Is the revelation of God in the Old Testament 'inferior' to the New?

[Ray Kaliss]

Mr. Kallis is following the views expressed by Rene Gerard post conversion.

I do not know who Gerad is. You are wrong to assume of me that I am following his views as I do not know him nor his views to follow them.

Most of my views come from saints, theologians, and mystics in the history of the church (I favor the Alexandrian fathers) and I am shocked that the previous posted (I assume he is an administrator) has no clue to that. I could quote Eastern fathers who call Genesis the "cosmogony of Moses" and I can make the difference between a cosmogony and a cosmology (my critic has confused the two as similar). Plus I can quote St. Paul's letter where he tells us that the revelation to Israel (the Old Testament) was inferior compared to the FULL revelation of God through his son Jesus Christ. And I can quote fathers of the church (and Orthodox theologians) who express that God does not punish us and that this view is an Old Testement view ... superseeded by the gospels were we now undestand that God is our father who longs for our return (like the Prodical son) ... but he does NOT not go out to chastise and punish us. God invites us to his table - he does not beat us untill we decide to love him.

If you people like a Chritianity where you feel 'right' by way of misunderstanding and pre-judgements of others as 'wrong' - you can have it. That is not for me. That is the way to divide Chritianity - which I understand was something the Lord asked us - NOT to do.

Love one another - means to make great efforts to understand your brother. I have been misunderstood and labeled and pre-judge here .. but I see no reason to try and defend myself nor prove what my views really are or where (which fathers in the church) they are founded.

I now leave.

A short stay.

You all seem to be much better Chritians than I.

Peace be to you and to your Holy Church.
-ray

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

There are some interesting further expansions to yesterday's points that are worth considering. In my own previous post, I wrote:


It is not in the heritage of the Church to claim that the Old Testament represents 'a lesser understanding of God'. It is indeed God's own self-revelation, not some unadvanced intellectual project. The New Testament does not disclose a new or higher revelation of God: it discloses the fulfilment of the Covenant of the Old Testament.


Quoting from a post made earlier today (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=68315&postcount=8), this response was offered:


I can quote St. Paul's letter where he tells us that the revelation to Israel (the Old Testament) was inferior compared to the FULL revelation of God through his son Jesus Christ.

In simple point of fact, St Paul does not speak of the the Old Testament as inferior to the New, nor its revelation as inferior. What he does speak about is the changed relationship of the human creature to its creator that comes about in the incarnation of the Word, which, when the Son draws humanity to himself by becoming man, unites the human creature to the Lawgiver in a new and heightened way. The Law is not abolished or superceded (because the Law is the self-revelation of the Lord, and the Lord was simply not lying to his people or deceiving them under the old covenant), but creation is brought into a new relationship of communion with it, since the 'it' is encounter personally as the 'him' of Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word who has always been the revealer of the law (which is a constant refrain in the fathers).

The only place where St Paul speaks of the Old Testament, as such, directly, is a good example of just this. I draw attention, with italicised font, to particularly important segments:

2 Corinthians 3.7-18: "But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

"Therefore, since we have such hope, we use great boldness of speech— unlike Moses, who put a veil over his face so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the end of what was passing away. But their minds were blinded. For until this day the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, because the veil is taken away in Christ. But even to this day, when Moses is read, a veil lies on their heart. Nevertheless when one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord."
St Paul is decidedly not saying that the revelation of God in the Old Testament is inferior to that of the New. Rather, he is making a very beautiful proclamation of the way in which the Spirit, sent by Christ, lifts a veil of blindness from human eyes, so that the full reality of God's self-revelation is experienced. The Old Testament does not give an inferior revelation of God, for it is God's own revelation of himself. Rather, the relationship of the human creature to God in the covenant of the Old Testament was one in which the hardness of human hearts posed an insurmountable 'veil' to the full, experiential vision of God. The incarnation of the Son is that reality which transforms human engagement with God, which is the true substance of human knowing. It is the engagement with the Son through the Spirit -- as St Paul makes very clear in this text -- that opens man's eyes to the truth that God has always been revealing to the cosmos. 'But even to this day, when Moses is read', that is, when the revelation of the old covenant is read apart from the revelation of Christ, which has always been its centre, 'a veil lies on their heart'.

The fundamental Christian position on the Old Testament scriptures is not that they were superceded by the New Testament, which is somehow 'better' or 'higher' because it speaks of Christ (indeed, the vast majority of the writings from the second and third centuries are in defence of the Old Testament revelation, against various groups that wished to replace it with something new). Rather, the New Testament scriptures bear witness to the apostolic experience: that Christ reveals himself as the heart and centre of the Old Testament, and shows forth the full truth and meaning of that ancient, unchanging revelation. (This is the same testimony offered by St Luke. Describing the appearence of the risen Lord to two apostles, he points out Christ's first post-resurrectional act of teaching: 'And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself' - Luke 24.27)

It is this that marks out St Paul's whole approach to the Law of Moses. A pharisee himself, and one with a remarkable education (he was educated by Gamaliel, a proficient scholar of the scriptures), Paul was aware how the Law, read through the 'veil' of a heart hardened by division and separation from the experience of God, could transform a revelation of life into a trap leading to death. In another moving text, he wrote:

Romans 7.1-6: "Do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man. Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were aroused by the law were at work in our members to bear fruit to death. But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter."
When one reads these words together with the words of Christ (which were surely in Paul's mind) on not abolishing the law but fulfilling it, it becomes clear what he is saying. The deadness of a broken relationship to Christ through the Law continues to encumber a man so long as he remains divided from the Lord, attempting to know him only through legalistic proceedings. But in the resurrection of Christ -- implicitly referred to in the passage ('you have become dead to the law through the body of Christ...') -- this broken relationship is done away with. The law of death dies, so that the true Law, Christ himself, the fulfilment of the Law, lives and is that to which the soul is wed. This is precisely what is sung at Pascha: 'Death has been trampled down by death'; or as St Paul puts it here in personal terms, 'we have died to what we were held by'. The Law is now known not simply as a collection of old letters, but as the living Son, experienced and known in the Spirit.

This is similar to the expression given in Hebrews, which many of the fathers believed to be written by St Paul -- though some, together with almost all modern scholars, thought that it perhaps was written by someone else. Whatever the case may be, it expresses something important:

Hebrews 8.7-13: "For if the first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: 'Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah -- not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in my covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. None of them shall teach his neighbour, and none his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for all shall know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.' In that He says, “A new covenant, ” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
This is a remarkable text. It is also easy to give it a superficial reading, and claim that it suggests the revelation of the Old Testament is being done away with, in favour of something new. But this is expressly not what the text says. Instead, it makes very clear that the 'covenant' being done away with, the one being abolished because it was obsolete, was that of the knowledge of God grounded in the strictures of the legal code -- the covenant 'I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt'. This covenant, the author of Hebrews writes, was grown old because the people had broken it, died in and to it. Knowledge of that sort was ultimately ineffective in 'lifting the veil' St Paul described; of getting through mankind's terrifying hardness of heart. This was, instead, to come about through a new covenant of interaction through relationship, of knowledge through experience. 'For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.' In the incarnation, the Law of God is engraved in the human heart, because the Law is the Son, and the Son 'has become man, that we might become God' (St Athanasius). Note that the text does not say that the new covenant is a new, or even a higher, revelation of who God is. God has always revealed himself to man. The new covenant is a relationship, brought to man by the Son taking humankind to himself.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Ray Kaliss]

In simple point of fact, St Paul does not speak of the the Old Testament as inferior to the New, nor its revelation as inferior. What he does speak about is the changed relationship of the human creature to its creator that comes about in the incarnation of the Word, which, when the Son draws humanity to himself by becoming man, unites the human creature to the Lawgiver in a new and heightened way. The Law is not abolished or superceded (because the Law is the self-revelation of the Lord, and the Lord was simply not lying to his people or deceiving them under the old covenant),

INXC, Dcn Matthew

Against my better judgment I decided to stop by and see where you have taken this discussion.

I remind you of Hebrews (which letter is assumed to Paul) chapter 1 trough to chapter 2.

"In times past, God spoke in PARTIAL and in various was to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days he spoke to us through his son .."

Paul here is writing to Jews .. and so the ancestors he is taking about is the Jews (what we call the Old Testament).

The 'various ways' are through dreams, divination, ecstatic trance, etc... what the Jews recognized as - angelic messages. Hence the word for 'prophet' is 'king's messenger'.

Paul then launches into a comparison of the revelation given to the Jews -before- Christ ... and the revelation through Jesus who is not a messenger (angel) but a son and also God.

(this should remind you of the parable where the land owner sends servants and lastly sends his own son).

Paul ends this comparison of the revelation through the Old Testement ... with the words "are they all not misitering spirits (angels) sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inhereit salvation?" meaning ... was not all that was recived of the Old Testement - recieved by way of angels ... sent to sever but lower than a son ..?

PARTIAL is the word Paul uses for what was revealed trough the mediaries which revelaed the Old Testement.

Partial is not equal to full. A paprtial revelation through divination, dreams, visions, trance ... is not equal in quality to a full revelation done in the person of Jesus walking and talking.

"Therefore - we must attend all the more .. to what WE have heard .. so that we must not be carried away." The 'we' here is Chritians of the New Testement compared to Jjews of the Old Testement.

Must not be 'carried away'?? Yes. Fooled by the Judacisors into believeing that the old Law (animal sacrifices, tassels on your coats, circuumsicion, etc..) ... is still in effect and on a par with the new church.

The Law (Jewish revelation) justified no one. So sez Paul.

"For if the Law announced through ANGELS (the Old Testement) proved firm ... and trangressions of it and disobediance to it recieved just recompense ... how shall WE escape if we ignor so great a salvation as orgiganally announced by God himself (the Lord) and given to us by those who had actually heard it from him?"

I ask you simply .. is there a diffrence between imprefect and perfect? Do you recognise a diffrence between partial and full?

Several times Jesus give the Law of the Old Testaments ... and then - supercededs it. The famous "You have hear .. but I tell you .."



"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery;' but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.


And the final supersede of the "eye for an eye" revenge and punishment mentality of the Old :: "Father - forgive them - they know not what they do." There was no "Father punish them." or "Father chastise them." and the rule put forth for how many times to forgive - is seventy times seven (completely and every time).

The person who made the comparison that he is glad his father chastised him when he was a boy - the comparison fails. His father was not capable of giving salvation. His own human father was more concerned with human matters. When a child (not yet capable of reason) wants to play in the street - reason alone will not keep him safe physically - one must sometimes use the pain of punishment to modify the child's behavior - in order to keep him alive.

The Old Testament being superseded (for the Christian) by the New Testament - does not make the Old Testament a 'lie' ... I refer you back to Paul's opinion that the revelation of the Son - makes the New Testament the perfection (fulfillment) of the Old Testament. The culmination. The complete picture compared to an incomplete picture.

I will pop back in ... in a few days to see how you all are doing with this.

Peace to your church
-ray

[Ray Kaliss]

But I cannot rid myself of the suspicion that in Saint Augustine's argument we hear the rhetorician speaking more loudly than the pious and humble servant of God. It seems to me a strange and pagan fatalism to assign responsibility for the criminal acts of men to a holy and righteous God.

etc...

Jonathan



Dear Jonathan .. a good post. Very thoughtful. Not a regurgitation of of some 'safe' reply that toes party lines. Not that I am accusing anyone here of doing .. that.

One must take Augustine in context of his time and the culture he was in. I have also learned to to equate saints with perfect human beings. One can be a saint - yet still have faults and failings and think the world to be flat.

There are two things which will help your thoughts (which are in the right direction).

The first thing is that the bible is a witness to a human progression of understanding God. The Old Testament prophets at times DO attribute evil to God. God does both (as they saw it) he does good and he does evil. In the Old Testament it is said several times that God turns away from the evil he is about to do. Evil in this sense is no moral evil - it is pain, punishment, and chastisement.

The comparison is this .. when you were a child you had a concept of God and what God does and what God is like and why God does what he does. Your training consisted mostly of biblical stories that a child could understand.

Then .. when you were older ... and your reasoning developed .. you were capable of understanding God in much better ways. The simplistic views of a child gave way to a deeper unnderstanding which was - more correct.

As an adult ... you now understand God even better. Your mind and spirit has matured. If you read a biblical story that you had also read as a child - you read it much deeper now.

This progress .. evolution (if you will) in understanding God .. is human. Certainly we know now (with maturity) that God does not 'walk' in a garden .. God has no legs or feet (unless we are Jehovah Witnesses who teach God has a body like ours). Certainly you know now that serpents do not speak .. they have no vocal chords - if they did they would not be snakes.

And so the 'personality' attributed to God in the Old Testament through to the New Testements - changes.

Does God change? No. Eternal and ever the same.

Does the God of the Old Testement who demanded that all Cannaites be killed (man, women, AND child) when the Hebrews enter Cannan .. does this God condone the same today?? even while Jesus asks us to turn the other cheek?

In the time of the Old Testement it was accepted pratice when invading a land - to kill all of the conqured (men, women, and children). It was - accepted. And so you see - thier view of what God is and what God wants - was limited. Tinted. Just like Moses who allowed divorce for many reasons and Jesus said that Moses did this only because the Hebrews where not ready for a better understanding ... the scriptures witness (we have to emphsis that word) to the progressive revelation - which progressed in understanding - up to the full and best understanding of God to humanity (the person of Jesus).

The Old Testement quotes God demanding animal blood sacrifes... yet the later prophets have God say "I never wanted sacrifices - I wanted mercy" (you to be compassionate to ohers). Did God change his mind? (wanting blood eariler and not wanting blood later)??

No. He -never- demannded animal sacrifices to be made. What does Jesus say ... ("You did not want sacrifices, offerings, burnt offerings, and sacrifices for sin. You did not approve of them.") .. YET - there it is in the Old Testement how God wants the animal sacrifices to be done!!!

The answer to this anomaly is ... what we are seeing is how Israel progressed in understanding God - NOT how God changed his mind. The economy of God - is a record of that progress. Just as within your own life you can see a record of that progress.

May I recommend to you "Understanding the Old Testsment" by Bernard W. Anderson.

I would allso like to explain the real concept of predestination (Paul's view) as too many hold a Calvanist view of it - a view which is deterministic, fate, destiny, completely lacking in the free will without which love is impossible. In Hebrew scriptures there are two similar but diffrent Hebrew words that are translated into the one english word 'world'. One Hebrew word means our expereince of the events in the world as governed by fate and destiny and devoid of the Providence of God. The other Hebrew words means our expereince of the events of the world as being totally governed by the Will of God (Providence).

The first 'world' (governed by mechanical fate and determined destiny) is the world that will - end. The other 'world' which is governed completly by the Will of God through atcs of Providence - is the world which does not end. ("... world without end" as the Catholic pray has it).

The english word 'world' has a scientific basis (objective matter) and that futher complicates things.

Cavin (and Agustine) both struggled to fit free-will into - the wrong 'world'.

The explation of predestination (as Paul saw it) is easy to do. All we need to is adopt Paul's (OK .. I have to quit - my wife just got up from bed and said "What are you doing? .. not a forum again!" so I have to skip typo checking :(

But that is a story for later.

Peace be to your church which Christ loves.
-ray

[Olga]

I remind you of Hebrews (which letter is assumed to Paul) chapter 1 trough to chapter 2.

"In times past, God spoke in PARTIAL and in various ways to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days he spoke to us through his son .."

Ray, time does not permit me to comment at length to your post, but it seems that the entire post is underpinned by your rendition of the opening verse from Hebrews. I am mystified as why the word partial is used in this verse. The Greek text for this verse is as follows:

Πολυμερώς καί πολυτρόπως πάλαι ο θεός λαλήσας τοίς πατράσιν εν τοίς προφήταις

The first word in bold, polymeros, means of many parts; the second word, polytropos, means in many ways. I fail to see any connection between the above meanings, and your use of the word partial in this verse.

[Antonios]

Dear Ray,

I thank our Good Lord Who loves every one of us, Who as the Good Shepard protects us from the lurking wolves and leads us safely to bountiful pastures.

Pray for me my brother in Christ.

In Christ,
Antonios

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Kaliss, Olga, Antionios and others,

There are some exceptionally problematic points raised in two posts made earlier today (numbers 22 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=68464&postcount=22) and 23 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=68467&postcount=23), above). While I am still of course very much (extremely) interested in open dialogue on all these matters by people who wish to converse and think about them constructively, the rather combattive and assertive tone in which some of these are being re-stated warrants, I think, a rather direct response.

A number of points are raised. Firstly:


I remind you of Hebrews (which letter is assumed to Paul) chapter 1 trough to chapter 2.

It is always good that, when we engage in discussion and conversation with one another, we actually take into account what others are saying, rather than simply ignoring it to re-state our own opinions. While it is rather a side-issue to the proper topic of this thread, the issue of the authorship of the letter to the Hebrews is not simply 'assumed to Paul', as you note - and as I pointed out in one of my earlier posts (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=68332&postcount=11). It is certainly a position that one can maintain, as some fathers and others have of course long done; but others have not. If one wishes to address the patristic tradition openly, it is best to remain truthful to variety when one encounters it - most often because it tends to reveal interesting insights.

The linguistic question of the translation

But that is an aside. More significantly, we have this:



I remind you of Hebrews (which letter is assumed to Paul) chapter 1 trough to chapter 2.

"In times past, God spoke in PARTIAL and in various was to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days he spoke to us through his son .."

Since this was posted, Olga has written an excellent, brief response (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=68468&postcount=24), in which she points out the basic and essential problem with this reading. Namely, the text does not say 'partial'. The original Greek reads, as Olga has already quoted:

Πολυμερώς καί πολυτρόπως πάλαι ο θεός λαλήσας τοίς πατράσιν εν τοίς προφήταις
The key term in question is Πολυμερώς, which Mr Kaliss has provided as 'partial', but which in fact means 'of many parts' (the preface Πολυ-, 'many', makes this crystal clear). The English word 'partial' could come only from a Greek base such as μερική, lit. 'partly' - but certainly not from the word we find in the text of Hebrews.

This is a fact known to almost all translators into English (given that it's a very fundamental construction), and so we find it represented, in slightly different fashions, in most English translations:

Young's Literal Translation: In many parts, and many ways, God of old having spoken to the fathers in the prophets...

New King James: God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets...

Authorised ('King James'): God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets...

Wycliffe's New Testament: Manifold and in many manners sometime God speaking to fathers by prophets...

Douay-Rheims: God, who, at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets...

New International: In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways...

New American Standard: God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways...

English Standard: Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets...
Some may be curious to note the rendition of some translations above (e.g. NKJV, AV, D-R, NIV, ESV), which takes Πολυμερώς as 'of various times', rather than various 'parts'. The Greek meros, which is literally 'part', also regularly means 'part of time' - hence this rendering. But with this meaning, the translation is clearly as is followed above; namely, Πολυμερώς means 'of many times', not 'of a part of time' or similar. Again, there is certainly no sense of 'partial' or 'partially'.

Addressing the themes in Hebrews

So linguistically, there is no justification whatever for translating Hebrews 1.1 as 'In times past, God spoke in partial and in various was to our ancestors...'. But the question of a clarity of language aside, the whole thrust of the narrative of Hebrews speaks against this concept. If we begin by looking at the broader context of the letter's opening:

Hebrews 1.1-4: "God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as he has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they."
The letter is certainly not proclaiming that what was spoken in the past about was 'inferior' to the revelation offered in Christ (as is claimed here (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=68315&postcount=8)); rather, that in the person of Jesus Christ, humanity encounters God's revelation in person, in the personal encounter with the 'appointed heir of all things', the creator himself, rather than through the voice of appointed prophets or even immaterial angelic ministers. The claim is unequivocally not of a new or superior revelation, but of a new encounter with God's revelation - in the person of the Son himself. The text goes on, through the remainder of chapter one, to show that no angelic minister (angelic proclamation being one of the heighest of the 'many ways' in which God has spoken in the past) is comparable to the Son, who is himself offspring of the Father and creator of all. This brings the text to its point:

Hebrews 2.1-4: "Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For since the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which, after first being spoken by the Lord, was confirmed to us by those who heard him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to his own will?"
The revelation God provided through his ministering angels, through his prophets, was not superceded, was not shown inferior: it was proved steadfast and true. Christ did not bring a different revelation of God (Christ was God who gave the revelation to the angels); he brought, rather, testimony of the great economy of salvation being fulfilled in the incarnation, passion and resurrection.

Tracing out various themes

In commenting on this passage, Mr Kaliss raises various points. I think it is important that these be looked at carefully. Firstly, we have this:


Paul here is writing to Jews .. and so the ancestors he is taking about is the Jews (what we call the Old Testament).

The 'various ways' are through dreams, divination, ecstatic trance, etc... what the Jews recognized as - angelic messages. Hence the word for 'prophet' is 'king's messenger'.

Indeed, the letter stresses the various ways in which God interacted with his prophets throughout history (the initial verses of Hebrews 1 are often cross-referenced to Numbers 12.6 and Joel 2.28 - the latter being the same passage quoted by St Peter at the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost, in Acts 2.16-21). The point of the text is clearly -- as Hebrews 1.1-4 makes very obvious -- to stress the many ways in which God revealed himself to his prophets, and through them to his people. In particular, he draws attention to the angels, which as you rightly say, were understood to be the highest messengers of God, and who very often (though not always) were involved in the ministration of divine revelation to the prophets. Thus the highest way in which God's revelation came to man was through the angels.

The clear intention of Hebrews 1 is to stress that, in Christ, man encounters the revelation of God (which revelation is itself unchanging, 'the same yesterday, today and tomorrow') in a new way. Where in past times it had been encountered in many ways, including the angels, in these days it is encountered in the Son himself - creator of all things, including the angels; and as true Son of the Father, infinitely superior to all others. Hebrews 1.5-14 is an extended litany of comparison between Christ and the angels ('For to which of the angels did he ever say....?'; 'Of the angels he says... but of the Son he says...'; 'He says to the Lord... But to which of the angels has he ever said...?'). When we come to Hebrews 2, we encounter the passage I've already quoted, in which we are shown in no uncertain terms that the revelation encountered in the angels (as in other means) is true and steadfast; and that given the surity of that revelation, there can be no excuse for ignoring the salvation offered in Christ, who is that revelation incarnate in the world.

More serious problems begin to emerge here:


Paul then launches into a comparison of the revelation given to the Jews -before- Christ ... and the revelation through Jesus who is not a messenger (angel) but a son and also God.

(this should remind you of the parable where the land owner sends servants and lastly sends his own son).

Paul ends this comparison of the revelation through the Old Testement ... with the words "are they all not misitering spirits (angels) sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inhereit salvation?" meaning ... was not all that was recived of the Old Testement - recieved by way of angels ... sent to sever but lower than a son ..?

The assertions of these comments go astray from their opening statement, that the author of Hebrews 'launches into a comparison of the revelation given to the Jews -before- Christ ... and the revelation through Jesus who is not a messenger (angel) but a son and also God'. At no point in Hebrews is there a comparison between the revelation given to the Jews (or any others) before Christ, and that given during or after. No comparison of the revelation is ever made at all, except - and I'll come back to this in a moment - to show their absolute identity. Rather, what is compared is that way in which the revelation came to man, and how man engaged with that revelation. This is a drastically different thing.

As to the substance of the revelation, Hebrews asserts in the strongest possible terms that the revelation given in the past is identical to the revelation given in Christ. What has changed is not the substance, but the way in which it is encountered and known. A telling passage gives a clear example:

Hebrews 3.1-6: "Therefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our confession, Christ Jesus, who was faithful to him who appointed him, as Moses also was faithful in all his house. For this One has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who built the house has more honor than the house. For every house is built by someone, but he who built all things is God. And Moses indeed was faithful in all His [Christ's] house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which would be spoken afterward, but Christ as a Son over his own house, whose house we are if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm to the end."
This passage couldn't be clearer on the issue of Moses (a prophet who received God's revelation by both angelic ministration and direct theophany) faithfully bearing testimony to all that would come. He did not receive a 'lower' or 'inferior' revelation; he received the revelation of God, fulfilled and made known in the incarnate Son (which is why, in the iconographic and liturgical traditions of the Church, Moses is known as the prophet of Jesus Christ, par excellence).

Similarly, the famous litany of those who have walked and lived by faith all throughout the old covenant (cf. Hebrews 11) concludes with the following words:

Hebrews 11.39-12.2: "And all these, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise, God having provided something better for us, that they should not be made perfect apart from us. Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God."
What is critical in this passage is that those who have lived in the past by faith, have lived in the same hope, the same 'race', that is fulfilled in those who follow Christ. What comes in Christ is 'better', but it is better because it is a new degree of relationship to the self-revealing God -- not some new revelation of who and what God is. If this were the case, if the revelation in Christ as different than God's self-revelation in the past, then it would not be true that the great 'cloud of witnesses' would be witnesses to this faith; nor that they would be 'made perfect' in the common faith of Christ (as Christ's revelation would be different to what they had known, lived and died in). Christ brings a new covenant of relationship, replacing that which was broken through sin, establishing a renewed experience of God in his eternal self-revelation (cf. Hebrews 8.7-13; the notion of an old and new covenant, and how this relates to the question of the revelation of who God is, is something I began to address in a previous post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=68332&postcount=11), but which - as an issue, absolutely central, quite apart from my considerations of it - has been skipped over in subsequent discussion).

Later, this is said:


PARTIAL is the word Paul uses for what was revealed trough the mediaries which revelaed the Old Testement.

Partial is not equal to full. A paprtial revelation through divination, dreams, visions, trance ... is not equal in quality to a full revelation done in the person of Jesus walking and talking.

Unfortunately, this suffers from simply being false. Paul does not speak of the revelation given through angels, or any other aspect of the Old Testament, as 'partial'.


"Therefore - we must attend all the more .. to what WE have heard .. so that we must not be carried away." The 'we' here is Chritians of the New Testement compared to Jjews of the Old Testement.

Must not be 'carried away'?? Yes. Fooled by the Judacisors into believeing that the old Law (animal sacrifices, tassels on your coats, circuumsicion, etc..) ... is still in effect and on a par with the new church.

This is a problematic interpretation, as it fails to read the quoted phrase (of Hebrews 2.1) in the full context of the passage. I've quoted Hebrews 2.1-4 already above, and explained (though really, the text speaks for itself) how it is quite clearly affirming that the angelic revelation as true and steadfast.

Then we have this:


The Law (Jewish revelation) justified no one. So sez Paul.

As in an earlier post, where 'punishment' and 'chastisement' were conflated, I think one needs to be very wary here of misusing terms. 'The Law' and 'Jewish revelation' are not the same thing. The revelation to the Jews was God's self-disclosure. God makes himself known to his people. The Law was one particular aspect of God's self-revelation, demonstrating his will for the people's ordering of worship, society, behaviour and acts. It was never considered the fulness of 'Jewish revelation', since - as we've already seen the author of Hebrews point out - 'in various times and in various ways' God spoke to his people through his prophets.

Conflating the Law, which is a framework of behaviour and righteousness, with God's being and revelation of himself, is I think a fundamental problem that lies behind a great number of the difficulties in the interpretations we're seeing here.

At one stage, a clear question is asked:


I ask you simply .. is there a diffrence between imprefect and perfect? Do you recognise a diffrence between partial and full?



This is a good, straight question, and deserves a clear answer. That answer is 'yes': there is obviously a difference between 'imperfect' and 'perfect', as well as a difference between 'partial' and 'full' (though 'imperfect' and 'partial' are not theological synonyms; nor are 'perfect' and 'full'). But rather than simply ask a question in its own right, this has to be related to the discussion at hand. On this, the following points:

As to a distinction between 'partial' (i.e. incomplete) and 'full', the letter to the Hebrews does not speak. I think I've talked already enough about this.
On a distinction between 'imperfect' (ateleiotes) and 'perfect' (teleiotes), these are terms that, theologically, speak to human maturity (see several good discussions on them elsewhere in this forum). It is in exactly this framework that Hebrews speaks in Hebrews 5.12-14, where the famous parallel between milk and solid food is drawn - specifically to show that it is human weakness that determines how God interacts with us, how he exposes us to his unchanging truth.
And, the above aside, the fundamental issue that seems to be problematic in these comments, is not that there is a difference between imperfect/perfect, partial/full, or other similar terms; but rather, what these are to be applied to. Mr Kaliss's assertion is, over and again that Hebrews, St Paul at large, and various other passages demonstrate a relationship of inferior/superior revelation of God - which simply is not a biblical proclamation, much less a belief of the Church.
There are other specific comments and points raised in post #22 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=68464&postcount=22) which I am not addressing (these come primarily at its end); but I do so not to ignore them, but because I think this post is too long already - and because my responses to them would be echoes of what I've already written above. Should you, however, Mr Kaliss, feel that my leaving any of them off is somehow being unfair or ignoring a point you've made and feel is essential, please do simply let me know and I'll happily respond to it.

Perhaps in conclusion, I could include a few comments from St John Chrysostom's homilies on Hebrews 1. St John clearly believes the letter to be the work of St Paul, and throughout his long series of homilies on the epistle (34 in total, together with a preface and summary), he again and again points out that what is 'new' and 'higher' and 'better' in the Christian's relationship to God is the new experience of God's eternal revelation, experienced now in the incarnate relationship with the Son.

From Homily 1: "Why did he [Paul] not oppose himself to the prophets? Certainly, he was much greater than they, inasmuch as a greater trust was committed to him. Yet he does not so. Why? First, to avoid speaking great things concerning himself. Secondly, because his hearers were not yet perfect. And thirdly, because he rather wished to exalt them, and to show that their superiority was great. As if he had said, What so great matter is it that He sent prophets to our fathers? For to us [He has sent] His own only-begotten Son Himself."

"And look on his great wisdom. First he shows the superiority from the prophets. Then having established this as acknowledged, he declares that to them indeed He spoke by the prophets, but to us by the Only-begotten. Then [He spoke] to them by Angels, and this again he establishes, with good reason (for angels also held converse with the Jews): yet even herein we have the superiority, inasmuch as the Master [spoke] to us, but to them servants, and prophets, fellow-servants."

"And see how considerately he has spoken it. For he said not, Christ spoke (albeit it was He who did speak), but inasmuch as their souls were weak, and they were not yet able to hear the things concerning Christ, he says, God has spoken by Him. What do you mean? did God speak through the Son? Yes. What then? Is it thus you show the superiority? for here you have but pointed out that both the New and the Old [Covenants] are of One and the same: and that this superiority is not great. Wherefore he henceforth follows on upon this argument, saying, He spoke unto us by [His] Son."
INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Herman Blaydoe]

If I may dare to add a very simple thought from a very little brain to Fr. Dcn. Matthew's excellent post; if someone were to paint a "perfect" picture, but he only showed you a corner of that picture, is the picture less perfect? Is the corner inferior to the whole?

Just a little thought from a bear of little brain.
Herman the Pooh

[Ray Kaliss]

If I may dare to add a very simple thought from a very little brain to Fr. Dcn. Matthew's excellent post; if someone were to paint a "perfect" picture, but he only showed you a corner of that picture, is the picture less perfect? Is the corner inferior to the whole?

Just a little thought from a bear of little brain.
Herman the Pooh

If someone gave you a description of what it is like to walk on the moon ... and one day you actually got to walk on the moon ...

would you say that there is no difference between hearing a description and actually walking on the moon?

Surely any description (as good as it might be) is inferior to actually walking on the moon yourself.

-ray

[Ray Kaliss]

I fail to see any connection between the above meanings, and your use of the word partial in this verse.

Please let me explain ... and do not think I am ungrateful for your own comments and they add even a fuller dimension for me .. to the verse.

The translation is from the New American Bible (Roman Catholic).

Your example is a transliteration.

There is a difference between a transliteration and a translation. I do not doubt that you know that.

My example is a translation - which by its nature takes into account the transliteration ... but also the contextual meaning intended by the author as determined by the translators. The translators then select words in the language which are intended to impart the intended meaning in current words of the target culture and language.

Often times it is impossible to carry over the depth and multiple inflections of a Hebrew or Greek word into English and so the translator is left with a choice to stick to literalness which may lose the meaning from one language to another - or try to carry over the meaning at the cost of being literal.

I often find it good to compare translations and transliterations - as the differences often are evidence that some word play (in the original language) or some multiple meaning (which the author intended) may be present. A lot of study into the Hebrew culture before and at the time of Christ helps idiomatic words and phrases.

The translation I quoted is from the New American Bible (Roman Catholic) sometimes known as NAB and published by Thomas Nelson Publications with Copyright 1987

In as much as 'part' or 'parts' and even 'many parts' ... indicates that something is in pieces ... that indicates that it is partial and incomplete as compared to what is whole and complete.

In as much as a 'portion' or 'portions' and 'many portions' indicates that something is less than whole and less than complete ... and in as much as the term 'portions' agrees with 'parts' to indicate that what is being talked about is pieces and not the whole or the complete item...

and in as much as the old testament revelation is considered to be incomplete (by the church and its fathers) and the new testament revelation is considered the completion...

... I have no problem with the translation of 'partial' to indicate the revelation of the Mosaic covenant was not a full revelation of Jesus Christ. It was a partial revelation. A pre-figure and a painting of Jesus Christ (as it were) as compared to the living breathing Jesus Christ.

The Old Testament gives us a description of the coming of Jesus Christ - the New Testament gives us Jesus Christ himself. I would say that the description is a lessor thing than the living breathing reality. Just as I would say that a description of a sun rise (as well as it may be worded) is inferior to the actual experience of a sun rise.

Therefore the Church (Orthodox and Roman) tells us that the event of Jesus in his crucifixion and resurrection was the fullness (the completeness) of revelation. There is no more.

Now .. follow my train of thought here .. if you would be kind ...

If I asked you "Do you own a car?" and you answered "Yes I do." ... I would assume that you do own a car.

If I were to ask you "Do you own a car?" and you answered "I own many parts of a car." or you had answered that "I own many portions of a car." ... I would assume that you do not own a complete car but that you rather own parts, portions, a partial car - but not a complete and whole car (not really a car at all is it).

I also have no trouble with the transliteration of 'many parts' in the sense of ... a little bit here and a little bit there as this seems a good way to describe what happens in the Old Testament ... but I would have difficulty believing that "many parts" indicates a complete revelation - a fullness and completion - a finish and end of story.

In my mind that would be contrary to the fathers of the church who tell us that the event of Jesus is the fulfillment (completion) of the Old Testament revelation ... and I think that would also run contrary to Christ's own statement regarding the climatic event of the entire history of revelation from Moses to Christ. ("It is finished") which has the meaning of ... it is completed .. it is done ... it is closed.

Q: what is finished, closed, and done, and complete?
A: the historical (and public) and progressive revelation which begins in Genesis, passes through Moses and the prophets, and ends with the crucifixion.

If the revelation ends with the crucifixion of Jesus Christ - then the revelation is Jesus Christ.

It is his living breathing flesh and humanity. And the resurrection following the crucifixion is the final supernatural seal of proof that he was what he said he was and that he (Jesus himself) was the revelation.

The substance of the New Testament is the reality and the actual presence of Jesus Christ on earth and in the flesh. The substance of the Old Testament is a description of his coming and his humanity. A description in figure - of what would be actual fact in the New Testament.

Again .. I would say that the description (old testament) is inferior and partial (not complete) as compared to the actual event which Old Testament was describing.

Others may say that the Old Testament revelation is complete - and is not inferior to the New Testament - and while this may be true in some sense - I do not believe that we should sever the link between the two. The description (the Old Testament) of his coming MUST be connected with the event of his coming. The description points to the actual event.

A pointer with out an object pointed to - is meaningless.
A pointer is always inferior to the actual object it points to.

Peace be to you and to your conscience
so that you may be aware of the movement of love within you.
-ray

[Ray Kaliss]

Dear M.C. Steenberg...

You give me shoot gun blasts in your replies. Impossible to debate because as I might pick one - here comes ten more! This only causes confusion and sets up a fog.

Peace to you and to your church.
-ray

[Ray Kaliss]

Dear Ray,

I sure hope you stay around a bit.

I'm sure that Father Deacon Matthew and Owen did not mean to offend you. You may find discussing these matters more interesting and good.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Dear Matthew ...

I will stay and try for awhile .. but yes ... I do find Father Deacon Matthew's lengthy posts which lecture everyone on the corrections to what he believes are my many errors (even so far as to enumerate them) I do find his posts insulting and personal harassment.

I know what his motivations are.

I have not minded Owen's disagreements with me as it seems to me that he addresses me directly as a person and states his disagreement directly to me on one or two items at a time. Owen allows a reply and the possibility for a real discussion to take place.

In one of Father Deacon's posts he writes to 'all' that I am combative and assertive (let's be honest - he is referring to me) ... however I am trying to be as tolerant as I can in response to his litany of my errors. I, being human, can not help feeling some defensiveness and agitation towards his posts which, taking the tone of protecting the flock ... are not addressed to me ... but are rather lectures to all on the subject of my errors.

I am doing my best to ignore him .. at the risk of letting him convince others that I am a fool.

Peace to you and to your church.
-ray

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Mr Kaliss and others,

I am sorrowful to read the tone of your recent posts, which I find as I return from the weekend. To the direct opposite of your claims, I have tried to show you politeness and respect by engaging directly with your points, addressing them directly as you've written them, rather than glossing-over them or giving some set of prepared replies; I've also tried to be balanced, pointing out things that I thought were insightful, as well as those I felt were gravely mistaken. The hostility you've shown in response I do find disheartening and rather remarkable. When one posts into a discussion forum, the response of others - who go about discussing what you've written - is not meant to be a sign of attack or disrespect, as you clearly have taken it; it is the whole reason a discussion forum exists. I am deeply sorry you've taken such offense, and sincerely apologise if you've felt as attacked as you describe; but I do feel it entirely appropriate that comments made in a forum such as this, are engaged with critically - especially when it comes to various assertions that you've made, which clearly challenge the way the Orthodox Church understands some of these key and central issues.

That being said, I do think it's appropriate (and necessary) to carry on with this discussion, because some of the recent comments are misleading. As I've tried to suggest before, I think we can have a far more productive discussion if we're careful with our terminology. I say this now, in response to this sequence of comments from recent posts:


"In times past, God spoke in PARTIAL and in various was to our ancestors through the prophets; in these last days he spoke to us through his son .."


I am mystified as why the word partial is used in this verse. The Greek text for this verse is as follows:

Πολυμερώς καί πολυτρόπως πάλαι ο θεός λαλήσας τοίς πατράσιν εν τοίς προφήταις

The first word in bold, polymeros, means of many parts; the second word, polytropos, means in many ways.


Your example is a transliteration.

There is a difference between a transliteration and a translation. I do not doubt that you know that.

My example is a translation - which by its nature takes into account the transliteration ... but also the contextual meaning intended by the author as determined by the translators. The translators then select words in the language which are intended to impart the intended meaning in current words of the target culture and language.

In simple point of fact this is incorrect, since what Olga provided was both a transliteration ('polymeros'), as well as a translation ('of many parts'). A transliteration is simply the presentation in one alphabet/language of the sounds of another alphabet; thus the transliteration of the Greek Πολυμερώς is polymeros - i.e., with these letters in English, we re-create (as close as is practicable) the sound of the word in its original language. A translation, on the other hand, is at attempt to convey in one language the meaning of a word or phrase in another; so the translation of Πολυμερώς is 'of many parts', as Olga provided. A translation of a term, does not (pace Mr Kaliss) take into account the transliteration of the original (except in exceptional circumstances, where the sound of the word itself is important - e.g. in translating noises, animal sounds, poetic forms, etc.), since by and large a re-creation of the sound of the original language has little if anything to do with its meaning, which is what a translation attempts to capture.

I'm grateful that you identified the translation you were using, Mr Kaliss, as the NAB - this helps set the context for your reading. I think I feel on very safe ground in saying that, in this instance, the translators of the NAB simply got it wrong, as the meaning of the Greek term is quite clear. I don't say this to disparage the NAB in any general way -- indeed, portions of its translation, especially of the OT books of 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Daniel, are truly superb. But in this case, there is no warrant for that translation that I can ponder; which indeed seems to be supported by the vast preponderance of other English translations, which render the phrase more accurately, as already discussed in previous posts.

I'm afraid that the remainder of your recent post (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=68519&postcount=31) is very difficult for anyone to engage with constructively, as you are ignoring the conversation of which you are a part - the conversation of this thread, with others participating, which has already raised questions about some of your presuppositions. Rather than engage with these, you've simply ignored them and repeat quite problematic statements, such as:


and in as much as the old testament revelation is considered to be incomplete (by the church and its fathers) and the new testament revelation is considered the completion...

Previous posts have engaged with your assertions on this point, and challenged any such statement with evidence to the contrary. You may not agree with what is being said; but in that case, you should engage with it and respond to it. Simply to ignore it, and repeat these kinds of statements, isn't constructive discussion.

To all and sundry, I do hope that the personal issues evidenced here (which always occur from time to time; part of our human nature), don't detract from the healthy discussion of what are genuinely some very important topics. In the Orthodox Church, the fact that the Old Testament does not represent a 'lesser' or 'inferior' revelation of God is absolutely essential to the Church's whole Christology, trinitarianism, view of salvation, and ascetical life. I hope we can continue to use this discussion to explore it in a healthy and constructive way, as it's a topic that is oftentimes misunderstood.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Andreas Moran]

transliterate, v.t. to write in letters of another alphabet. - n.s. transliteration

paradox, n. that which is contrary to received opinion: that which is apparently absurd but is or may be really true

Source: Chambers Dictionary.

[Herman Blaydoe]

I think our friend Ray is confused about the different kinds of translation. Rather than being a difference between translation and transliteration, which Fr. Dcn Matthew has covered, I think what Ray means is the difference between literal and idiomatic translation, both of which have important purposes, but depending on the task at hand, different results. A good primer on the types of translation and their uses can be found here (http://www.sil.org/translation/trtypes.htm). We need to get our terms straight before we argue over their definitions.

I also think it worth mentioning that Mr. Kaliss' definition is at a complete variance, not only with the Orthodox teaching on the Old Testament, but also the Roman Catholic teaching as well. Sometime learning what one's own Church teaches might be wise before telling us what our Church does or should teach.

Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Peter S.]

Dear M.C. Steenberg...

You give me shoot gun blasts in your replies. Impossible to debate because as I might pick one - here comes ten more! This only causes confusion and sets up a fog.

Peace to you and to your church.
Dear Matthew ...

I will stay and try for awhile .. but yes ... I do find Father Deacon Matthew's lengthy posts which lecture everyone on the corrections to what he believes are my many errors (even so far as to enumerate them) I do find his posts insulting and personal harassment.

I know what his motivations are.

RayHi Ray.

You dont know his motivations as you say you do. This is internet.

I see you say you leave, but then you "pop in". Arius also left the Ecumenical Council in Nicea when he was proven wrong btw.

If you will be fair, you try to debate Mr. Steenberg. He writes lenghty posts, but you also write lenghty posts. You can try to debate one argument at a time. If you can't, you can't. Don't say: "then he has ten more".

And it is right as you say: our Church is holy. It is THE Church.


I am doing my best to ignore him .. at the risk of letting him convince others that I am a fool.I guarantee you. If you ignore him people will maybe not see you as a fool, but unfair.

And you are not a fool. Everyone do mistakes.

Peace to you and to your church.

Peter

[Olga]

My dear Ray

You wrote:


Please let me explain ... and do not think I am ungrateful for your own comments and they add even a fuller dimension for me .. to the verse.

The translation is from the New American Bible (Roman Catholic).

Your example is a transliteration.

There is a difference between a transliteration and a translation. I do not doubt that you know that.

My example is a translation - which by its nature takes into account the transliteration ... but also the contextual meaning intended by the author as determined by the translators. The translators then select words in the language which are intended to impart the intended meaning in current words of the target culture and language.

May I say that again you have fallen into the trap of imparting your own interpretation of a scripture passage which, unfortunately in this case, has led to an erroneous reading of that passage.

While language does change over the centuries (and the English lanuage is particularly notorious for this), I can say without presumption that there are some aspects of certain languages which have not changed for centuries. I referred to the original Greek precisely because it is the language in which the New Testament was originally written, and therefore, the starting point for all translations into whatever language is required, thus avoiding the pitfall of mistranslating from second or third languages, for instance, from Greek to Latin or Slavonic, then to English, for example. I am not familiar with the provenance of the New American Bible you refer to, perhaps you can kindly provide more details. Was it derived from the original Greek? Or was it translated from a secondary or tertiary language?

The definitions of polymeros I and Fr Dcn Matthew provided, is none other than the standard definition of this word. I can assure you that the meaning of this word has not changed over the centuries, whether in koine Greek, or in modern (demotic) Greek. No Greek speaker, or scholar of this language, would honestly tell you otherwise. As for your assertion that a mere transliteration of this word has been provided, a transliteration is simply a phonetic rendering of a word from its original alphabetic form. I did indeed provide this, for the benefit of readers who are unfamiliar with the Greek alphabet. But a transliteration is entirely separate from a definition of said word.

Be that as it may, it must also be remembered that the Orthodox Church has, from its inception, interpreted and understood scripture through the lens of the apostolic and patristic tradition, not through one's individual interpretation. The story in Acts of the Ethiopian eunuch comes to mind.

As for:



I do find Father Deacon Matthew's lengthy posts which lecture everyone on the corrections to what he believes are my many errors (even so far as to enumerate them) I do find his posts insulting and personal harassment.


Insulting and personal harassment? Oh my. This forum is rightly renowned for its dispassionate and friendly tone, due in no small part through the efforts of the moderators.

[Ray Kaliss]

Dear Olga ...

Thank you for your reply in a clear and straight forward fashion.

I do not doubt the meaning of 'many parts' which you supplied. Being mostly familiar with the NAB translation ... what you supplied seems reasonable and accurate - especially as there is a certain symmetry (many parts / many ways).

and so you have convinced me that 'many parts' is indeed perhaps the pimary meaning intended. Not that I doubted you ... I am not yet convinced that 'partial' can not also be included in the author's thoughts.

You seem to have some good Greek ability (my own ability with biblical languages is very laborious) can you tell me what the word 'partial' would be in Greek? If it would have absolutely no linkage to the word we are dealing with (not similar - no root connection) that would give me pause and make me suspect the NAB more.

The New American Bible is a Roman Catholic version. The fly page says "Translated from the orginal languages with critical use of all the ancient sources". I think it first appeared in 1970 and it is widely used by Roman Catholics. I imagine its translators are many and well credentials and not necessarily all Catholics.

My statement that the Old testament revelation of God is inferior to the new testament revelation of Christ himself - and that this revelation of Christ himself supersedes the old testament revelation ... is not solely based upon this one line in Hebrews.

I get the feeling that I am being misunderstood somewhere. I find it surprising that people are having trouble with this. I don't know how to account for that yet.



May I say that again you have fallen into the trap of imparting your own interpretation of a scripture passage which, unfortunately in this case, has led to an erroneous reading of that passage.


I do not necessarily feel that we (at all times and in all cases) are incapable of coming to a better understanding of scriptures. Nor do I in every case and every circumstance trust entirely and without question the opinions of the fathers or the opinions of translators - it would be a long discussion of why (so I will not do that here). At the same time I am aware of the dangers of completely disregarding both - and great weight should be given to the opinions of the fathers and saints and classical sources within the several traditions of the Church entire (Eastern, Latin, Coptics, etc...) keeping in mind that the group which are often thought of as the fathers of the church are not isolated to the Greek fathers alone. As I say - explaining my position on this - would be a long and involved thing so I will not do that here.

I am not unfamiliar with the Orthodox interpretation and views on scriptures etc. While I am Roman Catholic - my own spiritual director (and good friend) for several years has been a Russian Orthodox priest and for several years I had a personal friendship with a well recognized Orthodox theologian (professor and priest) who taught for many years in Orthodox seminary but I will not give his name because our friendship is not an endorsement of my views.

It just came to my mind of one example of why I do not trust every single opinion of the fathers and etc.. etc... you see ... I am Roman Catholic ... and it is clear that some fathers interpreted the passages regarding ("you are rock and upon this rock I build my church") as the scriptural foundation of Papal Infallibility and Primacy. Certainly you are aware that the Catholic church presents quotes from the fathers which support the RC position. Now if I had trusted that entirely and without question (as I did for years) I would still believe it today and in my mind the Orthodox would be wrong on the matter. ... However .... I did my own research and I find the RC interpretation to be a misunderstanding of that event. I take a position somewhat similar to the Orthodox position on the See of Peter. Now I would not have come to that if I simply trusted without question the opinions of 'the fathers' within my own tradition (Roman Catholic). What I had to do was not only weigh both sides (the fathehrhs pro and the fathers con) and suppliment that with other forms of research. Of course my research regarding the claim of Infallibility and Primacy encompassed more than just this one scripture passage. But the point being - the fathers themselves having conflicting opinions on interpreting that passage.

Again - it would be a long explanation as to why we must also do a bit of our own research and ultimatly consult our own conscience in these matters.



Insulting and personal harassment? Oh my. This forum is rightly renowned for its dispassionate and friendly tone, due in no small part through the efforts of the moderators.Intended or not I do not know .. but my experience was similar to having a teacher stand one child up infront of the class room and using that child as an example to the entire class ... of many errors and faults. Father Deacon was not discussing - he was teaching all - and using me as a bad example to the forum members. This, perhaps, would be fine when teaching in sermon etc... but in a discussion forum perhaps he should restrain himself a bit. Plus .. in not addressing me directly - and with his enumeration of such a long list of my supposed errors - he makes it impossible for me to defend or explain myself.

Your posts (and our current exchange) is a good example of a real possibility of discussion. And I thank you for that. While I do not think I have fallen into the trap of self-interpretation ... I am not offended by you suggesting that .. you do go on looking to for a better understanding of my position ... and you offer an alternative interpretation ... and your presentation has allowed me to see value in your own opinion about the interpretation of that passage. You exemplify the type of Orthodox I have known and love (don't blush :)


I am not a fool in either Latin theology nor Eastern theology (as portrayed by Father Deacon in his letures as to all on my faults) ... a few years back I was the ONLY Roman Catholic invited by a group of Orthodox theologians (coming from around the world) to a private seminar in New Hampshire - to attend this closed seminar (Orthodox only). This was and honor extended to me. Unfortunately I was not able to attend :( I have been taught in both (Eastern and Latin) by a couple of the best ... yet I also retain my own research and opinions due to over 30 years of study (the narrations of Genesis being my major research). I am not a novice nor so chuck full of errors as Father Deacon lectures you all on. Neither am I perfect nor 100% 'right' across the board (neither is Father Deacon)


And so again - I thank you for the way in which you have conducted yourself.

I have to get ready for work so I have no time to correct typos.

Peace to your conscience.
-ray

[Herman Blaydoe]

You seem to have some good Greek ability (my own ability with biblical languages is very laborious) can you tell me what the word 'partial' would be in Greek? If it would have absolutely no linkage to the word we are dealing with (not similar - no root connection) that would give me pause and make me suspect the NAB more.

I note that you have decided to "ignore" the posts from Fr. Dcn. Matthew, I must say this is most unwise, particularly since he has already answered your question in an earlier post, to wit:


The key term in question is Πολυμερώς, which Mr Kaliss has provided as 'partial', but which in fact means 'of many parts' (the preface Πολυ-, 'many', makes this crystal clear). The English word 'partial' could come only from a Greek base such as μερική, lit. 'partly' - but certainly not from the word we find in the text of Hebrews.

Herman

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

Looking back over the recent discussion, it seems to me like there are some central aspects to the issue that could be helpfully discussed. If others are interested, there might be some fruit in addressing:

The relationship seeing a thing through 'many parts and many ways' to seing it 'entiere': There is an important point here, which is central to the faith and the ascetical experience of it. There might be some use in discussing further the way truth is experienced in Christ, and how this relates to the Father's revelation 'in many parts and ways' - for it certainly is not identical. This, in turn, can give us a more experiential ground to address the question of revelation and the substance of what is experienced.

The definitive nature of the new covenant of relation to the Son: In the past God's revelation came 'in many parts and ways', but the covenants of experience of this were often broken. In Christ is a new covenant of definitive, unsurpassable experience. There will be no other. This might be a fruitful area of discussion also.

Despite something of a 'rough start' to the thread, from which may we all find peace, I'm sure there are ways for us all to benefit from an ongoing dialogue. I'm convinced that this is an area that, while it is certainly often misunderstood more broadly in circles outside the Orthodox Church, is also something with which many of us also struggle in our own ascetical lives and engagement with the holy scriptures. Therefore: good grounds for discussion!

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Michael Stickles]

My statement that the Old testament revelation of God is inferior to the new testament revelation of Christ himself - and that this revelation of Christ himself supersedes the old testament revelation ... is not solely based upon this one line in Hebrews.

I get the feeling that I am being misunderstood somewhere. I find it surprising that people are having trouble with this. I don't know how to account for that yet.

Possibly we are dealing with disagreement on exactly what "inferior" means?

In an earlier post you mentioned:


In as much as 'part' or 'parts' and even 'many parts' ... indicates that something is in pieces ... that indicates that it is partial and incomplete as compared to what is whole and complete.

Actually, it does not necessarily mean that the earlier revelation is "incomplete", but you could view it as being "unassembled". Try the metaphor of a jigsaw puzzle. In the Old Testament, all of the "pieces" were there, but not fully assembled, and the "veil" Paul speaks of in 2 Corinthians kept us from putting everything together. In the New Testament revelation of Christ, the puzzle is put together for us and the picture can be seen clearly.

So, to stick with the metaphor, then (assuming I'm reading everyone correctly) it seems to me that the others are saying the OT revelation is not inferior because no "pieces" are missing and no "wrong" pieces are in there, while you are saying that it is inferior because the pieces are not assembled (as they are in the NT revelation of Christ) and so we can't quite see the picture. That looks like different definitions of "inferior" to me, one centered in "objective content" and the other in perception or experience.

In Christ,
Michael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Michael and others,

Thank you for a very interesting post. I very much enjoyed your summary of the discussion above.

INXC, Dcn Matthew