and our Bible does not have to be read in such a manner. Furthermore, we do not need to try to justify such heinous acts in order to support a literalistic reading of the Bible.
Patristic quotes are taken from:
Franke, John R. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament Vol. IV Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1-2 Samuel. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2005
The Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete is taken from:
Mother Mary and Kallistos Ware. The Lenten Triodion. South Canaan, PA: St. Tikhon’s Seminary Press, 2002.

thanks to source:

https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/departinghoreb/understanding-violence-old-testament-critical-patristic-perspectives/

All Scripture Is Inspired by God (LXX, Septuagint) ~ by Joel Kalvesmaki




All Scripture Is Inspired by God

Thoughts on the Old Testament Canon

by Joel Kalvesmaki

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (II Tim 3:16)
What Scriptures did St. Paul have in mind when he wrote the above to St. Timothy? Was he referring to the 66 books making up the Bible Evangelicals read today? What exactly did Paul mean by "all?"
I was personally confident of the Protestant canon of the Old Testament, until I examined the evidence behind it. What I discovered I found uncomfortable. And yet it brought me into a deeper and richer relationship with Jesus Christ. If you are a Christian who finds theological correction difficult, then these essays will only annoy you. But if your heart aches to know and indwell the Christian faith, then this might be the start of something new and exciting in your relationship with God.
In this first of two essays we will look closer at the canon of Scriptures which the Apostles read and used and contrast that with popular assumptions many Evangelicals make today. In the second essay, "Do Not Add to His Words," we will concentrate on the canon of the New Testament and consider the authority in Christianity.
+ + +
In his letter to St. Timothy, St. Paul is not referring to the New Testament. This should be obvious since, after all, books such as Acts and Revelation had not yet been written. Even what had been written was still beginning the process of circulation in various churches, starting with those in the basin of the Aegean Sea. However, as Evangelicals, we generally want this passage to include the New Testament since it is one of the few verses that seem to directly support our teaching on the inspiration of the Bible.
Regardless, St. Paul undoubtedly had the Old Testament in mind as he wrote this passage. It was the Old Testament which was read in the synagogue and was instrumental in the "training in righteousness" of Sts. Paul, Timothy and many other Christians from the Church of the first century. But, more importantly, Sts. Paul and Timothy used the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Old Testament composed in the third century before Christ.

The Origin of the Septuagint

"The what...?" As Evangelicals many of us have never heard of the LXX except in a passing reference from educated preachers or teachers. And those of us who have heard of the LXX rarely give it a second thought. But so important is the LXX for our faith that many aspects of the message of the New Testament cannot be sufficiently grasped without it.
The LXX was recognized as the authoritative Greek translation of the Jewish Scriptures and was read in the synagogues and churches of the Hellenistic world. Most Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are based on the LXX, not the Hebrew. Of particular interest is Paul's use of the LXX since, as a student of Gamaliel, he would have had ample knowledge of the difference between the Greek and Hebrew texts.
Most scholars are skeptical of the fabulous details which developed around the story of the translation of the LXX, but the main historical facts have been accepted. This quotation, from an anonymous Christian of the second or third century, not only relates the story, but reflects the popular opinion of early Christians on the subject.
But if any one says that the writings of Moses and of the rest of the prophets were also written in the Greek character, let him read profane histories, and know that Ptolemy, king of Egypt, when he had built the library in Alexandria, and by gathering books from every quarter had filled it, then learnt that very ancient histories written in Hebrew happened to be carefully preserved; and wishing to know their contents, he sent for seventy wise men from Jerusalem, who were acquainted with both the Greek and Hebrew language, and appointed them to translate the books; and that in freedom from all disturbance they might the more speedily complete the translation, he ordered that there should be constructed, not in the city itself, but seven stadia off (where the Pharos was built), as many little cots as there were translators, so that each by himself might complete his own translation; and enjoined upon those officers who were appointed to this duty, to afford them all attendance, but to prevent communication with one another, in order that the accuracy of the translation might be discernible even by their agreement.
And when he ascertained that the seventy men had not only given the same meaning, but had employed the same words, and had failed in agreement with one another not even to the extent of one word, but had written the same things, and concerning the same things, he was struck with amazement, and believed that the translation had been written by divine power, and perceived that the men were worthy of all honor, as beloved of God; and with many gifts ordered them to return to their own country. And having, as was natural, marvelled at the books, and concluded them to be divine, he consecrated them in that library. These things, ye men of Greece, are no fable, nor do we narrate fictions; but we ourselves having been in Alexandria, saw the remains of the little cots at the Pharos still preserved, and having heard these things from the inhabitants, who had received them as part of their country's tradition, we now tell to you what you can also learn from others, and specially from those wise and esteemed men who have written of these things, Philo and Josephus, and many others. (Pseudo-Justin, Hor. Greeks 13)

Is the Septuagint basically the same as our Old Testament?

In our popular literature apologists claim that the LXX is very close to the Hebrew text we have today. This claim aims at validating modern Western translations of the Bible, which are based on the Hebrew text. Is this true? And how close is close?
It is difficult for one to really grasp the uniqueness of the LXX until studying the text and comparing it with modern translations. When I first started to read the LXX, many things surprised me. Working through the Pentateuch, I made note of the many significant differences between the Hebrew and the Greek. God's curse on Cain is a case in point.
LXX Hebrew (AV)
Hast thou not sinned if thou hast brought it rightly, but not rightly divided it? Be still, to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt rule over him. If sthou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
Likewise, the genealogy from Adam to Noah in the LXX places the Deluge 2242 years after Creation. But our modern translations based on the Hebrew text indicate the time span to be 1656 years. This difference springs from the LXX stating that the birth of the first-born sons of various patriarchs happened later in their life than that reported by the Hebrew text.
The last ten chapters of Exodus and the entire book of Jeremiah contain a number of different passages where verses are either omitted, paraphrased, or completely rearranged. Sometimes the Hebrew has more text than the LXX and sometimes vice versa.
In I Kings 12-14, the events surrounding the life of King Jeroboam are arranged in a different order and include a story not reported in the Hebrew text of how he came to marry Ano, the eldest sister of the wife of Susakim, the current pharaoh.
These are four of the many differences between the LXX and the Hebrew. Having been led to believe the text was basically the same I was quite disappointed. For instance, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh McDowell calls the LXX "very close" to the Massoretic. How close is close? Had Mr. McDowell really read the LXX?

The Role of the Septuagint in the New Testament

The role of the LXX in the New Testament and the early Church is a crucial help in understanding what Paul might have meant by "all Scripture." As previously mentioned, this is the version most often quoted in the New Testament. And in some cases the claims of the New Testament theologically depend on the peculiarities of the LXX.
For instance, Hebrews 10:5 quotes Psalm 40:6 as a messianic prophecy:
Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "sacrifice and offering Thou hast not desired, but a body Thou hast prepared for Me."
The author has directly quoted from the LXX Psalter. A quick turn to our modern Bibles will confirm that the Hebrew text reads:
Sacrifice and meal offering Thou hast not desired; My ears Thou hast opened.
If we follow this latter reading, the author of Hebrews has not only misquoted the passage, but has made it an important plank of his argument. Only the rendering of the LXX justifies this as a Messianic passage. Did the author of Hebrews get it wrong? Was it an inspired mistake?
In Acts 7:14 St. Stephen relates the story of the Israelite nation and refers to 75 people who traveled from Canaan to Egypt in the emigration of Jacob's family. This is not what Genesis 46 states in our Bibles, where it catalogues 70 sojourners. But the LXX lists 75 people, confirming St. Stephen's account, with the differences accounted for by the grand- and great-grandchildren of Joseph (Gen 46:20-22).
Most importantly, it is only in the LXX that Isaiah's prophecy of the Virgin Birth makes its bold appearance (Is 7:14). The Hebrew text uses the word "woman" ("marah") instead of "virgin" ("parthenos"). In their earliest confrontations with Christians, the Jews objected most strongly to this verse being used to support of Jesus' Messiahship. The Jews claimed that Isaiah was prophesying of King Hezekiah and he knew nothing of a miraculous virgin birth. The Septuagint, they said, had been tampered with. The early Christians responded by claiming that it was not they, but the Jews who had cut passages out of the Hebrew text out of envy. (Justin Martyr, Trypho, 71-73)
If we agree with the ancient Jews that the LXX translation was a faulty translation, then why is this inferior text part of Holy, Inspired Scripture? If we follow the usage of the New Testament, could it not be said that the LXX was considered trustworthy and even preferred by the Apostles? This is not out of harmony with the testimony of the Early Church in the Greek speaking world, which, as partly evidenced by the earlier patristic quotation, regarded it as a sound and inspired translation.
As a Bible believing Christian, facing this dilemma was not easy. I felt that by trying to honestly grapple with textual issues, I was questioning the authority of God's Word. This is not at all what I intended. I simply wanted integrity in my Christian faith. With time, as I struggled through some of these facts, I realized I needed to come to Scripture on its own terms, not on my expectations as a twentieth century Westerner. This desire for integrity aided me as I swallowed hard and proceeded to study the canon of the Old Testament.

What Is in the Septuagint?

All Scripture is inspired and, in both St. Paul and St. Timothy's mind, that meant the LXX. So much is clear. But the LXX included the books we know today as the Apocrypha.
The earliest copies of the Greek Bible we possess, such as the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Siniaticus (4-5th centuries) include the Apocrypha. And it is not placed in a separate section in the back of the codex but is rather interspersed by book according to literature type—the historical books with Kings and Chronicles, the wisdom literature with Proverbs and the Song of Solomon, and so forth.
These books were used by the Hellenic Jewish communities and certain Palestinian Jewish groups such as the Essenes. The Apocrypha retained respect in various Jewish communities until around thirty years after Paul's death when the Pharisees, in the council of Jamnia, and discussed a number of issues, among which was the Jewish canon. Although the influence of this council is disputed, what is clear is that in its aftermath the Apocrypha was decidedly rejected by the Pharisees, who then proceeded to dominate Judaism.
It seems unusual that most Evangelical Christians today embrace Jamnia as defining their canon. After all, the men at this council were not Christians. Rather they were vehemently opposed to Christ and the Apostles and intended to expunge it from Jewish life. The early Christians paid no heed to the council of Jamnia and continued to use the Apocrypha, and with good reason. Read, for instance, what is written in the book of Wisdom:
Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings, Reproaches us for transgressions of the law and charges us with violations of our training. He professes to have knowledge of God and styles himself a child of the Lord. To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us, Because his life is not like other men's, and different are his ways. He judges us debased; he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure. He calls blest the destiny of the just and boasts that God is his Father.
Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will happen to him. For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With revilement and torture let us put him to the test that we may have proof of his gentleness and try his patience. Let us condemn him to a shameful death; for according to his own words, God will take care of him. (Wisdom 2:12-20)
Is such a powerful Messianic passage, written before Christ, merely a coincidence? Or could the Apocrypha be inspired Scripture?

The Apocrypha Cannot be Inspired Because...

What? The Apocrypha inspired? Never! As Evangelicals we have been raised with the understanding that there are only 39 books of the Old Testament, unique and unlike any other. No Christian could seriously believe in the Apocrypha! This attitude is competently demonstrated by Geisler and Nix who, in their book From God to Us, give reasons why the Apocrypha cannot be accepted. Because...

...of the testimony of Jesus and the New Testament writers

It is true there is no direct quotation in the New Testament from the Apocrypha. But, before smugly moving on, we should recognize that there are allusions to and use of the Apocrypha.
For instance, when the Sadducees came to Jesus to challenge him on the issue of the Resurrection (Mt 22:23-33), they refer to seven brothers among them who, in turn, married the same woman, dying before having children. This story is neither ludicrous nor an invention. Rather, it is a speculative question probably based on the situation of Sarah in Tobit (Tob 3:7-17). She found herself facing perpetual virginity as seven marriages had resulted in death, each husband dying on the night of their marriage. "In the resurrection therefore whose wife of the seven shall she be?" asked the Sadducees regarding Sarah's plight.
Jesus' parable of the widow and the uncaring judge (Lk 18:1-8) is a variation of a set of proverbs found in the Wisdom of Sirach (Ecclus 35:13-15).
St. Paul makes numerous allusions to the wisdom and power of God which have powerful affinity with the Book of Wisdom, the theology of which is strongly Christian. One fine example of this is found in Romans:
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all mean, because all sinned. (Rom 5:12)
This understanding of the Fall does not depend solely on the passage in Genesis, which does not directly blame the existence of sin today on Adam's transgression. It is there, but St. Paul's exegesis of this passage is informed by Wisdom:
But by the envy of the devil, death entered the world, and they who are in his possession experience it. (Wis 2:24)
It is true that the authors do not call these books inspired. But what books do the NT authors declare to be inspired? The argument can work both ways. There are seventeen books the New Testament does not quote—Joshua, Judges, Ezekiel, Ezra/Nehemiah and Chronicles to name but a few. Are these then dubious? The nearest citation to the Chronicles is, with a stretch of details, a reference by Jesus to the killing of a certain Zechariah (Mt 23:35, Lk 11:51). Does an indirect reference like this really establish that the Chronicles are inspired? In fact, the Bible doesn't specifically call any book inspired, aside from the passage we are looking at in II Timothy. Should we?
Possibly we need to accept that when the NT cites a book or refers to a prophet of Jehovah the authors automatically assume spiritual authority in the writing, on the part of both themselves and their audience.

...of the testimony of early Christian synods

The purpose of local synods, before the advent of the ecumenical councils, was to decide regional disputes, not to establish the fundamental doctrines of the faith. Formulating a canon of Scripture was never up for discussion. However, if it had been, the Apocryphal books would have certainly received a warm response. Here are excerpts from the acts of two early local synods.
...Holy Scripture meets and warns us, saying...."And fear not the words of a sinful man, for his glory shall be dung and worms. Today he is lifted up, and tomorrow he shall not be found, because he is turned into his earth, and his thought shall perish (I Mac 2:62,63)." Cyprian, Ep. 14, 2nd council of Carthage, AD 252, (ANF V:339)
Quietus of Baruch said: We who live by faith ought to obey with careful observance those things which before have been foretold for our instruction. For it is written in Solomon: "He that is baptized from the dead, (and again toucheth the dead,) what availeth his washing (Ecclus 34:25)?" 7th council of Carthage, AD 256, (ANF V:568)

...of the testimony of the great Fathers of the early church

Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius are specifically cited by Geisler and Nix as speaking against the Apocrypha. This is quite an interesting allegation because anyone familiar with the writings of these, and other Church Fathers, will know that precisely the opposite is true. [Webmaster Note: Actually, Origen was condemned as a heretic by the Holy Fathers of the Fifth Œcumenical Synod. This does not mean that he did not have many good things to say. Mr. Kalvesmaki's points still hold. I am merely correcting his statement that he is a Father of the Church.]
Origen, in his commentaries on the Gospels of St. John and St. Matthew, cites Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, additions to Daniel and Esdras I. Other Fathers before Origen, such as Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Clement of Alexandria and Irenaeus all quote from the Apocrypha. It is difficult to find a Father who does not quote the Apocrypha as Scripture.
St. Athanasius, in his festal letter of 367, lists the books of the Old Testament and includes in his canon those parts of the Apocrypha associated with Jeremiah and Daniel, while excluding the whole of Esther. He also commends other books of the Apocrypha as suitable for the instruction of new Christians, although he does not rate them as Scripture. St. Athanasius' intent in writing the letter was to exclude the apocryphal and spurious gospels of the second century and later, not the writings we know today as the Apocrypha.
Origen, the third century scholar and theologian who knew both Hebrew and Greek, is worth quoting on this subject:
[W]hen we notice [canonical differences between the Hebrew & LXX], we are [urged] 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.... Are we to suppose that that Providence which in 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...? 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." (Ep Afr 4,5)

...of the testimony of Luther & the Reformers

It is true that the Reformers generally subscribed to the Hebrew canon. And yet even then they were not hostile towards the Apocrypha. Luther included them in his translation of the Bible as being helpful to read. The original translation of the King James Version included the Apocrypha and was included in subsequent printings until the 19th century. According to the Book of Common Prayer it was them that "the [English] Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine..." (Art 6). What a long way we have come, where these books have fallen from honor to derision!

...of the innovation of the council of Trent

Although the council of Trent was late, it did not mark a change in the canon, but rather reflected the use of Scripture since the time of the Apostles. Generally we do not need to clarify that which is not under dispute. Up to then Rome had no need to define her canon. No church in the world, from Armenia to Ethiopia to Rome, had questioned the Apocrypha. Only Protestants, preferring their own wisdom to that of the rest of Christendom, prompted the canon to be defined.

...of the testimony of Philo, Josephus and the Council of Jamnia

As mentioned before, the testimony, or lack thereof, of these Jewish scholars carried little weight with Christians in the early centuries. Should it be any different for us? Were the sons of the Pharisees spiritually fit to establish the canon? In trying to redirect authority for the canon from the Greek to the Hebraic world, Geisler and Nix state:
"Palestine was the home of the Jewish canon, not Alexandria, Egypt. The great Greek learning center in Egypt was no authority in determining which books belonged in the Jewish Old Testament." (Geisler & Nix, 96)
Certainly Alexandria was not the "home" of the Jewish canon, but does the Old Testament belong to Jews or Christians? The question for us does not revolve around what was in the Jewish Old Testament but the Christian one! Who are the competent authorities on that question? If we respect the Jewish decision on the canon, should we then reconsider our position regarding the Messiah, the Sabbath and the Law?

...of St. Jerome's testimony

The opinions of one man do not form the mind of the Church. St. Augustine, his contemporary, begged to differ with him, as did previous and later Fathers.

...of the testimony of Reformation-period Roman Catholic scholars

Geisler and Nix cite Cardinals Cajetan and Ximenes as distinguishing the Apocrypha, in an effort to show that Rome was divided on the subject. This may result from our age-long misunderstanding of Catholicism. Through history Catholics have recognized differences within the Old Testament, not just of the Apocrypha, but of the Histories, Prophets and the Law. The Roman Catholic Church still recognizes that distinction by calling the apocryphal books deuterocanonical (second canon). Catholics distinguish, but do not separate, the Apocrypha, which perfectly accommodates the thought of the above Catholic Doctors.

Problems in the Apocrypha

There are passages of the Apocrypha which many Evangelicals find disturbing or problematic. And yet, if we are honest, those passages have their counterparts in the Old Testament.
For instance, much has been made of what, on the first reading, seems to be an occultic use of animal parts in the book of Tobit. But before rejecting this story, pause for a moment. Think of how Jacob bred his flock (Gen 30:25-43). Doesn't it seem that he used folk magic and dowsing techniques? If this story had not been included in the canon and we read it for the first time today, wouldn't we react just as awkwardly? Don't Jacob's actions seem to smack of God-sanctioned occultic practices just as much as Tobit's? Possibly our reaction against these kind of stories emanates not from their content but from being raised in a secular culture and worldview that scoffs the miraculous and God working through the physical.
There are unusual things waiting for new readers of the Apocrypha. Yet there is much that is already familiar to us as it is genuinely Christian. Some Evangelicals find that, after reading these books, they return to familiar Scriptures and discover a new depth and authenticity to them. Others begin to realize that the Old Testament canon is not a black and white issue.

All Scripture is Not Equal

Such a statement may come as a shock. If anything sounds like an attack on Scripture, this does.
Some background is necessary. In pre-Christian synagogue worship, when Scripture was read, the congregation responded differently to various sections of the Old Testament. The historical books "ranked" lowest, and above that came the Psalter and the Prophets. But when the Law was read, everyone in the synagogue stood. Here, for them, was the core of God's revelation and, above all other books, the Law of Moses merited full attention.
The same happened in early Christianity after the Apostles died. But instead of the Law, it was the Gospels which compelled the faithful to stand in respect. The teaching and words of Jesus, the New and Spiritual Law, were seen as the pinnacle of the revelation of Scripture. The early Christians' hermeneutic of the rest of the Bible began and ended with the words of Christ. The Gospels were the core of their canon. St. Paul was understood in the light of Jesus, not vice versa.
Is this ordering of Scripture so strange? We do it ourselves, although we do not readily admit it. If we consider all the sermons we have heard, cataloguing the references used, we will find that some books typically merit more thought and discourse than others. In many Protestant churches Romans and Galatians are focused upon while II Peter, James& Jude are not. In the Old Testament, the Psalms are read more frequently than Numbers. If any church or tradition really sought to cover Scripture equally they would have to slate four times more sermons on the Old Testament than on the New!

The Faith of the Septuagint

The Eastern Orthodox Church has been most faithful to the Apostles' Old Testament. They retain the LXX and generally base their translations of the Old Testament on it. Without needing objective proof for the veracity of this translation, they have simply held to what the Apostles gave them. Their approach to the canon has not been philosophical or deductive, but spiritual, trusting that God established and is now watching over the Church which He established.
In the West we have always laughed at this kind of childish faith, preferring that which is more concrete and objective. Yet there has been terrible vindication of Eastern simplicity this century. The Dead Sea Scrolls testify to the general reliability of the LXX. As the various passages of the Bible have been translated and published, scholars have realized that previous dismissal of the LXX has been premature. Passages from the Law and historical books have uncovered evidence for a separate Hebrew textual recension which underlies the translation of the LXX. More times than not the ancient manuscripts of Qumran agree with the Greek against the Massoretic Text.
It seems now that, to scholars engaged on this work in the future, Qumran has offered a new basis for a confidence in the LXX in at least the historical books, which should allow them to accept the better readings of that version almost as readily as if they were found in the Hebrew MT. In other words, each reading must in future be judged on its merits, not on any preconceived notion of the superiority of the Hebrew version, simply because it is Hebrew. (Allegro, 81)
Qumranic scholars have not submitted absolute vindication of one textual tradition over another but they have reopened the question of translation of the Old Testament. The answer to the direction of future translations, now, could be pivotally determined by theologians rather than textual scholars. Allegro, and others, argue for an eclectic translation of the Old Testament which would provoke all and satisfy none. However, in the future, we may find ourselves asking not, "Which version seems best?" but, "Which version best reflects Christ?" For the answer to the latter the LXX has been long in waiting.

Rethinking the Old Testament

Most Evangelical arguments for the Old Testament canon are, at best, ad hoc. Our leaders and teachers paint a simple, pristine picture of the transmission of Scripture, as if the canon was all but leather-bound and cross-referenced. "This canon is true because it is self-evident, internally consistent and all sensible early testimony agrees with us," goes the typical argument. And when, in opening the record of history, we find this to be not the case, we add a long string of 'but's and 'except's. This does not go very far. With such an approach to the Scriptures, trying to take them out of their place in history, is it any wonder why so many Bible-believing Christians have lost their faith to Liberals, who are willing to deal more thoroughly with the historical record?

What Can We Learn?

  • We Evangelicals need a strong dose of theological humility. When we examine history it does not always match our expectations or our experience. We preach often on the importance of confessing our personal sins and errors, but rarely apply this principle to our corporate spiritual walk with other churches and other communions. Does humility only apply to the individual, or also to entire bodies?
  • Some of us, myself included, have denied the name Christian to churches which have beliefs and practices which are closer to the Fathers who helped give us the canon. Possibly it is time to begin to treat with respect those churches which have retained the Apocrypha simply in their effort to be faithful to what the Apostles handed to them.
  • Silence and quietness is in order. As Evangelicals we often act from excessive and ignorant zeal. Might it not be time to stop, pause, and learn? It would do us no harm to prayerfully read the Fathers, some of whom were closer to Jesus and the Apostles in time, language, culture and doctrine.
  • Possibly we need to listen to what the Catholics and Orthodox say to us before we judge them. Most of what we learn about these ancient bodies come from Protestant sources. We should trust them to tell their own story.
As Jesus says, "Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you." (Gospel of Thomas 5)
What? Jesus never said that!
How do you know? Who says the Gospel of Thomas should not be in the New Testament? We will look at the answer to this, and examine the canon of the New Testament in our next essay, "Do Not Add to His Words."

Bibliography

John Allegro, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reappraisal. 1956 (London: Penguin, 1980, 2nd ed.)
The Book of Common Prayer. (London: University Press, Cambridge)
Lancelot C. L. Brenton, ed. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. 1851. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992)
Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix., From God to Us: How we Got our Bible, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1974)
Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Story of the Apocrypha, (Chicago: University of Chicago 1939)
Roberts, Alexander and James Donaldson, eds. Ante-Nicene Fathers. 1885. (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994)
All Bible quotations, except Apocryphal, which come from the New American Bible, are taken from the New American Standard Bible.
 
 
thanks to source:
 

Thursday, March 30, 2017

Quote by St. Nicholas of Serbia ~ on good deeds




Forget your good deeds as soon as possible ... Do not record your good deeds, for if you record them, they will soon fade. But if you forget them, they will be written in eternity.


(St. Nicholas of Serbia, Thought on Good and Evil)


source:


http://orthodox.cn/patristics/300sayings_en.htm

Wednesday, March 29, 2017

Fallacies in logic ~ Spotlight Fallacy



Spotlight Fallacy

Description: Assuming that the media’s coverage of a certain class or category is representative of the class or category in whole.
 
Logical Form:
The media have been covering X quite a bit by describing it as Y.
Therefore, X can be described as Y.
 
Example #1:
It seems like we are constantly hearing about crimes committed on our streets.  America is a very dangerous place.
 
Explanation: The media reports on stories of interest, which include crimes.  It does not report on all the non-crimes.  Assuming from this, “American is a very dangerous place” is fallacious reasoning.
 
Example #2:
I am seeing more and more miracles being reported on respectable news programs.  The other day there was a story about a guy who had trouble walking, prayed to the recently deceased Pope, now walks just fine!  Miracles are all around us!
 
Explanation: People love stories of hope and miracles.  You won’t find stories about how someone prayed to be healed then died.  These are not the kind of stories that attract viewers and sell papers.  As a result, the spotlight fallacy makes us think the rare cases, almost certainly due to normal and necessary statistical fluctuations, seem like the norm.  Believing that they are, is fallacious reasoning.
 
Exception: Complete coverage of a small, manageable class, by an unbiased media outlet, may accurately be representative of the entire class.

Tip: Be very selective of the types of “news” programs you watch.



thanks to source:


https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/165/Spotlight-Fallacy

Fallacies in logic ~ Self-Sealing Argument


Self-Sealing Argument


(also known as: vacuous argument [form of])
 
Description: An argument or position is self-sealing if and only if no evidence can be brought against it no matter what.
 
Example #1:
Wherever you go, there you are.
 
Explanation: You can’t argue against that position, and as a result, it is vacuous, or meaningless. 
 
Example #2:
Tina: My life is guided by destiny.
Mary: How do you know that?
Tina: Whatever comes my way is what was meant to be.
 
Explanation: We have the same vacuity problem here, except this one is less obvious and protected by a philosophical belief system.  There is no possible way we can know what "destiny may have in store for us," thus no way to argue against it.  As a result, it is meaningless -- it is the equivalent of saying everything happens because it happens.
 
Exception: No exceptions when being used as an argument.
 
Tip: Realize that most superstitious beliefs are centered around self-sealing or vacuous arguments, that is why so many people refuse to let go of superstitious beliefs -- because they cannot be proven false.
 
 
thanks to source:
 
 
 
 

Fallacies in logic ~ Two Wrongs Make a Right


Two Wrongs Make a Right

Description: When a person attempts to justify an action against another person because the other person did take or would take the same action against him or her.
 
Logical Form:
Person 1 did X to person 2.
Therefore, Person 2 is justified to do X to person 1.
 
Person 1 believes that person 2 would do X to person 1.
Therefore, Person 1 is justified to do X to person 2.
 
Example #1:
Jimmy stole Tommy’s lunch in the past.
Therefore, it is acceptable for Tommy to steal Jimmy’s lunch today.
 
Explanation: It was wrong for Jimmy to steal Tommy’s lunch, but it is not good reasoning to claim that Tommy stealing Jimmy’s lunch would make the situation right.  What we are left with, are two kids who steal, with no better understanding of why they shouldn’t steal.
 
Example #2:
It looks like the waiter forgot to charge us for the expensive bottle of champagne.  Let’s just leave -- after all, if he overcharged us, I doubt he would chase us down to give us our money back that we overpaid.
 
Explanation: Here the reasoning is a bit more fallacious because we are making an assumption of what the waiter might do.  Even if that were true, two ripoffs don’t make the situation right.
 
Exception: There can be much debate on what exactly is “justified retribution” or “justified preventative measures”.
 
 
thanks to source:
 

Fallacies in Logic ~ Reductio ad Absurdum




Reductio ad Absurdum


reductio ad absurdum
(also known as: reduce to absurdity)
 
Description: A mode of argumentation or a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd conclusion.  Arguments which use universals such as, “always”, “never”, “everyone”, “nobody”, etc., are prone to being reduced to absurd conclusions.  The fallacy is in the argument that could be reduced to absurdity -- so in essence, reductio ad absurdum is a technique to expose the fallacy.
 
Logical Form:
Assume P is true.
From this assumption, deduce that Q is true.
Also deduce that Q is false.
Thus, P implies both Q and not Q (a contradiction, which is necessarily false).
Therefore, P itself must be false.
 
Example #1:
I am going into surgery tomorrow so please pray for me.  If enough people pray for me, God will protect me from harm and see to it that I have a successful surgery and speedy recovery.
 
Explanation: We first assume the premise is true: if “enough” people prayed to God for her successful surgery and speedy recovery, then God would make it so.  From this, we can deduce that God responds to popular opinion.  However, if God simply granted prayers based on popularity contests, that would be both unjust and absurd.  Since God cannot be unjust, then he cannot both respond to popularity and not respond to popularity, the claim is absurd, and thus false.
 
Example #2:
If everyone lived his or her life exactly like Jesus lived his life, the world would be a beautiful place!
 
Explanation: We first assume the premise is true: if everyone lived his or her life like Jesus lived his, the world would be a beautiful place.  If this were true, we would have 7 billion people on this earth roaming from town to town, living off the charity of others, preaching about God (with nobody listening). Without anyone creating wealth, there would be nobody to get charity from -- there would just be 7 billion people all trying to tell each other about God.  After a few weeks, everyone would eventually starve and die.  This world might be a beautiful place for the vultures and maggots feeding on all the Jesus wannabes, but far from a beautiful world from a human perspective.  Since the world cannot be both a beautiful place and a horrible place, the proposition is false.

Source:
 

Comments:
 


Example #2 fails to inform on what would God do in the case that all men/women pursued Him in the spiritual life like Christ showed. When we live the spiritual life, is not God invoked to live in us and therefore are we not in paradise at that exact moment? So imagine a movement where all live spiritually and live in that exact moment in Paradise, paradise not as a place but as "being" as "disposition." Wealth is no longer created nor hoarded nor needed. Far from people starving to death, we would be feeding off of theoria or the nous... God would feed us noetically and paradise would be restored. There would be no more fear or need of anything, no passions, no bondage, and no more slavery to anything material: sex, drugs, power, wars for lands, etc. Here, in plain view, is the shortcoming of man's logic and from here we can begin to contemplate the intellect of man as understood in the Philokalia, not rational mind but noetic intellect that transcends to the heights; here God comes down to illuminate and divinize mankind. Example #2 clearly forgets or does not consider God's way and logic, but only man's reasoning, which as the times and histories have shown, repeatedly, will forever remain imperfect, unfulfilling, and impermanent. And what is impermanent is sure to change and pass away. This is faith and will come up fallacious in the games of logic, but nonetheless, it remains as a player as testified by countless saints throughout time/space. We can dismiss it, pooh-pooh it, but then like the yin-yang symbol shows, the circle is not complete without the Divine (Heaven) realm.
 
 
 
 
moreover...

Reliance on the Principle of Non-Contradiction
One of the assumptions of the reductio argument form is that claims which entail a contradiction entail an absurd or unacceptable result. This relies on the 'principle of non-contradiction,' which holds that for any claim 'p,' it cannot be the case both that p is true and p is false. With this principle, one can infer from the fact that some set of claims entail a contradictory result (p and not-p) to the fact that that set of claims entails something false (namely, the claim that p and not-p). Though the principle of non-contradiction has seemed absolutely undeniable to most philosophers (the Leibnizian eighteenth-century German philosopher Christian Wolff attempted to base an entire philosophical system on it), but some historical figures appear to have denied it (arguably, Heraclitus, Hegel and Meinong). In more recent years, using the name 'dialetheism,' philosophers such as Graham Priest and Richard Routley have argued that some contradictions are true (motivated by paradoxes such as that posed by the statement, "this sentence is not true").
If the law of non-contradiction is false, then it can be the case that some contradictions are true. In that case, at least some instances of reductio arguments will fail, because the assumed claims will fail to yield anything absurd. Despite this philosophical possibility, the law of non-contradiction, and so the formal legitimacy of all reductio arguments, are still almost universally accepted by logicians. In some logical systems, the reductio form has been used as a basis for introducing a negation operator.

Source:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Reductio_ad_absurdum
 

 

Examples and Observations

  • "The basic idea of the argumentum ad absurdum is that if one can show that a belief leads to an obvious absurdity, then the belief is false. Thus, assume someone believed that being outside with wet hair caused sore throats. You could attack this belief by showing that if it were true that being outside with wet hair caused sore throats, then it would also be true that swimming, which involves getting wet hair, caused sore throats. But since it is absurd to say that swimming causes sore throats, it is false to say that being outside with wet hair causes sore throats."
    (Christopher Biffle, Landscape of Wisdom
 
Examples of Reductio ad Absurdum Arguments- "Reductio ad absurdum. A 'reducing to absurdity' to show the falsity of an argument or position. One might say, for instance that the more sleep one gets the healthier one is, and then, by the logical reductio ad absurdum process, someone would be sure to point out that, on such a premise, one who has sleeping sickness and sleeps for months on end is really in the best of health. The term also refers to a type of reductive-deductive syllogism:
Major premise: Either A or B is true.
Minor premise: A is not true.
Conclusion: B is true."
(William Harmon and Hugh Holman, A Handbook to Literature, 10th ed. Pearson, 2006)
 
- "This strategy is illustrated in a Dilbert cartoon from April 1995. The pointy-haired boss announces a plan to rank all of the engineers 'from best to worst' so as 'to get rid of the bottom 10%.' Dilbert's co-worker Wally, included in the bottom 10%, responds that the plan is 'logically flawed' and proceeds to extend the range of his boss's argument. Wally asserts that the boss's plan, if made permanent, will mean continual dismissals (there will always be a bottom 10%) until there are fewer than 10 engineers and the boss will 'have to fire body parts instead of whole people.' The boss's logic will, Wally maintains (with a touch of hyperbole), lead to 'torsos and glands wandering around unable to use keyboards . . ., blood and bile everywhere!' These horrendous results will be the consequence of extending the boss's line of argument; hence, the boss's position should be rejected."
(James Jasinksi, Sourcebook on Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies. Sage, 2001)


- "Reductio ad absurdum is a good and necessary way to work through the logical implications of a position. Most of Plato's Republic is an account of Socrates' attempts to guide listeners to the logical conclusions of their beliefs about justice, democracy, and friendship, among other concepts, through extended bouts of reductio ad absurdum. The United States Supreme Court also used this technique when it handed down its ruling in the famous 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education. . . . While reductio ad absurdum can lead to long and complex arguments, it is often quite simple and practically useful. Take the following conversation as an example:
Mother (seeing her child take a rock from the Acropolis): You shouldn't do that!
Child: Why not? It is just one rock!
Mother: Yes, but if everyone took a rock, it would ruin the site!
. . . As you can see, reductio ad absurdum can be remarkably effective, whether in complex judicial arguments or in everyday conversations.

"However, it is easy to move from reductio ad absurdum to what some people call the slippery slope fallacy. The slippery slope fallacy uses a logic chain similar to that employed in reductio ad absurdum that makes unreasonable logical jumps, many of which involve so-called 'psychological continuums' that are highly unlikely."
(Joe Carter and John Coleman, How to Argue Like Jesus: Learning Persuasion from History's Greatest Communicator. Crossway Books, 2009)
 
Evaluating a Reductio ad Absurdum Argument"[A] reductio ad absurdum argument tries to show that one claim, X, is false because it implies another claim Y, that is absurd. To evaluate such an argument, the following questions should be asked:
1. Is Y really absurd?
2. Does X really imply Y?
3. Can X be modified in some minor way so that it no longer implies Y?
If either of the first two questions is answered in the negative, then the reductio fails; if the third question receives an affirmative answer, then the reductio is shallow. Otherwise, the reductio ad absurdum argument is both sucessful and deep."
(Walter Sinnott-Armstrong and Robert Fogelin, Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic, 8th ed. Wadsworth, 2010)

 
  • Adams Sherman Hill on Reductio ad Absurdum (1895)
    "An argument which can be answered by reductio ad absurdum is said to prove too much--that is, too much for its force as an argument; since, if the conclusion is true, a general proposition which lies behind it and includes it is also true. To show this general proposition in its absurdity is to overthrow the conclusion. The argument carries in itself the means of its own destruction. For example:
    (1) Skill in public speaking is liable to great abuse; it should, therefore, not be cultivated.
    (2) Skill in public speaking is liable to great abuse; but so are the best things in the world--as health, wealth, power, military skill; the best things in the world should, therefore, not be cultivated.
    In this example, the indirect argument under (2) overthrows the direct argument under (1) by bringing into view the general proposition omitted from (1) but implied in it--namely, that nothing which is liable to great abuse should be cultivated. The absurdity of this general proposition is made apparent by the specific instances cited.

    "The argument that games of football should be given up because players sometimes sustain severe injuries may be disposed of in a similar way; for horseback-riders and boating-men are not exempt from danger.

    "In Plato's dialogues, Socrates often applies reductio ad absurdum to the argument of an opponent. Thus, in 'The Republic,' Thrasymachus lays down the principle that justice is the interest of the stronger. This principle he explains by saying that the power in each State is vested in the rulers, and that, therefore, justice demands that which is for the interest of the rulers. Whereupon Socrates makes him admit that it is just for subjects to obey their rulers, and also that rulers, not being infallible, may unintentionally command that which is to their own injury. 'Then justice, according to your argument,' concludes Socrates, 'is not only the interest of the stronger but the reverse.'

    "Another example of reductio ad absurdum is furnished by the reply to the arguments which attempt to prove by means of an alleged cipher that Bacon wrote the plays attributed to Shakspeare. All the arguments adduced in favor of this proposition may, as its opponents contend, be used to prove that anybody wrote anything."
    (Adams Sherman Hill, The Principles of Rhetoric, rev. edition. American Book Company,
  • 1895)




  • The Lighter Side of Reductio ad AbsurdumLeonard: Penny, if you promise not to chew the flesh off our bones while we sleep, you can stay.
    Penny: What?
    Sheldon: He's engaging in reductio ad absurdum. It's the logical fallacy of extending someone's argument to ridiculous proportions and then criticizing the result. And I do not appreciate it.
    ("The Dumpling Paradox." The Big Bang Theory, 2007)
    Pronunciation: ri-DUK-tee-o ad-ab-SUR-dum


    source:

    https://www.thoughtco.com/reductio-ad-absurdum-argument-1691903


    Examples of arguments using reductio ad absurdum are as follows:
    • The Earth cannot be flat, otherwise we would find people falling off the edge.
    • There is no smallest positive rational number, because if there were, then it could be divided by two to get a smaller one.
    source:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum


    Reductio Ad Absurdum
    Reductio Ad Absurdum is disproving an argument by showing the absurdity of following it through to a logical conclusion. Essentially, the argument is reduced to its absurdity. This works only if there is faulty logic in the argument to begin with.
    Examples of Reductio Ad Absurdum:
    In a location where there is a sign saying not to pick the flowers, a small child says to his mother, "It's just one flower."
    Mother responds, "Yes, but if everyone who came by picked just one flower, there would be none left."
    Your friend says, "If I rub my lucky rabbit's foot, then I will do well on this test."
    You respond, "So, if it brings good luck, then I need to rub it so that my mom's cancer will go away, and my dad will get a new job, and our family will win the lottery.
    You are in trouble for skipping school, but you tell your father, "All of my friends were going!"
    He says, "Well, if all of your friends were going to jump off of a bridge, would you do that, too?"

    Example of Reductio Ad Absurdum from Literature
    From Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal:
    I think it is agreed by all parties, that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom... cheap and easy method of making these children sound and useful members of the common-wealth, would deserve so well of the public, as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.


    source:

    http://softschools.com/examples/literary_terms/reductio_ad_absurdum_examples/337/





     




    Fallacies in logic ~ The Nirvana Fallacy




    Nirvana Fallacy

    (also known as: perfect solution fallacy, perfectionist fallacy)
    Description: Comparing a realistic solution with an idealized one, and dismissing or even discounting the realistic solution as a result of comparing to a “perfect world” or impossible standard.  Ignoring the fact that improvements are often good enough reason.
     
    Logical Form:
    X is what we have.
    Y is the perfect situation.
    Therefore, X is not good enough.
     
    Example #1:
    What’s the point of making drinking illegal under the age of 21?  Kids still manage to get alcohol.
     
    Explanation: The goal in setting a minimum age for drinking is to deter underage drinking, not abolish it completely.  Suggesting the law is fruitless based on its failure to abolish underage drinking completely, is fallacious.
     
    Example #2:
    What’s the point of living?  We’re all going to die anyway.
     
    Explanation: There is an implication that the goal of life is not dying.  While that is certainly a worthwhile goal, many would argue that it is a bit empty on its own, creating this fallacy where one does not really exist.
     
    Exception: Striving for perfection is not the same as the nirvana fallacy.  Having a goal of perfection or near perfection, and working towards that goal, is admirable.  However, giving up on the goal because perfection is not attained, despite major improvements being attained, is fallacious.
     
     
    Source:
     
     

    Quote by St. Gabriel of Imereti ~ How We Should Relate to our Deeds




    No matter who you are, what kind of work you do, give an account of yourself as to how you have performed your work: as a Christian, or as a heathen (that is, motivated by self-love and worldly pleasure). A Christian must remember that every deed, even the smallest, has a moral principle. A Christian, who remembers the teaching of Jesus Christ, should perform every deed so that it will be of use toward the spreading of the grace of God and the Kingdom of Heaven among men.


    (St. Gabriel of Imereti, Yearly Account)


    Source:

    http://orthodox.cn/patristics/300sayings_en.htm


    Monday, March 27, 2017

    The Old Testamtent in the New Testament Chruch ~ Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky



    The Old Testament
    in the
    New Testament Church
    Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky
     
     
     




      
    Introduction
     
     
    A distance of many centuries separates us from the time when the books of the Old Testament were written, especially the first ones. And it is no longer easy for us to transfer our thoughts back to the state of soul and the conditions of life in which the books were first written, and which are described in the books themselves. This has given birth to many perplexities which confuse the thought of modern man. Such perplexities arise especially when people wish to find an agreement between contemporary, scientific views and the simplicity of the biblical ideas about the world. General questions also arise as to how many of the Old Testament views correspond to the New Testament outlook. And often people ask: "Why the Old Testament? Are not the teachings and scriptures of the New Testament sufficient?"
    Concerning the enemies of Christianity, long ago their polemics against the Christian faith began with attacks on the Old Testament. Contemporary militant atheism considers Old Testament accounts the easiest material to suit its purpose. Those who have passed through a period of religious doubt, and perhaps denial of religion (especially those who have been through the Soviet school system with its anti-religious propaganda), usually say that the first stumbling block for their faith arose in this area.
    This brief review of the Old Testament Scriptures cannot answer all the questions which arise in this regard; but will try to indicate some guiding principles, with the help of which many perplexities can be avoided.
     
    In Accordance with the Saviour's
    and the Apostles' Commandments
     
    The Early Christian Church constantly dwelt in spirit in the Heavenly City, seeking the things to come, but she also organized the earthly aspect of her existence; in particular, she accumulated and took great care of the material treasures of the Faith. First among these treasures were the written documents concerning the Faith. The most important of the Scriptures were the Gospels, the sacred record of the earthly life and the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Next came all the other writings of the Apostles. After them came the holy books of the Hebrews. The Church also treasures them as sacred writings.
    What makes the Old Testament Scriptures valuable to the Church? The fact that a) they teach belief in the one, true God, and the fulfillment of God's commandments and b) they speak about the Saviour. Christ Himself points this out. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life and they are they which testify of Me, He said to the Jewish scribes. In the parable about the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Saviour puts these words about the Rich Man's brothers into the mouth of Abraham: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. "Moses" means the first five books of the Old Testament; "the prophets" — the last sixteen books. Speaking with His disciples, the Saviour mentioned the Psalter in addition to these books: ... all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning Me. After the Mystical Supper, when they chanted a hymn, they went out into the Mount of Olives, says the Evangelist Matthew. This refers to the chanting of psalms. The Saviour's words and examples are sufficient to make the Church esteem these books — the Law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms — to make her preserve them and learn from them.
    In the Hebrew canon, the cycle of books recognized as sacred by the Hebrews, there were and still remain two more categories of books besides the Law and the Prophets: the didactic books, of which only the Psalter has been mentioned, and the historical books. The Church has accepted them, because the Apostles so ordained. Saint Paul writes to Timothy: From a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. This means: if one reads them wisely, then one will find in them the path which leads to strengthening in Christianity. The Apostle had in mind all the books of the Old Testament, as is evident from what he says next: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16).
    The Church has received the sacred Hebrew books in the Greek translation of the Septuagint, which was made long before the Nativity of Christ. This translation was used by the Apostles, as they wrote their own epistles in Greek. The canon also contained sacred books of Hebraic origin, which however were extant only in Greek. The Orthodox Christian Church includes them in the collection of Old Testament books (in the biblical science of the West they are called the "deuterocanonical" books). From the time of their Council in Jamnia in 90 A.D., the Jews ceased to make use of these books in their religious life.
    In accepting the Old Testament sacred scriptures, the Church has shown that she is the heir of the Old Testament Church — not of the national aspect of Judaism, but of the religious content of the Old Testament. In this heritage, some things have an eternal significance and value, but others have ceased to exist and are significant only as recollections of the past and for edification as prototypes, as, for example, the regulations concerning the tabernacle and the sacrifices, and the prescriptions for the Israelites' daily conduct. Therefore, the Church makes use of her Old Testament heritage quite authoritatively, in accordance with her understanding of the world, which is more complete than and superior to that of ancient Israel.
     
    Using the Old Testament
     
     
    While in principle fully recognizing the merit of the Old Testament books, the Christian Church has not, in practice, had the opportunity to make use of them everywhere, always, and to their full extent. This is clear from the fact that the Old Testament Scriptures occupy four times as many pages in the Bible as the New. Before books were printed, that is to say, during the first 1500 years of the Christian era, copying the books, collecting them, and acquiring them was, in itself, a difficult matter. Only a few families could have had a complete collection of them, and certainly not every Church community did. As a source of instruction in the Faith, as a guide for Christian life in the Church, the New Testament, of course, occupies the first place. It can be said only of the Old Testament Psalter that the Church has constantly used it, and still uses it, in its complete form. From the time of the Apostles until our day, she has used it in her services and as the companion of each Christian, and she will continue to use it until the end of the world. From the other books of the Old Testament, she has been satisfied with select readings, and these not even from all the books. In particular, we know of the Russian Church that although she had already shone forth resplendently in the 11th-12th centuries, before the Tatar invasion (this fullness of her life was expressed in the writing of Church services, in iconography and church architecture, and reflected in the literary monuments of ancient Russia) she nevertheless did not have a complete collection of the Old Testament books. Only at the end of the 15th century did Archbishop Gennadius of Novgorod manage, with great difficulty, to gather Slavonic translations of the books of the Old Testament. And even this was just for one archdiocese, for one bishop's cathedra! Only the printing press gave the Russian people the first complete Bible, published at the end of the 16th century and known as the Ostrog Bible. In our time, the Bible has become readily available. However, in practice the purely liturgical use of the books of the Old Testament has remained the same as always, as it was originally established by the Church.
     
    Understandest Thou
    What Thou Readest?
     
    According to the account in the Acts of the Apostles, when the Apostle Philip met one of Queen Candace's eunuchs on the road and saw the book of the Prophet Isaiah in his hands, he asked the eunuch, Understandest thou what thou readest? He replied, How can I except some man should guide me? (Acts 8:30-31). Philip instructed him in the Christian understanding of what he had been reading, with the result that this reading from the Old Testament was followed immediately, there on the road itself, by the eunuch's baptism. As the Apostle interpreted in the light of the Christian faith what the eunuch had been reading so we also must approach reading the Old Testament from the standpoint of the Christian Faith. It needs to be understood in a New Testament way, in the light which proceeds from the Church. For this purpose the Church offers us the patristic commentaries on the Holy Scriptures, preferring that we should assimilate the contents of the sacred books through them. It is necessary to bear in mind that the Old Testament is the shadow of good things to come (Heb. 10:1). If the reader forgets this, he may not receive the edification he should, as the Apostle Paul warns. Concerning the Jews he writes that even unto this day, when Moses is read, the veil is upon their hearts: with them it remaineth untaken away in the reading of the Old Testament, that is to say, they are not spiritually enlightened unto faith. Nevertheless, when they shall turn to the Lord, the Apostle concludes his thought, the veil shall be taken away (2 Cor. 3:14-16). So we must also read these books from a Christian point of view. This means to read them while remembering the Lord's words: ... They [the Scriptures] are they which testify of Me. They require not simply reading, but searching. In them are contained the preparation for the coming of Christ, promises, prophecies, and types or antitypes of Christ. It is according to this principle that the Old Testament readings are chosen for use in the church services. Furthermore, if the Church offers us moral edification in them, she chooses such passages as are written, as it were, in the light of the Gospel, which speak, for example, of the "eternal life" of the righteous ones, of "righteousness according to faith," and of Grace. If we Christians approach the books of the Old Testament in this light, then we find in them an enormous wealth of edification. Even as drops of dew on plants shine with all the colors of the rainbow when the sunlight falls on them, even as twigs of trees that are covered with ice are iridescent with an the tints of color as they reflect the sun, so these scriptures reflect that which was foreordained to appear later: the events, deeds, and teaching of the Gospel. But when the sun has set, those dew drops and the icy covering on the trees will no longer caress our eyes, although they themselves remain the same as they were when the sun was shining. It is the same with the Old Testament Scriptures. Without the sunlight of the Gospel they remain old and decaying, as the Apostle said of them, as the Church has also called them, and that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away, as the Apostle expresses it (Heb. 8:13). The Kingdom of the chosen people of old has come to an end, the Kingdom of Christ has come: the law and the prophets were until John; from henceforth the Kingdom of God is proclaimed (Luke 16:16).
     
    Why it is Necessary
    to Know the Old Testament
     
    We listen to the hymns and readings in Church, and two series of events are revealed before us: the Old Testament — and the New, as the type and the fulfillment, as the shadow and the truth, as the fall and the rising, as the loss and the gain. In the patristic writings and the hymns in the church services the Old and New Testaments are constantly being contrasted: Adam and Christ, Eve and the Mother of God. There, the earthly paradise; here, the Heavenly paradise. Through the woman came sin; through the Virgin, salvation. The eating of the fruit unto death; the partaking of the Holy Gifts unto life. There, the forbidden tree; here, the saving Cross. There it is said, Ye shall die the death; here, today shalt thou be with Me in paradise. There, the serpent, the deceiver; here, Gabriel, the preacher of good tidings. There, the woman is told, In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children; here, the women at the tomb are told, Rejoice. The parallel is made throughout the entirety of the two Testaments. Salvation from the flood in the ark; salvation in the Church. The three strangers with Abraham; the Gospel truth of the Holy Trinity. The offering of Isaac as sacrifice; the Saviour's death on the Cross. The ladder which Jacob saw as in a dream; the Mother of God, the ladder of the Son of God's descent to earth. The sale of Joseph by his brothers; the betrayal of Christ by Judas. Slavery in Egypt; the spiritual slavery of mankind to the devil. The departure from Egypt; salvation in Christ. Crossing the Red Sea; Holy Baptism. The unconsumed bush; the perpetual virginity of the Mother of God. The Sabbath; the day of Resurrection. The ritual of circumcision; the Mystery of Baptism. Manna; the Lord's Supper of the New Testament. The Law of Moses; the Law of the Gospel. Sinai; the Sermon on the Mount. The tabernacle; the New Testament Church. The Ark of the Covenant; the Mother of God. The serpent on the staff; the nailing of Christ to the Cross. Aaron's rod which blossomed; the rebirth in Christ. We could continue with such comparisons even further.
    The New Testament understanding, which is expressed in our hymns, makes the meaning of the Old Testament events even more profound. With what power did Moses divide the sea? — with the sign of the Cross. "Inscribing the invincible weapon of the Cross upon the waters, Moses marked a straight line before him with his staff and divided the Red Sea." Who led the Jews through the Red Sea? — Christ. Christ "hath thrown the horse and rider into the Red Sea,... and He hath saved Israel." The return of the sea to its former state after the Israelites had crossed was a prototype of the incorrupt purity of the Mother of God. "In the Red Sea there was once depicted an image of the Unwedded Bride... " (Dogmatic Theotokion, 5th Tone).
    During the first and fifth weeks of Great Lent, we gather in church for the compunctionate and penitential canon of Saint Andrew of Crete. From the beginning of the Old Testament to the end, examples of righteousness and examples of transgressions pass before us in a long sequence, and then give place to New Testament ones; but only if we know the sacred history of the Old are we able to profit fully from the contents of the canon.
    This is why a knowledge of Biblical history is necessary not only for adults; by giving our children lessons from the Old Testament we also prepare them to take part intelligently in the services, and understand them. But there are other, still more important reasons.
    In the Saviour's preaching, and in the Apostles' writings, there are many references to people, events and texts from the Old Testament: to Moses, Elias, Jonah, to the testimony of the Prophet Isaiah, and so on.
    In the Old Testament the reasons are given why salvation through the coming of the Son of God was essential for humanity.
    Nor must we lose sight of the purely moral edification which the Old Testament contains. The time would fail me, writes the Apostle Paul, to tell of Gideon, and of Barak, and of Sampson, and of Jephthae, of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens ... of whom the world was not worthy: they wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth ... (Heb. 11:32-34, 38). We too can profit from this edification. The Church constantly places before our mind's eye the image of the Three Children in the Babylonian furnace.
     
    Under the Church's Guidance
     
     
    In the church, everything is in its proper place. In the Church everything has its own tone and correct illumination. This applies as well to the Old Testament Scriptures. We know by heart the Ten Commandments that were given on Sinai, but we understand them far more profoundly than the Jews did, because for us they are illuminated and deepened by the Saviour's Sermon on the Mount. Much moral and ritual legislation passes before us throughout the Mosaic Law, but the words, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul and with all thy mind and Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, which are to be found amid the mass of Moses' other instructions, have only through the Gospel begun to shine for us with their full brilliance.
    Neither the tabernacle, nor Solomon's temple exist any more; yet we study their construction because many symbols of the New Testament are contained in their ordinances. In church we hear readings from the prophets; but they are not offered to us so that we may know the fate of the peoples who surrounded Palestine, but because in these readings prophecies are made of Christ and the events of the Gospel.
    But then it happened (in the 16th century, in Western Europe) that an enormous group of "Christians" who refused to be guided by ecclesiastical tradition (in over-reaction, of course, against the Roman distortion of the true Tradition), threw aside all the wealth of the Tradition of the ancient Church, deciding to keep, as the source and guide of faith, only the Holy Scriptures: the Bible in its two parts: the Old and the New Testaments. This is how Protestantism acted. Let us give it its due: it had become inflamed with thirst for the living word of God, it had come to love the Bible. But it did not learn that the Sacred Scriptures were collected by the Church and belong to the Church in her historical, apostolic succession. It did not take into account that the Church's Faith is illuminated by the Bible, just as, in its turn, the Bible is illuminated by the Church's Faith; one requires the other, each rests on the other. Left with the Holy Scriptures only, these "Christians" frenziedly began studying it, in the hope that, following its path closely, they would see this path so clearly that no longer would there be any cause for disagreements about faith. The Bible, three quarters of which, in terms of its overall volume, consists of the Old Testament, became a constant reference book. They investigated it in its minutest details, compared it with ancient Hebrew texts, counted how many times certain words are used in the Holy Scriptures. However, in doing this they began to lose a sense of proportion; they thought of the Old and New Testaments as two equivalent sources of the same Faith, as mutually supplementing each other, as two completely equal aspects of it. And with certain groups of Protestants, the predominance in quantity of the Old Testament and the fact that it occupies first place in order in the Bible gave rise to the view that the Old Testament also occupies first place in significance. Thus the Judaizing sects made their appearance. They began to place the monotheism (which they considered to be belief in simply one God) of the Old Testament higher than the New Testament monotheism with its divinely revealed truth of the one God in the Holy Trinity; the commandments given on Sinai became more important than the Gospel teaching; the Sabbath more important than Sunday, the day of the Resurrection.
    Others, who may not have taken this Judaizing path, are yet unable to distinguish between the spirit of the Old Testament and that of the New, the spirit of slavery and the spirit of sonship, the spirit of the law and the spirit of freedom. Under the influence of certain passages of the Old Testament, they have rejected that fullness of worship which is expressed in the Christian Church in various forms of worship involving both the spirit and the body, they have rejected external methods of expressing it and, in particular, have disdained the symbol of Christianity — the Cross — and other sacred images, thereby bringing themselves under the Apostle's condemnation: Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? (Rom. 2:22).
    A third group of people (more humanistically oriented) confused either by the simplicity with which the ancient accounts are told, or by the severe character of antiquity (especially as it manifested itself in war), or by Hebrew ethnicism or by other features of the pre-Christian era, began to take a negative attitude towards these accounts, and then to the Bible itself in its entirety.
    Even as it is impossible to eat bread alone without water, even though bread is essential for the organism, so it is impossible to be nourished spiritually by the Scriptures alone, without the refreshment of Grace provided by life in the Church. Protestant theological faculties, which purport to guard Christianity and its sources, and work on the study of the Bible, are, as it were, left with a bitter taste in their mouths. They were carried away with the critical analysis of scriptural texts, initially of the Old Testament, and later, of the New. As they gradually ceased to feel its spiritual power, they began to approach the sacred books like the ordinary documents of antiquity, using the methods and techniques of nineteenth century positivism. Some of these theologians sought to outdo each other in contriving theories for the origin of various books, contrary to the sacred tradition of antiquity. In order to explain instances of the foreknowledge of future events in the sacred books, they began to say that these books were, in fact, written at a later date, at the time of the actual events. The theories have changed, but the method itself has, for them, dealt a blow to the authority of Holy Scripture and the Christian Faith. It is true that simple Protestant believers ignored this so-called "Biblical criticism," and to a degree continue to do so. But in so far as the pastors have attended modernist theological schools, they themselves not infrequently have been transmitters of this critical thought in their communities. The period of Biblical criticism is now on the wane, but this upheaval has led a large number of sects to the loss of dogmatic faith; they have begun to recognize only the moral teaching of the Gospel, forgetting that it is inseparable from its dogmatic doctrine.
    It often happens that even good undertakings have their dark side.
    Thus, the translation of the Bible into all contemporary languages was a great event in the field of Christian culture. We must admit that to a great degree this task has been fulfilled by Protestantism. However, it must also be admitted that it is more difficult to feel the breath of deep and sacred antiquity of the Old Testament Scriptures in our contemporary languages. When reading the Scriptures in these languages, not everyone will take into account the immense distance which separates the two epochs, the apostolic and our own, and hence, there arises an inability to understand and value the simplicity of the Biblical accounts. Not without reason some Jews carefully preserve the ancient Hebrew language of the Scriptures, and even avoid using a printed Bible for prayers and readings in the synagogues, but use manuscript copies of the Old Testament written on parchment.
    Propagating the Bible over the face of the earth in editions of many millions was also certainly a great deed. But even here, has not the mass distribution made people take a less reverent attitude towards the Book of books?
    What we have just said relates to activities within "Christendom." But to this were joined other circumstances from without. The Bible found itself face to face with scientific research: with geology, paleontology, archaeology. From beneath the earth appeared the world of the past, hitherto almost unknown. Contemporary science gave antiquity a span which extended back over an enormous number of millennia. The enemies of religion did not hesitate to use scientific data as evidence against the Bible, which they placed on the judgement seat, saying to it in the words of Pilate: Behold how many things they witness against Thee (Mark 15:4).
    Under these new conditions, we must confirm ourselves in a sure consciousness of the sanctity of the Bible, of its truth, of its value, of its exceptional nature and its grandeur, as the Book of books, the authentic record of mankind. Our task is to protect ourselves from confusion and doubts. It is chiefly the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament which are contested by contemporary scientific theories. Therefore, let us approach the Old Testament more closely. Let us look into their very essence. As far as science is concerned, we may be quite sure that objective, unprejudiced, authentic science will always testify in its conclusions to the truth of the Bible. Saint John of Kronstadt advises:
    "When you doubt in the truth of any person or any event described in Holy Scripture, then remember that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Tim. 3:16), as the Apostle says, and is therefore true, and does not contain any imaginary persons, fables, and tales, although it includes parables which everyone can see are not actual narratives, but are written in figurative language. The whole of the Word of God is one, entire, indivisible truth; and if you assert that any narrative, sentence or word is untrue, then you sin against the truth of the whole of Holy Scripture and its primordial Truth, which is God Himself." (My Life in Christ, Saint John of Kronstadt, p. 70).
     
    The Divine Inspiration
    of the Scriptures
     
    We usually qualify "scripture" with the word "sacred". "Sacred" means "sanctified," "having Grace in itself," "reflecting the wafting of the Holy Spirit." Only to the Gospels is the word "holy" always applied, and, before the reading of the Gospel, we are called upon to pray that we will be worthy to hear it: "And that we may be vouchsafed to hear the Holy Gospel let us ask of the Lord God"; and we are obliged to listen to it standing: "Wisdom; aright; let us hear the Holy Gospel," while when listening to the Old Testament readings, the parables, the Orthodox Church allows us to sit. Even while the Psalms are being read, not so much as prayers, but rather offered for meditation, for edification, as for example, the kathismas at Matins, we are allowed to sit. Thus in relation to the sacred books we can also say, in the word of the Apostle Paul, that one star differeth from another star in glory (1 Cor. 15:41). All of Scripture is divinely inspired, but its very subject matter elevates some books above others; there, the Israelites and the Old Testament law; here (in the New Testament) Christ the Saviour and His divine teaching. What constitutes the divinely inspired nature of Scripture? The sacred authors were invested or guided by that which, in supreme spiritual moments, becomes illumination and God's direct revelation. Concerning this latter state, they usually say of themselves, "I received revelation from the Lord," as we read in the prophets and in the Apostles Paul and John in the New Testament. Together with all this, however, the writers use the usual means of acquiring knowledge. Thus, for information about the past, they turn to oral tradition. Even those things that we have heard and have known and which our fathers have told us; they were not hid from their children, in another generation. They declared the praises of the Lord and His mighty acts and His wonders... (Ps. 44:1). O God, with our ears have we heard, for our fathers have told us the work which Thou hadst wrought in their days, in the days of old... (Ps. 78:2-3). The Apostle Luke, who was not one of the twelve Apostles, describes the Gospel events as one having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first (Luke 1:3).
    The sacred authors use written documents, censuses of people, family genealogies; they state accounts with indications of building expenses, quantities of material, weights, prices, etc. In the historical books of the Old Testament, we find references to other books as sources; for example, in the books of Kings and Chronicles, And the rest of the acts of Ahaziah which he did, behold, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel? And the rest of the words of Joatham, and all that he did, behold, are not these written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah? (2 Samuel 1:18; 15:36; 2 Chron. 12:15; 13:22 and other places). Original documents are also quoted: the first book of Esdras reproduces word for word a whole series of orders and reports connected with the restoration of the Temple at Jerusalem. We must not think that the sacred authors were omniscient. That quality is not given even to the angels; it belongs to God alone. But these writers were holy. The children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance (2 Cor. 3:7), recalls Saint Paul. This sanctity of the writers, their purity of mind, and heart, their consciousness of the loftiness of their calling and of their responsibility for fulfilling it, were directly expressed in their writings: in the sanctity, purity and righteousness of their thoughts, in the truth of their words, in the clear distinction of the true from the false. They began their records with inspiration from above and being thus inspired, they completed them.
    At certain moments, their spirit was enlightened by special Grace filled revelations from on high and by mystical insight into the past, as with the Prophet Moses in the book of Genesis, or into the future, as with the later prophets and Christ's Apostles. It is natural for us to imagine a vision as in a mist, like seeing behind a curtain for a moment. Now we see through a glass darkly, but then [in the age to come we shall see] face to face (1 Cor. 13:12), testifies Saint Paul. Whether the attention is directed towards the past or the future, no account of time is made in this vision; the prophets see "things that are afar off as if they were near." This is why the Evangelists depict two future events, foretold by the Lord, the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the world in such a way that they almost merge into one future perspective. It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in His own authority (Acts 1:7), said the Lord.
    Divine inspiration belongs not only to Holy Scripture. As we know, the Holy Orthodox Church recognizes Holy Tradition as a source of faith equal to Holy Scripture. For Tradition, which expresses the voice of the whole Church, is also the voice of the Holy Spirit living in the Church. All our church services are also divinely inspired, as the Holy Church sings, "Let us worthily honor the witnesses of truth and heralds of piety in divinely inspired hymns" (Kontakion to Sts. Zenobius and Zenobia, Oct. 30); and in particular, the Liturgy of the Holy Mysteries is called by the more elevated name of "Divine Liturgy," since it is divinely inspired.
     
    Narrative of the Creation
    of the World
     
    let us open the book of Genesis. The first place in it is occupied by the origin of the world. Moses, the seer of God, speaks briefly about the creation of the world. His account occupies about one page of the Bible. But at the same time he took in everything with a single glance. This brevity displays profound wisdom, for what loquacity could embrace the greatness of God's work? In essence this page is an entire book, which required great spiritual stature on the part of the sacred author and enlightenment from above. It is not without reason that Moses concludes his account of the creation as if he were concluding a large and long work: This is the book of the generations of the heavens and the earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heavens and the earth (Gen. 2:4).
    This was a mighty task — to speak of how the world and all that is in the world came to be. A large enterprise in the realm of thought requires a correspondingly large store of means of expression, a technical and philosophical vocabulary. But what did Moses have? At his disposal was an almost primitive language, the entire vocabulary of which numbered only several hundred words. This language had almost none of those abstract concepts which now make it much easier for us to express our thoughts. The thinking of antiquity is almost entirely expressed in images, and all its words denote what the eyes and ears perceive of the visible world. Because of this, Moses uses the words of his time with care, so as not to immerse the idea of God in the crudeness of purely earthly perceptions. He has to say "God made," "God took," "God saw," "God said," and even — "God walked;" but the first words of Genesis, In the beginning God made, and then, The Spirit of God moved over the water, already speak clearly of God as a spirit, and consequently of the metaphorical nature of the anthropomorphic expressions we quoted above. In a later book, the Psalter, when the metaphorical nature of such expressions about the Spirit became generally understood, we encounter many more such expressions, and ones which are more vivid. In it we read about God's face, about the hands, eyes, steps, shoulders of God, of God's belly. Take hold of weapon and shield, and arise unto my help (Ps. 35:2), the psalmist appeals to God. In his homilies on the book of Genesis, commenting on the words, And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the afternoon, Saint John Chrysostom says:
    "Let us not, beloved, inattentively pass over what is said by Divine Scripture, and let us not stumble over the words, but reflect that such simple words are used because of our infirmity, and everything is accomplished fittingly for our salvation. Indeed, tell me, if we wish to accept the words in their literal meaning, and will not understand what we are told at the very beginning of the present reading. And they heard, it is said, the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the afternoon. What are you saying? God walks? Surely we are not ascribing feet to Him? And shall we not understand anything higher by this? No, God does not walk — quite the contrary! How, in fact, can He Who is everywhere and fills all things, Whose throne is heaven and the earth His footstool, really walk in paradise? What foolish man will say this? What then does it mean, They heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the afternoon? He wanted to awaken in them such a feeling (of His nearness), that it would cast them into anxiety, which is what actually happened: they felt this, trying to hide themselves from God Who was approaching them. Sin happened — and the crime — and shame fell upon them. The impartial judge, the conscience, rose up, cried out with a loud voice, reproached them, exposed them and, as it were, exhibited before their eyes, the seriousness of the crimes. In the beginning, the Master created man and placed the conscience in him, as an inexorable accuser, which cannot be deceived or flattered ..."
    In our era of geological and paleontological research and discoveries, the world of the past is depicted on an immeasurably vast time scale; the appearance of humanity itself is ascribed to immensely distant millennia. In questions of the origin and development of the world, science follows its own path, but it is not essential for us to make efforts to bring the Biblical account into congruence and harmony in all points with the voice of contemporary science. We have no need to plunge ourselves into geology and paleontology to support the Biblical account. In principle we are convinced that the words of the Bible and scientific data will not prove to be in contradiction, even if at any given time their agreement in one respect or another is still not clear to us. In some cases scientific data can show us how we should understand the facts in the Bible. In some respects these two fields are not comparable; they have different purposes, to the extent that they have contrasting points of view from which they see the world.
    Moses' task was not the study of the physical world. However, we agree in recognizing and honoring Moses for giving mankind the first elementary natural history; for being the first person in the world to give the history of early humanity; and, finally, for giving a beginning to the history of nations in the book of Genesis. All this only emphasizes his greatness. He presents the creation of the world and its history, in the small space of a single page of the Bible; hence it is already clear, from this brevity, why he does not draw the thread of the world's history through the deep abyss of the past, but rather presents it simply as one general picture. Moses' immediate aim in the account of the creation was to instill basic religious truths into his people and, through them, into other peoples.
    The principal truth is that God is the one spiritual Being independent of the world. This truth was preserved in that branch of humanity which the fifth and sixth chapters of the book of Genesis call the "sons of God," and from them faith in the one God was passed on to Abraham and his descendants. By the time of Moses, the other peoples had already lost this truth for some time. It was even becoming darkened among the Hebrew people, surrounded as they were by polytheistic nations, and threatened to die out during their captivity in Egypt. For Moses himself the greatness of the one, divine Spirit was revealed by the unconsumed, burning bush in the wilderness. He asked in perplexity: Behold, I shall go forth to the children of Israel, and shall say to them, "The God of our fathers has sent me to you" — and they will ask of me, "What is His name?" What shall I say to them? Then, Moses heard a mystical voice give the name of the very essence of God: And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am the Being. Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, the Being has sent me to you (Ex. 3:13-14).
    Such is the lofty conception of God that Moses is expounding in the first words of the book of Genesis: In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth. Even when nothing material existed, there was the one Spirit, God, Who transcends time, transcends space, Whose existence is not limited to heaven, since heaven was made together with time and the earth. In the first line of the book of Genesis the name of God is given without any definitions or limitations: for the only thing that can be said about God is that He is, that He is the one, true, eternal Being, the Source of all being, He is the Being.
    A series of other truths about God, the world, and man, are bound up with this truth and follow directly from the account of the creation. These are:
    • God did not separate a part of Himself, was in no way diminished, nor was He augmented in creating the world.
    • God created the world of His free will, and was not compelled by any necessity.
    • The world does not, of itself, have a divine nature; it is neither the offspring of the Deity, nor part of Him, nor the body of the Deity.
    • The world manifests the wisdom, power, and goodness of God.
    • The world which is visible to us was formed gradually, in order, from the lower to the higher and more perfect.
    • In the created world "everything was very good"; the world in its entirety is harmonious, excellent, wisely and bountifully ordered.
    • Man is an earthly being, made from earth, and appointed to be the crown of earthly creation.
    • Man is made after the image and likeness of God, and bears in himself the breath of life from God.
    From these truths the logical conclusion follows that man is obliged to strive towards moral purity and excellence, so as not to deface and lose the image of God in himself, that he might be worthy to stand at the head of earthly creation.
    Of course, the revelation about the creation of the world supplanted in the minds of the Hebrews all the tales they had heard from the peoples surrounding them. These fables told of imaginary gods and goddesses, who a) are themselves dependent on the existence of the world and are in essence, impotent, b) who are replete with weaknesses, passions and enmity, bringing and spreading evil, and therefore, c) even if they did exist would be incapable of elevating mankind ethically. The history of the creation of the world, which has its own independent value as a divinely revealed truth, deals, as we see, a blow to the pagan, polytheistic, mythological religions.
    The Old Testament concept of God is expressed with vivid imagery in the book of the Wisdom of Solomon: For the whole world before Thee is as a little grain in the balance yea, as a drop of the morning dew that falleth down upon the earth! (Wis. 11:22). The book of Genesis confesses pure, unadulterated monotheism. Yet Christianity brings out a higher truth in the Old Testament accounts: the truth of the unity of God in a Trinity of Persons. We read: Let us make man according to our image; Adam is become as one of us; and later, God appeared to Abraham in the form of three strangers.
    Such is the significance of this short account. If the whole book of Genesis consisted only of the first page of the account of the world and mankind, it would still be a great work, a magnificent expression of God's revelation, of the divine illumination of human thought.
     
    The Dawn of Humanity
     
     
    The second and third chapters of the book of Genesis unfold a new theme; we can say that they begin a new book: the history of mankind. It is understandable why Moses speaks twice about the creation of man. It was necessary for him to speak of man in the first chapter as the crown of creation, in the general picture of the creation of the world. Now, after concluding the first theme: And the heavens and the earth were finished, and the whole world of them — it is natural that he should begin the history of humanity by speaking again of the creation of the first man and of how woman was made for him. These are the contents of the second chapter, which also describes their life in Eden, in paradise. The third chapter tells of their fall into sin and their loss of paradise. In these accounts, together with the literal meaning, there is a symbolic meaning and we are not in a position to indicate where precisely events are related in their natural, literal sense, and where they are expressed figuratively, we are not in a position to separate the symbol from the simple fact. We only know that, in one form or another, we are being told of events of the most profound significance.
    A symbol is a relative means of expression, which is convenient in that it is pictorial, and therefore makes an impression on the soul. It does not require great verbal means to express a thought. At the same time, it leaves a strong impression of the given concept. A symbol gives one the possibility of penetrating more deeply into the meaning of the thought. Thus, in quoting the Psalmic text, Thy hands have made me, Saint John of Kronstadt accompanies it with the remark: "Thy hands are the Son and the Spirit." The word "hands" in relation to God suggests to him the idea of the Most-holy Trinity (My Life in Christ). We read similar words in Saint Irenaeus of Lyons: "The Son and the Holy Spirit are, as it were, the hands of the Father" (Against Heresies, bk. 5, ch. 6).
    It is essential to make a strict distinction between Biblical symbol and imagery, with the special meaning which is hidden within it, and the concept of myth. In the Bible there is no mythology. Mythology belongs to polytheism, which personifies as gods the phenomena of nature and has created fantastic tales on this basis. We are justified in saying that the book of Genesis is a "de-mythologizing" of ancient notions, the unmasking of mythology, that it was directed against myths.
    It might be said that one can also see symbolism in mythology. This is true. But the difference here is that the truth — often deeply mysterious — lies behind Moses' figurative expressions; but mythological stories present fiction inspired by the phenomena of nature. These are symbols of the truth; the others are symbols of arbitrary fantasy. For an Orthodox Christian this is similar to the difference between an icon and an idol: the icon is the depiction of a real being, whereas an idol is a depiction of a fictitious creation of the mind.
    The symbolic element is felt most strongly where there is the greatest need to reveal an essential point. Such, for example, is the account of the creation of the woman from Adam's rib. Saint John Chrysostom teaches us:
    And He took, it says, one of his ribs. Do not understand these words in a human way, but know that crude expressions are used in adaptation to human infirmity. Indeed, if Scripture did not use these words, then how could we come to know the ineffable mysteries? Let us not, then, dwell only on the words, but let us take everything in an appropriate way, as relating to God. This expression 'took' and all similar expressions are used on account of our infirmity (loc. cit., pp. 120-1).
    The moral conclusion of this story is comprehensible to us. Saint Paul points it out: woman is called to be in submission to man. The head of the woman is the man; the head of every man is Christ ... ; for the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man (1 Cor. 11:3,8). But why did Moses speak specifically of the manner in which woman was created? He undoubtedly had the intention of protecting the minds of the Hebrews from the fictions of mythology and, in particular, from the mythology of ancient Mesopotamia, the homeland of their ancestors. These sordid and morally corrupting tales tell of how the world of gods, the world of man and the world of animals are in some way merged together: goddesses and gods form unions with men and animals. We find a hint of this in the depictions of lions and bulls with human heads, which are so widespread in Chaldeo-Mesopotamian and Egyptian art.' The Biblical account of the creation of woman supports the concept that the human race has its own, absolutely unique, independent origin and keeps its physical nature pure and distinct from the beings of the supernatural world, and from the lower realm of animals. That this is so is evident from the preceding verses of the account: And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make for him a help suitable for him (Gen. 2:18). And He brought all the wild beasts to Adam, and Adam gave them names, but for Adam there was not found a helpmate like to himself (Gen. 2:20). Then it was that God put a trance upon Adam and made him a wife out of one of his ribs.
    Thus, after the truth of the unity of God, the truth of the unity, independence, and distinctness of the human race is confirmed. It is with these two basic truths that Saint Paul begins his sermon on the Areopagus in Athens: God is one, and He hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth (Acts 17:26). The account of the creation of man and of the origin of the human race which is given in the book of Genesis deals just such a blow to polytheistic, mythological concepts, as did the story of the creation of the world.
    The first people lived in paradise, in Eden, that most beautiful garden. The dawn of humanity is illumined by rays of the Sun of Grace in Moses' account. Now, under the influence of some cave discoveries, early man is usually depicted for us in the gloom of a cave, so as to make a repugnant impression with his animal-like shape, with a protruding lower jaw, with a threatening or frightened expression in his eyes, with a cudgel in his hand, hunting for raw meat. However, the Bible tells us that, although man was in a childlike state in the spiritual sense, he was still a noble creature of God from the beginning of his existence; that from the beginning, his countenance was not dark, not gloomy, but radiant and pure. He was always intellectually superior to other creatures. The gift of speech gave him the opportunity to develop his spiritual nature further. The riches of the vegetable kingdom presented him with an abundance of food. Life in this most beneficent climate did not require much labor. Moral purity gave him inner peace. The process of development could have taken on a higher form, one which is unknown to us.
    In the animal world, although it stands lower than man, we observe many noble-featured, harmoniously built species in the kingdoms of fourlegged animals and birds which express beauty and grace in their external features. We observe so many gentle animals, prepared to show attachment and trust and, what is more important, to serve in almost a disinterested way. There is also much harmony and beauty before us in the plant world and, one could say, the plants compete to be of service with their fruits. Why then is it necessary to conceive of early man alone as deprived of all the attractive and beautiful features with which the animal and plant kingdoms are endowed?
     
    The Fall into Sin
     
     
    Man's blessedness and his nearness to God are inseparable, "God is my protection and defense: whom shall I fear?" (cf. Pss. 27:1, 32:7). God "walked in paradise," so close was He to Adam and Eve. But in order to sense the beatitude of God's nearness and to be aware that one is under God's protection, it is necessary to have a dear conscience. When we lose it, we lose this awareness. The first people sinned and then they straightway hid from God. Adam, where art thou? — I heard Thy voice, as Thou walkedst in the garden, and I feared, because I am naked, and hid myself.
    The Word of God tells us that God is omnipresent, and He is always near. The awareness of this nearness is dimmed only because of man's corruption. However, it does not become extinguished completely. Throughout all the ages, it has lived and continues to live in holy people. It is said of Moses that God spoke with him face to face, as a man would speak with his friend (cf. Deut. 34: 10). Near art Thou, O Lord, we read in the psalms (Pss. 119:151; 145:12). "My soul lives in God as a fish lives in water or a bird in the air, immersed in Him on all sides and at all times; living in Him, moving in Him, at rest in Him, finding in Him breathing room," writes Saint John of Kronstadt. In another place he reasons: "What is the meaning of the appearance of the three strangers to Abraham? It means that the Lord, in three Persons, continually, as it were, travels over the earth, and watches over everything that is done on it; and that He Himself comes to those of His servants who are watchful and attentive to themselves and their salvation, and who seek Him, sojourning with them and conversing with them as with His friends (We will come unto him, and make Our abode with him — John 14:23); while He sends fire upon the ungodly" (My Life in Christ).
    This closeness was lost, and so was blessedness. Blessedness was lost and suffering appeared. Moses' account of the fall into sin is essentially the same as the Lord's parable about the Prodigal Son. He left the father, hid himself from him, that he might be satiated with the sweetness of a free life. But instead of pleasure, he was rewarded with husks, which were used to feed animals, and these not to satiety. It was the same with our forefathers; their fall was followed by grief and sufferings. I will greatly multiply thy pains and thy groanings; in pain thou shalt bring forth children... In pain..., in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread, until thou return to the earth, out of which thou wast taken...
    Eating the forbidden fruit, it would seem, was such a minor offense. Could it really have such consequences or bring such a punishment? But everything in life has its beginning; great things arise from insignificant, small ones. An avalanche in the mountains begins from a slight tremor. The Volga originates from a little spring, and the broad Hudson from the "tear clouds" which are lost in the mountains.
    Simple observation tells us that there is a connection between vices and suffering, that they lead to suffering and that man thus punishes himself. If death and many of the hardships of life constitute a chastisement from God, still it must be recognized that the majority of man's sufferings are created by humanity itself. This applies to savage wars, accompanied with the terribly inhuman treatment of the vanquished. Wars, in fact, constitute the entire history of humanity. It also applies to those types of suffering inflicted by man on man, which have accompanied the peaceful periods of history: slavery, the yokes of foreign invaders, and the various kinds of violence, which are caused not only by greed and egoism, but also by a kind of demonic passion for cruelty and brutality. In a word, all this is expressed in the old proverb: man's worst enemy is man.
    Would man have enjoyed complete blessedness on earth if the fall had not occurred? Would he be free from worries, annoyances, sadness, accidents? Apparently the Bible does not speak of such tranquility in life. Where there is light, there is also shadow; where there is joy, there must also be sorrow. But what sorrows can last long, if the Lord is near?... if He commands His angels to protect His supreme creatures, those who bear His image and likeness in themselves? The Church teaches that man in paradise was created for immortality, not only that of the soul, but also of the body. Yet even if he were not eternal in his earthly body, what woe could there be if he perceived his immortality with all the powers of his soul? If he knew and felt that a transformation into a yet higher form of life awaits him?
     
    The Problem of Evil
     
     
    Now we have touched upon one of the very broadest questions, that of the general problem of suffering in the world which is so very difficult for religious philosophy to explain. Why is the law of the constant renovation of life, the beneficent law of the life of the world, conjoined with suffering? Is it inevitable that creatures should mutually destroy each other? That some should be eaten by others to support their own life? That the weak should be in fear of the strong, and brute force should triumph in the animal kingdom? Is the struggle of one creature with another an eternal condition of life?
    The Bible does not give a direct answer to our questions. However, we do find indirect indications of a solution. Here is what is said about the first law of nourishment which God gave His creatures. God appoints the seeds of plants and the fruit of trees as food for man. Only after the flood does he also make meat lawful for him. For animals, God declares: And to all the wild beasts of the earth, and to all the fowls of heaven, and to every reptile creeping on the earth, which has in itself the breath of life, [I have given] every green plant for food, and it was so (Gen. 1:30).
    But the fall occurred. Before the flood, the human race had become corrupt. This corruption also touched the world of earthly creatures: And the Lord God saw the earth, and it was corrupted; because all flesh had corrupted His way upon the earth (Gen. 6:12). The law of concord gave way to the law of struggle. And Saint Paul writes: For the earnest expectation of creation awaiteth the manifestation of the sons of God. For creation was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of Him Who hath subjected the same in hope, because creation itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious freedom of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not they only, but ourselves also, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body (Rom. 8:19-23).
    This means that the groaning of creation is not eternal; obviously then, neither is the law of conflict, the right of the strongest. And is it, indeed, indisputably a law of life? Do we not observe that the ferocious, bloodthirsty, and formidably strong representatives of the animal world disappear more quickly from the face of the earth than the apparently defenseless, gentle creatures, which continue to live and multiply? Is this not an oblique indication to humanity itself not to rely on the principles of force? The holy Prophet Isaiah speaks of the temporary nature of the principle, when he prophesies about the time (of course not in this sinful world) when the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down together with the kid (Is. 11:6).
    The account of the origin of evil in the world, of moral evil, and physical and spiritual sufferings, is given in the third chapter of the book of Genesis, and constitutes a new, third blow against pagan mythology. According to the mythological tales, the gods experienced passions and vices and the sufferings which resulted; conflicts, treachery and murders take place among them. Then there are religions which postulate that there is a god of good and a god of evil; but one way or the other, evil is thus primordial. Hence, suffering is a normal condition of life, and there is no path to genuine moral perfection. This is not what the Bible tells us. God did not create or cause evil. What was created was "very good" by nature. Sin came into the world through temptation; that is why it is called "sin," i.e., a missing of the mark, losing of the way, a deviation of the will to the wrong side. After sin came suffering.
    The author of the Wisdom of Solomon says: For God made not death: neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living. For He created all things that they might have their being; and the generations of the world were healthful, and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of Hades upon the earth... For God created man for incorruption, and made him to be the image of His own eternity. But through the envy of the devil, came death into the world; and they that are of His portion experience it (Wis. 1:13-14; 2:23-24).
    But the moral law is not destroyed by man's fall. It continues to shine, the distinction between good and evil is not lost. Man retains the possibility of returning to his lost riches. The path to it lies through that grief which leads to moral purification and rebirth, through the sorrow of repentance, which is depicted at the end of the third chapter of Genesis, in the account of the expulsion from Paradise. From the last verses of the third chapter of Genesis, we begin to see the radiant horizon of the New Testament far in the distance, the dawn of the salvation of the human race from moral evil and, at the same time, from suffering and death, through the appearance of the Redeemer of the world.
    Thus, the story of the fall into sin is of exceptional importance for understanding the entire history of humanity, and is directly connected with the New Testament. A direct parallel arises between the two events: Adam's fall into sin and the coming of the Son of God on earth. This is always present in Christian thought, in general and particular terms. Christ is called the Second Adam; the tree of the Cross is contrasted with the tree of the fall. Christ's very temptations from the devil in the desert recall, to a certain extent, the temptations of the serpent: there it was "taste of the fruit" and "ye shall be as gods;" here, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. The Church Fathers prefer a direct, literal understanding of the story of the fall into sin. However, even here the real element, the element of the direct meaning, is so closely intertwined with the hidden, spiritual sense, that there is no possibility of separating them. Such, for example, are the mystical names "tree of life" and "tree of the knowledge of good and evil." The Church, rejoicing in her salvation in Christ, turns her gaze towards the same "Paradise of old," and she sees the Cherubim, who were placed at the gates of Paradise when Adam was expelled, now no longer guarding the tree of life, and the flaming sword no longer hindering our entry into Paradise. After repenting on the cross, the thief hears the words of the Crucified Christ: Today thou shalt be with Me in Paradise.
     
    Biblical History
    and Archaeology
     
    The book of Genesis speaks extremely briefly about the initial period of the life of humanity. After the story of Cain and Abel, the period before the flood is limited almost to a genealogy, to names alone. Calculating the number of years the antediluvial patriarchs lived, we count a span of approximately 1600 years.
    Thus, the history of many centuries occupies only a single chapter — the fourth of Genesis. Hence we see how Moses protects his account from arbitrary, popular, or mythological tales. As a source for his genealogies, Moses undoubtedly had very ancient and, of course, very brief lists, whose place of origin was Mesopotamia. From the beginning of its existence, mankind preserved its history as the apple of its eye. Families preserved the memory of their ancestors. But the whole history could express itself only in one thing, in the recording of names and length of life. In contemporary excavations in Mesopotamia, cuneiform fragments are being discovered which go back to the third millennium before Jesus Christ, which means several hundred years before Abraham. In addition to these records, antiquity tried to preserve from generation to generation the memory of its greatest ancestors, the heads of families, and built tombs and similar monuments in their memory. After a detailed account of the flood, the book of Genesis again returns to its genealogical history, again embracing almost two thousand years, and again it is just as laconic. It just as strictly follows data from sources — unknown to us — in enumerating the heads of generations until Abraham. These records are interrupted by two accounts: that of the flood and Noah and his sons, and that of the building of the tower of Babel and the dispersion of the nations.
    If Moses paused to give details of the event of the flood, then obviously he had grounds for it. The principal basis was a direct tradition about the flood among the Hebrew people of that time. They took the account into Egypt and preserved it amongst themselves, while in the monuments of the ancient Egyptians it has not been preserved; evidently they had lost it. Then it comes to light with a mythological coloring in Mesopotamian (Sumerian, not Hebrew) written monuments (from the library of Assurbanipal). This concord about the basic fact clearly demonstrates that the memory of this event was still alive in Mesopotamia. Taking into account the spirit of the language of antiquity, we can assert that Moses uses the expressions in the text of the Bible "all the earth," "all types of animals," in the sense in which they were customarily then understood, at the time when the concept of "the world" was limited to the region in which one lived, when that which was before one's eyes was taken to be everything. We can, therefore, take the words "all," "everyone" in a relative sense. Even in the time of the Roman Empire and early Christianity, the word "universe" referred to that part of the earth's surface which had been explored and was known to the ancients. However, this is only one of many possible explanations regarding the question of the flood .
    Moses' account of the flood is subject to three basic tenets, which, in general, are expounded throughout the whole Bible: a) that the world is subject to God's will, b) that national disasters are a chastisement for man's impiety, and c) that one tribe (and subsequently — nation) was chosen to preserve the true faith.
    The account of the original unity of language, of the building of the tower of Babel and the dispersal of peoples is another detail amid the short scheme of genealogies. The existence of the tower of Babel is confirmed by contemporary archaeology!
    When it reaches the time of Abraham, the book of Genesis begins a continuous historical account. From this point, the history of the Hebrew people begins. It continues to the end of Genesis, then into the other four books of the Pentateuch, and then into the cycle of the historical books of the Old Testament, and in part, into the books of the prophets. It then proceeds without interruption, until, at the end, it draws near New Testament times.
    Archaeology provides rich material parallel to the biblical history which begins in Abraham's time. A few decades ago, liberal biblical criticism formulated a theory that the book of Genesis constitutes a collection of pious legends. Now however, archaeological science takes Genesis under serious consideration as one discovery after another confirms the biblical accounts. They prove the great antiquity of names and customs referred to by Moses, like the names of Abraham himself (Abram-ram) and Jacob (Iakov-EI), which are encountered as personal names in ancient Mesopotamia. There is a connection between the names of Abraham's ancestors and relatives and the names of towns, since towns were named after their founders. These names, in turn, passed from the towns to the people who came from them. Thus, in the names of towns, the following names have been found: Tharrha (Abraham's father), Seruch (Tharrha's uncle), Phaleg (one of their ancestors), Nachor, Arrhan (Abraham's brothers — Charrhan was the region of Mesopotamia from which they came). In observing the morals and customs of that time, the so-called "tables of Nusa," which were found in Mesopotamia, throw some light on such facts as Abraham's intention to adopt his "home-born servant" Eliezer before Isaac was born, Esau's sale of his birthright, the Patriarch's blessings before death, and the story of the Teraphim (the idols which Rachel brought from the house of her father Laban) (Wright, op. cit., p. 41-3).
    Of course, later periods give more archaeological material. If there are difficulties in making some details agree, this is natural. The title of one book in German on this subject, In Spite of All, the Bible Is Still True, expresses our general conclusion, as does the remark of one of the American biblical archaeologists: "There is no doubt now that archaeology confirms the essentially historical nature of the Old Testament tradition" (Albright, p. 176).
    The historical books of the Old Testament, like the Pentateuch of Moses, propound the concept of the causal relationship between the people's piety and the people's prosperity. In other words, they show that national disasters are always brought on by apostasy from the faith and moral decline. Therefore, the sacred history of the Old Testament remains very instructive for everyone, even in the Christian era. In her services, the Church indicates many events from this history as examples for us. In the series of historical books, there are some in which the national Hebraic element places the purely religious element in the background, such as the books of Esther and Judith. The Church does not use these books in the services, although, of course, they still remain edifying for us. Thus, the historical material of the Old Testament is no longer important of itself for us, for old things are passed away (2 Cor. 5:17), but its importance lies in its edifying content.
    In their historical accounts, the prophet Moses and the sacred writers who follow after him speak of many manifestations of God's power, of miraculous phenomena. But rarely do they make use of the term "miracle" or "wonder" (although in the Psalter we encounter it frequently). They instill in us the idea that the whole of history takes place before God's eyes, and that everything consists of events which only seem to be divided into usual and unusual events, into the natural and the miraculous. For the believing soul, openly miraculous events are only an opening in the veil, behind which the interrupted miracle of God's Providence continues and the writ of each man's course is recorded without omission.
     
    Old Testament Wisdom
     
     
    The didactic books constitute the third group of writings in the Old Testament. They teach man to organize his personal, earthly life in such a way that it will be blessed by God and by men, and may give him prosperity and peace of soul. The wisdom which proceeds from God imparts such a life.
    When Solomon, beginning his reign, offered up his prayers and burnt sacrifices, God appeared to him at night and said: "Ask, what am I to give thee" (cf. 1 Kings 3:5). And Solomon asked God only for wisdom and knowledge, in order that he might rule the people of God. And God said to Solomon, "Because thou hast not asked for riches, property, glory, victories, or long life, but hast asked for wisdom and knowledge, wisdom and knowledge shall be given thee; and I shall also give thee such riches, possessions and glory as former kings have never had, nor will have after thee" (cf. 1 Kings 3:11-13).
    The didactic books are full of practical advice about how to establish one's life and the life of one's family intelligently, wisely, in the fear of God, in righteousness, honesty, labor and abstinence, and how to be a useful participant in society. These precepts are extremely instructive, apt, and true. In their expression there is much imagery, liveliness, and wit; although, of course, one encounters statements which accord with the requirements of distant times, and with customs which are foreign to us. Practical guidance for everyday life constitutes the characteristic feature of the Old Testament teaching on wisdom.
    However, it would be a mistake to think that Biblical wisdom is the wisdom of earthly prosperity. The Bible sees true wisdom in humble devotion to God in the most severe sufferings and in recognizing the unfathomable nature of God's ways when suffering innocently. I myself came forth naked from my mother's womb, naked also shall I depart hence; the Lord hath given, the Lord hath taken away. As it seemed good to the Lord, so hath it come to pass: blessed be the name of the Lord... If we have received good things from the hand of the Lord, shall we not endure evil things? (Job 1:21; 2:10). This is the wisdom of the righteous Job. But there is no true wisdom in the dialectical logic of his friends, for the very reason that they self-confidently consider that they understand God's thoughts. In their arguments there is what could be called rationalism based on a religious foundation. They are told to ask forgiveness of God through Job.
    However attractive prosperity, wealth, success, or glory may be, it is senseless to become attached to anything of this sort; such is the conclusion of Solomon's wisdom. Death awaits everyone, and then it will appear that everything was only an outward show, only vanity, "vanity of vanities, all is vanity!" (Eccles. 1:2).
    There is in life something higher, more valuable, more worthy of praise, which comes from wisdom. This is the striving to know the works of God, to study nature, and finally, the striving for pure knowledge: To know the composition of the world, and the operation of the elements; the beginning, end and midst of the times, the alterations of the turning of the sun, and changes of the seasons; the cycles of the years and the positions of stars; the natures of living creatures, and the tempers of wild beasts, the violence of winds and the reasonings of men; the diversities of plants, and the virtues of roots... And should a man desire much experience, she (wisdom) knoweth things of old, and doth portray what is to come; she knoweth the subtleties of speeches and can expound dark sentences; she foreknoweth signs and wonders, and the issue of seasons and times... And if one love righteousness, her labors are virtues; for she teacheth temperance and prudence, justice and fortitude, which are such things as men can have nothing more profitable in their life (Wis. 7:17-20; 8:8; 8:7). Here is a recognition of the degrees of knowledge in its many branches.
    Possessing such wisdom is not due to personal merit; it is a gift of God. I prayed, testifies the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, and the spirit of wisdom came to me... And all such things as are either secret or manifest, them I know. For wisdom, which is the fashioner of all things, taught me, for she is a noetic spirit, holy, only-begotten, manifold, subtle, agile, clear, undefiled, harmless, loving of the good, penetrating, irresistible, beneficent, kind to man, steadfast, sure, free from care, almighty, overseeing all things, and spreading abroad through all noetic, pure, and most subtle spirits... For she is the effulgence of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the energy of God, and the image of his goodness. And though being but one, she can do all things; and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new, and in every generation, entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets. For God loveth none save him that dwelleth with wisdom (Wis. 7:22-23; 26-28).
    It is not surprising that such a perfect image of Wisdom, as is given in the didactic books of the Old Testament, demands the attention of the Christian, especially in those passages where she is represented as sitting beside God Himself. The Lord made me the beginning of His ways for His works, we read in Proverbs. He established me before time; in the beginning, before He made the earth, even before He made the depths, before the fountains of the waters came forth, before the mountains were established, and before all hills, He begat me. The Lord made lands and uninhabited tracts and the uttermost inhabited parts under heaven. When He prepared heaven, I was present with Him; and when He prepared His throne upon the winds, and when He made the clouds above mighty, and when He secured the fountains of the earth, and when He strengthened the foundations of the earth, I was by Him, arranging all things; I was that wherein He took delight, and daily I rejoiced in His presence continually. For He rejoiced when He had completed the world, and rejoiced in the children of men... For my outgoings are the outgoings of life, and in them is prepared favor from the Lord (Prov. 8:27-31; 35).
    Here Wisdom is personified as if it were a divine being; there are other similar expressions in the passages about Wisdom. Under the influence of this image, in the Christian religious philosophy of antiquity, the Middle Ages, and of more recent times, there has arisen an attempt to introduce into theological thought the idea that Wisdom here refers to a special divine, personal force, or hypostasis, created, or uncreated, perhaps the soul of the world, the "Divine Sophia." Within Russian religious thought, the doctrine of Sophia has been accepted and developed by Vladimir S. Soloviev, Fr. Paul Florensky, and Archpriest Sergei Bulgakov. It must, however, be realized that these thinkers develop their thoughts basing them on their own philosophical presuppositions. Wishing to justify them [presuppositions] by Scripture, they do not pay sufficient attention to the fact that personifying abstract concepts was a customary device in Old Testament writing. The writer of the book of Proverbs warns that, while reading the book, it will be necessary to understand a parable, and a dark speech, the saying of the wise also, and riddles (Prov. 1:5-6); i.e., do not take figurative expressions literally.
    In those passages where Wisdom is depicted in an especially vivid way, as a personal being, as the hypostatic Wisdom, the New Testament accepts this as a reference to the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the power of God and the wisdom of God, as we read in Saint Paul (1 Cor. 1:24). Such an interpretation is given, for example, to the passage from Proverbs which is often read in church during Vespers, and which begins, Wisdom has built a house for herself, and setup seven pillars... (Prov. 9:1-6). Thus, the sacred author is transferring our thoughts directly into the New Testament, to the preaching of the Gospel, to the mystery of the Eucharist and the organization of the Church of Christ; here the Old Testament is already on the threshold of the New.
     
    Old Testament
    Prayer and Chant
     
    Among the didactic books, there is one special book, a book of prayer. What Christian — not only Orthodox, but of any confession or sect — does not know the Psalter, or at least the penitential Fiftieth Psalm? Here is a book for all, for prayer in all its forms, for all occasions: in grief, in times of hopelessness and desperation, when one is afraid, surrounded by enemies, surrounded by unbelief and crime; in personal woes and communal disasters; for tears of repentance after a fall, and in the joy after receiving consolation; when feeling reverent exultation, the need to give thanks, to bear witness to one's faith, to strengthen one's hope and to send up pure praise to God when contemplating the greatness and beauty of His creation. In the Psalter, there are many thoughts addressed to one's own soul, much advice, and many words of consolation. Therefore, the exceptionally extensive use of the Psalter in the Church of Christ is not surprising. Not a single divine service could be conducted without psalms. Some of the psalms are read several times during the course of one day's cycle of divine services. And besides this, the entire Psalter is read through in church in the form of the kathismata not less than once a week. Finally, all Orthodox services are also interspersed with individual verses from the psalms, in the form of prokeimena, alleluia verses, verses for "God is the Lord," refrains to stichera, and other short prayers of petition, repentance and praise. Christian prayers recorded in the New Testament very often borrow expressions from the psalms.
    The Psalter is Christianized in the full sense of the word. This means that the Church puts a Christian meaning into all its expressions, and the Old Testament element retreats into the background. The words "rise up" and "arise, O Lord," direct our thoughts to the Resurrection of Christ; words about captivity are understood in the sense of captivity to sin; the naming of peoples hostile to Israel as spiritual enemies; the name of Israel as the people of the Church; the appeal to slaughter our enemies as an appeal to struggle with passions; the salvation from Egypt and Babylon as salvation in Christ from idolatry. In almost every verse of the Psalter the Church finds a reflection of the New Testament, of some event, or thought, feeling, or confession of faith, hope and love. By citing verses from the psalms in their New Testament sense, the Apostles themselves in their writings, have taught us to approach the Psalter in this way.
    Some psalms contain expressions and even groups of verses which are not clear, not only in the Slavonic text, but even in their ancient languages, in the original Hebrew and in the Greek translation; but next to them are verses which are brilliantly expressive. How many psalms there are which are completely clear and beautifully express our states of soul, and express them in prayer so fully that it is as if the divinely inspired chanter composed them not in some distant age, but in our times and for us!
    Finally, there is one book among the didactic which speaks not of wisdom, not of prayer, but of love. This is the "Song of Songs," about the bride and her beloved. At first impression, this book can appear to be just a beautiful, lyric song. Many liberal commentators, who do not subscribe to the voice of the Fathers of the Church, interpret it in just this way. However, if we read the prophets, we see that, in the Old Testament, the image of the bride and her beloved is used in an elevated sense of the covenant between God and the chosen people. If this book entered the canon of the Israelite's sacred books, it did so because Old Testament tradition understood it in a lofty, symbolic sense. In the New Testament, without using the poetic form, Saint Paul employs the same symbol when, speaking of the husband's love for his wife, he compares it with Christ's love for the Church. In church hymns we often hear the same image of the bride and her betrothed, as a symbol of the burning love of a Christian soul for the Saviour: "Thy lamb, O Jesus, crieth out with a loud voice: I long for Thee, O my Bridegroom, and I endure sufferings as I seek for Thee..." we sing in the dismissal hymn to a woman martyr. A similar expression of the soul's love for Christ is also encountered in the writings of the Christian ascetics.
    Heralds of the
    New Testament
     
    The fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and especially the destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity, were most terrible blows and upheavals on an unprecedented scale for the Hebrew people. This was God's judgment for the betrayal of their covenant with Him and for their profound moral corruption. A night of utter darkness and, it seemed, hopelessness had begun for the people. Then there appeared a whole galaxy of persons to console them in their sufferings. Reproof and consolation; these are the two subjects of their proclamations and of their prophetic books, which comprise the last grouping of the books of the Old Testament.
    The prophets' reproofs precede the last blows that sealed the fate of the Hebrew people, when there were still some remnants of prosperity, and the people's conscience was still slumbering. These reproofs are incomparable in their force, in their unsparing veracity.
    Woe, O sinful nation, a people full of sins, an evil seed, lawless children... Why should ye be smitten any more, transgressing more and more? The whole head is pained, and the whole heart is sad. From the feet to the head there is no soundness in them; a wound, a bruise, a festering ulcer. they have not been cleansed, nor bandaged, nor mollified with ointment... Though ye bring fine flour, it is vain; incense is an abomination to me; I cannot bear your new moons, and your sabbaths, and the festival assemblies... Wash ye, be clean, remove your iniquities from your souls before mine eyes, cease from your iniquities, learn to do good, diligently seek judgment, deliver him that is suffering wrong, plead for the orphan, and obtain justice for the widow. And come, let us reason together, saith the Lord, and though your sins be as purple, I will make them white as snow; and though they be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool, proclaimed the Prophet Isaiah (Is. 1:4-6; 13; 18).
    The Prophet Jeremiah castigates, and he laments the people's fall with even stronger words. Trust not in yourselves, in lying words, for they shall not Profit you at all, when ye say, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord... But whereas ye have trusted in lying words, whereby ye shall not be profited; and ye murder, and commit adultery, and steal, and swear falsely, and burn incense to Baal, and are gone after strange gods whom ye know not, so that it is evil with you. Yet have ye come, and stood before Me in the house whereon My name is called, and ye have said, We have refrained from doing all these abominations. Is My house, there whereon My name is called, a den of thieves in your eyes? (Jer. 7:4; 8-11).
    Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes? then would I weep for this, my people, day and night, even for the wounded of the daughter of my people. Who would give me a most distant lodge in the wilderness, that I might leave my people and depart from them? for they all commit adultery, an assembly of treacherous men... Every one will mock his friend; they will not speak truth; their tongue hath learned to speak falsehoods; they have committed iniquity and they have not ceased, so as to return... Shall I not visit them for these things, saith the Lord?... And I will remove the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and make it a dwelling place of dragons, and I will utterly lay waste the cities of Judah, so that they shall not be inhabited. Who is the wise man, that he may understand this?... Thus saith the Lord, Be ye prudent and call ye the mourning women, and let them come... and let them take up a lamentation for you, and let your eye pour down tears, and your eyelids drops of water! (Jer. 9:1-18).
    And when the disasters befell them and unheard-of woes were heaped upon them, the Babylonian captivity came and there was no longer any consolation and then those same prophets became the people's only support.
    Comfort ye, comfort ye, My people, saith God. Speak, ye priests, of the heart of Jerusalem; comfort her, for her humiliation is accomplished, her sin is put away; for she hath received at the Lord's hand double the amount of her sins... O thou that bringest glad tidings to Zion, go up on the high mountains; lift up thy voice with strength, thou that bringest glad tidings to Jerusalem. Lift it up, fear not; say unto the cities of Judah, Behold your God! Behold the Lord. The Lord is coming with strength, and His arm is with power. Behold, His reward is with Him, and the work of each man is before Him. He shall tend His flock as a shepherd, and He shall gather the lambs with His arm and hold them in His bosom, and shall soothe them that are with young (Is. 40:1-2, 9-11).
    Thus the Prophet Isaiah comforts, becoming in those days of lamentation a prophet of God's future deliverance and good will.
    One cries to me out of Seir. Guard ye the bulwarks. I watch in the morning and the night. If you wouldst inquire, inquire and dwell by me. (Is. 21:11-12)
    The night will pass, God's anger will pass. Be glad, thou thirsty desert; let the wilderness exult, and flower as the lily. And the desert places of Jordan shall blossom and rejoice... Be strong ye hands and palsied knees. Comfort one another, ye faint-hearted, be strong and fear not; behold, our God rendereth judgment, and He will render it; He will come and save us. Then shall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear. Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the stammerers shall speak plainly; for water hath burst forth in the desert, and a channel of water in a thirsty land... But the redeemed and gathered on the Lord's behalf shall walk in it, and shall return, and come to Zion with joy, and everlasting joy shall be over their head; for on their head shall be praise and exultation, and joy shall take possession of them; pain and sorrow, and sighing have fled away (Is. 35:1-6; 10).
    What is it that especially inspires the prophets with bright hopes in these distant visions of the future? Is it the political might of their people, her victories and triumphs which they see before them? Or is it a vision of plenty, riches and abundance in the future which is presented to them? No, it is not these objects of material prosperity or national pride that attract their attention. Could these holy men, who had resigned themselves to a life of suffering, and sometimes even to a martyr's death (the Prophet Isaiah was sawn in two with a wooden saw), really inspire their people with these earthly desires alone? They were contemplating another revelation of God: an unprecedented spiritual rebirth, times of justice and truth, meekness and peace, when the whole world is filled with the knowledge of the Lord (Is. 11:9). They proclaimed the coming of the New Testament.
    But this is the covenant that I shall make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, Giving, I will give My laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts; and I will be to them a God and they shall be to Me a people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, for I will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more (Jer. 31: 33-34).Thus prophesies Jeremiah.
    The same is proclaimed by Ezekiel. And I will give you a new heart, and will put a new spirit in you; and I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh, and will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit in you, and will cause you to walk in Mine ordinances and to keep My judgments, and do them (Ezek. 36:26-27; and 11:19-20).
    The prophets speak much about the requital of the other nations, the enemies of Israel, the pagan peoples, who were only the instruments of God's anger and His chastisement of Israel. They will receive their cup of wrath. But the future blessing of Israel will be a light for them also. And in that day, there shall be a root of Jesse, and He that shall arise to rule over the nations; in Him shall the nations hope, and His rest shall be a reward, predicts Isaiah (Is. 11: 10).
    The fulfillment of these hopes is linked with the mystical promise of granting Israel an eternal king. My servant David shall be a prince in the midst of them; for there shall be one shepherd of them all, for they shall walk in Mine ordinances... And David My servant shall be their prince for ever. And I will make with them a covenant of peace, we read in Ezekiel (Ezek. 37:24-26).
    In consoling their contemporaries, the prophets direct the attention of all towards their future King. They present His image before them in these colors: in the light of meekness, gentleness, humility, righteousness. Jacob is My servant, I will help him: Israel is my chosen, My soul hath accepted him; I have put My Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up his voice, nor shall his voice be heard without. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench; but he shall bring forth judgment to truth (Is. 42:1-3).
    In such and similar words, the prophets depict the coming of the Saviour of the world. Before us, scattered throughout various passages of the prophets' writings, but abundant when taken all together, is a depiction of the future events of the Gospel and its portrayal of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.
    Here, in Isaiah, is a reference to Galilee, the place where the Saviour first dwelt on earth and appeared to people: Do this first, do it quickly, O land of Zebulon, land of Naphtali, and the rest inhabiting the seacoast, and the land beyond Jordan, Galilee of the nations. O people walking in darkness, behold a great light. ye that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, a light will shine upon you... For unto us a Child is born, and unto us a Son is given, Whose government is upon His shoulder. And His name is called the angel of great Counsel, Wonderful, Counselor, the Mighty One, the Potentate, the Prince of Peace, the Father of the age to come (Is. 9:1-2, 6).
    Here is a reference to the Lord's glorification of Jerusalem: Shine, shine, O Jerusalem, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee. Behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and there shall be thick darkness upon the nations, but the Lord shall appear unto thee, and His glory shall be seen upon thee. And kings shall walk in thy light, and nations in the brightness (Is. 60:1-3).
    Here is the prophecy about Christ by this same prophet, which Christ Himself used in the synagogue of Nazareth to begin His earthly preaching: The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He hath anointed Me, He hath sent Me to preach good tidings to the poor, to heal the broken-hearted, to proclaim deliverance to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to declare the acceptable year of the Lord (Is. 61:1-2).
    Does the prophet foresee that the Saviour will not be recognized or accepted by the leaders of the Jewish people, or by those people that follow them? Yes, he makes an oblique reference to this in the great depiction of Christ's sufferings which he gives in Chapter 53 of his book, which is one of the greatest prophecies, if not the greatest of them all:
    O Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? We brought a report of a Child before him; He is as a root in a thirsty land, He hath no form nor comeliness, and we saw Him, but He had no form nor beauty. But His form was ignoble, and forsaken by all men; He was a man of suffering, and acquainted with the bearing of sickness, for His face is turned away from us; He was dishonored and not esteemed. He beareth our sins and is pained for us: yet we accounted Him to be in trouble, and in suffering, and in affliction. But He was wounded on account of our sins, and was bruised because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and by His bruises we were healed. All we as sheep have gone astray; every one hath gone astray in his way; and the Lord gave Him up for our sins. And He, because of His affliction openeth not His mouth. He was led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so He openeth not His mouth. In His humiliation, His judgment was taken away, who shall declare His generation? for His life is taken away from the earth, because of the iniquities of My people He was led to death. And I will give the wicked for His burial, and the rich for His death; for He did no iniquity, neither is there guile in His mouth (Is. 53:1-9).
    The Gospel narrative testifies that the Jewish people did not recognize the time of its visitation. However, we cannot say that the prophecies of consolation were not fulfilled. For no one can take away from the Jewish people the boast that from their race came the Most-holy Virgin Mary, that Jesus Christ was of the seed of David, that Christ's Apostles were of the same people, and that Jerusalem has become for all time the place of the glory of the Risen Christ. From Jerusalem, the preaching of the Gospel went forth into the whole world, and of her the Church sings: "Rejoice, holy Zion, thou mother of the churches, and dwelling place of God: for thou wast first to receive remission of sins through the Resurrection" (Octoechos, Tone 8, Sun. Sticheron on "Lord, I have cried").
    A full explanation of the fact that it was principally people from the pagan nations who entered the Church of Christ, and that the majority of the Jews remained in unbelief, is given to us in the New Testament by the Apostle Paul. In his writings, we find an exhaustive interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies concerning this. The Apostle writes:
    "What if God, willing to show His wrath and to make His power known, endureth with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction, and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the nations? As He saith also in Hosea, I will call them My people, which were not My people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, ye are not My people, there shall they be called the people of the living God. Isaiah also crieth concerning Israel: Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved... What shall we say then? That the nations which have followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone; as it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumblingstone and rock of offense, and whosoever believeth in Him shall not be ashamed...
    But I say, continues the Apostle in the next chapter, did not Israel know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation will anger you. But Isaiah is very bold, and saith: I was found by them that sought Me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked after Me. But to Israel He saith: All day long I have stretched forth My hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people" (Rom. 9:22-27; 30-33; 10:18-21).
    This would seem to be too harsh a fate and too strict a sentence for the chosen people of old. But the Apostle Paul himself becomes a comforter of his people, saying, "For I wish not, brethren, that ye be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye be wise in your own conceits; that hardness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the nations be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved, as it is written: There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob... For God hath enclosed them all in disobedience, that He might have mercy upon all. O the depths of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past finding out!" (Rom. 11:25-26; 32-33).
     
    Church's Heritage
     
     
    "The shadow of the law hath passed, and Grace hath come" (Octoechos, Dogmatic Theotokion of the 2nd Tone). The prefiguring paled before the Truth; the shadows that come just before dawn were dispersed when the Sun shone forth. There are no more Old Testament sacrifices; not only in the sense that they have lost their significance, but they no longer exist even physically. There is no tabernacle; there is no Old Testament temple in Jerusalem; the Jews have no high priest or priesthood according to the Law.
    The Kingdom of Christ has come. And the very core of the Old Testament law — God's Ten commandments, which were given on Mount Sinai — yield their place to the commandments which were proclaimed on another mountain, the Beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount.
    Two ancient commandments remain unshaken: that concerning loving God with all one's heart, all one's soul, and all one's mind, and the second concerning loving one's neighbor as oneself. They constitute the ideological essence of the Old Testament: the Saviour said that all the Law and the Prophets were based in them. But concerning love for one's neighbor, the Lord gave us a new, more exalted commandment, during His parting discourse with His disciples: A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Here the previous commandment is not abolished, but is exalted by the concept of love to the level of self-denial, of love which is greater than the love one has for oneself
    At the Mystical Supper, the Lord revealed the mystical truth of the establishment of the New Testament: This cup is the New Testament in My blood. This truth became the subject of the Apostles' preaching.
    Nevertheless, the Old Testament remains the foundation on which the Church of Christ stands and rises up to the heavens. The cornerstones of this foundation are the books of the Old Testament Bible: the nomothetic, historical, didactic and prophetic books. They contain great prophecies about Christ and an almost unlimited number of foreshadowings and reflections of the coming New Testament. In them, we hear early calls to repentance, meekness, and mercy, which were later proclaimed in all their force and depth in the preaching of the Gospel. In them, we find numerous examples of piety and an abundance of moral edification. Eternal truths about God, the world, man, sin, about the necessity of redemption and about the coming of the awaited Redeemer are here revealed to mankind.
    Illuminated by the light of the Gospel, and with its full meaning revealed by the New Testament Church, the Old Testament Bible remains an inseparable part of the heritage of Christianity.


     

    Missionary Leaflet # E82
    Copyright © 2001 Holy Trinity Orthodox Mission
    466 Foothill Blvd, Box 397, La Canada, Ca 91011
    Editor: Bishop Alexander (Mileant)
     
     
    (old_new_testament_e.doc, 06-09-2001)
    Edited by Donald Shufran


    Source:

    http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/old_new_testament_e.htm