\nActing Professor of Church History
\nFaculty of Theology, Department of Orthodox Theology
\nUniversity of Joensuu<\/b>
\nE-Mail: Grant.White@joensuu.fi<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n
The Ten Commandments have not had the formal place in Orthodox catechesis
\nwhich they have held in Protestant traditions. That is, unlike Luther’s
\nor Calvin’s cathechisms, when Orthodox have made catechisms for themselves
\n(for example, Peter Moghila’s Catechism or the late twentieth-century
\nFrench catechism The Living God), the Ten Commandments have not occupied
\nmuch space. Likewise, the Decalogue does not appear regularly in liturgical
\nworship (at least in the Byzantine tradition) as it does in the Anglican,
\nLutheran, and Calvinist traditions. The Beatitudes are sung at each celebration
\nof the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, and so this practice probably is
\nthe parallel to the reading of the Decalogue in those Protestant traditions.
\nIn this sense, the Beatitudes have become a kind of New Testament Decalogue.
\nHowever, to put things this way runs the risk of opposing a „New
\nTestament“ code of ethical laws to one from the „Old Testament.“
\nDoing so not only puts us in danger of proclaiming a kind of neo-Marcionism.
\nIt also does not proceed from the commonly-accepted Christological center
\nof Orthodox scripture interpretation. Christ himself cited the Ten Words
\nto the rich young man who wanted to know what he needed to do to inherit
\neternal life; one can suggest therefore that a Christological hermeneutic
\nwill itself point interpreters to the Ten Commandments.<\/p>\n
Orthodox view the Ten Commandments as a signal part of the larger body
\nof Scripture, which itself gives voice to the Tradition in which the Church
\nlives. Orthodoxy of course embraces the rejection of Marcionism in the
\nsecond century; therefore the Ten Commandments (and of course the entire
\nOld Testament) must remain in the Church. The question as always has to
\ndo with how the Church interprets the writings of this part of the canon.<\/p>\n
There is no single authoritative interpretation of the Third Commandment
\nin Orthodox Christianity. One wishing to find Orthodox interpretations
\nof the Third Commandment has to cast her net widely, and look in the canons
\nof church councils and their interpretation, in sermons, in ascetical
\nand catechetical literature. Of course, in two pages it is impossible
\nto give even a cursory glance to all these sources. What follows, therefore,
\nis necessarily selective. In the Orthodox churches, interpretations of
\nthe commandment to keep the Sabbath holy have been shaped through the
\ncenturies by several factors. 1. The eventual shift from Sabbath to Sunday
\nas the Christian weekly day of liturgical celebration, a change which
\nhappened in part because of the marginalization in the second and third
\ncenturies of Christian communities which continued to keep the Sabbath,
\nbut also because of the basic link between the first day of the week and
\nthe Resurrection in early Christian tradition.<\/p>\n
2. Ascetic and monastic traditions, which maintained the importance of
\nthe commandment for Christians, but tended to interpret it typologically
\nor allegorically within the framework of one or another understanding
\nof the ascetic’s journey to God through the exercise of praktik_, physik_,
\nand theologik_. For example, one finds in the Philokalia, the eighteenth-century
\ncollection of ascetic writings whose popularity began to revive dramatically
\nin the twentieth century, a number of texts written from this point of
\nview. For example, in sections 51 through 60 of his First Century on Theology
\nSt. Maximus the Confessor interprets the sixth, seventh, and eighth days
\nas types of the ascetic’s movement from the conquering of the passions
\nto the intellect’s rest from images, to that which is beyond creation
\nand time. Thus Maximus says.<\/p>\n
The sixth day is the complete fulfilment, on the part of those practising
\nthe ascetic life, of the natural activities which lead to virtue. The
\nseventh day is the conclusion and cessation, in those leading the contemplative
\nlife, of all natural thoughts about inexpressible spiritual knowledge.
\nThe eighth day is the transposition and transmutation of those found worthy
\ninto a state of deification“ (St. Maximus the Confessor, First Century
\non Theology 55, Philokalia, ET Palmer, Sherrard, and Ware, p. 125). Thus
\nthe commandment to keep the Sabbath holy undergoes a fundamental shift
\ntoward the individual and his or her ascetic struggle. But at the same
\ntime in his discussion of the sixth, seventh, and eighth days Maximus
\nmanages to hold together both the Law and the Gospel, both of which are
\nnecessary for the ascetic’s progress. Thus at least here Maximus stands
\nin contrast to other writers in the Orthodox tradition who express a supercessionist
\nview of the Law in relation to the Gospel.<\/p>\n
3. At the same time, however, Saturday became a day on which the Eucharist
\nwas celebrated, both in parish and monastic practice. The result of this
\ndevelopment was the canonical requirement that no fasting take place on
\nSaturdays, save the Saturday before Easter. One can see here the relationship
\nbetween Eucharist and festivity, i.e., that because the Eucharist celebrates
\nthe Resurrection, one does not fast in the presence of that celebration.
\nHowever, another interpretation of the lack of fasting on the Sabbath
\nalso appears in Orthodox tradition via the fourth-century Apostolic Constitutions,
\na church order compiled in the vicinity of Antioch sometime in the 370s
\nor 380s. In a discussion of the Ten Commandments (II.36.2), the author
\nexhorts all Christians to observe the Sabbath, and (in the French translation
\nof Marcel Metzger in Sources chr\u00e9tiennes 320, p. 261), „en
\nconsid\u00e9ration de celui qui a cess\u00e9 de cr\u00e9er, mais
\nnon de prot\u00e9ger, tu observeras le sabbat, qui consiste \u00e0
\nm\u00e9diter les lois, et non \u00e0 ne rien faire des mains. \u00c9carte
\ntoute convoitise illicite, toute mauvaise action poussant des hommes \u00e0
\nla perdition, toute col\u00e8re.“ Thus the Sabbath observance involves
\nimitation of God in cessation from work, but also because God did not
\nthereby cease to provide for or care for the creation, Christians ought
\nto cease from immoral actions as well. Canon 64 of the Apostolic Canons,
\nfound as an appendix to the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions,
\nproscribes fasting on Sundays. In its commentary on this canon, the Pedalion,
\nan encyclopedic collection of Orthodox canon law first published in 1800,
\nnotes this connection between God’s resting from the labors of creation
\nand says:<\/p>\n
For as regards Saturday we do not fast, mainly and essentially because
\nit is a day of rest and the one on which God rested from all His works
\nof creation . . . So, in addition to the real and inner reason why we
\ndo not fast on Saturday, which is, as we said, that on that day the Creator
\nof all things took a rest, there is the further reason . . . in that we
\nthus avoid the semblance of agreeing with the said heretics [i.e., those
\nwho fasted on the Sabbath].“ (ET Cummings, 1958, pp. 110, 111) This
\ninterpretation of the Sabbath freedom from fasting constitutes a tradition
\nquite separate from that associating freedom from fasting with the celebration
\nof the Eucharist, and stands closer to Jewish interpretation of the Sabbath
\ncommandment.<\/p>\n
4. The eventual application of the Third Commandment to Sunday itself,
\ni.e., Christian interpretation of the Sabbath rest as now applying to
\nSunday. This interpretation of the commandment in relation to Sunday came
\nto be codified in civil law, first by Constantine the Great, and then
\nby Theodosius and Justinian.<\/p>\n
Grant S. White
\nActing Professor of Church History
\nFaculty of Theology, Department of Orthodox Theology
\nUniversity of Joensuu<\/b>
\nE-Mail: Grant.White@joensuu.fi<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n