| Still, John " s emphasis on the world " s hatred, relevant to his own situation and outlook, probably stems from authentic Jesus tradition. Both Jesus» teachings (cf., e.g., Mark 13:12 ; Matt 5:10–11; 10:21, 25, 35–39; cf. Luke 6:40; 14:26–27) and his sacrificial death (cf., e.g., Mark 8:34–38 ) provide ample material for addressing the world " s hostility. Parallels with the Synoptic eschatological discourse 9118 probably indicate authentic Jesus tradition behind this passage. Further, we should not exaggerate John " s difference from other early Christian sources but should distinguish degrees of «sectarian» outlook. There are certainly differences among models, such as wholesale withdrawal from the world (e.g., the Qumran Essenes), individual protest in urban culture (e.g., the Cynics), and a politically disenfranchised (or in this case unenfranchised) movement that could remain within the society yet view it as hostile. Presumably, first-century Pharisees experienced some degree of political marginalization from Sadducean aristocrats, and Palestinian Jewish revolutionaries found the system entirely unworkable; Johannine Christians fall somewhere in between. Interestingly, however, the discussion of the world " s opposition ( John 15:18–25; 16:1–4 ) frames an announcement of the Paracletés and disciples» role to bear witness against the world (15:26–27). Shortly after this, one learns that the Paraclete prosecutes the world (16:8–11), presumably through the witness of believers (16:7) who themselves know Jesus intimately (16:12–15). The worldview is not merely defensive, waiting till the end as in some apocalyptic treatises; it remains offensive and evangelistic (cf. the combination of these elements in Revelation 11–13). The worldview of this passage is also as pervaded by moral dualism as Revelation or Qumran " s Rule of the Community. The Spirit thus confronts the world (16:7–11) with the truth that one falls on either one side or the other: «Die nur noch christliche oder antichristlich sein kann.» 9119 The rigidity of boundaries created by the world " s hostility undoubtedly strengthens the community " s internal cohesiveness, so that persecution intensifies the attention of community members to loving one another. The same social setting provides a faith committed to and expecting probable martyrdom, as in Revelation. Israeli scholar David Flusser argues, «Christianity surpasses Judaism, at least theoretically, in its approach of love to all men, but its only genuine answer to the powerful wicked forces of this world is, as it seems, martyrdom.» 9120 If John is less concerned with the question of loving those outside the community than the Synoptics are, he is more consumed by martyrdom; he seems to believe this the likely price of those who submit to the high Christology he proclaims and to a consequently likely expulsion from the synagogue community. 1C. The Opposition |
| The «place of a skull» (19:17) may have gotten its name from the shape of the terrain, 10095 but more likely from the executions carried out there. (In any event, the current terrain of the traditional Protestant Golgotha did not exist in Jesus» day.) 1C. Crucifixion (19:18) The Gospel writers require little description of crucifixion (19:18), which was well known in their world. Jesus» crucifixion by the Romans outside Jerusalem is an «almost indisputable» historical fact; 10096 early Christians would not have invented the crucifixion. The full horror of that mode of execution (e.g., Apuleius Metam. 3.9; 6.32; Chariton 3.3.12) remained vivid enough in the first century that all four evangelists hurry by the event itself quickly, Matthew, for example, «disposing of it in a participial clause.» 10097 (It was established rhetorical practice to hurry most quickly over points that might disturb the audience, Theon Progymn. 5.52–56.) Although some features of crucifixions remained common, executioners could perform them in a variety of manners, limited only by the extent of their sadistic creativity. 10098 Executioners usually tied victims to the cross with ropes but in some cases hastened their death by also nailing their wrists (20:25). 10099 The nails were typically five to seven inches long, enough to penetrate both the wrist and well into the wood of the cross. 10100 One being executed on the cross could not swat flies from onés wounds nor withhold onés bodily wastes from coming out while hanging naked for hours and sometimes days. 10101 The upright stakes were normally ten feet at the highest, more often closer to six or seven feet so that the man hung barely above the ground, with a seat (sedile) in the middle; 10102 animals sometimes assaulted the feet of the crucified. Romans could employ high crosses to increase visibility for significant public executions (Suetonius Galba 9.1), and given the branch here (19:29; cf. Mark 15:36 ), Jesus may have been slightly higher than usua1. 10103 |
| John " s point, however, is hardly Pilatés generosity; it is the hypocrisy of the Judean elite, who, after they have spent the night ignoring legal ethics to secure the quick execution of an innocent man, now are concerned with ritual purity. Such ritual purity was not high on John " s list of virtues (2:6–10). This blatant contrast between scrupulous observance of ritual purity and ignoring the law " s ethical demands epitomizes Johannine irony, 9793 though not unique to the Fourth Gospe1. 9794 They wanted to «eat the Passover» but did not understand that, in having Jesus killed, they were slaying the new Passover lamb to be consumed (cf. 2:17; 6:51; 19:31). 1C. John " s Passover Chronology Some have used Passovers to reconstruct John " s chronology 9795 and have claimed conflicts with the Synoptics, but it seems better to read John " s final Passover chronology symbolically. 9796 Passover began at sundown with the Passover mea1. Whereas in the Fourth Gospel Jesus is executed on the day of the Passover sacrifice preceding the evening meal (18:28; 19:14), the Synoptics present the Last Supper as a Passover meal, presupposing that the lamb has already been offered in the temple. 9797 Both traditions–a paschal Last Supper and a paschal crucifixion–are theologically pregnant, 9798 but we suspect that Jesus, followed by the earliest tradition, may have intended the symbolism for the Last Supper whereas John has applied the symbolism more directly to the referent to which the Last Supper itself symbolically pointed. Many scholars have argued that John is historically correct, 9799 noting that the Last Supper narrative does not explicitly mention a lamb 9800 and that an execution on the first day of the feast was inconceivable and suggesting that the disciples could have celebrated Passover early, according to a sectarian calendar, 9801 or that Mark inserted Passover references for theological reasons. 9802 One could argue more reasonably that Jesus and the temple authorities followed separate calendars; 9803 but our evidence for these calendars is relatively scant, and even if such separate calendars existed, why would John prefer that of the temple authorities? Other details of the passion narrative behind Mark, such as the Sanhédrin originally wishing to kill Jesus before the feast ( Mark 14:1–2 ), Simon coming from the fields (15:21, which some take as coming from work), or burial on a «preparation day» (which in Mark 15is preparation for the Sabbath but which some take as preparation for Passover), 9804 can support the Johannine chronology. The rabbis also spoke of Jesus» execution on the eve of Passover, 9805 although this is a late tradition probably deriving its information from early Christian sources that may reflect John " s Gospel or its tradition. |
| Some Jewish writers, especially those who, like Philo, were influenced by Greek thought, could use «god» loosely as well as for the supreme deity. But even when writers like Philo (following Exod 7:1) call Moses a «god,» 3273 Moses remains distinct from the supreme, eternal God to be worshiped, 3274 for whom the title is normally reserved. 3275 Further, Philo has a text (Exod 7:1) that allows him to accommodate some Hellenistic conceptions of heroes in an apologetically useful manner. Finally, for all the associations of Moses with the divine in Philo, the language comes short of Johns language for Jesus. 3276 Jesus appears as God s agent in the Fourth Gospel, but not just like Moses as God " s chief agent; Jesus is one greater than Moses (1:17), namely the Word itself (1:14). In John " s claim, Jesus is therefore not merely the «ultimate prophet.» «God» in the third line (1:1c) hardly signifies something dramatically different from what the term signified in the two lines that preceded it (l:lab), even if one presses a distinction on the basis of the anarthrous construction; like other early Christians (e.g., Mark 12:29 ; 1Tim 1:17 ), John acknowledges only one God (e.g., John 5:44; 17:3 ). Many commentators doubt that the anarthrous construction signifies anything theologically at al1. It certainly cannot connote «a god,» as in «one among many,» given Jesus» unique titles, role, and relationship with the Father later in the Gospe1. 3277 Nor should it mean «divine» in a weaker sense distinct from Gods own divine nature, for example, in the sense in which Philo can apply it to Moses. 3278 Had John meant merely «divine» in a more general sense, the common but more ambiguous expression τ θεον was already available; 3279 thus, for example, Philo repeatedly refers to the divine Word (θεος λγος) 3280 and Aristeas refers to «the divine law» (του θεου νμου). 3281 The anarthrous construction cannot be pressed to produce the weaker sense of merely «divine» in a sense distinct from the character of the Father " s deity. In one study of about 250 definite predicative nominatives in the NT, 90 percent were articular when following the verb, but a comparable 87 percent were anarthrous when before the verb, as here. 3282 Grammatically, one would thus expect John " s predicate nominative «θες» to be anarthrous, regardless of the point he was making. Further, John omits the article for God the Father elsewhere in the Gospel, even elsewhere in the chapter (e.g., 1:6, 12, 13, 18). 3283 The same pattern of inconsistent usage appears in early patristic texts, 3284 and apparently Greek literature in genera1. 3285 And in a context where absolute identification with the Father would be less of a danger, John does not balk at using the articular form to call Jesus θες (20:28). 3286 |
| Материал из Православной Энциклопедии под редакцией Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла ВСЕДНЕВНЫЕ АНТИФОНЫ [греч. ντφωνα καθημεριν], один из 3 типов антифонов , образующих энарксис (начальную часть) Божественной литургии . Как и 2 др. типа литургийных антифонов (изобразительные и праздничные), В. а. включают 3 антифона, перемежаемые ектениями; после 2-го поется тропарь «Единородный Сыне» , в конце 3-го совершается малый вход . Текст В. а. основан на Пс 91, 92 и 94. 1-й антифон состоит из стихов Пс 91. 2, 3, 4 и 16, и с припевом . 2-й антифон - из стихов Пс 92. 1ab, 1c, 5 с припевом ; на поется тропарь «Единородный Сыне». При исполнении первых 2 антифонов рус. богослужебные книги предписывают петь их 1-й стих дважды: сначала до половины, затем полностью (это след визант. практики исполнения антифонов). 3-й антифон состоит из стихов Пс 94. 1, 2-3, 4 и 5 с припевом , после чего поются входный стих (Пс 94. 6 с тем же припевом (см. также ст. «Приидите поклонимся» )), во время к-рого священнослужители входят в алтарь, и тропари и кондаки по входе, к-рых и является заключительным 3-го антифона. Появление В. а. в составе литургии следует относить к VII-VIII вв.: если в «Мистагогии» прп. Максима Исповедника (ок. 630) еще говорится просто о том, что литургия начинается с малого входа, то в «Церковной истории» Псевдо-Германа К-польского (ок. 730) упоминаются В. а. ( Mateos. Célébration. P. 42). Первоначально, вероятно, в состав службы вошел только 3-й из совр. В. а., образовавший входной псалом литургии (из-за слова «приидите» стихов Пс 94. 1 и 6, указывающего на момент входа); впосл. к нему были прибавлены еще 2 антифона, основанные на псалмах, предшествующих Пс 94 в Псалтири (Пс 93 пропущен как не соответствующий радостному характеру службы; см.: Ibid. P. 48-49). В рукописях Евхология, начиная с древнейших из сохранившихся (кон. VIII в. и далее), 3 антифона сопровождаются 3 молитвами (см. ст. Энарксис ). |
| John 5:2 ), and that entire Psalm assures its hearers that the God who acted in the past exodus would act again ( Ps 77:8–15 ). 5752 Such an exodus allusion is not particularly clear, and even John " s biblically literate audience may not have recognized it even if he intended it. Other proposed allusions, if any allusions are present, are, however, weaker. While some see the passage as a baptismal reference, 5753 others find the basis for baptismal interpretation «fragile» 5754 or see an antibaptismal motif reflected in the fact that the water was not efficacious. 5755 The last point is the most likely, given earlier references to water in the Gospel, but it depends almost entirely on the cumulative support of the other references. There is no reference to purification, and while replacement by the Spirit could have been implied by replacement of a popular healing shrine, there is no definite evidence that this is the case in this text. What demonstrates that this water text fits into the others is the clear antithetical parallel it provides with ch. 9, 5756 where the evidence of ritual water and the Spirit (in the context of Sukkoth) is much clearer. 1C. The Johannine Context This miracle story provides a direct foil for the miracle story in 9:1–14, together coupling a positive and negative example of response to Jesus. Being touched by Jesus is inadequate without perseverance (8:31–32). Other ancient texts also sometimes coupled the lame and the blind; even though other healings might be mentioned in the context, a summary statement could focus specifically on the lame and the blind, perhaps as the most dramatic cures. 5757 Culpepper lays out the parallel structure of the passages as follows: 5758 Lame man Blind man (1) History described (5:5) (1) History described (9:1) (2) Jesus takes initiative (5:6) (2) Jesus takes initiative (9:6) (3) Pool " s healing powers (3) Pool of Siloam, healing (9:7) (4) Jesus heals on Sabbath (5:9) (4) Jesus heals on Sabbath (9:14) (5) Jews accuse him of violating Sabbath (5:10) (5) Pharisees accuse Jesus of violating Sabbath (9:16) (6) Jews ask who healed him (5:12) (6) Pharisees ask who healed him (9:15) (7) Doesn " t know where or who Jesus is (5:13) (7) Doesn " t know where or who Jesus is (9:12) (8) Jesus finds him and invites belief (5:14) 5759 (8) Jesus finds him and invites belief (9:35) (9) Jesus implies relation between his sin and suffering (5:14) (9) Jesus rejects sin as explanation for his suffering (9:3) (10) Man goes to Jews (5:15) (10) Jews cast man out (9:34–35) (11) Jesus works as his Father is working (5:17) (11) Jesus must do the works of one who sent him (9:4) Contrasting of characters was a common enough rhetorical device; John presents both a positive and a negative paradigm of initial discipleship, fleshing out the warning for perseverance in 8:30–36. |
| Jesus repeatedly appears greater than traditional water rituals (1:31–33; 2:6; 3:5; 4:14; 5:2; 6:35; 9:7). Of the extant gospels, only John reports water flowing from Jesus» side (19:34): if Revelation stems from the same community as this Gospel, John may be declaring that from the throne of God and of the lamb flows the water of the river of life (Rev 22:1). 6511 Rev 22probably reveals to us the eschatological significance of John " s language here, but Revelation also applies the eschatological language to a present realization in 22:17. 1C. To What Scripture Does Jesus Refer (7:38)? When Jesus declares that «Scripture has said,» he cites it with the same authority attributed to it by other Jewish teachers. 6512 But which text or texts might he have in mind? Although the lectionary thesis some have advanced for the Fourth Gospel in general and this passage in particular 6513 is open to serious challenge, 6514 it is likely in this case that later rabbis did preserve common readings for this festival from before 70 C.E. The public reading of Torah at the feast is at least as old as Neh. 8:1–18; note also the association with the Water Gate (8:1), which becomes more prominent in rabbinic tradition. Some older members of John " s audience may recall the likely pre-70 traditions on which our passage depends; perhaps more knew them if the Johannine circle of churches continued to celebrate traditional festivals (at least basic knowledge of which is presupposed in his Gospel). 6515 The only readings in the prophets which discuss the feast are Hos 12:9 , which does not use σκηνοπηγα and is not conducive to joyful celebration in the context, and Zech 14:16–21, a text of pilgrimage and Israel " s triumphant exaltation over the nations. It is therefore not surprising that the later lection for this festival includes this reading, 6516 but we need not depend simply on the late lectionary tradition–and still less use the lateness of that tradition to rule out the possibility that it reflects the same line of interpretation that stands behind the event reported in John. It is intrinsically likely, on a priori grounds, that the Scripture readings for Sukkoth should have included Zech 14. Tannaitic sources in fact appear to confirm this expectation: |
| 5850 Jesus elsewhere emphasizes that he does nothing «from himself» (φ» εαυτο, 5:30; 7:17–18, 28; 8:28, 42; 14:10), as the Spirit does not (16:13), and that the disciples cannot produce anything profitable from themselves (15:5). Acting «from oneself» signifies independence; for John its negation can signify divine inspiration (11:51). 5851 Thus Jewish tradition emphasized that Moses explicitly claimed to speak only on God " s authority, not his own. 5852 1C. Honor the Son Who Gives Life and Judges (5:21–23) To praise oneself without good excuse was considered offensive (see below on the introduction of 5:31–47); but for ancient hearers the claims here go beyond any normal hubris of mortal self-praise. Jesus shares the Father " s works of bringing life (5:21) and judging (5:22); the Father delegated these works to him so that humanity would worship Jesus as they worship the Father (5:23). Such a claim could sound only like ditheism to many of Jesus» and John " s contemporaries. Worshiping humans who wanted to be divine was certainly idolatry, but the informed reader knows that Jesus was actually of divine rank and became human (1:1,14). 5853 Like the Father, Jesus could give life (5:21; cf. 17:2); this made him act in a divine manner. 5854 The resurrection of the dead was a divine work, 5855 specifically attributed to God in the oft-recited Shemoneh Esreh; God was widely viewed as the giver of life, 5856 hence the only one who life was not contingent on a giver of life (see comment on 5:26). Jesus» claim here could further his opponents» perception that he articulated a sort of ditheism. 5857 In this context, the healing of the man at the pool of Bethesda prefigures in a small way the resurrection; Jesus will raise (γερει) the dead, just as he told the lame man to «rise» (γειρε, 5:8; cf. 4:50). 5858 The point is that if Jesus has authority to raise the dead at the last day of this era, then qal vaomer, how much more, does he have authority to heal on the Sabbath, the last day of the week (cf. |
| The intimate connection between Father and Son is not only relational, but in terms of their shared nature and similar role. Although some critics still favor the reading «only son,» 3778 the text more naturally reads «the only God, who is in the bosom of the Father.» 3779 Given the tendency to simplify the sense of the text, the Arian controversy in Egypt, the source of most of our manuscripts, would have led to a later preference for «only Son,» since «only» was often read as «only begotten» and «only begotten God» could be pressed into ambiguous support against both Arius and Athanasius: «no copyist is likely to have altered «Son» to »God,» whereas there would have been a strong temptation to alter the difficult word «God» to the familiar »Son.» (How could God be in the bosom of God?)» 3780 One of the text critics who developed the original Westcott-Hort text notes that «unique God» «is the more intrinsically probable from its uniqueness» and «makes the alternative reading more intelligible.» 3781 In further support of the «God» reading may be John s penchant for variation in christological titles, 3782 the probable inclusio surrounding Jesus» role introduced in 1:1c 3783 (and indeed in the body of the book, 1with 20:28), and the shock value of the phrase. 3784 Finally, μονογενς θες (in its anarthrous or articular form) has in its favor most of our earliest manuscripts, 3785 including P 66 (second or third century), P 75 (third century), Sinaiticus and its copy (, fourth century), and Vaticanus (B, fourth century), although Alexandrinus (A, fifth century) is on the other side; 3786 as Longenecker observes, «The reading «the unique God» (μονογενς θες) of John 1.18 is better attested textually than »the unique Son» (μονογενς υις), though it is often set aside on theological grounds.» 3787 The prologue thus culminates in a rehearsal of Jesus» deity, closing an inclusio that began with 1:1c; it also parallels the conclusion of the Gospel as a whole (20:28), forming an inclusio around the entire Gospel which proclaims Jesus» deity. 3788 To Jewish Christians needing to lay even their lives on the line because of their Christology, John reminds them that Christology is at the heart of their faith in Israel " s God. |
| 1C. The Wrappings (20:5–7) John is emphatic that only the linen wrappings were κεμενα in the tomb (20:5–7); the body of Jesus no longer εκετο there (20:12). 10505 The description of Jesus» wrappings and separate face-cloth (σουδριον) links Jesus» resurrection with the sign of Lazarus (11:44). 10506 Whereas Lazarus needs help to be fully released, however (11:44), Jesus had left his shrouds and face-cloth behind. 10507 Hunter suggests that Jesus» face-cloth was " " twirled up» like a turban, just as it had been wrapped around his head,» 10508 but this is not a necessary sense of εντυλσσω. More to the point is his observation that the scene was not that of disarray left by thieves acting in haste; 10509 Jesus had folded the face-cloth as a sign of his triumph. Most clearly, the fact that the grave clothes remained behind at all testified that the body had not been taken by tomb robbers or anyone else, who would not have taken the body yet left its wrappings. By process of elimination, the missing body but remaining clothes should suggest to the disciples that Jesus» promise about reclaiming his life was literal (10:17–18). The description of the clothes may also comment on the nature of the resurrection or the supremacy of Christ; it contrasts with the view of many later teachers that people were resurrected in the same shrouds in which they were buried. 10510 Another proposal concerning the face-cloth is intriguing in view of our conclusions regarding 1:14–18: Moses» veil represented the partial revelation available under the old covenant, but the «veil» is now left behind because the new covenant revelation is without limit (1:18; 2Cor 3:7–18 ). 10511 Nevertheless, we cannot be sure that John intended this allusion or that most of his first audience would have grasped it; it is not the term used in 2Cor 3 , and John could have made such an allusion more obvious by employing the LXX term κλυμμα (Exod 34:33–35), which he does not. 10512 Given the stooping of 20:5, the tomb probably |
|
|
