LITERARY AND THEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF THE SERMON ON LAW AND GRACE

This article studies the literary and theological background of the Sermon on Law and Grace, a famous oration by Ilarion, the (future) Metropolitan of Kyiv, from the mid-eleventh century. The author of this article focuses also on potential patristic models for Ilarion’s theological and patriotic reflection on the recent East Slavic history in the light of the official adoption of Christianity under Volodymyr Sviatoslavich, Prince of Kyiv. The main feature of the mentioned (self-)reflection, relying on the notion of history as the history of salvation, is disregarding the Byzantine political and cultural superiority and, simultaneously, emphasizing the justice of God, who brings his grace equally to all peoples, thus positioning them on the same spiritual level. This kind of reasoning was not a peculiarity of the Rus’ culture but formed a wider phenomenon defined by apologetic attitu­de and was characteristic of the entire religious-literary tradition of the East Orthodox Slavs between the tenth and sixteenth centuries. While trying to construct a theological justification of the historical value of Kyivan Rus’, Ilarion adapted patristic patterns coming from Byzantium, for example, the explanation of (dis)continuity between the Law of Moses and Christ’s mercy, particularly following Gregory Nazianzen and Patriarch Nicephorus I, or perception of a polity led by a Christian ruler, particularly following Eusebius of Caesarea. Keywords: Sermon on Law and Grace, Ilarion, Rus’ literature, history of salvation, patristic models

Alliances between Israel and Other Nations in Light of the Pentateuch’s Prohibitions in the Greek Bible

The conducted exegesis of some particular verses from the Septuagint indicates that two initial covenants made between a representative of the chosen nation with a Gentile party (Abraham and Solomon) did not breach the obligations resulting from the Law of Moses. The theological portrait of Abraham in the Book of Genesis captures an unambiguous evaluation of his conduct in accordance with the Law although the Law itself appeared considerably later when Moses lived. The pact between Solomon and Hiram deserves a similar evaluation. However, the later covenants between the kings of Israel and Judah with Gentile rulers deserve an extremely negative evaluation. Although they did not formally violate the Mosaic prohibitions, they were evaluated as a violation of trust in the Lord as He was the only Partner of the covenant between Himself and the Israelites. Such an interpretation is possible especially in light of Deut 7:6 which accentuates the uniqueness of Israel as a nation chosen by God from among other nations. And because this selection of Israel was done on the foundation of the covenant made on the Mount Sinai, it should be a one-of-a-kind covenant that should not be replaced with another pact signed with a human being, and let alone a Gentile. In all of the cases above, starting from King Asa and ending with Archpriest Jonathan, there was a true violation of the rule whereby the Lord was the only Partner of the covenant with His people. Thus, each of the analyzed treatises met with valid criticism both from a prophet and the inspired author. It is difficult to treat these violations as a major breach of the faith of Israel because of the established diplomatic relations. However, it was the rule of God’s uniqueness as a foundation for any sphere in the life of the chosen people that was violated. It included the political sphere which should not be excluded from the chosen people’s faith.

Przymierza Izraelitów z narodami w świetle zakazów Pięcioksięgu Biblii greckiej

The conducted exegesis of some particular verses from the Septuagint indicates that two initial covenants made between a representative of the chosen nation with a Gentile party (Abraham and Solomon) did not breach the obligations resulting from the Law of Moses. The theological portrait of Abraham in the Book of Genesis captures an unambiguous evaluation of his conduct in accordance with the Law although the Law itself appeared considerably later when Moses lived. The pact between Solomon and Hiram deserves a similar evaluation. However, the later covenants between the kings of Israel and Judah with Gentile rulers deserve an extremely negative evaluation. Although they did not formally violate the Mosaic prohibitions, they were evaluated as a violation of trust in the Lord as He was the only Partner of the covenant between Himself and the Israelites. Such an interpretation is possible especially in light of Deut 7:6 which accentuates the uniqueness of Israel as a nation chosen by God from among other nations. And because this selection of Israel was done on the foundation of the covenant made on the Mount Sinai, it should be a one-of-a-kind covenant that should not be replaced with another pact signed with a human being, and let alone a Gentile. In all of the cases above, starting from King Asa and ending with Archpriest Jonathan, there was a true violation of the rule whereby the Lord was the only Partner of the covenant with His people. Thus, each of the analyzed treatises met with valid criticism both from a prophet and the inspired author. It is difficult to treat these violations as a major breach of the faith of Israel because of the established diplomatic relations. However, it was the rule of God’s uniqueness as a foundation for any sphere in the life of the chosen people that was violated. It included the political sphere which should not be excluded from the chosen people’s faith.

Paul’s view of the law in Romans and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahido Church’s (EOTC) use of the law as həgga ləbbunā, “həgga Orit” and “həgga wangle”

The EOTC’s view of the law of God as Həgga Ləbbunā (the law of heart), “Həgga Orit” (the law of Moses) and “Həgga Wangel” (the law of gospel) could be related to Paul’s view of the law in Romans as the law of Conscience, Torah and the law of the Spirit of life. The three expressions of the EOTC’s view of the law can be mapped with Paul’s view of the law as unwritten law of God (2:14–16), Torah (2:17–29) and the law of the Spirit of life (8:2–4) in Romans. The EOTC’s view of the law as “Həgga Ləbbunā” could shed light to better understand Paul’s view of the law as unwritten law given to all humanity (Rom. 2:12–14). Besides, “Həgga Orit” helps to better understand the law of Moses given to Israel with its universal implication because the Ethiopic tradition claims that Ethiopians have received the Torah through the Queen of Sheba. Further, “Həgga Wangel” helps to better understand the continuity between the Torah and the Gospel because the Ethiopic tradition understands that the law of Gospel is a continuation of the Mosaic law rather than making an antithesis of law and Gospel. Therefore, the EOTC’s view of the law contributes to better understand Paul’s view of the law as an alternative reading from the tradition of Ethiopic perspective.

Experience of Reconstruction of Isosyllabic Poetry of the New Testament. Part 1

Предлагаемая публикация продолжает ряд работ прот. Леонида Грилихеса по семитской реконструкции новозаветных текстов. Вместе с тем, она познакомит читателя с принципиально новым подходом к реконструкции, который в ранних работах автора был лишь намечен. Прот. Леонид исходит из того, что притчи Иисуса Христа, а также значительно число Его других речей, представляли собой изосиллабические поэтические тексты. Другими словами, они включали в себя равное количество слогов в каждой строке. Устойчивые модели, стоящие за реконструируемыми текстами, позволяют прот. Леониду описать несколько языковых закономерностей, характерных для оригинального языка притч. Настоящая публикация позволит компетентному читателю ознакомиться с реконструкциями двух текстов: речи Иисуса о Законе Моисеевом из Нагорной проповеди и притчи о Страшном Суде. The present publication continues a series of works by archpriest Leonid Grilikhes on the «Semitic reconstruction» of the New Testament texts. At the same time, it represents a fundamentally new approach to the reconstruction, which was only outlined in archpriest Leonid’s early works. The author presumes that the parables of Jesus Christ, as well as a significant number of His other speeches, were isosyllabic poetic texts. In other words, they included an equal number of syllables in each line. The patterns represented by the reconstructed texts allow the author to describe several «rules» characteristic for the original language of the parables. The present publication familiarizes the competent reader with the reconstructions of two texts, namely, the speech of Jesus on the Law of Moses from the Sermon on the Mount, and the parable of the Last Judgment.

Interpreting the “Apocalyptic” Gospel with Jewish Apocalypses

If the Gospel of John is an “apocalyptic” Gospel, the relationship between revelation and the Torah in Jewish apocalypses can aid our understanding of the Law of Moses in the Fourth Gospel. While Jewish apocalypses have distinct perspectives on the Torah, they are dependent upon the Hebrew Bible and were read alongside the Hebrew Bible. The revelation that is disclosed in Jewish apocalypses, whether “new” or not, ultimately derives from the God of Israel. Jewish apocalypses engaged in “revelatory exegesis” in which they sought to understand Israel’s Scriptures in light of their present circumstances. The Gospel of John interprets the Hebrew Bible in light of Jesus’s revelation in a similar manner. John claims the authority of Moses and other heroes of Israel in order to legitimate the revelation Jesus discloses. Further Johannine topics, such as imagery, time, and language, may also be explained in terms of the Gospel’s apocalyptic mode.

Conclusion

The Gospel of John is similar to Jewish apocalypses because it is revelatory literature with a narrative framework in which an otherworldly mediator discloses heavenly revelation to a human recipient. The Gospel of John is a revelatory narration of Jesus’s life. Modern genre theory’s use of prototypes to assess participation in a genre allows for a methodologically sound way to compare the Gospel to Jewish apocalypses. Although it is similar in numerous ways, the Gospel does not participate in the genre of apocalypse. Instead, it participates in the gospel genre, yet is qualified by the genre of apocalypse. This understanding of the Gospel as “apocalyptic” Gospel aids in the interpretation of John’s presentation of the Law of Moses and may have been influenced more specifically by its relationship with the Apocalypse of John. This apocalyptic mode explains John’s distinctiveness from the Synoptic Gospels and its affinities with Jewish apocalyptic tradition.

A Godly Law? Bulstrode Whitelocke, Puritanism and the Common Law in Seventeenth-Century England

Debates surrounding both the church and the law played an important role in the conflicts that marked seventeenth-century England. Calls for reform of the law in the Civil Wars and Interregnum complicated the apparent relationship between puritanism and the common law, as the first fragmented and the second came under attack in the 1640s and 1650s. This article first analyses the common lawyer Bulstrode Whitelocke's historical and constitutional writings that defended the common law against demands for its reform and argued that its legitimacy derived from its origins in, and resemblances to, the law of Moses. Refraining from the radical application of this model employed by some contemporaries, Whitelocke instead turned to British history to make his case. This article then examines Whitelocke's views of the relationship between common law and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in his own day, showing how, both as a lawyer and as a puritan, he navigated laws demanding religious conformity. Whitelocke's career therefore demonstrates how lawyers could negotiate the fraught relationship between the church and the law in the aftermath of the reconfigurations provoked by the Civil Wars and Restoration.