Journal index

Minden egyházközségnek megvan a maga jellegzetessége, sajátos arculata. Az I. Mezőségi Ifjúsági Konferencia azt a célt tűzte maga elé, hogy felkutassa azokat az értékeket, amelyek széppé teszik egy-egy gyülekezet lelki arcát, és amelyek megtartó erőt jelentenek az eljövendő nemzedékek számára.

Ebben a tanulmányban arra a kérdésre kívánok válaszolni, hogy a levélszerző mennyiben őrizte meg Pál apostol teológiájának azt a központi gondolatát, amelynek kifejtését a Róm 3,21—30-ban és a Gal 2,15—21-ben olvashatjuk, hogy tudniillik a megigazulást kegyelemből és hit által lehet elnyerni. Más szóval: milyen hatástörténete volt Pál szoteriológiai tanításának a deuteropáli levelekben, közelebbről Az efézusiakhoz írt levében?

A református egyház liturgiai eszközeinek funkcionális szerepük volt, nem önmagukban minősültek szent eszközöknek, hanem betöltött szerepük minősítette használatukat, értéküket. Ez a tény indokolja azt, hogy a református egyház az évszázadok folyamán nem tette lehetővé gazdag gyűjtemények kialakulását, az úrasztali edények tezaurálását, a liturgiában szerepüket vesztett klenódiumok eladásra kerültek. A funkcionalitás elvét követte az a gyakorlat is, amely során egyházközségek segítették egymást, a gazdagabb felesleges darabjait a szegényebbeknek adományozta.

Református exegéta számára elkerülhetetlen Kálvin írásmagyarázati munkássága. Ez a megállapítás hangsúlyos módon érvényes a magyar református írásmagyarázókra. Kálvin kommentárjainak hatástörténetét érdemes lenne egy közös kutatási terv keretében feltárni az egyes teológiai fakultások bevonásával. Jelen előadásban arra vállalkozom, hogy megvizsgáljam, miként tükröződnek a reformátor hermeneutikai elvei az első Thesszalonikai levélhez írott kommentárjában.

Der Verfasser des Briefes warnt die Leser, im Glauben zu bleiben, die Hoffnung des Evangeliums fest zu behalten, so dass sie sich am Jüngsten Tag unbescholten vor Gott hinstellen können. Warum werden sie hinsichtlich der Danksagung gewarnt? Weil der Glaube der Gemeinde von der „Philosophie” der Irrlehrer auf die Probe gestellt wurde.

The Interpretation of The Epistle to the Colossians 1,1–11. These verses form the introduction to the Epistle containing the heading, the address, the greeting (vs. 1–2.), the thanksgiving (vs. 3–8), and the prayer of intercession (vs. 9–11.). The present essay belonging to the genre of Bible interpretation is going to be the first part of a commentary on this book. The reason for my having started elaborating it is that in the last thirty years no scientific interpretation on the book was published in Hungarian. This is why there is a need to sum up the results of research published in theological literature. As the authorship of the book is concerned, we assume the point of view that the epistle had been written by Timothy at Paul’s request and under his guidance. Accordingly the epistle took its origin in the last period of the apostle’s life, possibly during the Roman captivity. This is the explanation of the fact that both in form and theological point of view it is close to Paul’s other epistles. The interpretation follows the classical scheme of division: translation, analysis of form and exegetical commentary. As methodology is concerned the interpretation blends the historical-critical and the theological approach. The aim of the author is to point to the historical and congregational situation in which the epistle took its origin and to reveal those thoughts and ideas that were formulated about the life and faith of the christian church. As the Epistle to the Colossians sprang up in a certain given context as the history of religion is concerned, it is necessary to show the way in which the author of the epistle reflects upon the religious-philosofical influences, stressing the specific character of Christian teaching.

The Missiological [re]Interpretation of Abraham’s Offering, As a Potential Paradigm-Shift in [post]Modern Philosophical and Theological Reasoning. Consideration has to be taken in new view of the striking and in many ways mysterious and scandalous narrative of Abraham’s offering his son, Isaac on the mountain of Moriah. It was with Kierkegaard that this Old Testament story came to the forefront of philosophical investigations. The Danish philosopher marvelled on the obedience of the Patriarch in not even wavering (although certainly accepting the deadly burden of the angst which entails this action) to act without really understanding why Yahweh has asked for such a terrible sacrifice. Abraham is eulogized as the ‘knight of faith’, but Levinas has a different view of the story, more closely of the ‘Kierkegaardian Abraham,’ and as such opts more for a kind of ‘knight of action’ in a responsible undertaking of compassion and empathy toward the Other human being, and of the act of looking into the God-given image of the Other One. Thus he seems to put the emphasis on the second part of the narrative when God’s Angel intervenes and Levinas marvels (and opts) for this second kind of obedience based on a second Word coming from the same Yahweh, which, curiously enough, could not take Abraham by surprise, despite the seemingly contradictory demand of the God of Israel this time. In Levinas we face the embodiment of concern and responsibility as the ultimate ethical demand, when the father looks into the face of his son, and the face of the Other, as that of Abel and tells him: “Thou shalt not kill!” This inherent ‘categoricus imperativus’ reflecting on the human face of the Other is the ethical stage, and Levinas criticised Kierkegaard for replacing this ethical stage illegitimately by the religious one. The uncritically embraced neo-Kantian patterns are still lurking with both philosophers, despite the post-modern claims made especially by Levinas. The story still serves as a paradigm-shift taking place at the borderline of modernity and postmodernity, which of course will survive for long concomitantly in contemporary reasoning and in ongoing moral debates both locally (I am critically evaluating to some extent in this study Tavaszy’s philosophy as well on the matter as it emerged locally), as well as globally. Yet, the interpretation of the ‘akkedah’ of Abraham seems not to be near of completion neither with neo-Kantians and existentialists, nor with theological hermeneutics listed above. The narratives of the Moriah event, as well as the whole Genesis context of it, and beyond, the whole Old Testament-context of the Abrahamic Covenant serves us with a new missiological challenge, as Abraham and successively Israel, and finally the Messiah-Seed plays the role of a ‘missionary priesthood’ in order to bring all the nations under the blessings of salvation promised to Abraham exclusively and fulfilled through him inclusively in the whole world. After twenty centuries of Systematic theology engaging itself exclusively in a dialogue only with Western philosophy, the post-modern age might be in due time kept opened up at last to a different kind of dialogue, such as with missiology. The challenge of a new paradigm-shift emerging out of this dialogue is expected to determine the theology of mission in order to become the very mission of theology itself. That impulse would bring Christian theology and theistic ethics back again to its real and primordial state.