| The same Prophet Hosea, proclaiming the name of God and addressing the chosen people, says: “for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee” (Hosea 11:9). God defines Himself as such, which means that holiness is one of the most important definitions of God (Cf., Leviticus 11:44–45; 19:2; 20:3, 7, 26; 21:8; 22:2, 32. Jesus of Navi [Joshua] 24:15, 19. 1 Kings Samuel] 2:2, 10; 6:20; 2 Kings Samuel] 22:7; 4 Kings Kings] 19:22. 1 Paralipomena Chronicles] 16:10, 27, 35; 29:16. 2 Paralipomena Chronicles] 6:2; 30. 27. Tobit 3:11; 8:5, 15; 12:12, 15. Judith 9:13; Job 6:10; Psalms 2:6; 3:5; 5:8; 10 14 15 17 19 21 23 26 27 32 42 45 46 47 50 64 67 70 76 77 54; 78 88 97 98 5, 9; 101 102 104 42; 105 110 137 144 21; Proverbs 9:10; Wisdom of Solomon 1:5; 9:8, 10, 17; 10:20. Wisdom of Sirach 4:15; 17:8; 23:9–10; 43:11; 47:9, 12; 48:23. Esaias [Isaiah] 1:4; 5:16, 19, 24; 6:3; 8:13; 10:17, 20; 11:9; 12:6; 17:7; 29:19, 23; 30:11–12, 15; 31:1; 37:23; 40:25; 41:14, 16, 20; 43:3, 14–15; 45:11; 47:4; 48:17; 49:7; 52:19; 54:5; 55:5; 56:7; 57:13, 15; 58:13; 60:9, 14; 63:10–11; 65:11, 25; 66:20. Jeremias [Jeremiah] 23:9; 31:23; 50:29; 51:5. Baruch 2:16; 4:22, 37; 5:5; 20:39–40; 28: 14; 36:20–22; 39:7, 25. Ezekiel 43:7–8; Daniel 3:52–53; 4:5–6, 10, 14–15, 20; 5:11; 9:16, 20, 24. Joel 2:1; 3:17; Amos 2:7. Abidias 1:16. Jonas 2:5, 8; Michaias [Micah] 1:2; Abbacum [Habbakuk] 1:12; 2:20; 3:3; Sophonias [Zephaniah] 3: 11–12; Zacharias [Zechariah] 2:13; 2 Maccabees 8:15; 14:36; 15:32; 3 Maccabees 2:2, 11, 16; 5:8; 6:1–2, 4, 17, 26; 7:8; 2 Esdras 14:22; Matthew 1:18, 20; 3:11; 12:32; 28:19. Mark 1:8, 24, 29; 12:36; 13:11; Luke 1:15, 35, 41, 49, 67, 72; 2:25–26; 3:16, 22; 4: 1, 34; 11:13; 12:10, 12. John 1:33; 7:39; 14:26; 17:11; 20:22; Acts 1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 33, 38; 3:14; 4:8, 25, 27, 30–31; 5:3, 32; 6:3, 5; 7:51, 55; 8:15, 17–19, 39; 9:17, 31; 10:38, 44–45, 47; 11:15–16, 24; 13:2, 4, 9, 35, 52; 15:8, 28; 16:6; 19:2, 6; 20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25. 1 Peter 1:12, 15–16; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 John 2:20; 5:7. Jude 1:20; Romans 5:5; 9:1; 14:17; 15:13, 16; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 3:17; 6:19; 12:3; 2 Corinthians 6:6; 13:13. Ephesians 3:5; 4: 30; 1 Thessalonians 1:5–6; 4:8; 2 Timothy 1:14; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 2:4; 3:7; 6: 4; 9:8, 14; 10: 15; Revelation 3:7; 4:8; 6:10; 15:3–4; 16:5). |
| Craig S. Keener The Son from Above. 3:1–36 IN THIS SECTION, JESUS REVEALS to Nicodemus that he is the Son from above (3:13, 16), and John reiterates this point (3:31, 35–36). Jesus likewise continues the theme of true purification (3:5) from 2:6, which again contrasts forcefully with mere Jewish water rituals (3:25), even those of the Baptist (3:22–26; 4:1–2). Nicodemuss partial faith continues the theme of 2:23–25, but contrasts starkly with the fully reliable witness of John (3:21–36) and the responsiveness of the sinful Samaritan woman (4:1–42). Nicodemus and the Heavenly Witness (3:1–21) The warning against untrustworthy believers depending merely on signs (2:23–25) leads directly into the following paragraph: Nicodemus professes a measure of faith in Jesus based on his signs (3:2, repeating the σημεα ποιεον of 2:23), but has not yet crossed the threshold into discipleship; 4742 he is at most a representative of some open-minded dialogue partners in the synagogues (hence perhaps the use of plural verbs, though cf. comment on 3:11). 4743 John invites his audience to contrast Nicodemus " s slow response here to the ready response of the Samaritan woman in 4:7–29, who is able to overcome her misunderstanding in the course of that dialogue. 4744 (Several of Johns narratives involve the pattern of sign, misunderstanding, clarification, and response.) 4745 In the course of the Gospel, however, Nicodemus, who came out of darkness into light (3:2,21), moves from secret discipleship (3:1–2; 7:50–52) 4746 to true, complete discipleship (19:39–42). 4747 John presents several models of a journey to discipleship, of which Nicodemus is one; 4748 Nicodemus will eventually join the Samaritan woman among disciples. 4749 If 3:1–21 is the discourse explicating the sign of 2:1–11, it shows that true relationship with God involves neither waterpots nor the earthly temple (a theme revisited in both cases in 4:10–14, 20–24, 28), but the water of the Spirit (3:5) and the revealer from above (3:11–21). |
| In the Prophet Hosea, we find this definition of God: “I am God, and not man.” If God, Who has reason and will, as is clearly reflected in the Bible (3 Kings Kings] 3:28; Job 12:13, 16; Proverbs 3:19-20; Sirach 1:1, 5; 15:18, 42:21; Esaias [Isaiah] 11:2; 28:29; Luke 11:49; Romans 11:33; 14:26; 1 Corinthians 1: 21, 24; 2:7. Will of God: Psalm 106 11; Wisdom 6:4; Mark 3:35; Luke 7:30; Acts 20:27; 1 Peter 2:15; 3:17; 4:2, 19; 1 John 2:17; Romans 1:10; 8:27; 12:2; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 8:5; Ephesians 5:17; 6:6; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; 5:18; Hebrews 10:36; Revelation 17:17), is not man, this means that He is a being of another order, located by His nature beyond our world. He, as philosophers and theologians say, is transcendent with respect to the world. This transcendence – that is, God’s natural distinction from the physical world – is described in the Bible by the word “Spirit.” “God is a spirit” (John 4:24. Cf., Genesis 1:2; 6:3; 41:38; Exodus 15:10; 31:3. Numbers 11:29; 23:6; 24:2; Judges 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Kings Samuel] 10:6, 10; 11:6; 16:13; 19:20, 23; 2 Kings Samuel] 23:2; 3 Kings Kings] 18:12; 1 Paralipomena Chronicles] 15:1; 2 Paralipomena Chronicles] 15:1; 20: 14; 24:20; Neemias [Nehemiah] 9:20; Judith 16:14; Job 4:9; 26: 13; 33:4; Psalms 32 50 103 138 142 Wisdom of Solomon 1:7; 9:17; 12:1; Esaias [Isaiah] 11:2; 32:15; 34:16; 42:1; 44:3; 48:16; 61:1; 63:10–14. Ezekiel 11:1, 5; Aggeus [Haggai] 2:5; Zacharias 4:6; 7:12; 2 Esdras 6:37; Matthew 1:20; 3:16; 4:1; 10:20; 12:31–32; 28:19. Mark 1:10, 12; 3:29; 13:11; Luke 1:35, 67; 2:26; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 11:13; 12:10, 12; John 1:32–33; 3:5–6, 8, 34; 6:63; 7:39; 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13; 20:22; Acts 1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 17–18, 33, 38; 5:3, 9; 7:51; 8:29; 9:31; 10:19; 11:12, 28; 13:2, 4; 15:28; 16:6–7; 19:6; 20:22–23, 28; 21:11; 28:25. 1 Peter 1:2, 11–12, 22; 5:5; 8:9, 11, 14–16, 23, 26–27; 11:8; 14:17; 15:13, 16, 19, 30; 1 Corinthians 2:10–14; 3:16; 6:11, 19; 12: 3–4, 8–11, 13; 15:45; 2 Corinthians 1:22; 3:3, 17–18; 5:5; Galatians 3:5, 14; 4: 6; Ephesians 1:13, 17; 2:18. 22; 3:5, 16; 4:30; 5:9; Philippians 1:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:5–6; 4:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:8, 13; 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1; 2 Timomhy 1:14; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 2:4; 3:7; 6:4; 9:8, 14; 10:15, 29; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 14:13; 22:17). |
| 1 Написано в конце 1341 или начале 1342. 2 Cod. Monac. Gr. 223. 3 Apud Palamas, Antirreticos 3, 4, 7 (ред. P. Christou 3, 165—166). 4 Ibid., 3, 2, 12ss. 5 См. Carit. 4, 9; PG 90, 1049B. [р.п. I, с. 135]. 6 Amb. Io. 7; PG 91, 1172A. 7 Ibid. 10; PG 91, 1172A. 8 Ibid. 41; PG, 91, 1305. 9 Carit. 4, 4 и 5; PG 90, 1048D. [р.п. I; 4 и 5, с. 134]. 10 Amb. Io. 23; PG 91, 1260C. 11 Amb. Io. 42; PG 91, 1329A. Ср. L. Thunberg, Microcosm and Mediator. The theological anthropology of Maximus the Confessor, Lund 1965, 78—81. I.-H. Dalmais, La theorie des logoi des creatures chez S. Maxime le Confesseur, в: RSPhTh 36 (1952) 244—249. 12 Commentary to On the Divine Names 2, 3; PG 4, 352. 13 Amb. Io. 7; PG 91, 1080A. 14 Ibid.; PG 91, 1081C. 15 Opusc. 23; PG 91, 264—265. 16 Cap. Theol. 1, 68; PG 90, 1108C. [.п. I; 68, с.226]. 17 Ibid. 48—49; 1100C-1101A. [.n.I; 48, 49, с. 222]. 18 Amb. Io. 7; PG 91, 1072B. 19 Amb. Th. 5; PG 91, 1057B. Cf. Thunberg, 94. 20 De fide orth. 3, 15; PG 94, 1048. 21 Opusc. 3; PG 91, 45D. 22 Ibid. 16; PG 91, 192. 23 Ср. J.-M. Garrigues, Maxime le Confesseur. La charite, avenir divin de l " homme, Paris 1976, 91f. 24 Carit. 3, 25; PG 90, 1024B. [.п. I; 3, 25]. Бог, приводя к бытию разумное и умное существо, по высочайшей благости Своей сообщил тварям четыре Божественные свойства, их содержащие, охраняющие и спасающие: бытие, приснобытие, благость и премудрость: два первыя даровал существу, а два последния — нравственной способности; существу — бытие и приснобытие, а нравственной способности — благость и премудрость, дабы тварь была тем по причастию, что Он сам есть по существу. Посему и сказано, что человек сотворен по образу и по подобию Божию. Сотворен по образу Сущего, яко сущий, Присносущего, яко присносущий, хотя и не безначально, впрочем бесконечно. По подобию Благаго, яко благий, Премудраго по естеству, яко премудрый по благодати. По образу Божию есть всякое существо разумное, по подобию же одни добрые и мудрые. Прим. пер. Привожу два варианта перевода этого текста. |
| 2819 Goppelt, Theology, 1:45. 2820 Ovid Metam. 14.136–144; cf. Aulus Gellius 2.16.10. A more helpful Hellenistic notion would be «immortality» (cf. 1Cor 15:53–54 ), though to some Greeks it would connote apotheosis. 2821 See above, pp. 178–79, 292–93. 2822 Dodd, Interpretation, 14,151; cf. true being in Plato Rep. 6.490AB. 2823 Schedl, History, 1:293; cf. Hos 6:2–3 . 2824 Buchanan, Consequences, 131–34; for Qumran, cf. Schütz, «Knowledge,» 397; and life for a thousand generations in 4Q171 1–2 3.1. 2825 Isis 1, Mor. 351E. 2826 Dodd, Interpretation, 144–50. 2827 Pss. So1. 3:12, using the full expression; cf. 13:11. 2828 M. " Abot 2:7, attributed to Hillel; b. Ber. 28b; Lev. Rab. 13:2; CIJ 1:422, §569 (Hebrew funerary inscription from Italy); 1:474, §661 (sixth-century Hebrew inscription from Spain); 2:443, §1536 (Semitic letters, from Egypt); cf. Abrahams, Studies, 1:168–70; Philo Flight 77. The usage in 1 En. 10(cf. 15:6; 25:6) and Jub. 5(cf. 30:20) is more restrictive, perhaps figurative; the Similtudes, however, seem to follow the ordinary usage (37:4; 58:3,6), and the circles from which 1 En. and Jub. derive probably used «long duration» language to represent eternity as well (CD 7.5–6; cf. Sir 18:10 ); for «eternal life» in the DSS, see also 4Q181 (Vermes, Scrolls, 251–52); Coetzee, «Life,» 48–66; Charlesworth, «Comparison,» 414. «Eternal» occurs with other nouns (e.g., Wis 10:14; 1QS 2.3) far more rarely. 2829 Tob 12:9–10; Ladd, Theology, 255, also cites Pss. So1. 14:7; 2Macc 7:9–14; 4 Ezra 7:137; 14:22); see Manson, Paul and John, 112 n. 1. 2830 Sipre Deut. 305.3.2,3. 2831 4 Macc 17:18, using a cognate of βος rather than of ζω. Cf. T. Ab. 20:14A. 2832 Lake and Cadbury, Commentary, 159; Bultmann, Theology, 2:159; Ladd, Theology, 255–56. See, e.g., Mark 10:17, 30 ; Matt 25:46; Acts 13:46, 48; Rom 2:7; 5:21; 6:22–23 ; Gal 6:8 ; 1Tim 1:16; 6:12 ; Tit 1:2; 3:7 ; Jude 21. 2833 See Filson, «Life,» 114; Simon, «Life.» 2834 Dodd, Studies, 149. 2835 Marcus Aurelius 4.2; Epictetus frg. 3 (LCL 2:442–43; but cf. frg. 4). |
| 8596 Ibid., 101–2; Glasson, Moses, 104–5 (citing John 5:45 ); Windisch, Spirit-Paraclete, 15 (following Billerbeck); Manns, «Paraclet,» 127–31; cf. Bernard, John, 2(following Wetstein); Lee, Thought, 214 (following Schlatter); Westcott, John, 212; Sandmel, Beginnings, 384; in Greek texts, e.g., Aeschines Ctesiphon 37 (taking the laws figuratively as advocates). 8597 Reportedly the Egyptians, lest rhetoric sway judges from the laws» severity (Diodorus Siculus 1.76.1–2). For examples of forensic rhetoric, cf. Cicerós famous defenses or the trial speeches of Isaeus, Lysias, Aeschines, or Demosthenes. 8598 E.g., P.Thead. 15.3, 19 (280–281 C.E.); Chariton 3.4.15; Nin. Rom. frg. 1.A.4; Plutarch Flatterer 20, Mor. 61D; Publicola 2.1 (συνηγορας); Cicero 5.2 (συνηγορεν); 39.5 (βοηθοντος); CPJ 2:84, §157; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 1.27.15; cf. also σμβουλος (Plutarch Mor. 61D; 4 Macc 15:25; cf. Moses in 4 Macc 9:2, contrasted with Antiochus in 9:3; Mattathias " s successor Simeon as a military νρ βουλς in 1Macc 2:65). In Philostratus " s Heroikos a deceased hero can become a σμβουλος, or advisor, counselor, to his mortal clients (4.7; 14.4; 23.18; 35.1; cf. 16.2; Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, xxix); in Porphyry Marc. 10.189 it is (figuratively) his teachings. 8602 Ladd, Theology, 293; Leaney, «Paraclete,» 61. Cf. the qualifications of Ross, «Lament,» 45–46. 8607 A loanword in rabbinic texts, and appearing in some papyri (Deissmann, Light, 93); cf. 2Macc 4:5. 8608 5. Hag. 13b; p. Roš Haš. 3:2, §6; Lev. Rab. 5:6; 21:10; 30:6. Although none of these references has an attribution before the third century, this may parallel the Greco-Roman dependence on private rather than public prosecutors (Chariton 5.4.9; CPJ 2:64–65, §155; Josephus War 1.637–638; cf. Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 34; for a relevant social depiction of second-century B.C.E. Roman prosecution, see David, «Eloquentia»).– 8609 5. Yoma 77a; Exod. Rab. 18:5; cf. Apoc. Sedr. 14:1; in 2 En. 33(rec. A), Michael will be an intercessor» for Enoch (in rec. J, a «mediator»). He may also be «the Prince of the World» (contrast John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11 ), who defends the world before the Holy One (3 En. 30:2), and the angel who intercedes for Israel (T. Levi 5:6; he struggled with Jacob in Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 32:25 ). Cf. Betz, Paraklet, 149–58, for one study on Michael as intercessor. |
| 12:48; Rev 19:11). Some of John s imagery stands in creative tension that forces the hearer to qualify its sense: Jesus did not come for the purpose of condemning (3:17), but he is authorized to judge (5:22). 5868 Because some believed that God had shared some of his honor with Moses (following Exod 3), 5869 Jesus» claim that the Father shared honor with the Son (5:23) could be interpreted less offensively (cf. Isa 44:23; 46:13; 49:3; 60:1–2). Some Tannaim argued that God wanted his prophets to honor both the Father and the son (Israel). 5870 But because Jesus claims that people should honor the Son even as (καθς) they honor the Father, he utters a claim to divine rank (cf. Isa 48); one cannot have the Father without the Son or vice-versa (cf. 1 John 2:23 ). Even Roman emperors could affirm their authority by using a phrase equivalent to «just as» to assert a direct linkage with earlier, deified emperors. 5871 That «all» should honor him (5:23) emphasizes the universality of Christ " s sovereign authority (1:7; 5:28–29). Further, Jesus both answers the basic charge and returns it, a common rhetorical technique (see our introduction to 8:37–51). In contrast with their charge of blasphemy, Jesus honors his Father. But because he is the Father " s representative (see discussion of the «sent one» under Christology in the introduction, ch. 7) whom the Father honors (5:23), by dishonoring Jesus they are dishonoring the Father (cf. the same idea more explicitly in 8:49). Jesus thus effectively returns the charge against them: it is they, not he, who dishonor the Father. 1D. Jesus as Life-Giver in the Present and the Future (5:24–30) Jesus returns to the claim that the Father has authorized him to give life (5:21) with the image of realized eschatology implied by «passed from death to life» (5:24); one already abides in death until believing in the one who sent Jesus, hence in Jesus» delegated mission (cf. also 3:18). 5872 Numerous ancient texts employ «death» figuratively or spiritually; 5873 some Jewish texts employ «death» eschatologically, as in Rev 2:11; 20:6, though sometimes (in likely contrast to Revelation " s use) for annihilation. 5874 «Life» and «death» figure prominently in the Fourth Gospel, often spiritually (6:50; 8:51; cf. 8:21, 24). Even when literal (e.g., 4:47; 6:49, 58; 8:52; 11:13, 14, 16, 21, 25, 32, 37, 44, 51; 21:23), they sometimes illustrate spiritual realities (11:26). «Passing» from death to life, like being «born from above» (3:3), implies a line of demarcation between those who have returned to God " s side and those who remain arrayed against him (cf. 1 John 3:14 ; Wis 7:27; Col 1:13). Response to Jesus» «word» decided onés destiny (5:24; 12:48; cf. 5:38), for how one treats envoys indicates how one would treat their sender. 5875 |
| 675 In both, the Isaiah text indicates that Jesus» word hardens the stubborn. On the text in Mark, cf. Evans, «Note.» 676 For esoteric teachings, cf., e.g., 4 Ezra 14:45–47; t. Hag. 2:1; b. Hag. 13a-14b; Pesah. 119a; Šabb. 80b; p. Hag. 2:1, §§3–4; for other private teachings or those understood only within wisdom circles, cf., e.g., Ps.-Phoc. 89–90; various Qumran texts (lQpHab 7.4–5; 1QH 2.13–14; 9.23–24; 11.9–10, 16–17; 12.11–13; 13.13–14; 1QS 8.12; 9.17–19; cf. 1QS 8.1–2; 11.5; 1QM 17.9); Gen. Rab. 8:9; Num. Rab. 9:48; 19(purportedly from ben Zakkai); Pesiq. Rab. 21:2/3; 22:2; perhaps Wis 2:21–22; 7:21; 2 Bar. 48:3; b. Sukkah 49b. In Pythagoreanism, cf. Diogenes Laertius 8.1.15; perhaps Plato in Diogenes Laertius 3.63; others in Eunapius Lives 456. Cf. also the passing on of esoteric books from Moses to Joshua in Γ. Mos. 1(possibly early first century C.E.). 677 Bruce, Documents, 57. Cf. Stein, Method, 27–32. By itself this would not demand authenticity. Goulder, Midrash, 89–92, thinks that Jesus gave some teaching in poetry but Matthew created it in many additional sayings. 678 «Amen» normally confirmed prayers, oaths, curses, or blessings. The Gospel usage in confirming Jesus» words as he speaks them is rare (against Jeremias, Theology, 35,79, it is not unique; see Aune, Prophecy, 165; Hill, Prophecy, 64–66); it is almost certainly authentic (with Aune; Hill; Burkitt, Sources, 18). (Boring, Sayings, 132–33, thinks it continued in early Christian prophetic usage, but even Rev 2–3 avoids it). Cf. Gen 18:13 . 679 Bruce, Documents, 57–58. The introductory «amen» appears about 30 times in Matthew, 13 in Mark, 6 in Luke, and 50 in John (Smith, Parallels, 6). The double form appears rarely, e.g., in the current text of L.A.B. 22:6 (the answer of the people to Joshuás words); 26(response to Kenaz " s curse invocation); PGM 22b.21, 25 (closing an invocation); and as an oath formula in p. Qidd. 1:5, §8. Culpepper, «Sayings,» argues that the double amen sayings in John frequently (though not always) reflect historical material, often «core sayings that generate the dialogue or discourse material that follows» (100). |
| It is in 6that Jesus explains the nature of his metaphors, explicitly defining the character of «the words I spoke to you.» Others consistently misinterpret Jesus» figurative pronouncements literally (3:4; 6:52; 11:12). It is not the literal flesh (cf. 6:51) that brings life, but the Spirit, 6258 a point also underlined in 3:6. 6259 The Spirit thus joins the Father and Son (5:21; cf. Rom 4:17 ; 1Cor 15:22 ) in giving life (6:63; cf. Rom 8:11 ; 2Cor 3:6 ; 1Pet 3:18 ; perhaps 1Cor 15:45 ). 6260 One may also note that flesh cannot comprehend divine truth adequately (cf. 3:12); elsewhere in the Jesus tradition as well, this comprehension requires a revelation from the Father (Matt 16:17; cf. ll:25–27/Luke 10:21–22). A merely human, «fleshly» perspective on Jesus and his words is inadequate ( 2Cor 5:16 ). 6261 Thus disciples must imbibe his Spirit, not his literal flesh (cf. 20:22); his life is present also in his words (6:68; cf. 15:7). In John, the «flesh» includes the best of human religion (see comment on 3:6), which, as here, profits nothing (φελε οδν; cf. 12:19). (Philosophers used «profit» as a moral criterion, 6262 though this provides merely a specialized example of the more general use.) Only religion birthed from the Spirit of God himself proves adequate for true worshipers (4:23–24). Jesus» words are from the Father (3:34; 12:47–50; 14:10; 17:8), like those of Moses (5:47), and only those taught by the Father would embrace them (6:45; 8:47). It is Jesus» message, his «words,» rather than his literal flesh, that communicates the life he has been promising through the heavenly bread (6:27, 33, 35, 40, 47–48, 51, 53–54, 57); it is those who «come» and «believe» whose hunger and thirst will be quenched (6:35; 7:37–38). They «stumbled» (6:61) and could not understand (6:60) because they did not believe (6:64), hence proved to be not from those the Father gave to Jesus (6:65; see comment on 6:37). Their unbelief or apostasy as uncommitted, unpersevering seekers of Jesus» gifts was of a piece with Judas " s apostasy (6:64), on which see comment on 6:71. (The designation of Judas as «the one who would betray him» appears to be antonomasia, a familiar form of periphrasis.) 6263 That Judas could therefore typify unfaithful professors of Christ suggests the distaste John holds for such persons, people undoubtedly known to John " s audience; ( 1 John 2:18–26). Their very failure to believe confirmed Jesus» warning that only those whom the Father drew would come to him (6:44,65). While this claim would not have qualified as an argument among ancient rhetoricians much better than it would today, 6264 the Johannine Jesus intends it not as an argument but as a warning in obscure language, the sort of riddles found among Mediterranean sages and assumed among sectarian interpreters like those at Qumran, intelligible only to those already inside the circle of understanding. 6265 2. Stumbling or Persevering (6:66–71 ) |
| 7.9; " Abot R. Nat. 8A; cf. Justinian Codex 9.20, 29). 5317 See, e.g., OGIS 674=IGRR I 1183; McGinn, «Taxation»; Lewis, Life, 141, 145, 171–72. Pay varied according to appearance and skill (e.g., CIL 4.1679). 5320 Cf. Diogenes Ep. 44; Diogenes Laertius 6.2.61, 66; Musonius Rufus frg. 12; Artemidorus Onir. 1.78; Sallust Cati1. 14.6; Livy 23.18.12; Aulus Gellius 9.5.8. Some philosophers did not regard it as an ethical matter (Diogenes Laertius 2.69, 74; Sextus Empiricus Pyr. 3.201). 5324 E.g., Plutarch Bride 42, 46, Mor. 144B, EF; Dio Cassius 77.16.5; Apuleius Metam. 6.22; Athenaeus Deipn. 4.167e. For the gender-based double standard, see, e.g., Euripides Pirithous frg. 1–13; Justinian Codex 9.1; but cf. also Isocrates Nic. 40, Or. 3.35; Diogenes Laertius 8.1.21. Only a few philosophers did not condemn all adultery (Diogenes Laertius 2.99). 5325 Probably with rhetorical overstatement, Seneca Benef. 1.9.4; 3.16.3; Dia1. 12.16.3; Juvenal Sat. 4.1–20. On actual conditions, see Richlin, «Adultery.» 5326 E.g., Euripides Hipp. 403–418; Horace Sat 1.2.38, 49, 64–100; Ep. 1.2.25–26; Carm. 1.15.19–20; Juvenal Sat. 6.231–241; Epictetus Diatr. 2.4; 2.10.18; 2.18.15; Alexander 3 in Plutarch S.K., Mor. 179E; Cornelius Nepos 15 (Epaminondas), 5.5. 5327 Artemidorus Onir. 3.11; Sib. Or. 1.178; 3.38,204; 5.430; Ps.-Phoc. 3; cf. Epictetus Diatr. 3.3.12. 5328 E.g., Sallust Cati1. 25.3–4; Ps.-Cicero Invective against Sallust 5.15–6.16; Appian R.H. 7.9.56; Martial Epigr. 2.47,49; 3.26.6; 6.45.4; 6.91; 9.2. 5330 Cf. Jos. Asen. 21:1, although definite cases of temporary premarital cohabitation are known (see Ilan, «Cohabitation»). 5333 Also Ps 154:14 ; m. «Abot 3:2; »Abot R. Nat. 26, 29A; 32, §68B; p. Hag. 2:1, §9; 2:2, §5; Ta c an. 3:11, §4. See especially the Essenes (cf., e.g., CD 11.4; Josephus War 2.128,132–133; Philo Good Person 76,81–82). 5334 Also Let. Aris. 130; m. «Abot 1:6–7; 2:9; Sipre Deut. 286.11.4; »Abot R. Nat. 16, §36B; Ps.-Phoc. 134; 1Cor 15:33 ). For the warning in Greco-Roman tradition, see, e.g., Gnomologium vaticanum 460 in Malherbe, Exhortation, 110; Crates Ep. |
|
|
