METROPOLITAN HILARION ALFEYEV ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY Volume II: Doctrine and Teaching of the Orthodox Church WITH A FOREWORD BY His Holiness Alexei II Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Translated from the Russian by Andrew Smith ST VLADIMIR’S SEMINARY PRESS YONKERS, NEW YORK Pravoslavie Tom 1: Istoriia, kanonicheskoe ustroistvo i verouchenie Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi originally published by Sretensky Monastery, 2008 Copyright © 2012 by Hilarion Alfeyev ST VLADIMIR’S SEMINARY PRESS 575 Scarsdale Road, Yonkers, NY 10707 1-800-204-2665 www.svspress.com ISBN 978-0-88141-462-2 All Rights Reserved Foreword Beloved Brothers and Sisters in the Lord, In writing these introductory words to this book by Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria, I would like to note the timeliness of its appearance. Such an all-encompassing study of the history, teaching, and liturgical services of the Orthodox Church is long overdue. I am convinced that the publication of this first volume will inspire lively interest among readers both in Russia and abroad. Orthodoxy is one of the few religious confessions whose membership is growing rather than declining. After many decades of persecution, a major revival of spiritual life is underway in Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union, and it brings us joy that the number of parishes, monasteries, and theological schools is significantly increasing. The Orthodox Church in Russia now occupies a fitting place in the life of the people and exerts a powerful and positive influence on many areas of society. Millions of people have found a spiritual home in the Church. The Church helps people to find a moral bearing; for centuries it has defended those values on which the stability and spiritual health of the nation, the family, and the individual are based. Today, churches are accessible to all, religious literature is published in abundance, icons and reproductions of them are sold everywhere, services are broadcast on television, sermons of clergymen and bishops can be heard on the radio, and church music is available on compact discs. Nevertheless, Orthodoxy remains a mystery for many people—both in our homeland and abroad. What does the Orthodox Church teach? What is its history, and how does it relate to the modern world? What are the foundations of Orthodox theology? What rules regulate the celebration of the liturgical services in Orthodox churches? What is the meaning of icons? What principles lie at the foundation of church art? This book seeks to provide answers to these and many other questions. It examines not only the history and contemporary life of the Orthodox Church, but also Orthodoxy as such: as a theological and ethical system, as a way of life and thinking. The author of this book is not acquainted with the wealth of the theological and liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church by hearsay. After receiving a broad education, Bishop Hilarion has authored numerous works on theology and church history, translated works from ancient languages, and composed liturgical music. His many years of service to the mother church, his rich creative activity, and his broad perspective enable him to present the tradition of the Orthodox Church in all its diversity. I would like to express my hope for the success of this book not only in Russian but also in other languages. I would also like to wish its author God’s help in his further archpastoral and theological work for the good of the Orthodox Church and the people of God. Finally, I pray that the reader will have a profound and meaningful encounter with the Orthodox Church, which is the “Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3.15). +Alexei Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia August 7, 2007 Preface T HIS IS THE SECOND volume of a detailed and systematic exposition of the history, canonical structure, doctrine, moral and social teaching, liturgical services, and spiritual life of the Orthodox Church. The basic idea of this work is to present Orthodox Christianity as an integrated theological and liturgical system—a world view. In this system all elements are interconnected: theology is based on liturgical experience, and the basic characteristics of church art—including icons, singing, and architecture— are shaped by theology and the liturgy. Theology and the services, in their turn, influence the ascetic practice and the personal piety of each Christian. They shape the moral and social teaching of the Church as well as its relation to other Christian confessions, non-Christian religions, and the secular world. Orthodoxy is traditional and even conservative (we use this term in a positive sense, to emphasize Orthodoxy’s reverence to church tradition). The contemporary life of the Orthodox Church is based on its historical experience. Orthodoxy is historic in its very essence: it is deeply rooted in history, which is why it is impossible to understand the uniqueness of the Orthodox Church—its dogmatic teaching and canonical structure, its liturgical system and social doctrine—outside of a historical context. Thus, the reference to history, to the sources, is one of the organizing principles of this book. This series covers a wide range of themes relating to the history and contemporary life of the Orthodox Church. It contains many quotations from works of the church fathers, liturgical and historical sources, and works of contemporary theologians. Nevertheless, we do not claim to give an exhaustive account of the subjects discussed: this work is neither an encyclopedia, a dictionary, nor a reference work. It is rather an attempt to understand Orthodoxy in all its diversity, in its historical and contemporary existence— an understanding through the prism of the author’s personal perception. A special feature of these books is that they strive to provide a sufficiently detailed wealth of material. It is addressed to readers who are already acquainted with the basics of Orthodoxy and who desire to deepen their knowledge and, above all, to systematize it. The first volume in the series presented an account of the historical path of the Orthodox Church through almost twenty centuries. After examining the common heritage of the Christian church in east and west in the first millennium after Christ’s nativity, it talks about the second millennium, with a focus on the history of the Russian Church and culture, in part as a “case study,” as it were, of how Orthodoxy can infuse the literature, art, and philosophy of an entire culture. And finally, that volume examines the canonical structure of the Orthodox Church, treating of the emergence and development of diocesan structures, metropolias, and patriarchates in the Christian east. It concludes by discussing the contemporary structure of world Orthodoxy as well as the principle of “canonical territory,” which forms the basis of inter-Orthodox relations. This volume covers the doctrine of the Orthodox Church, beginning with an examination of the sources of Orthodox teaching, including the Old and New Testaments, the decrees of the ecumenical and local councils, the writings of the fathers and teachers of the Church, and works of liturgical poetry. It goes on to expound the Orthodox teaching on God, creation, and man. Further chapters are devoted to Orthodox christology, ecclesiology, and eschatology. In future volumes, we will examine the services, sacraments, and rituals of the Orthodox Church, its ascetic and mystical teaching, as well as church art, including architecture, iconography, and liturgical singing. The moral and social teaching of the Orthodox Church as well as its relations with other Christian confessions, other religions, and the secular world, will also be discussed. PART ONE The Sources of Orthodox Dogma 1 Scripture and Tradition C HRISTIANITY APPEARS as a religion of divine revelation. In the Orthodox understanding, divine revelation is comprised of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. The Scripture is the whole of the Bible, that is to say, all the books of the Old and New Testaments. The term Tradition, however, demands a special explanation, since it is used with various meanings. Quite often one understands Tradition as the sum total of written and oral sources, by which aid Christian faith is transmitted from generation to generation. The Apostle Paul says “stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter” (2 Thess 2.15). 1 By “word of mouth” one understands here oral Tradition, while by “letter” one understands the written Tradition. Sometimes though, one may understand Tradition chiefly as the oral transmission of the true faith, in contradistinction to the written sources of a dogmatic character. St Basil the Great says of oral Tradition: Concerning the teachings of the Church, whether publicly proclaimed ( kerygma ) or reserved to members of the household of faith ( dogmata ), we have received some from written sources, while others have been given to us secretly, through apostolic tradition. . . . If we attacked unwritten customs, claiming them to be of little importance, we would fatally mutilate the Gospel, no matter what our intentions. . . . For instance (to take the first and most common example), where is the written teaching that we should sign with the sign of the cross those who, trusting in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, are to be enrolled as catechumens? Which book teaches us to pray facing the East? Have any saints left for us in writing the words to be used in the invocation over the eucharistic bread and the cup of blessing? As everyone knows, we are not content in the liturgy simply to recite the words recorded by St Paul or the Gospels, but we add other words both before and after, words of great importance for this mystery. We have received these words from unwritten teaching. We bless baptismal water and the oil for chrismation as well as the candidate approaching the font. By what written authority do we do this, if not from secret and mystical tradition? Even beyond blessing the oil, what written command do we have to anoint with it? What about baptizing a man with three immersions, or other baptismal rites, such as the renunciation of Satan and his angels? 2 In the preceding words Basil the Great speaks chiefly of traditions of a liturgical or ceremonial character, passed down by word of mouth and thereby entering into church practice. In the time of Basil the Great (fourth century) much of what was enumerated remained unrecorded. Subsequently, though, all of these customs were recorded in written sources —in the works of the church fathers, in the decrees of the ecumenical and local councils, and in liturgical texts (particularly in the rubrics of the Divine Liturgy and the sacrament of baptism). The significant part in this is that it was all originally by oral Tradition, in “quiet and in secret,” that it became written Tradition, which then continued to exist with oral Tradition. If Tradition is understood in the sense of the sum total of oral and written sources, then how does it correspond with Scripture? Is it that Scripture is somehow on the outside with respect to Tradition, or does it present itself as a component of Tradition? Before this question can be answered, it is necessary to note the problems of interrelation between Scripture and Tradition, although these problems are not reflected by many Orthodox authors, so they do not appear to be Orthodox in their provenance. The question of which is more important, Scripture or Tradition, was put at the forefront of the polemic between the Reformation and Counter-reformation during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The leaders of the Reformation (Luther, Calvin) proposed the principle of the “sufficiency of Scripture,” according to which only Scripture enjoyed absolute authority in the Church. So that which dealt with the latest dogmatic documents, whether they be decrees of councils or the works of the church fathers, had authority to the extent that they agreed with the teachings of Scripture (the most radical reforms generally rejected the authority of the church fathers). Such dogmatic definitions, liturgical and ceremonial traditions, which were not founded on the authority of the Scripture, could not, in the opinion of the leaders of the Reformation, be accepted as legitimate and therefore were subject to abolition. The Reformation began the process of revising church Tradition, which continues in the heart of Protestantism even now. To counterbalance the Protestant principle of sola scriptura the theologians of the Counter-reformation highlighted the importance of Tradition, without which, in their opinion, Scripture would not have authority. Luther’s opponent at the Leipzig dispute in 1519 proved that “Scripture is not authentic without the authority of Tradition.” 3 Those against the Reformation cited the words of the Blessed Augustine: “I would not have believed in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church compelled me ( ego vero evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae ecclesiae commoverat auctoritas ).” 4 They pointed out, in particular, that the canon of Holy Scripture was formed precisely by church Tradition, which determined which books should be enrolled into it, and which should not be. At the Council of Trent in 1546 the theory of two sources was formulated, which agreed that Scripture could not be considered as the sole source of divine revelation: Tradition is not a less important source, but rather comprises a vital and important addition to Scripture. Orthodox theologians in the nineteenth century, speaking about Scripture and Tradition, noted the nuance in a slightly different way. They insisted on the primacy of Tradition in relation to Scripture and traced the beginning of Christian Tradition not just to the Church of the New Testament, but back to the time of the Old Testament. St Philaret of Moscow emphasized that the Holy Scripture of the Old Testament began with Moses, but until Moses the true faith was preserved and spread by means of Tradition. With regard to the Holy Scripture of the New Testament then, it begins with the Evangelist Matthew, but previously the “foundation of dogmas, teachings on life, theological decrees, and laws concerning church governance” were all found in Tradition. 5 Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian with disciple—Book in miniature, 11th c. For A.S. Khomiakov, the correlation of Tradition and Scripture can be considered in the context of the teachings of the actions of the Holy Spirit in the Church. Khomiakov considered that Tradition preceded Scripture, but that Tradition, or “action,” by which he understood a religion of divine revelation, began with Adam, Noah, Abraham, and the other “forefathers and representatives of the Old Testament Church.” The Church of Christ is a continuation of the Old Testament Church, and the Divine Spirit lived and continues to live in both the one and the other. This Spirit acts in the Church in many forms—in Scripture, in Tradition, and in other affairs. The unity of Scripture and Tradition is grasped by one who lives in the Church—outside the Church, it is impossible to grasp Scripture, Tradition, even other actions. A Christian understands Scripture to the extent that s/he guards Tradition and to the extent that s/he accomplishes “pleasing actions of wisdom.” This wisdom, however, is not a personal one which belongs to the Christian alone, but it is given to the whole Church “in the fullness of the truth and unadulterated by lies.” Khomiakov employs the understanding of the Holy Scriptures broadly, considering all of Scripture that the Church counts as its own, in particular the confession of faith of the Universal Church, to be holy. “The Holy Scripture existed before our own time,” concludes Khomiakov, “and if it pleases God, there will always be Holy Scripture. But there has not been, and will never be, any kind of contradiction in the Church: not in Scripture, not in Tradition, not in any action, for the one and true Christ is in all three.” 6 In the twentieth century V.N. Lossky developed Khomiakov’s thoughts on Tradition. He described Tradition as “the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, a life which communicates to each member of the Body of Christ the ability to hear, understand, and recognize the Truth inherent in it in the world, but not that which is inherent in the natural world of human reason.” 7 Highlighting the link between Tradition and the Church, Lossky wrote: The notion of Tradition is richer than we habitually think. Tradition does not merely consist of an oral transmission of facts capable of supplementing the Scriptural narrative. It is the complement of the Bible and, above all, it is the fulfillment of the Old Testament in the New, as the Church becomes aware of it. It is Tradition which confers comprehension of the meaning of revealed truth (Lk 24). Tradition tells us not only what we must hear but, still more importantly, how we must keep what we hear. In this general sense, Tradition implies an incessant operation of the Holy Spirit, who could have his full outpouring and bear his fruits only in the Church, after the Day of Pentecost. It is only in the Church that we find ourselves capable of tracing the inner connections between the sacred texts which make the Old Testament and the New Testament into a single living body of truth, wherein Christ is present in each word. It is only in the Church that the seed sown by the word is not barren, but brings forth fruit; and this fruition of Truth, as well as the power to make it bear fruit, is called Tradition. 8 Lossky sees the key to understanding the question concerning the correlation between Scripture and Tradition in the words of the holy martyr Ignatius the God-Bearer: “He who truly possesses the word of Christ can hear him even in silence.” 9 In the revelation of the divine certain zones of silence are maintained, inaccessible to those who are “outsiders,” explains Lossky. Silence accompanies the word of Holy Scripture and transmits to the Church, together with the words of the revelation, as a condition of their perception. For the perception of the fullness of revelation demands “an appeal to the vertical plan,” so that one may not only grasp the width and length of the revelation, but that one may also grasp its depth and height (Eph 3.18). In this context “Scripture and Tradition may not be set against one another, nor set up as two opposing realities.” Tradition is “not a word, but a living breath, given for the hearing of words and at the same time for the hearing of the silence from which the word has come.” 10 Thus there exists a verbal expression of Tradition, whether it be put down in writing or in an oral mode, but nevertheless it is there as a spiritual reality, which does not give way to verbal expression and which is kept in the silent experience of the Church, handed down from generation to generation. This reality is not something which is other, like the knowledge of God, divine contact, and vision of the divine, which were inherent in Adam until the expulsion of Paradise, in the biblical forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the God-seer Moses and the prophets, and then in the eye-witnesses and servants of the Word (Cf. Lk 1.2): the apostles and disciples of Christ. The unity and continuity of these experiences, preserved in the Church right up until present times, is the essence of church Tradition. Access to such experiences is possible only for those who find themselves inside Tradition, inside the Church. The person who finds him or herself outside the Church, even if s/he studied all of the sources of church dogma, will not “hear the silence” of Jesus, because being outside the veil of the Tradition s/he will be unable to see within its heart. We have long understood that the Church is not only the Christian Church, but also the Church of the Old Testament, which was the custodian of divine revelation before the coming of Christ the Savior. Answering the question put forth earlier concerning whether or not Scripture is somehow beyond any association with Tradition or is rather an integral part of the latter, we can decisively say that in the Orthodox understanding the Scriptures are a part of Tradition and that it is inconceivable to think otherwise. For this reason Scripture is by no means self-sufficient and cannot be in-and-of itself isolated from church tradition to serve as a criterion of the truth. The books of Holy Scripture were written in various times by various authors, and each one of these books reflect an experience of a concrete person, or a group of people, each one reflects a specific historical stage in the life of the Church (once again the Church is used in a broad sense, including the Old Testament “Church”). The experience was primary, while its expression in the books of Scripture was secondary. It is precisely the Church that offers these books (the Old Testament along with the New) in unity, which they are not lacking, unless they are considered from a purely historical or text-critical point of view: The books of the Old Testament, composed over a period of several centuries, written by different authors who have often brought together and fused different religious traditions, have only an accidental, mechanical unity for the eyes of the historian of religions. Their unity with writings of the New Testament will appear to him factitious and artificial. But a son of the Church will be able to recognize the unity of inspiration and the unique object of the faith in these heteroclitic writings, woven by the same Spirit who, after having spoken by the prophets, preceded the Word in rendering the Virgin Mary apt to serve as means for the incarnation of God. It is only in the Church that one is able to recognize in full consciousness the unity of inspiration of the sacred books, because the Church alone possesses Tradition—the knowledge in the Holy Spirit of the Incarnate Word. 11 Thus the Church considers Scripture to be inspired by God (2 Tim 3.16) not because the books which make up its contents were written by God, not because the Divine Spirit inspired its authors, opened the truth up to them, and ratified them as uncoordinated compositions set up in one whole. The understanding of “divine inspiration” in the Orthodox tradition shows that the authors of this or that book of the Holy Scriptures composed their texts with the assistance of the grace of the Holy Spirit, under his direct influence. But the action of the Holy Spirit is not some kind of violent force upon the reason, heart, and will of mankind. On the contrary, the Holy Spirit helped mobilize man’s particular, inner resources with the intelligence of the hidden truths of Christian revelation. The creative process, resulting in the establishment of this or that book of the Holy Scriptures, can be thought of as a synergy which, combined with action, works between God and man. Man describes any sort of event or expounds various aspects of learning, and God helps him to become wiser and to adequately convey these things. The books of Holy Scripture were written by people who found themselves not in a trance-like state, but in a sober state of mind, and within each book lies a piece of the author’s individual creativity. It is exactly the work of the Holy Spirit which helped the Church to recognize the inner unity of the Old and New Testament books (composed by different authors in different ages) in all the varied, ancient literary texts placed in the canon of Scripture, books that are joined together by this unity, which has sorted the divinely inspired works from those not divinely inspired. This separation was not based on some sort of formal principle or criterion. It was rather based on the many centuries of experiencing the interior intuition and infallibility of the Church, which regulated this process. Speaking on the correlation between Tradition and Scripture in the Church, Archimandrite Sophrony (Sakharov) writes: Sacred Tradition, as the eternal and immutable dwelling of the Holy Spirit in the Church, lies at the very root of her being, and so encompasses her life that even the Scriptures themselves come to be but one of its forms. Thus, were the Church to be deprived of Tradition she would cease to be what she is, for the ministry of the New Testament is the ministry of the Spirit “written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart.” Suppose that for some reason the Church were to be bereft of all her liturgical books, of the Old and New Testaments, the works of the holy Fathers—what would happen? Sacred Tradition would restore the Scriptures, not word for word, perhaps—the verbal form might be different—but in essence the new Scriptures would be the expression of that same ‘faith which was once delivered unto the saints.’ They would be the expression of the one and only Holy Spirit continuously active in the Church, her foundation and her very substance. 12 Notes 1 In general, translations of texts from the New Testament are based on the King James Version, while translations of Old Testament texts are based on the version of the Septuagint by Sir Lancelot Brenton. In some few instances, the translation was done ad hoc from the Russian. Chapter and verse numbering generally follows the conventions of the KJV. 2 Basil the Great On the Holy Spirit 27. (For publication data for this and other works cited in this book, please see the bibliography.) 3 A. MacGraham, The Theological Meaning of the Reformation (Odessa: 1994), 178–179. 4 Blessed Augustine Contra epist. Manichaei , cap. 5, 6, PL. 42: 176. 5 Philaret of Moscow, Words and Sayings , T. III. C. 98. 6 A.S. Khomiakov, The One Church (Moscow: 2005), 14. 7 Tradition and Traditions (Moscow: 2000), 525. 8 Vladimir Lossky, In the Image and Likeness of God (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1974), 198. 9 Ignatius the God-Bearer Epistle to the Ephesians 15.2. 10 Tradition and Traditions , 524–525 (ad hoc translation—Ed.). 11 Ibid. 155. 12 Elder Silouan the Athonite (Paris: 1952), 39. 2 Holy Scripture in the Orthodox Church I N THE ORTHODOX TRADITION the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the corpus of Apostolic Epistles come together as three parts of an undivided whole. As such, the Gospels are received as absolute predilections as to a source, bestowing on Christians the living voice of Jesus, while the Old Testament is comprised of foreshadowings of Christian truth, and the Apostolic Epistles are authoritative interpretations of the Gospels, offered by the closest disciples of Christ. By holding these concepts in tandem we understand when the holy martyr Ignatius the God-Bearer says, “[We] flee to the Gospel as to the flesh of Jesus and to the apostles as to the presbyters of the Church. And we should also love the prophets, because their proclamation anticipated the gospel and they hoped on him and awaited him.” 1 Origen gives us an understanding of the development of the teachings of the Gospel as the “flesh of Jesus,” of his incarnation in word. He sees in all the Scriptures a “kenosis” (emptying) of God the Word, having become incarnate in the imperfect forms of human words: “Everything acknowledged by a divine word is a revelation of the incarnate Word of God, who was in the beginning with God (Jn 1.2) and emptied himself. This is why it is not for nothing that we men recognize the Word of God become man as the Word in the Scriptures which has become flesh and dwelt among us (Jn 1.14).” 2 In Orthodox services the Gospel appears not just as a book for reading, but as an object of liturgical worship: the closed Gospel lies on the altar, and is brought out to be kissed. At the ordination of an archpriest an opened Gospel is laid on the head of the ordinand, and during the fulfillment of the mystery of Holy Unction an opened Gospel is placed on the head of the sick person. In its capacity as an object of liturgical worship, the Gospel acts as a symbol of the very Christ himself. How do we then deal with the Old Testament, as seen in the Christian tradition as a foreshadowing of the New Testament reality and examined through the prism of the New Testament? In science, this kind of interpretation is referred to as “typological.” The origin of this interpretation is presented by Christ himself, when he said of the Old Testament: “You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf” (Jn 5.39). In accordance with this decree of Christ in the Gospels many events from his life are interpreted as a fulfillment of an Old Testament prophecy. Typological interpretations of the Old Testament are found in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, especially in Hebrews, where all of the Old Testament story is interpreted as foreshadowing, from a typological point of view. Such traditions continue on in the texts of the divine services of the Orthodox Church, full of allusions to events from the Old Testament which are treated conformably to Christ and to events from his life, and thus to events from the life of the New Testament Church. According to the teaching of Gregory the Theologian, all dogmatic truths of the Christian Church are included in the Holy Scriptures; one need only know how to recognize them. Gregory invites a certain method of reading the Scriptures which one may call “retrospective.” He concludes that in order to examine all the scriptural texts, issuing forth from the succession of Church Tradition, one identifies in them those dogmas that are more fully formed in the latest epoch. Such an approach to Scripture appears to be based in the patristic period. In particular, in Gregory’s opinion, it is not only New Testament, but also Old Testament texts that comprise the teachings on the Holy Trinity: Glorify Him with the Cherubim, who unite the Three Holies into one Lord (Isa 6.3), and so far indicate the Primal Substance as their wings open to the diligent. With David be enlightened, who said to the Light, “In your Light shall we see Light,” that is, in the Spirit we shall see the Son; 3 and what can be of further reaching ray? With John thunder, sounding forth nothing that is low or earthly concerning God, but what is high and heavenly, who is in the beginning, and is with God, and is God the Word (Jn 1.1), and true God of the true Father. . . . And when you read, “I and the Father are One,” keep before your eyes the Unity of Substance; but when you see, “We will come to him, and make Our abode with him,” (Jn 14.23) remember the distinction of Persons; and when you see the names, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, think of the Three Personalities. With Luke be inspired as you study the Acts of the Apostles. Why do you count yourself with Ananias and Sapphira . . . stealing the Godhead itself, and lying, not to men but to God, as you have heard? 4 The appearance of the three Men to Abraham. Church of San Vitale, Ravenna, 6th c. In other words, the Bible ought to be read in light of the dogmatic Tradition of the Church. In the fourth century both the Orthodox and Arians referenced scriptural texts to support their respective theological positions. The dependence of these positions on one or another text added various criteria which were then interpreted in different ways. For Gregory the Theologian, just as for other church fathers, especially Irenaeus of Lyons, there existed only one criterion for the correct approach to Scripture: loyalty to Church Tradition. Gregory considered any given interpretation of biblical texts to be legitimate, provided it was based on the Tradition of the Church —all other interpretations are false, as they “rob” the Divinity. Outside the context of Tradition, biblical texts lose their own dogmatic meaning. However, within Tradition even those texts that do not directly show dogmatic truth can receive a new interpretation. Christians see in the texts of Scripture that which non-Christians do not see; Orthodoxy reveals that which remains concealed from heretics. The mystery of the Trinity remains under a veil for those who find themselves outside of the Church, a veil that may only be removed by Christ, and only for those who are within the Church. If the Old Testament is a foreshadowing of the New Testament, then the New Testament, in the mind of some interpreters, is the shadow of the Divine Kingdom which is to come: “The Law is the shadow of the Gospel, and the Gospel is the image of the future blessings,” 5 says Maximus the Confessor. St Maximus borrowed this idea from Origen, just like the allegorical method of scriptural interpretation, which he widely used. The allegorical method gave Origen and other representatives of the Alexandrian school the possibility to examine subjects from the Old and New Testaments as foreshadowings of the spiritual experience of the separate identity of mankind. One of the classical examples of the mystical interpretation in a similar vein is Origen’s interpretation of Song of Songs, where the reader goes far beyond the literal meaning of the text and is transported into a new reality, by which the very text is perceived only as an image, a symbol of this reality. After Origen, such a type of interpretation experienced wide dissemination in the Orthodox tradition: we find it specifically in Gregory of Nyssa, Macarius of Egypt and Maximus the Confessor. The latter, like Clement of Alexandria, spoke of two ways in which the Scripture makes itself manifest to people: the first—“simply and accessibly, which the many can see”—and the second—“more hidden and accessible only to the few, that is to those who like Peter, James, and John were already holy apostles, before whom the Lord was transfigured in glory, overcoming the senses.” 6 Following in the footsteps of Origen, Maximus the Confessor divided Scripture into body and soul: The Old Testament is the body and the New is the soul, the meaning it contains, the spirit. From another viewpoint we can say that the entire sacred Scripture, Old and New Testament, has two aspects: the historical context that corresponds to the body, and the deep meaning, the goal at which the mind should aim, which corresponds to the soul.