Friday, 7 April 2017

The Trials and Crucifixion of Christ. Part 1

  Православие.Ru, 21 марта 2017 г. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/102017.htm

See the last podcast: on the holy fathers. Dr. Jeannie begins her Lenten Bible study podcasts on the Trials and Crucifixion of Christ.  Now we are beginning our study of the Scriptures. Previously I was just teaching you about the Fathers, but now we’re going to be beginning an actual Bible study. I would like to start and end each lesson with a prayer. The opening prayer that I have used for years and years is from the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom—it is a prayer before the reading of the Gospel. It is one of these so called “inaudible” prayers, one which the priest says silently or quietly, but it is so beautiful and so appropriate for Bible study. I hope you will learn it by heart. Frankly, I think it is appropriate for many occasions because it talks about following the Gospel commandments and thinking and doing things that are well-pleasing to the Lord; so it really fits many, many occasions, and not just the study of the Bible. I will say this prayer every time I open the podcast and I hope that over time you will also learn it by heart, just by listening to the program. You may also already know the closing prayer from the services of the Church. It comes from the Gospel of Luke, and it is the prayer of St. Simeon. It is the traditional prayer that is said upon departure from the church, or a church service, and I used it to close the Bible studies when we would meet on weeknights and our time together was ending, our fellowship was ending and we were leaving the church. I would close with this prayer. Thus, I would like to end with this prayer every time, even though we’re not around the table in the same room at the same time. Now let’s begin with the opening prayer: “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen. Illumine our hearts, O Master who loves mankind, with the pure light of Thy divine knowledge, and open the eyes of our mind to understand Thy Gospel teachings. Implant in us also the fear of Thy blessed commandments, that trampling all carnal desires we may enter upon a spiritual manner of living, both thinking and doing such things that are well pleasing to thee. For Thou art the illumination of our souls and bodies, O Christ our God, and to Thee we ascribe glory, together with Thy Father Who is from everlasting, and Thine all Holy and Good and Life-giving Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen.” Isn’t that a wonderful prayer? Don’t you see how it suits so many occasions, and not just the study of the Bible? Anyhow, let’s start talking about the trials and Crucifixion of the Lord. I say “trials” because there was more than one. There was a Jewish trial and a Roman trial, and we will be talking about both of them. As you know, the Triodion prepares us for Lent, and Lent prepares us for Holy Week. The earlier services of Holy Week prepare us for the later services, for Great and Holy Friday, the Crucifixion and the Resurrection. You see, the Church was very, very wise. The Church always understood that we can’t just be plopped from Palm Sunday straight into Great Friday. That’s not realistic. We have to understand what was happening. We have to be prepared spiritually, mentally, emotionally. So the Church has always put these events into context. Pastors love to say how the Lord was acclaimed by the crowds on Palm Sunday and then on Great Friday the crowd shouted, “Crucify Him! Crucify Him!” You know, that doesn’t make sense, and in fact that really didn’t happen. They were not the same people on Palm Sunday who were saying “hail” to the Messiah, “Hosanna” to the Messiah, who then on Friday were shouting, “Crucify Him!” We’ll talk about that when we get to it. But the point is, we can’t make a leap from one to the other. We have to understand things in their historical context. So the early services in Holy Week help us to understand why the Jews wanted to crucify Christ. They show us, the readings show us the growing tensions between the Lord and the Jewish leaders. Now I hope you intend to go to all the services of Holy Week and not just go to church on Palm Sunday, then pick up maybe again on Great and Holy Thursday, but certainly on Great Friday. I hope you intend to go to all of the church services of Holy Week and that you will have a Holy Week service book to follow along with the church services. This is very important. Find out which book your priest or your parish uses if you don’t already have one so you can follow along—not only with the readings, but with the hymns of the Church; because the hymns help us to understand the readings. Life in first-century Palestine The truth is that we don’t really understand very much about life in first-century Palestine, and so we cannot appreciate all of the details in the Gospel stories; but at the same time, ironically, these stories are so familiar to us that in many ways they have ceased to have an impact on us. So, I hope that this series will help you to understand what happened from a historical perspective, so that the Gospels will become alive for you during Holy Week and that you will understand them in a deeper way. Thus, we’re going to begin by explaining what first century Judaism was like. This is Biblical Judaism, this is Judaism which is very different from the Judaism of today. Now most of you know that today there are three basic ways to be a Jew. You have Orthodox, Conservative and Reformed Judaism. Now you might notice that these are not the names of the groups that you hear about in the Gospels, isn’t that right? We don’t hear about Orthodox Jews and Conservative or the Reformed Jews in the Gospels. Who do we hear about? We hear about the Pharisees, the Sadducees and the scribes, etc. Those are the groups we’re going to talk about in our Bible study today. So in first century Judaism, there was a very wide variety of ways to be Jewish.  The romanticized woodcut engraving of Flavius Josephus appearing in William Whiston's translation of his works. Photo: Wikipedia Now how do we know about these different kinds of Jews? Well, first of all, we know something about them from the New Testament itself. But we also know about them from certain first century Jewish sources, the most famous of which is a first century Jewish historian whose name was Josephus. His whole name was Flavius Josephus. You notice the name “Josephus—that’s the Latinized version of the name Joseph. He was a Hebrew man named Joseph, who later wrote the history of the Jewish people. He was an eyewitness to the Jewish War that happened toward the end of the first century, and he found a patron in the Flavian dynasty. The Flavian emperors were the ones who succeeded the Julio-Claudian dynasty. The Flavian emperors patronized him. They paid him to write the history of the Jewish people, and a very famous book called, The Jewish War. The history of the Jewish people is called Antiquities. These books are also available in English translation. Josephus tells us very much about first-century Judaism, because this is the time in which he was alive, and so he knew these things from his own personal experience. Why Christ was so controversial Now the Lord was very controversial. We don’t think of Him as controversial. We’re used to His teachings, but even now it is fair to say that Christ was controversial. His message demands a response. Now as for most of the Jewish leaders, they had to respond or not respond. Much of the theme of the Gospel of John is about the message of Christ and the requirement of response: faith or unbelief. The Jewish leaders generally responded negatively, because the Lord challenged the status quo; He challenged the norms of the religious establishment, the standards of what it meant to be a good Jew. He offended a lot of people, and I think it’s important to remember this, because sometimes we think that we are being Christ-like while saying nothing when people are doing evil things. Now it is Christ-like to say nothing when we are being persecuted personally, but when we see other people doing harm to other individuals, not ourselves, it’s not right to be silent just because we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings or offend anyone. Yes, the Lord was meek and He was humble. He allowed Himself to be persecuted, but He stood for what was right. He always spoke the truth and this is why he caused offense. And I think it is not incorrect for us to speak up and say the truth when it is necessary to do so. Now, the efforts to end the life of the Lord began from day one. This is something to remember. We don’t think about it, but we see this consistently in the Gospels. Actually, in the Gospel of Luke we see that the very first time He preached was in the synagogue of his hometown of Nazareth, and on that occasion he read from the book of Isaiah. He commented on it and His remarks were so offensive to the people that they wanted to kill him right there and then. They wanted to throw Him off a hill it says, meaning, throw Him off a cliff. But we see the same thing very early in the Gospel of Mark and in Matthew—not that specific incident in the synagogue in Nazareth, but we see early in the ministry of the Lord when he was up in Galilee that there were many people who wanted to arrest Him and kill Him.  Lazarus' resurrection. Saint Catherine's Monastery, Sinai (Egypt). Photo: Wikipedia But the single most important event that triggered the decision to put Him to death immediately, that is, before the Passover, was the raising of Lazarus. Isn’t it interesting how the Church puts that into historical context for us? Where do we see the raising of Lazarus? Where is that found? You should know this. It is in the Gospel of John and only in the Gospel of John, but it is such an important story because it tells us why they were motivated to put Him to death so quickly. It is not so much that they wanted to put him to death for the raising of Lazarus, but the raising of Lazarus is what triggers the great crowds to come out on Palm Sunday to hail the Lord as the Messiah. They heard about what had happened because Lazarus lived in Bethany only two miles outside of Jerusalem; and the story tells us that when Lazarus was raised, there were many people there from Jerusalem who witnessed it. They went back to Jerusalem. They told people what had happened. So the next day, when the Lord entered Jerusalem, He was acclaimed and proclaimed as Messiah and the king of Israel. This is what St. John reports. So, the Jewish leaders saw how the crowd was proclaiming Him as the Messiah (this is what it meant to hold palm branches and spread out your cloaks and say, “Hosanna, Son of David!” This is what it meant. You’re proclaiming that He is the Messiah.) Well, when the Jewish leaders saw this, they resolved to put Him to death before the Passover. This is the trigger event. So there were lots of efforts to kill Him, to arrest Him, lots of plans, but this is the thing that makes them decide that he must be put to death immediately. Do you see how the Church tries to put this in context for us? Now we’re going to talk about each of the various groups of Jews in turn, but before we talk about them we have to know about a couple of things that were absolutely fundamental to Jewish life during the era of Biblical Judaism, and also some that are still important today. First of all, the Law of Moses. What is the Law of Moses? Some people think that this refers to the Ten Commandments, but when the Bible is talking about “the Law,” it’s not talking about the Ten Commandments. The Law of Moses was a whole series of rules that governed Jewish life, and they still govern the life of observant Jews. The Bible has about 613 rules or regulations that covers all kinds of things. There are rules against tattoos, there are rules about how you wear your hair and how to dress; about tithing, fasting, ritual washing, what you can eat, where you can eat, with whom you can associate, Sabbath regulations, dietary laws, etc. These are in the Bible itself, the first five books of Moses, the Torah, or Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. There are Laws that tell you how you must live your life. Now they talk about ritual cleanliness. There’s a difference between physical cleanliness and ritual cleanliness. So, when the Bible speaks about, or you hear the Lord conversing with the Jews about what is “clean” and “unclean,” they mean ritual cleanliness. So you yourself can be physically clean; you might look very well-groomed and totally clean, but as far as a Jew is concerned, you are defiled, you are ritually unclean because you are not keeping the Law of Moses. For example, let’s say you eat a cheeseburger. The cheeseburger makes you ritually unclean because you mixed together milk and meat products. That’s forbidden by the Law of Moses. You can’t have meat and milk in the same dish, so that has defiled you, and you are ritually unclean. The fact that you’re a Gentile makes you ritually unclean. There are many Jews who, if they’re law observant Jews, Orthodox Jews, who won’t even set foot in the house of another Jew who is not keeping the Law because they don’t want to be defiled. We see lots of hints of this in the New Testament. So the Law of Moses is extremely important. The types of Judaism that exist today are basically the same form of Judaism. The difference is whether or not you observe the Law and how strictly you observe it. So Orthodox Jews observe the Law of Moses much more strictly than Reform Jews who may not observe it at all. Conservative Jews are usually somewhere in the middle in terms of how strict they are. So it’s a very fluid thing among the Jews modernly—how much they observe the Law. Now there is another thing you need to know about first-century Judaism. The Law of Moses still exists, and it is still followed by observant Jews. The thing that does not exist from the first century is the Temple. Now, the Temple was extremely important in Judaism. It was believed that God dwelled among His people in the Temple and it was the assurance of God’s faithfulness to the Covenant. They believed it protected the city. It was located at the highest point in the city of Jerusalem, and it was a huge complex—not just like a modern church. It occupied about 25 percent of the land of the city of Jerusalem, and it was the center of the political, religious and economic life of the nation. Many people, if not most people in the city were dependent upon the Temple for their livelihood. And of course, the Lord prophesized its destruction—and that was considered a very, very serious thing to say. Today Jews sometimes refer to their synagogue as a temple. Only Reform Jews do this. So you might have a friend who says, “I’m going to temple on Saturday,” or you might drive by a place that is called, “Temple Beth Israel,” or “Temple Beth Shalom.” They are not temples. A temple, the Temple I should say, was the place where animal sacrifice occurred. That was the purpose of the Temple in Jerusalem. A synagogue does not allow animal sacrifice. That doesn’t happen anymore. There was only one Jewish temple at a time. There were only two in the entire history of the world: first, the one that was built by Solomon way back around the year 950 or so B.C. Solomon built the first Temple. It was destroyed by the Babylonians in the year 586 or 587. Then the Jews were taken off into exile. When they returned to Palestine they rebuilt the Temple, which is called the Second Temple. Later—much later, about 500 years later—Herod the Great improved, beautified and enlarged the Second Temple, and so sometimes the Second Temple is called “Herod’s Temple”; but it was not a third Temple, just the Second Temple improved. So in the history of the Jewish people there have only been two Temples. The Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 A.D. The significance of the Temple  The Mosque of Omar. Photo: walkingwithawareness.com Now the Temple was extremely important, as I said, because it was the only place in the world where animal sacrifice could be performed, and animal sacrifice was required by the Law of Moses. A synagogue was never a place where sacrifice was performed. That was a place where the Jews sang hymns, read the Scripture, heard a sermon, and said prayers. Today, because there is no Jewish Temple, the Jews have only synagogues for worship. That’s why I said before that even if you see a building called “Temple,” it is not a temple because no animal sacrifice is taking place there. The Jews do not have a temple any longer even though they live in the land of Israel, because the Muslims built a mosque on the site of the Temple. And if you see photographs of the city of Jerusalem, and you see a big, gold dome, that is a mosque. That site is the holiest place for the Jewish people. It was the site of the Temple, but the Muslims built a mosque there called the mosque of Omar or the Dome of the Rock; this is the source, the most important source, of all the tension between the Jews and the Muslims. The Jews would love to have the Temple Mount again and be able to rebuild the Temple. Many Jews would want to start the animal sacrifices all over again, which they used to engage in centuries ago. But the point is that nothing remains of the actual Temple today. The Wailing Wall, or the Western Wall, which is the holiest site of Judaism today, is not even a wall of the Temple. It’s a retaining wall for the mountain upon which the Temple once stood. But the point is that the Temple was extremely important in the life of the Jewish people, and we’re going to talk about how the Temple is really the trigger. The first charge, the so-called statement of the destruction of the Temple, is first the charge brought against the Lord at his trial. So we’ll talk about the Temple again later. Now let’s talk about the different groups. Now that you know about the importance of the Law of Moses and the Temple in the lives of the Jews of the first century, let’s talk about these various groups we hear of: first, the Pharisees. Who were the Pharisees? In a nutshell, they were the people who emphasized the following or the observance of the Law of Moses as strictly as possible. They believed that what made you righteous in the eyes of God, that means, acceptable to God, is that you kept the Law. And the more closely, the more carefully, the more specifically you observed the Law, the better person you were. So they emphasized ritual purity by observing the Law of Moses. The leaders among the Pharisees were the rabbis. “Rabbi” simply means “teacher.” A rabbi is not a Jewish priest. There were Jewish priests at the time, but there aren’t any longer, because there is no Temple. The Pharisees Now the genius and importance of the Pharisees is that they adapted the Law of Moses to changing times and circumstances. They developed a very elaborate interpretation of the Law. Remember, I said there were about 613 specific laws in the Bible, but those laws were given to Moses around 1250 B.C. That was a very long time ago. As times changed and circumstances changed, there were many questions that arose, and events, circumstances, situations, as I said, that weren’t covered by those 613 laws. So they elaborated and expanded upon the Laws to create an interpretation of the Law. All of this interpretation was oral and it was known as the “Oral Law,” or the “Tradition of the Elders.” There were thousands of regulations in the Oral Law, and a Pharisee would try to keep all of these rules that governed everything you did in your life from the moment you woke up in the morning to the moment you went to bed, and it was intended to cover a myriad of situations in daily life. The problem was, there were so many rules that it was almost impossible to follow the Law. First of all you didn’t know what all of the rules were because the oral Law wasn’t written down. These rules were oral traditions that the Pharisees had created over the centuries, but they were so technical and there were so many of them, that the Lord called the Law “a burden.” He said, “You lay burdens on men’s backs that you yourselves cannot even carry.” But the Pharisees believed that the complex requirements of the oral Law were just as binding on Jews as the written Law. So there were thousands of rules you had to follow, and of course you had to know them first in order to be able to follow them.  Photo: anaga.ru Now the good thing about the Pharisees is that they were adaptable and flexible. This was the only form of Judaism that survived after the destruction of the Temple. Today all Jews are religious descendants of the Pharisees, because Jews worship in synagogues, they emphasize the Law of Moses (to some degree or another, depending on what form of Jew they are), and their leaders are rabbis. So, all forms of modern day Judaism descended from the form of Judaism practiced by the Pharisees. The Pharisees were successful because they survived, because, as I said, they were able to adapt the Law to changing circumstances. How would they adapt the Law? For example, the Law said you cannot light a fire and cook on the Sabbath. That was considered work. Today people don’t generally light fires in order to cook, so what is the modern equivalent? Today they would say the modern equivalent is turning on a stove or an oven. So an observant Jew will not turn on a stove on the Sabbath. They won’t turn on a light switch on the Sabbath, because that is the modern equivalent of what the Law prohibited. So you can see from this that the Pharisees were very flexible and adapted the Law to changing times and circumstances. But by adding rules they made it more and more complex, more and more burdensome. Now why did they do this? Not because they just wanted to create problems, but because they believed it was their obligation to keep the Law. The Law was given and ordered by God. They wanted to be holy, pure, and acceptable to the Lord through ritual purity. They believed that this kind of holiness was important for the nation of Israel and also for the entire world. They thought that they were living examples of holiness because they were observing the Law. They saw themselves as the ones who were charged with preserving the traditions and the holiness of Israel against the climate of pollution, paganism, and religious laxity. Their obligation was to live lives of ritual cleanliness and ritual purity and to encourage other people to do this. Some of them were taking this idea to great extremes. For example, they were required to tithe, to give 10 percent of what they had. The Pharisees wouldn’t just tithe their income. They would tithe all their possessions, everything they had in the house, down to the spices in the cupboard. This is what the Lord is referring to when He denounces the Pharisees in the Gospel of Matthew. He said, “You tithe the mint and the cumin—that is, they would go through and weight their spices, take out 10 percent and give it to the Temple. “You tithe the mint and cumin,” but they ignored virtues, such as love and mercy. You see, the problem with the Pharisees was that their emphasis was so much on the observance of the outward rituals of cleanliness and purity that they ignored inner holiness, they ignored virtue. This is why the Lord said, quoting Hosea, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” So what the Lord wanted from the observance of the Law was to keep the people ritually pure, to keep them away from pagan influence, but not to simply observe rules and in the meantime be inwardly corrupt. The Lord called them “whitewashed tombs.” because on the outside they looked so pristine, so pure, so ritually clean, so perfect, but inside they were filled with all kinds of corruption and decay. You can understand from the image that He used. Or, He also said, “You are like a cup that is washed the outside but on the inside it is filthy.” So this was the problem for the Pharisees. So the Pharisees emphasized outward ritual observance while ignoring love, mercy, justice, kindness, patience, and all of the inner virtues. That’s why the Lord criticized them. The Lord was not opposed to keeping the Law. He Himself kept the Law, much of the Law. For example, he went to the synagogue on Sabbath. However, he didn’t believe that outward observance of ritual purity was more important than inner purity and holiness. Now, how did the people view the Pharisees? Where they critical of the Pharisees? No. As a matter of fact, the Pharisees were highly admired and respected by the people because, even today, the Jewish people admire those who keep the Law of Moses very strictly. We have a little bit of tendency toward that in Orthodoxy, and we have to be very careful about this. In the Orthodox Church we tend to admire the people who fast very strictly, or do a lot of prostrations or say long prayers. But this is not what makes you righteous in the eyes of God. That was a trap that the Pharisees fell into. The Pharisees became proud and self-righteous, because they knew they were keeping all of those rules of the Law very, very well. They started to believe that they were holy in the eyes of God and they had acquired an attitude of self-righteousness. This is what the Lord condemns the Pharisee in the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee for—not because he was keeping the Law but because by keeping it he had become proud and self-righteous. The other thing that happened is that the Pharisees were keeping the Law so well, and most Jews couldn’t do that. Most people had to earn a living, and they had to do things that required them occasionally to engage in activities that the Law considered defiling. For example, if an animal died on your farm and you picked up the carcass and buried it then that made you ritually unclean. You were defiled because you touched something that was dead. Ordinary people could not keep the Law that strictly, and so the Pharisees looked down upon them with contempt. Rather than loving them or caring for the common people, they looked down upon them, they despised them. But the ordinary people admired the Pharisees because of their religious strictness, and because of this the Pharisees achieved a large degree of religious and political power in first-century Judaism. What else characterized the Pharisees? The Pharisees considered the entire Bible to be Holy Scripture. You’re going to see that this is different from the Sadducees; that is, at this time the Jewish Scriptures had two parts. Today there are three parts to the Jewish bible, but then there were two parts called the Law and the Prophets. Both parts were considered Holy Scripture by the Pharisees. They also believed in the existence of angels, and they believed that in the end times there would be a general resurrection of the dead. Anyhow, basically you’re getting the idea, that mostly the Pharisees were known for their devotion to the Law. Now why did they oppose the Lord? Because He Himself was a rabbi. Now, many people have said that Jesus was a Pharisee. This isn’t exactly true. He was a rabbi. However, He did not emphasize outward adherence to ritual purity over the inner person, so certainly He wasn’t a Pharisee in that sense, but He was a rabbi. And because He was a rabbi, He was expected by the other rabbis and the Pharisees to observe the Law and to teach other people to observe the Law. But the Lord violated the Law quite blatantly; for example, by healing on the Sabbath, by eating with unclean people, such as tax collectors and sinners. Even for an ordinary Jew this would have been considered a very serious offense, but since the Lord was a rabbi, this was very, very shocking. And the Pharisees considered him an evil influence. They said He was “leading the people astray.” We see this specific reference in the Gospel of John, and that was the definition for a false prophet. So they considered Him to be a false prophet and they actively plotted His destruction long before his arrest in Jerusalem. They had contacted Jerusalem, too, however—even the Pharisees who were in Galilee must have had Jewish leaders in Jerusalem and they could have alerted these people to the danger that the Lord posed, from their estimation. Anyhow, that gives you an idea of who the Pharisees were and what the Lord did that upset them. The Scribes Now let’s talk about the Scribes, because we see the Scribes mentioned very often together with the Pharisees. Who were the Scribes? The Scribes were a group of learned men who were known for their specialization in the Law of Moses. Certainly the Pharisees knew the Law of Moses very well, but the Scribes were the absolute experts in the Law of Moses. They knew all of those oral regulations, the thousands of oral traditions. In the New Testament you will see them sometimes referred to as “lawyers,” but don’t think we’re talking about the kinds of lawyers we have today who represent people in court. The scribes were called the “lawyers” because they were the experts in the Law of Moses. They were very important in Jewish society because the Law dominated every aspect of Jewish life. So, the Scribes had a very high position in the community. They had a lot of authority and they were consulted whenever there was an especially difficult or technical question of the law. Similarly to the Pharisees, the Scribes are portrayed in the New Testament as outwardly pious, but inwardly having no virtue. They’re lacking the virtues of the heart, even though outwardly they seem to be law-observant. They observed only the technicalities of the Law, but ignored the spirit of the Law. Now it’s very interesting that the Lord said, “Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” He said that in Matthew 5:20. I’m sure that his audience was shocked. How could their righteousness exceed that of the Scribes and the Pharisees when the Scribes and Pharisees are keeping thousands of rules of the Law, and the ordinary person didn’t even know what all the rules were because they were part of an oral tradition? How could an ordinary person’s righteousness exceed theirs? Because the righteousness that the Scribes and the Pharisees did not have was the righteousness of the heart, the inner dispositions, the virtues: patience, love, mercy, forgiveness, humility, and the rest. These were the things that they were lacking. So, this is the kind of righteousness that is needed in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven but that they were lacking. Now, the Scribes were not necessarily from a privileged background, but through their education and their knowledge many of them were able to rise to positions of great power and influence. We do see them talking to the Lord occasionally but not as much as the Pharisees, because they usually considered Him an inferior, since Christ did not have a formal education. We don’t usually talk about this, but this is a very interesting point. The Lord never studied under anyone. Of course, you might say, “Well, He was God! Why would He study?” But this is something that the Scribes and Pharisees knew quite well, and in a couple of places in the Gospels they mention his lack of education. People remarked, “How could he speak so well, since he is uneducated?” They didn’t mean that He was illiterate. What they meant was that He did not have a formal rabbinic education, and He taught in a manner that was very different from the Scribes. The Gospels often comment on the amazement of the crowds when they would listen to the Lord preach, because, “He taught,” it says, “with authority, not like the Scribes.” What that means is that when a Scribe or a Pharisee would study the Law—or even today if a Jewish person goes to study the Law in a rabbinic school—what they would learn is how the Law was interpreted. They learned, basically, legal precedent. They learned how famous rabbis of the past interpreted the various laws, and they would quote them as ancient authorities. So they would say, “Rabbi Gamaliel says this,” and they would quote him. They quoted famous rabbis and their interpretation of the Scriptures the way we quote the Fathers, basically. But the Lord never did that. He never quoted other people’s interpretation. He spoke on His own authority, and this is why we see the Jews challenging Him: “By whose authority do you do this?” What they wanted Him to do is cite rabbinic authority. And we see this early in Holy Week. They challenge Him on the basis of authority. The Saducees Now let’s talk about, very quickly, the Sadducees. Who were the Sadducees? We know less about the Sadducees. They’re somewhat mysterious, but Josephus tells us that the Sadducees were associated with the chief-priest and the Temple. Their base of power was the Temple. They emphasized Temple ritual and sacrifice. They were very politically and religiously conservative, and they rejected developments in Judaism, so they clashed with the Pharisees. Remember, I told you the Pharisees were the ones who adapted the Law to changing times. The Sadducees refused to do that. The Pharisees accepted both the Law, (that is the Torah), and the Prophets, (the Nevi’im), as Scripture. But the Sadducees said, “No. Only the Torah is Scripture.” So, they were more conservative than the Pharisees. They also did not believe in angels, and they did not believe in the resurrection of the dead at the end times. That’s why when the Sadducees wanted to humiliate the Lord and make look Him look ridiculous, they asked Him the question about the woman who was married to seven brothers; do you remember that? She married one and then he died, so she married his brother, and he died, and this continued until she had married seven brothers. The Sadducees asked, “Whose wife will she be in the afterlife?” What they were trying to do is ridicule the idea of the resurrection because they did not believe in resurrection. The Sadducees opposed most of the customs and the interpretations of the Pharisees, so they accepted only the 613 rules that were found in the Law of Moses, actually found in the Bible. They did not accept the Pharisees’ interpretation, the oral Law, or the Tradition of the Elders, as binding on (meaning, required by) Jews. Now Josephus also tells us that the Sadducees came from the upper-classes and that they were part of the Jewish aristocracy and the governing class. That means that they were connected at least somewhat to the Romans. They had to know how to get along with the Romans in order to govern, because the Romans allowed the Jews a certain amount of autonomy and self-government. The Romans didn’t try to micromanage the administration of these provinces. They allowed the people who lived there to manage their own affairs, as long as they behaved themselves and paid their taxes. So the Sadducees were part of the governing class, the ruling class, and because of this, because they held power, they wanted to maintain the status quo. They wanted to keep their power. They also wanted to preserve and protect the nation and the Temple against Roman destruction. But because they were associated with ruling class, with the aristocracy, etc., after the Temple was destroyed, they disappeared. Without a Temple, without a nation, they had no power and no purpose anymore, and so today there are no Sadducees. The Elders Another group that is mentioned is the Elders. Now these men seemed to be men of wealth and status, who had political power and influence. They also appear at the trial of Christ: the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the Elders. So they seemed to have been known as men who were part of the ruling elite, especially of Jewish society in Jerusalem. They had a certain amount of power, influence and authority, and they sat on the council—the Sanhedrin—which we’ll talk about when we get to the trial. The chief-priests The final group I would like to tell you about are the chief-priests. The chief-priests were elite among the priests. There were many, many priests who served the Temple, because the Temple was a huge complex; there were approximately, we think, 20,000 ordinary priests who lived in and near Jerusalem during the first century—people such as Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist. They were not wealthy, they were not aristocrats. Most of the time they earned their living as farmers or craftsmen, and they came to Jerusalem on a rotating basis to serve in the Temple for several weeks of the year when it was their turn. We see this referenced in chapter 1 in the Gospel of Luke when you see him talk about Zacharias’ turn to go and burn incense. But the chief priests were in charge. They had status at the top of the thousands of ordinary priests, and they were the heart of Jewish aristocracy. This position was inherited at birth, and so these were the families who held the center of power in Jewish society. Priests throughout the Greco-Roman world held great power and influence in society because of their status in the local cult, whether they were Jewish priests or pagan priests. Among Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other pagans, the pagan priests were very highly esteemed and very influential in Greco-Roman world. In Judaism, the chief-priests were drawn from a small group of influential families, and, in exchange for their positions of power and privilege, the Romans held them responsible for maintaining order. So, the chief-priests were often part of the Sanhedrin, the ruling body of the Jews, and they generally cooperated with the Romans to try to get rid of troublesome people such as Jesus, the Christ. Well, I have had a rather long lesson for you today and I’m sorry if I tired you out with all of this information, but next time when we meet we will be talking about specific Gospel lessons and how the Lord specifically interacted with these groups, and how they conspired to have Him arrested and put to death. So, I’ll see you at that time. Let’s close with our prayer. “In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Lord now let Thy servants depart in peace according to Thy word, for our eyes have seen Thy salvation which Thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples, a light to enlighten the Gentiles and the glory of Thy people Israel.” God bless you all. Presbytera and Dr. Jeannie Constantinou’s podcasts can be found here.

Understanding the Bible Through the Fathers, Part 3:

About the Fathers

  Православие.Ru, 18 марта 2017 г. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/101865.htm

See Part 2 We continue with the final part of Dr. Jeannie’s introduction to her Bible studies podcast, “Search the Scriptures”, in which she explains why we trust the Fathers’ interpretations of Scripture, the differences between Orthodox Fathers and those of the Roman Catholics, what it means to understand something “according to the fathers,” and other important points relevant to the study of Holy Scripture.  Photo: Pravoslavie.ru The Orthodox tradition is to interpret the Bible according to the Fathers. In the last couple of podcasts I have been talking about the Fathers extensively, but it occurred to me that perhaps before we go any further, that is, before we begin our Lenten Bible study, I should explain what qualified someone to be considered a Father in the Orthodox Church, and what I think Scripture interpretation according to the Fathers really means. Who were the Fathers? As I had said before, the Fathers were saints who were highly educated men, the leading thinkers, writers and theologians of the Church. Generally speaking, women didn’t leave writings behind because they were not educated—at least not to the extent that men were—because they did not pursue careers in those days. The Fathers were not generally trained for an ecclesiastical life; in fact, most of them were educated for secular careers, and some of them had very successful secular careers until they left the world to serve the Church—among these are Jerome, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Augustine, St. John of Damascus, and others. Other Fathers also received a secular education, a very excellent education; however, at a young age, before they actually started a career, they decided to become monks. We see this in the case of Chrysostom, Basil the Great, and Gregory the Theologian, who while still in their teens, while still involved in their university studies, had decided to become monks. Most of the Fathers were bishops, even though very often they did not want to be bishops. Many times they did not want to be ordained at all—they wanted to live a quiet monastic life, but the Church called upon them because of their great brilliance, their many talents, their skills in oratory and their great holiness. So the Church called upon them, recognizing these great talents, and ordained them. Some of the Fathers were not bishops but were presbyters, others were monks and yet others were laymen. Now the Fathers helped to express and define Church doctrine; they defended it against heresies—that is, false teachings. They defended it from attacks by pagans and Jews, because these were constantly attacking the Church during those eras. They wrote many treatises on moral topics, such as virginity. They also wrote many books explaining the Bible. In fact, however, many of the writings which we consider commentaries about the Bible, that is, a book which explains the Bible verse by verse, were in fact not written down by the Fathers, but were sermons the Fathers delivered to their congregations. Because they were famous orators (people like Augustine, Jerome or Chrysostom), as they were preaching, stenographers wrote down what they said, then later those were put into books and published. So, many of the writings of the Fathers that we have are actually sermons, preached orally. In addition to these types of writings, theological treatises, etc, we have many letters by the Fathers to people who wrote to them asking for spiritual advice or direction, or with a theological question, and the Fathers gave their answers. So we have hundreds of letters from different Fathers. Now, what qualifies someone to be called a Father of the Church? These are the general standards understood among the Orthodox: First, brilliance of mind. Obviously, they weren’t ordinary thinkers. Second, orthodoxy of doctrine. They were not a Father if they taught heresy. Third, holiness of life. The Father had to have died as a saint. And fourth, catholicity; that is, he had to belong to the Church, he could not have been a schismatic. Orthodox vs. Roman Catholic Fathers Now, Roman Catholics do not have the same standards. Practically any church writer is called a Father of the Church by the Catholics. Let’s see how the Orthodox standards compare to the Catholic understanding, one at a time. First, brilliance of mind—the Catholics agree with this one. The Fathers were outstanding thinkers and writers. But after that the Catholics depart from us. I think they have fewer standards perhaps because the Fathers are not as important to them. I’m not certain about this, I’m just speculating, but certainly the Fathers are not as important to the Catholic church as they are to us, because for us the Fathers stand as authorities in the Church. For the Catholics, of course, authority lies in Rome. We often see the Fathers quoted in papal documents, but the decision of the Pope is what is important, for that’s where their authority lies. But for us, the authority lies in the Fathers. So perhaps that’s why the Catholics are not quite so picky about whom they call a Father. I’ll give you an example. Take the second requirement: orthodoxy of doctrine. Catholics call Origen a Father of the Church. Perhaps you’ve never heard of Origen. He was a brilliant man, a great writer and preacher. He was a presbyter who lived in the first half of the third century. He wrote thousands of books and was extremely influential in the Church, but he made some serious theological mistakes. He’s a very important early writer, but much later, about 200 years after his death, he was condemned by the Church for his errors. It is not appropriate to call him a Father, but the Catholics still call him a Father of the Church. Now, what about holiness of life? Another person who is considered a Father of the Church by Catholics, but who isn’t one for the Orthodox, is Clement of Alexandria. Many Orthodox don’t know that Clement of Alexandria is not a Father of the Church. He does not meet the criteria of holiness of life. Clement died around the year 200. He was the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria. In fact, he’s the one who preceded Origen there. He may have been a saint, but the fact is, we know virtually nothing about Clement of Alexandria’s life, and because of this, he’s not on the canon of saints of the Orthodox Church. People have said that he is, but the dates that they give are the dates for other Clements, such as Clement of Rome. Now the fact is that we don’t know anything about the life of Clement of Alexandria, so he is not a saint. We don’t make people saints whom we don’t know anything about, and if he is not a saint, then he is not a Father. What about the standard of catholicity? Well interestingly enough, the Catholics don’t observe this requirement either. They accept as a Father of the Church a famous Latin writer, Tertullian, who died as a schismatic, that is, he was once a member of the Church, but then he left and joined this breakoff movement called “Montanism”, and died outside the Church. So Tertullian is not a Father, but the Catholics still call him a Father. Now, Catholics also add another requirement, and that is antiquity. For someone to be called a Father by the Catholics, he had to have lived in the first few centuries. Catholics also have a designation that they call, “doctor of the church”. They say that there are four outstanding Fathers of the East and four outstanding Fathers of the West, whom they believed were especially important in explaining church doctrine. We don’t identify any Fathers as particularly important or more outstanding than others, perhaps with the possible exception of the three hierarchs. What does “according to the Fathers” mean? Now that we know who the Fathers were and what makes them a Father, let’s talk about what it means to interpret the Bible “according to the Fathers.” On one occasion I was explaining the Bible and I was not quoting the Fathers, and someone said to me with some alarm, “Don’t you interpret the Bible according to the Fathers”? Of course I was basically accused of not being Orthodox because I was not quoting the Fathers. Now so far in these podcasts I have been talking a lot about the Fathers, but when we embark on our Bible study, I’m not going to cite the Fathers extensively every week, especially when we are giving the introduction to the Bible, when we’re talking more about the historical aspects of the Bible, the formation of the Bible, etc. Now, if I’m not quoting the Fathers, does that mean I’m not Orthodox? I have spent a lot of time thinking about what it means, as Orthodox Christians, that we interpret the Bible “according to the Fathers.” Can we interpret the Bible “according to the Fathers” without quoting from the Fathers? I would say yes. “According to the Fathers” does not mean that we explain the Bible primarily by quoting the Fathers. When the Fathers themselves used the phrase “according to the Fathers”, they did not mean quoting the Fathers who preceded them. They meant according to the Tradition of the Church. As long as one is in line with Holy Tradition, one is interpreting the Bible according to the Fathers, because the Fathers were the ones who personified that tradition, and that’s why they’re important—not as sources of quotations like proof texts. So conversely, let’s say someone quotes the Fathers, but does not use them or understand them properly. Is he Orthodox? Of course not. I’ll give you an example that really illustrates this point. This came to my attention recently. Someone told me that Mormons are now using the Fathers to support Mormon doctrine. The Mormons are very anxious that they be accepted as Christians, and of course, Mormons are not Christians. In fact, they are polytheists. They believe in the existence of many gods. They also believe that God the Father was once a human being just like us, but he “elevated” himself to the status of a god. And furthermore, if a man lives a good Mormon life, he too can become a god, equal to God the Father. Now the Mormons are supporting this by quoting the Fathers because they want to prove that they have some connection with early, historical Christianity, and of course, they have no connection with Christianity. They popped up by themselves in nineteenth century America. So what are they doing? They are pointing to the patristic doctrine of theosis, deification, to support the Mormon doctrine that human beings can become God. That’s abhorrent. It is an abuse of the Fathers. Not only is it heresy to say that we can become God, literally gods (not god-like); because the Fathers are not saying that we become actual gods, but that we can become god-like, we can imitate God. The fact is that Christianity teaches that God has always been God, He has never been a man, and we have always been creatures and we will never be God. We will never be anything other than creatures. In fact, Mormon doctrine is not only heresy—it’s blasphemy to say that we can become equal to God. And yet, they’re using the Fathers to support their doctrine. So does that make them Orthodox if they find lots of Fathers to quote? Certainly not! That’s ridiculous. So there are many reasons why “according to the Fathers” does not mean that we restrict our explanation of the Bible to only what the Fathers had to say—and here is why. The Fathers themselves did not simply repeat what those before them had said. They used their minds, their education and all of the resources and information available to them to interpret the Bible. That is the patristic tradition. Furthermore, there are some books of the Bible for which we do not have patristic commentaries. Does that mean that we are not to read or interpret them because we don’t have any Fathers to quote about those books, to tell us what they mean? Of course not. Sometimes a Father also skips over a detail which you wish he would have explained. Does that mean that we cannot arrive at an understanding on our own that is informed, something which we have decided upon from study? Fathers also addressed a specific audience. Very often they were giving a sermon, so their words reflect their times, their pastoral consideration, the needs of their congregation, the heresies which were rampant at the time, and other details which happened to come to their mind while they were preaching. So, we don’t restrict ourselves only to what the Fathers said because they were addressing a specific situation at the time. We also don’t restrict ourselves only to what Fathers have already said because the Fathers did not exhaust the meaning of the biblical text. Chrysostom was absolutely adamant on this point, and he repeated himself when he made this point. This is what he said: “It is not possible, I repeat, it is not possible to exhaust the meaning of the Bible.” Well if it’s not possible to exhaust the meaning of the Bible, dear brothers and sisters, then certainly we cannot simply restrict ourselves to what the Fathers have already said about the Bible, because the Fathers themselves did not exhaust the meaning of the biblical text. So, we are not limited to only saying what the Fathers have already said. The Fathers themselves also tell us to study the Bible on our own. It is in fact an insult to God to not study the Bible and to apply our own mind, our own intellect, to the study of the Scriptures. The Fathers used their entire education; they used aspects of even their pagan education to apply to the understanding of the Bible, because they were educated in many things and not just in theology. They learned astronomy and mathematics and history and philology and grammar, etc., and they applied all of this to interpreting the Bible. And they expect us to do the same. Why the Fathers? Now, the Fathers had their own limitations. They did not know everything. They were also men of their times and of their culture. In some ways, we have a certain advantage over them, at least from a historical perspective. We know much more about the Bible from a historical perspective through recent archaeological discoveries than the Fathers ever did. We know more about first century Judaism, we know more about ancient Egypt—all of these things which relate to the Bible, which relate back to discoveries that have happened in recent years. We can use that information to help us interpret the Bible. That’s perfectly Orthodox. That’s what the Fathers would have done. They would have told us to learn about these things and use them. So, if the Fathers had some limitations, because they were men of their times, why are they so great? They are great because we simply cannot match their theological and spiritual insights. Because the Fathers were holy, and they were close to God. Their understanding of the biblical message is so much deeper than what we can arrive at on our own, because we’re not simply studying the Bible from a historical perspective. So, the Fathers have an understanding of the Scriptures, especially their spiritual message, which is much, much higher than what we can attain on our own. How are we to use the Fathers, then? First we must read the Fathers carefully and wisely with discernment, because just like the Bible, the Fathers themselves can be misunderstood and distorted. As with the Bible, when we read the Fathers we must understand them in the context in which they wrote. They were men of their times and in some ways they expressed the ideas that were common in their historical culture and era. Of course, in many ways, their thoughts are timeless, but they were nonetheless men of their times. For example, St. John Chrysostom is sometimes accused of being anti-Semitic. He’s sometimes accused of being a misogynist, someone who has disdain for women. This is really unfair, because this is not recognizing that Chrysostom was a man of his time. You’re not trying to understand him in the culture and time in which he lived if you level these kinds of accusations. Understanding the context. So, we have to understand also not only the times in which a Father spoke or wrote, but the context of his particular statement. When he was speaking in his sermon, was he addressing an ordinary congregation in the city, or was he addressing monks? It’s very important that we pay attention to this context, because instruction given to a group of monks is not necessarily appropriate for people living in the world. We also must understand that the Fathers speak rhetorically. They used certain rhetorical techniques in which they were trained. They use hyperbole, which means they exaggerated a bit for emphasis. They will say things such as, “It is not possible to be saved without reading the Scriptures.” This is hyperbole. This is an exaggeration for emphasis, and we have to understand that we can’t always take them literally at their word, because if you were to press them and say, “Are you serious that you can’t be saved without reading the Scriptures?” They would say “Of course not. You can be saved even if you do not read the Scriptures.” But by saying, “You can’t be saved without reading the Scriptures,” they’re emphasizing the importance of the Scriptures. So we need to understand this when we read the Fathers. In addition, we must remember when we read the Fathers in English that we are reading a translation. We have to be careful about the conclusions we draw, because sometimes a translator misunderstood the meaning of a Father, or mistranslated a passage. Some translations are simply better than others. So we have to be careful about drawing conclusions about what a Father said. In order to be certain, we need to go back to the original text; it is also very helpful if you are very well read in a particular Father, so you know whether or not this is something he says consistently and is truly part of his thoughts or opinion, or whether it seems to be an aberration. We need to remember that simply because we read something in the writings of the Fathers, even if it is an accurate translation, this does not automatically mean that it is correct, because the Fathers had their own opinions. Dogma vs. opinion. Now, of course, on matters of dogma, such as the nature of Christ or the Holy Trinity, they were in agreement. But on some things the Fathers were not in agreement, and occasionally they expressed an opinion that was a little bit out of line and is not held in agreement with other Fathers—so they may stand alone. Or maybe one or two Fathers express a certain opinion. And theologians call this a “theologoumenon.” This is a matter of opinion held by one or perhaps a few other Fathers. A “theologoumenon” does not have the same weight as a teaching that is widely held among the Fathers, so we must be careful not to find one detail that a Father said, then use it to support a whole theology, because it maybe something he’s incorrect about. Other times there are opinions expressed that are clearly wrong, even when they’re given by a Father who is recognized by the Church. The most famous example of this is Gregory of Nyssa, who seems to have taught a doctrine called “the restoration of all things” (apokatastasis panton). This is the teaching that in the end everyone would be saved. Some people don’t agree that St. Gregory actually taught this, because this doctrine has been rejected by the Church and condemned. Others believe that Gregory may have held this belief; however, it is still okay to read him, but we simply ignore this little teaching of his that is incorrect. One Father who said this is St. Photios the Great. He says Gregory may have said this, but we just read everything else and we ignore that aspect of his teaching. So we must be careful as Orthodox Christians not to become patristic fundamentalists. Just because we find one teaching in the writings of the Fathers, we must not understand that literally and adhere to it as though it is absolute truth. There is also no such thing as patristic infallibility. The Fathers were human. They were saints, but they were not perfect. Only God does not make mistakes. So occasionally we see little mistakes, usually very minor things, among the Fathers. Therefore, we can’t insist that just because a Father said something, especially on a historical matter, interpreting the Bible, this does not mean that he absolutely correct and perfect, because there is no such thing as infallibility in the Orthodox Church, except in the manner in which we understand it: the Holy Spirit guiding the Church as a whole. But overall, we can rely upon the Fathers as authentic witnesses to and the guardians of Holy Tradition. So along those lines it’s important that when we are drawing conclusions and citing the Fathers we consider the totality of the patristic witness before we draw conclusions. We do the same thing with the Bible. We may find one verse in the Bible that seems to run contrary to the rest of the message of the Bible. In that instance we have to understand that we cannot take it literally, because obviously it is saying something that disagrees with the rest of the Bible, so we must use discernment on this point. So, we have to understand the totality of the biblical message and not arrive at a conclusion about one that differs from the Bible as a whole. It is the same with the Fathers. This is where the Catholics went wrong with St. Augustine, and I’m going to discuss him specifically in a moment, because I did quote St. Augustine in an earlier podcast and I will be quoting him again in the future; I want to explain to you why I am using Augustine, because many Orthodox raise their eyebrows at anybody who is quoting St. Augustine. Toward a mature understanding. I’m telling you these things about the Fathers not to upset you or scandalize you, or certainly not to disparage the Fathers in any way—God forbid—but to help you understand that my point of this podcast is to lead you from a simplistic understanding of the Bible and the Fathers to a more complex, new, and mature one. When you were young and you asked about Heaven, your parents may have told you, “Heaven is a beautiful place where there is lots of grass and beautiful flowers and your friends are all there and you get to play all the time.” Or perhaps if you discussed God, your parents may have told you that God is in the sky looking down on you, watching over you. But when you got older, hopefully, you replaced these notions with more mature ones, because Heaven is not like a park and God is not an old man in the sky. It is appropriate to explain things like this to children because they cannot understand abstract concepts, so we give them these images that are more concrete, something they can understand. Now many of us have never really left the childlike and simplistic notions we have about the Bible, because no-one replaced those understandings with something which is deeper, more mature. That’s what I’m trying to do when I’m explaining the Bible to you and these things about the Fathers. I may say things that you don’t like or don’t agree with, but I’m hoping that you will bear with me; and if you think that I’m trying to say something that is not Orthodox, it is my hope and my prayer that you will continue to listen and try to understand what I am saying. You may find out that I make a lot of sense and that I’m actually right. I have spent a lot of time thinking about these things, and I guarantee you that there is a very good reason for what I say. “That’s not according to the Fathers!” I want to take a moment to share with you one experience I had at Holy Cross when I was teaching there at our Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts. I started the semester; it was the first day of class, and I walked into the classroom. They knew that the instructor was Constantinou, but nobody knew who Constantinou was. I walked into the class, and what do you know… it’s a woman. Now I really believe that if had I walked in and I was a man wearing a cassock, some of the students would not have been so suspicious of me. But there was a group of hardcore, very conservative Orthodox Christians, who were immediately suspicious of me. They did not give me the benefit of the doubt, let’s put it that way. Now of course (they assumed) if I’m a woman I must be a feminist. I have a theological degree from Harvard, so that too, of course, immediately makes me suspicious. I have an Orthodox degree too, but, you know, perhaps I had been corrupted over there at Harvard. Now I want to illustrate with you something that happened in the class that shows how carefully they were watching me to judge my Orthodoxy. I will tell you that in the end, over the course of the first few weeks, I won them over and they were convinced of my Orthodoxy; but in the beginning it wasn’t so easy. This group would sit in the back of the class and whisper to each other and look at each other, indicating, “We’re not so sure about her.” Now, here’s what happened. We were discussing the Gospel of Mathew. The course was on the Gospel of Mathew, and we arrived at chapter 5, the Sermon on the Mount. Now, chapter 5 of Mathew’s Gospel was explained by Chrysostom so brilliantly that I wanted to spend the entire class session talking about how Chrysostom explained this section of the Gospel. Normally I would explain the Gospel from a historical perspective and add the Fathers in, but in this instance I told the class at the beginning of the session that on that day, whatever they heard me say came from Chrysostom, unless I told them otherwise. So, I began, and eventually we arrived at the place where the Lord says, “It was once said that thou shalt not commit adultery, but I say to you, do not even look at a woman with lust.” I said, “It is not a sin to lust after your wife.” And immediately a student in the back of the class shouted out, “This is not according to the Fathers!” Well, I paused and I simply smiled, and the entire class burst out laughing. That student had forgotten that I said at the beginning of the class that everything I said was coming from Chrysostom, and you can’t get much more patristic than Chrysostom. But you see, what this showed me is how carefully we judge each other’s Orthodoxy. They were watching me to know and decide whether or not I really deserved to be considered Orthodox. And the fact is, dear brothers and sisters, that it is a very unfortunate characteristic amongst us as Orthodox Christians that we have the tendency to judge each other’s Orthodoxy. Unfortunately, it is always on the basis of our own opinions about what we think it means to be truly Orthodox, and very often those opinions are quite superficial. We decide if a priest is really Orthodox based on whether he wears a cassock everyplace he goes, or whether he has a beard, or whether a woman covers her head in church. We judge each other on the extent to which we fast. If you’re an ethnic Orthodox, you might be a little suspicious of the converts. If you’re a convert, you might be judging the ethnic Orthodox and consider them too tied to their ethnic traditions. We judge each other’s Orthodoxy based on whether we visit monasteries or not. Now this kind of critical assessment of others by prejudging them—not because they have done anything to illustrate that they’re not Orthodox, but on these superficial matters—is a terrible sin. Now I know why we do this and I know why my students did this and I loved all of my students. They did this, and we do this because we love our holy Orthodox faith and we want to preserve it. That’s a good thing. But we have to be very careful that we do not judge each other’s Orthodoxy. Remember what St. Paul said in Romans 14 on the matter of eating: Let not him who eats despise the one who does not eat, and let not the one who does not eat judge the one who eats. So you know this passage. Who are you, he says, to judge another man’s servant? It is before his own master that he must stand or fall, and God is able to make him stand. Now, should we follow our traditions? By all means, yes. But these are not the things which make us righteous in the eyes of the Lord, especially if we’re judging our own brothers and sisters. Don’t blame St. Augustine. So along those lines, let’s talk about St. Augustine. Many Orthodox reject Augustine, and they might question my Orthodoxy because I have quoted him in an earlier podcast and I will again in the future. At one time I also rejected Augustine for the same reason that others have, having read certain Orthodox writers who talk about all of the errors of St. Augustine. But I changed when I read him myself, and I developed, I think, a more mature appreciation for St. Augustine. I believe that many Orthodox reject him without ever having read him extensively, and I challenge you to read the sermons of St. Augustine and not come to the conclusion that this man was a holy man, a saint and a brilliant Father. Now, I’m very aware of the fact that Augustine is the source of many of the errors in the Latin West, but in defense of Augustine I would like to say the following: First of all, Augustine is not to be blamed for the departure of the Roman Catholic church. Augustine lived a very long time ago, and it’s not his fault. Augustine himself asked people to correct him if he was wrong about a conclusion that he reached, but no one corrected him. He was not proud, he asked for correction, but because he was so brilliant, and because he was the leading authority in the West at the time—there was no one that could approach him in his education or influence. So very rarely did anyone say, “I disagree with you on this,” or correct him. But he was willing to correct himself. Another thing which we must consider about St. Augustine is that he wrote many, many works, and when you write a great many works, it’s almost impossible not to make some mistakes. Another factor to consider that certainly hindered Augustine is that he did not have the benefit of a theological education. He did not read Greek well, so he didn’t read the Greek Fathers extensively. He tried to figure out answers to theological questions that had already been resolved in the East, but he did this not by his theological education, which he didn’t have, but through his training as a philosopher and a rhetorician. So he began to use philosophy and reason in arriving at theological conclusions, and that was a departure from the established tradition of the Church. In the East we do not use reason, we don’t reason our way to theological conclusions. But even that was not really the problem. The problem about Augustine arose because of the way the Latins used Augustine. They relied on him almost exclusively for their theology, because he became the great Latin Father; he so eclipsed all other Latin Fathers in importance in his brilliance, in the number of writings, in the variety of topics that he addressed, that no one in the West even approaches him. He was so outstanding that the Catholics, and before they were Catholics, and the Latin Christians, relied on Augustine almost exclusively, and sometimes they exaggerated his teachings to the point where they actually distorted what he was trying to say. Now the East had many great Fathers, so they were able to balance out the opinions of the other Fathers—because, as I said before, the Fathers didn’t always agree on everything. So the East had many great Fathers to read and this gave them a more balanced understanding, but in the West they primarily read Augustine because he wrote in Latin, and that’s what people in the Latin West read. So, he became the standard for the West; they relegated the Eastern Fathers to a secondary position and did not read them, so they didn’t have a balanced view of the theology of the Church. This was certainly not intended by Augustine. Now, as for the other Fathers who make an occasional error—and I had mentioned Gregory of Nyssa—we can and we should read Augustine and simply ignore the things he said that were incorrect. As for those Orthodox Christians who say that Augustine is not a Father or he is not a saint, and they arrive at this conclusion because they see themselves as the guardians of Orthodoxy, I would say that they are doing the most unorthodox thing of all, because they are substituting their private opinion for that of the Church. I find that so ironic, because it is entirely Protestant. To preserve Orthodoxy, they become Protestants by rejecting Augustine, because they think he shouldn’t be considered a Father. Now the fact is the Church declared Augustine a saint and a Father, rightly or wrongly. So, as far as I’m concerned, Augustine is a Father and a saint until or unless the Church decides that he is not. If the Church ever decides that he is not a saint or a Father then I will conform myself to the opinion of the Church, and I think that’s the correct stance to take as an Orthodox Christian. So, let us conclude by summing up what it means to interpret the Bible “according to the Fathers.” “According to the Fathers” does not mean that we are limited to simply quoting the Fathers and saying only what they have already said. Rather, “according to the Fathers” means that we are in line with the Fathers, that is, consistent with Holy Tradition. “According to the Fathers” means that we read them, we use them, and we honor them as our guides in the interpretation of the Bible, especially in the areas of theology and morality. “According to the Fathers” means that we’ve also followed their example and advice about how to study the Bible, by learning about the context in which the Scriptures were written, the archaeology, the history, geography, grammar, etc. The Fathers did not draw their conclusions about the meaning of the verse from their imaginations, dear brothers and sisters. And they didn’t say simply pray and wait for the Holy Spirit to inspire them. Certainly the Holy Spirit did inspire them, but when they ascended the pulpit to preach on the Scriptures, they were well prepared, they had studied, they were already holy men, they were already educated, already brilliant, but they studied the Bible in preparation for their sermon and they continued to study the Bible seriously all their lives. That is the patristic tradition. That is the Orthodox tradition. They advised us to do the same. So let us truly study the Scriptures “according to the Fathers” by imitating their devotion to the serious study of the Bible. We’re going to begin with the next podcast with a special series of Bible studies on the trials and Crucifixion of Christ. Presbytera and Dr. Jeannie Constaninou’s podcasts can be found here.

Understanding the Bible Through the Fathers, Part 2

  Православие.Ru, 17 марта 2017 г. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/101838.htm

Dr. Jeannie Constantinou See Part 1 Continuing the Ancient Faith Radio podcast series on understanding the Bible through the fathers, Dr. Jeannie Constantinou talks more about the benefits of reading the Bible as expounded by the holy fathers of the Church, and explains just how we should read them.  In our last podcast we talked about how the Fathers were all influenced by the Bible, how they encouraged all Christians to read the Bible, about some of the excuses that St. John Chrysostom’s community gave him when they wouldn’t read the Bible, and what he had to say in response to that. Now let’s continue today by talking about some of the spiritual benefits of reading the Bible, which the Fathers had to tell us, and also some advice they gave us from a both a practical and a spiritual perspective on how to read the Bible. Well, St. John Chrysostom was convinced that the Bible helps us to obtain our salvation. He said this in the 53rd homily on St. John’s Gospel: “Now if we are willing to examine the Scriptures in this way, carefully and systematically, we shall be able to obtain our salvation. If we increasingly are preoccupied with them, we shall learn correctness of doctrine and an upright way of life.” I already told you in an earlier podcast that St. John Chrysostom believed that Scripture reading sanctifies the reader. I’d like to share that quotation with you again, and the sentence that precedes it this time, from homily 32 on the Gospel of John. “Moreover, if the devil does not dare to enter into the house where the Gospel lies, much less will he ever cease upon the soul which contains such thoughts as these, and no evil spirit will approach it, nor will the nature of sin come near. Well then, sanctify your soul; sanctify your body by having these thoughts always in your heart and on your tongue. For if foul language is defiling and evokes evil spirits, it is evident, that spiritual reading sanctifies the reader and attracts the grace of the Spirit.” Chrysostom believed that the Scriptures are a treasure, and neglect of reading the Scriptures causes great harm. This is because knowledge of the Bible protects us, and ignorance of the Bible results in great evils. He saw Christians living in the world especially as engaged in a kind of spiritual warfare every day. The Scriptures were a protection and without knowledge of them it was like going into battle without arms. One of his favorite metaphors for the Bible was to call it a medicine chest. He said it contained the remedies for all grief and all troubles. Here’s what he said in homily 9 on Paul’s epistle to the Colossians: “If grief befalls you, dive into the Scriptures as into a chest of medicines. Take from their comfort for your trouble—be it loss, or death, or bereavement of relations. Or rather, do not merely dive into them, but take them wholly to yourself, keeping them in your mind.” Chrysostom believed that the Bible is a kind of medicine and could give great profit, and he also compared it not only to a medicine chest, but also to a treasure chest, and said that the profit derived from reading the Sacred Scriptures is great and its assistance is sufficient for every need. He said that knowledge of the Scriptures allows us to bear difficulties that we face in our lives. Here is another quotation from his 9th homily on Colossians: “For as the rich in money can bear fines and damages, so he that is rich in the doctrines of philosophy,” (by which he meant Christianity), “will bear not poverty only, but all calamities also easily, more easily than the rich man.” Chrysostom believed that ignorance of the Scriptures by Christians is a terrible disgrace. He also believed that Christians were responsible for the fact that more pagans had not converted to Christianity. And in fact, Christians were responsible for blasphemies that pagans said about Christ. Here’s what he had to say about that: “It is ridiculous if he who professes to be a Christian is unable to utter a word in defense of his own faith. It is this that prevents the pagans from quickly realizing the absurdity of their error. Inasmuch as they are relying on falsehood, they make every effort to obscure the baseness of their teachings, while we, who are the guardians of truth, cannot even open our mouth. What will prevent them from despising the great weakness of our doctrine? Will they not get the idea that our teaching is deceitful and foolish? Will they not blaspheme Christ as a dissembler and deceiver who makes of us of the stupidity of the majority to advance his deceit? And we are responsible for this blasphemy if we are not willing to be on the alert to speak in defense of righteousness, but rate such matters as superfluous and concern ourselves about the things of the earth.” How wise he was. Chrysostom was convinced that the Scriptures existed for a purpose, and that purpose is our salvation. If then the Scriptures were given for the purpose of our salvation, to be ignorant of them is a terrible evil and an insult to God who gave them to us. Here is what St. John Chrysostom said in his introductory homily on Romans: “From this it is that countless evils have arisen: from ignorance of the scriptures. From this it is that the plague of heresies has broken out. From this it is that there are negligent lives. From this that there are labors without advantage. For as men deprived of this daylight would not walk aright, so they that look not to the gleaming of the Holy Scriptures must be frequently and constantly sinning, in that they are walking in the worst darkness.” Not only was it important for adults to study the Scriptures, but Chrysostom believed that it was very important that children also be instructed in the Holy Scriptures, beginning with the learning of psalms and hymns. Children, he said, are like plants, which given the proper nourishment in the soil grow to be wise and rich in their knowledge in their faith. They should start with simple things such as psalms and little by little be let on to the knowledge of higher things. It was important to instruct Christian children in the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures and not simply focus on their worldly education. Chrysostom was not opposed to them being educated in a trade or other worldly things; but their knowledge of the Scriptures should not be neglected. He told parents that it is not simply monks who stand in need of lessons from the Scriptures, but among all other people, children, just about to enter the world, especially stand in need of the Scriptures. Now all of the Fathers valued the Bible and encouraged Christians to read it regularly. We already talked about that. Not only were they of one mind with regard to doctrine, they were also remarkably likeminded with regard to how Christians ought to read and interpret the Scriptures, and they gave some very common practical advice. I’d like to share that with you. Now the first thing might surprise you, and their first piece of advice was that we pay attention in Church. Now of course one reason why they gave this advice was because most Christians did not own a copy of a single book of the Bible back during the Golden Age of the Fathers in the fourth century. That was because Bibles were very expensive. Even a copy of one book of the Bible, like a Gospel, was expensive because all books were hand-copied and trained scribes were usually necessary to make those kinds of copies. So the Fathers advised Christians to at least pay careful attention to Scripture readings in Church. Chrysostom was convinced that a Christian should do whatever was necessary to acquire his own copy of at least one book of the Bible, but he advised that if they did not read the Bible at home, Christians would still obtain much benefit if they would at least pay attention in Church. This is why the priest intones, “Wisdom! Let us be attentive!” Here’s what he had to say about attentiveness to the readings in Church: “If a man should come here with earnestness, even though he does not read the Scriptures at home, and if he pays attention to what is said here, within the space of even one year he will be able to obtain a considerable acquaintance with them, for we do not read these Scriptures today, and tomorrow others that are quite different, but always the same section and consecutively. However, in spite of this, many have such an apathetic attitude that after such reading they do not even know the names of the books, and they are not ashamed. Nor do they shudder with dread because they have come so carelessly to the hearing of the Word of God. On the other hand, if a musician or a dancer or anyone else connected with the theater should summon them to the city, they all hurry eagerly and thank the one who invited them and spend an entire half day with their attention fixed on the performer exclusively. Yet when God addresses us through the Prophets and Apostles, we yawn, we are bored, we become drowsy.” That was St. John Chrysostom from his homilies on the Gospel of John. The Fathers also advised us uniformly to be persistent in our reading and study of the Bible. They advised that we continue to read even if we don’t understand everything. The more you study, the easier it will be for you to understand. Read the whole thing and retain what you can. There are many parts that are understandable to everyone. As a matter of fact, they frequently said that the Bible was written on a rather low level in common, ordinary language, so that everyone could understand something of what they read. What is incomprehensible, you should read over and over, and if still don’t understand it, you should go to a teacher of the Scriptures for help. St. John of Damascus wrote this. He compared the study of the Bible, the reading of the Bible with a door, the door of the Scriptures. Here is what he said: “Let us not knock casually, but with earnestness and persistence, and let us not lose heart while knocking, for so it will be opened to us. Should we read once and then a second time, and still not understand what we are reading, let us not be discouraged. Rather, let us persist. Let us meditate and inquire, for it is written: Ask your father, and he will declare to you; your elders, and they will tell you (Deut 32:7).” St. Augustine also agreed with this idea. Here is what he said: “But above all things remember this: not to be disturbed by the Scriptures which you do not yet understand, nor be puffed up by what you do understand. But what you do not understand, with submission wait for, and what you do understand, holdfast with charity”. Thirdly, the Fathers advised that we meditate on what we read. We should think about the Scriptures that we read. God does not want us merely to listen to the words in Church, or just read the phrases in the Scriptures, but to reflect on them as well. The Fathers advised Christians to commit to memory as much Scripture as possible, that they might be able to meditate on these Scriptures frequently and benefit from this. St. Simeon the New Theologian said: “For the soul who has chosen to meditate day and night on the law of God, nothing can be more beneficial than to search the Holy Scriptures. The design of the grace of the Spirit to be found therein overwhelms the senses of the mind with fulfilment by removing it completely from earthly realities and visible things, taking the mind to the level of the angels and associating it with the life of the angels themselves.” The Fathers also advised everyone to learn about and study the Bible—not just study the words of the Bible themselves, but read books that talk to you about the Bible itself. The Scriptures are not only to be read, but to be studied. Chrysostom frequently echoed the Lord’s command to Search the Scriptures from John 5:39. He interpreted this statement to mean that we are to study carefully and with accuracy. He said: “We must study it diligently, not on the surface or superficially, because their meaning is not expressed superficially, but like a treasure it lies buried at great depth.” Now, the scholarly study of the Bible is not something new that was invented in the twentieth century in the universities. The scholarly, serious, academic study of the Bible was practiced by the Fathers themselves. You see, this is the Orthodox tradition. Many Orthodox think that all we need to do is read the Fathers and repeat what they had to say about the Bible, and that serious study of the Bible from a scientific, academic or scholarly perspective is not Orthodox. But that couldn’t be further from the truth. The Fathers did not tell us just to read them, but to study the Scriptures in other forms outside of Holy Tradition. That is, to read books about the Bible, not simply to parrot what had already been said about the Bible. As a matter of fact, St. John Chrysostom became extremely annoyed with his congregation that they were not helping him by studying about the Bible themselves. He said, “You have me here talking to you week after week after week, and I’m doing all of the work!” Can you imagine that? Can you imagine having St. John Chrysostom preaching to you every week, having him as your teacher, and him telling you that listening to him is not enough, but that you should take the initiative on your own to study the Bible? That’s what he said to his congregation. Specifically, the Fathers told us to pay attention to such matters as the point of view of the author, the historical setting, the audience, the literary genre and other literary elements in the text, or the context of a book or passage. All of these things are very important in the study of the Bible, and St. John Chrysostom said that if we do not know and study such details, when we go to read the Bible, it’s as though we have been give the tools to mine for gold, but we’ve neglected them. We’ve left those tools; we don’t know how to use them, so all we dig up is dirt. St. Athanasios agreed with this. He said the following: “It is right and necessary with all Holy Scripture to faithfully take count of the time of which the Apostle wrote, and the person, and the point, lest the reader, missing either of these or any other particular through ignorance be lead away from the true meaning.” So what St. Athanasios is saying is that it is important that we study the context in which the Scriptures were written; and each book individually has its own historical context, and purpose, author and audience. This is something that we learn about separate from studying the Fathers. Of course they mention this too, but that doesn’t absolve us from studying these things on our own. Of course, all of the Fathers are in agreement also that to avoid heresy when reading the Bible, one must interpret the Scriptures according to Holy Tradition—that is, according to what was taught by the Lord, preached by the Apostles, and passed on through the Church from generation to generation. St. Athanasios confirmed that Holy Tradition is the most faithful and ancient witness to the Lord and the Apostles, and he said this: “Let us note, that the very Tradition, teaching and faith of the Church from the beginning was given by the Lord, preached by the Apostles and preserved by the Fathers”. All of the Fathers agreed of course that the importance of Holy Tradition was that it guided us in the right type of interpretation. St. Vincent of Lerins said that the depth of the Scriptures is such, that they are not interpreted in the same sense by everyone. One person understands the text to mean one thing and someone else thinks it means something else, and because there are as many interpretations as there are interpreters, we must understand the writings in accordance with Orthodox tradition. He lived a very, very long time ago, and imagine how many more interpretations we have today, because now we have the Catholic church, and the Protestant churches, and many, many different kinds of interpretation. So, the fact is that the Scriptures are not self-interpretive—let’s put it that way. We need to interpret them and we have to interpret them with great care. Theological knowledge and exegetical technique alone are never enough as far as the Fathers were concerned. You could have the right knowledge, you could have the right technique, but the proper spiritual disposition and spiritual maturity were also indispensable for a correct interpretation if the Bible. Now here are some suggestions from the Fathers for the proper disposition for reading the Bible. First of all, one should observe silence. Chrysostom said that silence of the lips and of the mind is required to grasp the mysteries of the Scriptures. Secondly, he said that one must acquire a pure soul. The soul must be purified and purged of anger and worldly cares or no great profit will result from hearing or reading the Scriptures. St. Gregory the Theologian agreed with this—that one’s spiritual health directly affects one’s ability to interpret Scripture correctly. As a matter of fact, this is frequently repeated by the Fathers. We must pray. That’s the third component. Wakefulness and prayer are needed to understand the passage, Chrysostom told his congregation. And again, all of the Fathers agreed on the importance of prayer for the proper understanding of the Scriptures. Now the fourth component might be something that surprises you, which is that we have to live a virtuous life. The matter in which we live our life helps us or hinders our understanding of the Scriptures. Good conduct and the acquisition of virtue are necessary to understand the Scriptures, and the most important virtue is humility. St. Augustine said something very beautiful about that and I’d like to quote it for you: “I was deluded in the past when while still in my childhood I tried to start by applying to the Divine Scriptures critical discussion, rather than pious research. Through my lax morals, I closed off my own access to the Lord. In my pride I dared to seek that which no one can find unless he practices humility.” By emphasizing Bible study and reading, the Fathers were not trying to create congregations of Bible scholars. They were not interested in the study of the Bible for its own sake. Scripture study is never simply an academic pursuit for the Orthodox Christian. Increased knowledge and understanding of the Scriptures have virtually no value if Christians do not derive spiritual benefit from reading the Bible. When we read the Scriptures our behavior and lives should change as a result. Chrysostom warned his congregation that correct doctrine and thorough knowledge of the Scriptures are useless if Christians do not exemplify the Scriptures by their deeds. And I’d like to quote from him on this matter. Listen carefully: “Even if we should have faith in its entirety and a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures, if we should be empty and destitute of the protection derived from a good life, there would be nothing preventing us from being cast into the fire of hell and from being consumed forever by the inextinguishable flame.” That’s a very sobering thought. So knowledge is not enough, we must have also a good life. The holy Fathers, dear brothers and sisters, devoted themselves to Bible reading, and encouraged the same in us. They’re unanimous in their advice to us. First, to make the Scriptures an integral part of our lives, secondly to apply what we learn, and thirdly, to spiritually improve ourselves from these Bible lessons, that we might attain the Heavenly Kingdom. All of the Fathers knew from their own personal experience the value of Scripture study by any Christian who reads the Bible and studies it humbly, prayerfully and knowledgeably. And I’d like to quote St. John Chrysostom one more time. A very brief quotation: “Let them hear, as many of us as neglect the reading of the Scriptures, to what harm we are subjecting ourselves and to what poverty”. So there you have it dear brothers and sisters. I hope this study of the Fathers on the importance of reading the Bible, their patristic and practical advice, will motivate you during the Lenten season and throughout the year to search the Scriptures. Presbytera and Dr. Jeannie Constaninou’s podcasts can be found here.

Understanding the Bible Through the Fathers

  Dr. Jeannie Constantinou

Perhaps many of our readers have heard of Dr. Presbytera Eugenia (Jeannie) Constantinou, whose “Search the Scriptures” podcasts on Ancient Faith Radio have been so instructive to Bible studiers with busy lives. OrthoChristian.com has begun the work of transcribing these very helpful podcasts, and during this Great Lent we will be posting Dr. Jeannie’s talks on the trial and crucifixion of Christ. But we will begin with her discussion of Bible studies in general, through the works of the holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church.  Photo: wikipedia.org Who are the Fathers of the Church? Orthodox people hear them mentioned often. The Fathers were holy men who were great theologians, thinkers and writers of the Church. They expressed the doctrines of the Church, they gave moral instruction to the faithful, they explained the Scriptures, they defended the Church against heresy—all of these things. Were there mothers of the Church also? It isn’t that the Church is trying to be sexist, but the fact is that women barely received an education in antiquity because they didn’t go out and have careers. So because there were not educated women very often, we don’t have any mothers of the Church—not in the sense that we have Fathers of the Church. A few Christian women did leave writings, but not very many, certainly not compared to the men. There were certainly just as many great female Saints, but because women weren’t educated they didn’t leave behind writings and we don’t have their influence. When did the Fathers live? We do have Fathers from recent centuries, but the most famous are those from the Golden Age of the Fathers, that’s basically the fourth century. And they’re the ones referred to the most often. People like St. John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Athanasios, Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Jerome, Augustine, and others. We talk about them quite a lot, but the purpose of the Christian life is not simply to celebrate the memory of these men, not just to remember them, to paint their icons, to quote them, study them, but as in the case with all the Saints, the Fathers of the Church are placed before us by the Church as exemplars that we might imitate them, as they imitated Christ. Certainly they are guides for us in interpretation of the Bible, in theology. They are Saints. That’s why we read them, not because they were brilliant, not because they were great orators or great writers, but because they were holy men. That’s why we trust them in what they have to tell us. If we are to imitate them, let’s discover what shaped them. What inspired them? What influenced them? Certainly, many had wonderful parents. Many had holy parents. Many had great spiritual mentors and teachers, and all of them had a wonderful education, a pagan education, a university type of education. But what did they all have in common? They all had different parents, they had different educations, different teachers, different mentors. What did they have in common that formed their character? Of course, it’s the Bible. What did Chrysostom take with him to the desert, when he subjected himself to extreme fasting? What did he spend hours memorizing? The Bible. When Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian went off to the wilderness of Pontus to live in their little monastery, what occupied the intellect of those great minds? The study of the Scriptures. What was the foundation of the prayer life of all of the Fathers and frankly all early Christians? The Psalter (the Psalter is another word for the book of Psalms.) What did Athanasios turn to when he was fighting Arianism? What did Cyril of Alexandria turn to in order to fight Nestorianism? What did all the Fathers turn to in all of the battles against heresy? Of course, the Holy Scriptures. We have always been reading the Bible Now since they used the Scriptures so effectively in these great battles, and of course, since they were all so well educated, does this mean that the Fathers considered the Scriptures to be the domain of only monks, priests and bishops (because most of them were bishops, although some were presbyters, like Jerome, and some were laymen, like Justin Martyr)? Did they think that only the educated, clerics and monastics should read the Bible? Certainly not. All of the Fathers emphasized the importance of the Bible as an indispensable source of spiritual instruction, inspiration, guidance, and comfort for all Christians. This was the case not only in the East, but also in the West. The Western Fathers such as Ambrose and Augustine and Jerome also encouraged Scripture reading and study for all Christians. They immersed themselves in the Bible. They wrote and preached on the Scriptures endlessly. They discussed and debated controversial passages, and we have wonderful exchanges between Augustine and Jerome on certain passages, the interpretation of which they didn’t agree on. They pushed for more accurate Latin translations. But what happened in the West was that soon after the Golden Age of the Fathers, the city of Rome fell, and of course the Western Roman Empire fell, and education and culture dramatically declined in the West. The Western Church kept their Scriptures in Latin and kept their liturgy in Latin. Latin almost disappeared as a spoken language; even if someone was literate in his own, native language, the Holy Scriptures were inaccessible to him, since the only people who knew Latin were the very wealthy, who were educated, and clerics and monastics. So eventually the Catholic church adopted the attitude that the Scriptures were never intended to be read by ordinary people, but only by the clergy. This, in fact, was never the case! From the very beginning the Fathers of the Church encouraged everyone to read the Bible, but that was not the stance of the Catholic church after it had split from the Orthodox Church. One of the complaints of Martin Luther against the Catholic church was this very thing. One of the first things that Martin Luther did was to translate the Bible into German, and in general during the Reformation there was a great deal of interest in providing the Scriptures in the common tongue of the people. This had been going on for some time in Western Europe, but people paid a heavy price for it. There were people such as Tyndale who translated the Bible into English, and people who did this kind of work were subject to a lot of persecution. They were imprisoned, they were burned at the stake, they had to flee for their lives, or they had to go into hiding. This was the situation in Western Europe, but in the East the situation was never like that. The Orthodox Church always encouraged the reading of the Bible by all Christians. When Orthodox missionaries took the faith to other places in the world, one of their first tasks was to translate the Divine Liturgy and the Bible into the language of the people. We see this consistently. Very often those people to whom they took the Gospel did not even have a written alphabet and the missionaries had to create one. And we see this in the case of St. Innocent of Alaska, who lived among the Aleut peoples of their islands and translated the Scriptures into several of the native dialects. We see this in the case of Sts. Cyril and Methodius, who evangelized the Slavs and translated the Bible into Slavonic, and St. Euthymius who did this for the Georgian people, and so on. So this was the Orthodox tradition. This is not something unique to Protestants. The Protestants didn’t invent the idea of translating the Bible into many languages and making it available to people. They certainly protested against the Catholic church for not doing that, but that was the Orthodox tradition long before the Protestants ever existed. Why don’t we study the Bible today? Now despite our rich heritage of preserving and promoting the Bible, despite the countless advice of Holy Fathers as to the importance and benefits of Bible reading, the fact is that most Orthodox Christians today rarely pick up and read a Bible, so we’re going to discuss that today. Why were the Fathers so insistent on regular Bible reading and what benefits did they see in it? How would they respond to the excuses that we offer today for neglecting Scripture study? Well first let’s consider that St. John Chrysostom observed that Jesus did not write Scriptures. The Lord instead bequeathed to us the Holy Spirit. The Lord intended that we live lives directed by the Spirit, but because we do not live according to the grace of the Spirit, we stand in need of Scriptures. So Scriptures exist because of our weakness and sinfulness, and the Scriptures’ sole purpose is the salvation of humanity. All of the Fathers said this and repeatedly emphasized to their congregations that Scriptures were written for our benefit and correction. Among the favorite verses consistently quoted by the Fathers, Including Chrysostom, Basil, Augustine, Ambrose and others was St. Paul (1 Cor. 10:11), when he said, All these things were written for our instruction. They really took that to heart. Another one of their favorite verses to quote was, Search the scriptures, which is the title of this program for precisely that reason. They loved to quote the Lord who said, Search the Scriptures in John chapter 5 verse 39. Since the Scriptures were given for our benefit, it’s even more important that Christians study the Bible and profit from it. Chrysostom warned that the Christian who chooses not to profit from the Scriptures (because it is our choice to read them or not), Christians who instead neglect Scriptures, give them no account and treat them as though they have no purpose, will be judged even more severely, since they were given by God for our benefit. It is as though we are despising God, rejecting Him, by not reading the Bible. St. John Chrysostom. Why study the Bible?  St. John Chrysostom Now, why is it that Chrysostom, for example, was so adamant about his congregation reading the Bible. What benefit did he think it would provide to them? Well, he was very worried about the evil influences that were corrupting his congregation. In the 390s, the late fourth century, St. John Chrysostom was a presbyter in Antioch, which was one of largest cities in the Roman Empire. After that he became the bishop of Constantinople, which was of course the Eastern capital of the Roman Empire. So he served in two large urban places; the people in those cities were very sophisticated, not at all different from what we are like today. They enjoyed their entertainment, and their good times, and their parties; they had beautiful mansions and all kinds of luxuries that we really can’t even comprehend. We have technology, but in many respects the lifestyle was the same. Chrysostom worried about this and said that if his parishioners were leading virtuous lives, he would not have been so concerned that they were almost entirely ignorant of the Scriptures. But he was worried, because they had no trouble remembering the names and characteristics of the charioteers and the horses that were racing that week in the stadium, they knew lots of verses of lewd songs that they learned in the theatre, but they were so ignorant of the Bible that they couldn’t even quote a single psalm. They had no difficulty sitting for hours at the theatre to watch immoral pagan plays, but they complained of fatigue and boredom if his sermon ran too long. So Christians at that time were not like the Christians of earlier eras, who were subject to persecution. Christianity was not only legal, but it was the official religion of the empire and people had become quite lax. So instead of avoiding the evil influences and unwholesome customs of the prevailing culture, which was still very much influenced by paganism, (because there were still many pagans around), most of Chrysostom’s congregation pursued those things. They partied it up, they enjoyed these immoral kinds of entertainment, and there was the threat of heresy. The greatest threat at that time was Arianism, which taught that Christ was not God equal to the Father but instead He was a created being. Heresy and the lifestyle of the people led Chrysostom to emphasize the study of the Bible with the hope that reading the Bible would counteract these evil influences and draw his congregation’s attention back towards the spiritual life. Chrysostom believed and stated often that one’s salvation would be aided if not virtually assured through the diligent and thoughtful study of the Bible. He in fact was convinced that it was impossible for a person not to be saved if he was attentive to the Word of God in the Scriptures, that the Scriptures were something that sanctified the person who read them. One who studied the Bible could not remain in a bad spiritual state but would certainly improve and acquire many, many blessings. There is a beautiful passage in his 32nd homily on the Gospel of John, and I want to quote it for you. Now listen to this: “Sanctify your soul, sanctify your body by having these thoughts always in your heart and on your tongue. For if foul language is defiling and evokes evil spirits, it is evident that spiritual reading sanctifies the reader and attracts the grace of the Spirit.” So spiritual reading sanctifies us. It is interesting how it not only sanctifies our soul, but it also sanctifies the body. So, reading the Bible has a sacramental effect. It attracts the grace of the Spirit. What a beautiful thing! Why wouldn’t all of us want to spend our time, at least some time every day, reading the Bible? We can’t usually receive Holy Communion every day, but we can read the Bible every day. Now what else did Chrysostom have to say about the content of the Bible, and why is it beneficial? Because of course it guards against evil influences. If we go out into the world and are subject to these influences, reading the Bible helps protect us from these things. It also protects us from heretical doctrines. It gives us direction; it gives comfort in hard times. It gives examples of virtues people who lived in a variety of situations, whose lives have been preserved for us in the Scriptures as examples for Christians to imitate. I’ll give you one example of this that comes up every year during Holy Week. One of the examples we have of a virtuous life is that of Joseph from the Old Testament, the Joseph who spurned the advances of the evil Egyptian woman. This is just one of many examples of virtuous people that are presented for us in the Holy Scriptures. There are also evil people and sinful deeds in the Bible, but those are there to warn us not to imitate them. St. John Chrysostom also said that the Scriptures contain the remedy for every spiritual ill, as well as instruction for every virtue. No excuse. Now there’s no doubt that more than any other Father, Chrysostom encouraged his congregation to read the Bible. A few followed his advice, but let’s face it, most people only gave excuses for why they couldn’t. Now I’d like to go through some of those excuses with you, and you can see how similar they are to the excuses that we have today for not reading the Bible. The one excuse you will not find is probably the one that you’re anticipating. Most people think that people in antiquity couldn’t read, or that most people couldn’t read. People assume that that would be the number one excuse given by Chrysostom’s congregation for not reading the Bible. The fact is that the level of literacy of antiquity is a subject that is hotly debated among historians, and we really don’t know how high literacy was in antiquity. But I will tell you, from reading the sermons of Chrysostom—and I’ve read hundreds of them—it seems that the level of literacy was extremely high in Antioch and in Constantinople, because he often responds to the excuses that people give him for not reading the Bible, and in all of the times he discusses those excuses I only found one instance in which he mentions that perhaps someone couldn’t read; and he doesn’t seem to suggest that it’s because they’re uneducated, but perhaps because they have some kind of infirmity or their eyesight is poor, etc. And even in that instance he doesn’t excuse them from not reading. He says, “Have someone read it to you,” which suggests that there’s someone else in the household who could read the Bible for them. They didn’t have bibles, but we do. So what was the number one excuse that Chrysostom’s congregation gave for not reading the Bible? The number one excuse was, very simply, “I don’t have a Bible.” Isn’t that interesting? We certainly can’t make that excuse today, can we? Before the invention of the printing press, books were expensive since they had to be copied by hand. This was very tedious, very time consuming, and very expensive. We call those handmade copies of books “manuscripts”, and we still have many, many manuscripts of the Bible—these hand copies. Very few people owned a manuscript of even one book of the Bible. Occasionally, wealthy people possessed beautiful Bibles with purple pages and letters in gold leaf or silver leaf, but those people kept these Bibles like a status symbol, the way today someone would buy a very expensive car. But even those Christians that owned those expensive Bibles never opened them to read them, and of course Chrysostom complained about this. Now what about the poor people? It has been estimated, that the cost of a New Testament was like the cost of a whole year’s salary for someone, so it was very expensive. But even poverty was not something that Chrysostom accepted as an excuse. He pointed out that if someone really needed something for his business, for his trade, for his financial survival, like a tool, he would find a way to get it. But he said that spiritual survival is even more important, and even for the poor it ought to be their priority, so there was no excuse for not having at least one book of the Bible. Chrysostom said that if you can’t afford the whole New Testament, at least purchase one Gospel and read it regularly. Now imagine the availability of Bibles today and the affordability of Bibles. You can go to any used bookstore and find a Bible for 50 cents or a dollar. How shocked and dismayed the Fathers would be today to discover how rarely Christians read the Bible even now? What reproaches they would have for us, dear brothers and sisters! In a time when it cost the equivalent of one year’s salary to acquire the Scriptures and people didn’t read them, what would we have to say for ourselves today? Of course there is no excuse. “I don’t have time.” Let’s look at the second excuse. The second excuse was, of course, something very common to us today: “I don’t have the time to read the Bible”. Now when Chrysostom encouraged his congregation to read the Bible, they said “we don’t have the time, we’re not monks, we don’t have time for Scripture study.” Chrysostom of course replied that they find time for worldly pursuits, they find time to see their friends, to go to parties, to go the theater, to go to the races. They spend all day at the racetrack! And they knew all these details about the racers, the charioteers, the horses, etc. But they knew almost nothing at all about the Bible. They didn’t know who the Prophets were, they couldn’t tell you the number of books in the Bible. And I will quote to you what he said: “If you ask, who is Amos, who is Obadiah, or what is the number of Prophets or of the Apostles, they can not even open their mouths. But with regard to horses and charioteers, they can compose a discourse more cleverly than sophists or orators.” And the same thing of course is very true for us today dear brothers and sisters. We say we don’t have time, but we find time for other things. We find time to go golfing, we find time to see our friends, we have time to go to the movies, we find time to watch television and most of us watch television every day at least for a couple of hours. Can we honestly say that we don’t have 15 minutes, that we can’t open the Bible every day during our lunch hour? We have weekends. People didn’t have weekends then, there was no such thing as a day off. So, obviously, we don’t have any excuse either for not reading the Bible because we could always find time. And of course many of us spend hours commuting every week; there are Bibles on tape or Bibles on CD, so we can find the time if it’s important to us. “I’m not a monk or priest.” Now let’s consider the third excuse. These aren’t necessarily in order, but these are the excuses I have gathered from the sermons of Chrysostom that I have read over the years. Here’s another excuse: “I don’t need to study the Bible since I’m not a monk or a priest.” Now Chrysostom said that his congregation needed to read the Scriptures much more than monks, because they did not spend their days in prayer the way the monks did, and instead they were constantly occupied with worldly cares. So rather than Bible reading being necessary for monks, it’s necessary for the rest of us who aren’t monks, because we live in the world and receive spiritual wounds every day, and we have the greatest need for the medicine offered by the Scriptures. Chrysostom often called the Bible a medicine chest with cures for all of our ills. So the pressing concern of business and career did not excuse people from the obligation to study the Bible. Instead Chrysostom said that these circumstances indicated an ever greater need to study the Bible because business people are dangerously enslaved to worldly pursuits. If they can’t find the time to attend to the most important things of all, or consider it unimportant, then they’re really in trouble. Now what about family obligations? Those who have a spouse and a child especially need to study the Scriptures, and Chrysostom questioned parents especially. How could a parent make sure that their child goes to school—or today we could add, we have our children learn musical instruments and foreign languages, and they’re on sports teams. They do all these things. We make sure that our children have this kind of background to prepare them for life, but then we neglect to bring them up in the fear of the Lord. The parents at his time said, “I don’t want my child to read the Bible,” or, “He doesn’t need to read it because he’s not going to be a monk.” Chrysostom said to parents, “Reading the Bible will not make your child a monk; it will make him a Christian.” What a beautiful thought. “I don’t understand what I read.” Now another excuse the congregation often gave was, “I don’t understand what I read.” And this is also something that many people say today. They open the Bible, and perhaps they really don’t understand it. Now what did the Fathers have to say about this? All of the Fathers agreed that the Bible was written in such a way that everyone can understand something of what is read and obtain great benefit. And that’s true. Sometimes we read parts of the Bible and we don’t really understand them, but there are many parts that we can understand, so we can’t say, “Well, I don’t understand anything,” and then just forget about it. In fact, the Bible is written in very simple language. It is not written in complex language. It seems difficult to us sometimes, because we don’t read it, so it’s a little bit foreign. But the fact is that the Bible was written by ordinary people, with ordinary language, because the Scriptures are an act of God’s condescension towards humanity. They consistently said this; they used the word “synkatavasis”, which means, God “condescended” to humanity. That doesn’t have a negative connotation like “God is looking down with distain” upon humanity, but it means that God lowers Himself down to human level. The Fathers said that the Scriptures are the manner in which God teaches us about Himself in human language, in language and expressions that are really not appropriate to God. God is incomprehensible, but he allows us to use human language to talk about Him. And in fact God is speaking to us through the Bible in a manner which to Him is baby talk. Chrysostom said this and it’s a beautiful image. The Bible is God’s condescension to human frailty and weakness. Through the Bible God responds to the needs of human beings by meeting them at their level, the way that you try to explain something to a child in the kind of language that he will understand. That’s what God is doing for us through the Bible. The Bible and its expression are far below the dignity of God. That’s what the Fathers said. But the Scriptures use human language, images, concepts and stories that people can understand, because the Bible is an expression of God’s love for humanity. So it’s really a very beautiful thought. Now the fact is that we think of the Bible as very difficult, and if you have a Bible that’s for example the King James Version with all the “thees” and “thous”, sometimes that’s difficult to understand. We’ll have an opportunity to talk in the future about Bible translations and how to find a Bible that works for you. I’m going to do that in a couple of podcasts from now. But the fact is that the Fathers said—and it is true—that the Bible was composed by simple people. The Apostles did not attend the university; they used simple language. The Greek of the Bible is ordinary everyday Greek. It wasn’t difficult; in fact, many people who read the Bible, especially the enemies of Christianity, would read it and attack it, saying it was vulgar (common, of low caliber), was full of stories of sinful people, and that the Greek was no good. Many people attacked the Bible because they compared it to the language of philosophy, the lofty thoughts and the very elegant and eloquent Greek of people like Plato and Aristotle and other Greek philosophers. The Bible is nothing like that. It was written in a simple manner so that everyone could understand something of what they read if they tried. Now, at the same, the Scriptures are deep enough to retain our interest—so we understand something of what we read, but we don’t understand everything. This is because, according to Chrysostom, the Holy Spirit wanted to encourage us to read more deeply and to study the Scriptures, to search them, so that we would draw closer to Him. So if we don’t understand everything we read right away, we need to go back and read it again. Everything is not clear on the first reading, Chrysostom said, in order to compel us to study and to prevent us from becoming lazy. Well those were the excuses Chrysostom’s congregation gave. Next time we’ll talk about the specific spiritual benefits that can be obtained by reading the Bible. I hope you join us for that. You’re going to love it. And we will also take a look at some of the practical advice the Fathers gave us from reading the Bible. So join us next time, won’t you, and we’ll continue with the Fathers on the study of the Bible, okay? See you then! Presbytera and Dr. Jeannie Constaninou’s podcasts can be found here.

Sunday, 2 April 2017

The Mystery of the Desert


  Православие.Ru, 2 апреля 2017 г. 
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/102363.htm

Reader Dimitry Tribushny

The Life of St. Mary of Egypt is one of the ascetical treasures of the Orthodox Church, which helps us understand God’s plan for salvation. Like everything that is outside of time, the Life of the Egyptian desert-dweller is contemporary in the true sense of the word—every living soul can recognize its own experience in St. Mary’s experience; the Life of the saint both rebukes and heals.

*   *   *

St. Mary crosses the Jordan.

According to the [Russian] Bible dictionary, believing means not only, and not so much being sure of something as it means trusting. It means being ready to follow the One Whom you love, with open eyes. To go where He Himself leads you. To the desert. Thus did Abraham leave his house in order to learn the Truth, bringing his own son as a sacrifice. Thus was Job led to the desert of total loss, and spoke with the unsearchable God face to face. Thus did the Israelites trust in God and through risky wanderings in the desert they obtained the Promise Land for themselves.

The desert is a place of trust, and not surety. There is no guarantee here. How many of the Israelites who followed Moses actually saw the earthly paradise?

Faith, or belief, is discomfort, pain, light, and joy. Having faith (believing) means walking on water.

*   *   *

Why did the Lord call Mary to repentance in such an unexpected manner? Does this mean that there are on this earth special people chosen by heaven, for whom the path of salvation and illumination are prepared, and that if you don’t belong to their category then there is no point in fleeing your enslavement?

If we suppose that the Creator divided his children from the beginning (not just creatures, but children) into the loved and not loved, then we turn ourselves into marionettes, and the Last Judgment promised in the Gospels is cancelled. The simplest justification for a sinner is, “I was not chosen for salvation, You did not give me the possibility to rise from my knees, so how can I now converse with angels?”

Fatalism says that the Lord gave Mary strength, and therefore the harlot became an angel. First grace, and then labors. But we see it differently. On the earth, time moves from the past to the future, but in heaven there is no past, nor future. Therefore the Lord gives special grace to the one whom His foreknowledge discerns to be a laborer of the spirit. First labors, and then grace. It is a paradox of reverse time.

If a music teacher were clairvoyant and knew how his students would make use of his lessons, he would give more attention to those who truly dedicated themselves to any work and who would in the future “serve the muses.”

First (if we can say it this way) the Lord saw Mary, who lived in the desert like an angel, and only then as a harlot.

First the Lord saw Mary’s martyrdom in the desert, her absolute dedication to the revealed Truth. Only for that reason was she given such grace.

If a person is ready, like Mary, to wither from heat, nearly die from the cold, starve the body, and war to the utmost with the passions, then the Lord reveals His love, strength, and glory to that person.

*   *   *

The word “sin” translated from the Greek means, “missing the mark”. A sinful person is one who directs the God-given strengths of his soul to the wrong aims. Thus, discernment that misses its goal becomes judgment, a sense of one’s own dignity becomes pride, and emotions become anger.

St. Mary of Egypt received from the Lord the gift of fiery, unquenchable love, and instead of giving her heart to her Creator and His creation, she directed all the force of divine eros on herself. But any talent directed exclusively towards our “Me” not only impoverishes a person—it deprives him of his sanity.

“He was out of his mind” is how the Church hymn describes another gifted egotist—the prodigal son.

When Mary finds herself in Jerusalem, her love returns to its natural course. For the sake of love for the Lord the desert-dweller who had sinned inhumanly accepts the podvig of inhuman asceticism and struggles for seventeen years with cold and heat, hunger and demonic thoughts.

*   *   *

The repentance of St. Mary of Egypt.

    

I don’t know about you, but I believe in the sincerity of Mary’s first repentance; I think that she could have changed her life, gotten married, had children, and become an exemplary Christian. But why does the Lord Whom she trusts lead her to the desert? Weren’t her tears enough? Couldn’t the Lord just forgive her right away? He can. Abba Sisoes was asked the same question: “If a brother falls, is one year of repentance enough for him?” He answered: “Those are cruel words!” “Are six months enough?” he was asked again. “Too many,” the elder answered. They asked again, “Are forty days enough?” “That is also too much,” he answered. “Then how many?” they said. “If a brother falls and a supper of love [the Eucharist.—Trans.] is soon held, can he come to the supper?” “No,” the elder answered,” he must spend several days in repentance. And I believe that if he repents with all his soul, then God will receive him in three days” (Memorable stories about the ascetic labors of the saints and blessed fathers).

The Life emphasizes that repentance is an ontological event, and not one of ethics. The penitent is redeemed, and now he needs healing of his nature and sanctification.

How often does a newly-converted sectarian feel pleased with himself that he has given up fornicating or drinking. For the Orthodox this is only the beginning, the first step. After that, grace allows him to see his own imperfection. The person enters into a fight to the death with his own self, disclosing more and more new passions.

Thus, in a low-lit room everything seems clean, but when the light is turned on the picture is different—the housekeeper notices every speck of dust. If sectarians knew God and had an authentic experience of grace, they would never stop on the path of repentance.

Here is another analogy: Our own imperfection is clearly seen when coming closer to the center. The top musician of St. Louis gets third place in Chicago, fifth in New York, and seventh in Paris. Why would a woman with so many affirmations that she has been forgiven by God (she walks on water, has the gift of clairvoyance, etc.) sincerely consider herself the worst sinner? Because she was approaching the Center, and was illumined by an unutterable light.

*   *   *

The saint leaves the world and there, in the desert, far from the noisy cities and solitary monasteries, she has her first connection with other people. “What is taking place in the empire?” the desert-dweller asks Abba Zosima. Seventeen years ago she was interested only in her body. Now Mary knows that there are other people.

*   *   *

Repentance is an ontological event, and not one of ethics. Therefore in the sacrament of confession of sins not only is the soul transformed, but also the body.

Here is the recollection of one nun, a spiritual daughter of Fr. Ambrose [of Optina], of how she once confessed in the elder’s cell: “In his cell burned votive lamps and a small wax candle on the table. It was too dark for me to read from a list [of sins], and I had no time. I said what I remembered, and that hastily, then added, ‘Batiushka, what else can I say to you? What should I repent about? I’ve forgotten.’ The elder criticized me for that. But suddenly he rose from his bed where he was lying down. Having made three steps, he found himself in the middle of his cell. I involuntarily turned after him on my knees. The elder straightened to his full height, raised his head and hands upward as if in a prayer position. It seemed to me at the time that his feet left the floor. I looked at his illumined head and face. I remember that the ceiling in the cell was as if gone, it parted, and the elder’s head was as if thrust upwards through it. This appeared very clearly to me. A minute later, batiushka leaned over me, astounded at the vision as I was, and making the sign of the cross over me said these words: ‘Remember, this is what repentance can lead to. Now go.’ I left him, staggering, and wept the whole night through about my stupidity and carelessness. In the morning we were given horses and we left. While the elder was still alive I couldn’t tell anyone about this. He forbade me once and for all to talk about such incidents, threatening, ‘Otherwise you will lose my help and grace’” (from the Life of St. Ambrose of Optina).

The repentant sinner not only receives the gift of clairvoyance, but also walks on water.

Believing means walking on water.