| Whereas Jesus proves bold, Peter " s denials (18:25–27) appear shamefu1. In Jewish martyr stories, the protagonists refuse to renounce their ancestral faith even under the most terrible tortures and executions. 9761 The third accusation against Peter came from a relative of Malchus, probably another important servant of the high priest (see comment on 18:10). The accusation of one of such high status would undoubtedly carry significant weight; 9762 further, if he genuinely recognized Peter from the garden, he probably also recognized or would soon recall that Peter was the active aggressor with a sword. Whereas Jesus could not be justly convicted for a crime, Peter could be. The high priest " s earlier inquiry about Jesus» disciples (18:19) may have partly indicated concern about such violent and possibly revolutionary sentiments as had been directed against his own servant Malchus; the charge against Jesus was sedition (18:33–35), and if anything, Peter " s act had only helped to make that charge more credible. Whereas Jesus suffers for Peter, Peter disowns Jesus and his own responsibility. If Peter is one Johannine paradigm for discipleship (albeit less secure than the beloved disciple), it is only because the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep to restore them to the right way (10:11–15). Yet as Ridderbos points out, in this Gospel Peter " s denial constitutes «the dramatic climax of Peter " s recurrent... resistance to Jesus» self-humiliation (13:6ff.) and self-offering in death (13:24, 36f.; 18:10).» 9763 The denial scene closes with Peter " s conviction by the crowing of the cock (18:27), signaling the fulfillment of Jesus» warning that Peter would in fact deny him (13:38). Cockcrowing was a negative omen to the superstititious in some parts of the empire, 9764 but more critically here, the cockcrowing also signaled early morning, 9765 when leading representatives of the municipal aristocracy could bring Jesus before Pilate (18:28). Clients could approach their patrons for legal advice at «cockcrow» (Horace Sat. 1.1.9–10). Pilatés Inquiry (18:28–38a) |
| 34 Об упоминаниях Бога Израиля под прозвищем «Саклас» см.: Иуд 51–53 ; KMW, р. 37–39. 35 Мнение об Иисусе, описанном в «Евангелии от Иуды», см.: М. Meyer in KMW, p. 4; R.Kasser in KMW, p. 75f. 36 О том, как Иисус насмехается над своими учениками, см.: М. Meyer in KMW, p. 4; Иуд 34 (KMW, p. 21); Иуд 36f (KMW, p. 24). 37 Иуд 36f (KMW, p. 24f). 38 Иуд 55 (KMW, p. 42). 39 См. также: Н. Krosney, The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscarioty p. 278. 40 Параллели в текстах Наг-Хаммади см.: Апокалипсис Петра 81–83 (NHL, р. 344). 41 NH 56:6–19. 42 Guy G. Stroumsa, Haaretz, 1 April 2006. 43 Эту дискуссию см. в: Е. Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1976), p. 9If. 44 Иуд 56 (KMW, p. 45). 45 KMW, p. 43 n. 137; Доктор Джон Диксон из Сиднея (Австралия) полагает, что в данном тексте (несмотря на уверения редакторов и комментаторов) нет эпизода, когда Иисус велит Иуде передать его властям. Вот почему это может быть лишь предположением, но предположением с оценочным комментарием: передав его властям, Иуда «превосходит их всех». 46 См.: Иуд. 44:46 (KMW, р. 31–33). 47 Иуд 57f (KMW, p. 43f). Квадратные скобки обозначают значительные пробелы в тексте. 48 Н. Krosney, The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, p. 293. 49 Платон, Тимей. Об «астральном бессмертии» см. мою книгу: T.Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (London and Minneapolis, Minn.: SPCK and Fortress, 2003), p. 57–60, 110–12, 344–6. 50 H. Krosney, The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas lscariot, p. 299f. 51 Bart D.Ehrman in KMW, p. 86, 105. 52 Иуд 49f (KMW, p. 35f). 53 Объяснения Мейера см. в: KMW, p. 7f. 54 J.M.Robinson, The Secrets of Judas: The Story of the Misunderstood Disciple and his Lost Gospel, p. 75. Далее Робинсон высказывается аналогично о «Евангелии от Филиппа», «Евангелии от Египтян» и «Евангелии Истины». 55 См.: H.Krosney, The Lost Gospel: The Quest for the Gospel of Judas lscariot, p. 135f, 155, 242, 245; J.M.Robinson, The Secrets of Judas: The Story of the Misunderstood Disciple and his Lost Gospel, p. Ill, 130, 160f. |
| 189 Cf. J.Colson, op.cit., p.49f.: “If all the faithful are members of the same Body in Jesus Christ, not all of these members are identical and not all have the same function. The grace of God is multiform, and the gifts of the Spirit various” 190 It is by no means accidental that although the Church separated from the Eucharist many sacraments which were once connected with it she never did this with the ordination of priests 192 This distinction was introduced by Harnack, Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel... (Texte und Untersuchungen, II, 1884, pp.145–149), perhaps under the influence of E.Hatch’s work The Organization of the Early Christian Churches..., as O.Linton thinks, op.cit., p.36f. (cf. also E.Foerster, R.Sohms Kritik des Kirchenrechtes, 1942, p.51f.). It was subsequently established in historiography by Lietzmann and Heussi through their church histories 195 On the subject of ordination as the laying on of hands to convey a particular blessing see J.Behm, Die Handauflegung in Urchristentum nach Verwendung, Herkunft und Bedeutung, 1911; J.Coppens, L’Imposition des Mains et les Rites Connexes dans le N.T., 1925; M.Kaiser, Die Einheit der Kirchengewalt nach dem Zeugnis des N.T. und der Apostolischen Väter, 1956, p.104f. Cf. also M.Siotis, “Die klassische und die christliche Cheirotonie in ihrem Verhältnis” in Theologia, 20 (1949), 21 (1950) and 22 (1951). Especially for installation in a specific ministry, ordination was commonplace in apostolic times. So, for example, in Acts 13:1–3 (despite the doubts of J.Brosch, Charismen und Ämter in der Urkirche, 1951, p.163 and M.Kaiser, op.cit., p.38), Acts 6:6 and 14:23 (Cf. M.Kaiser, op.cit., p.94). Likewise in 1Tim. 4:14 and 2Tim. 1:6 . The term “appoint” (Tim. 1:5) must also include or presuppose an act of ordination even though it has a special meaning (see G.Konidaris, On the Supposed Difference, p.31) 196 Cf. H.Schlier in Glaube und Geschichte, Festschrift für F.Gogarten, 1948, p.44f. and G.Konidaris, op.cit., p.31 198 |
| Ansprache an Bischof Maxim von Argentinien und Südamerika, in: StdO 1972,6,6–8. Grußansprache vor dem Präsidium der Europäischen Kirchenkonferenz, in: StdO 1972,7,2–3. Auf der Entlassungsfeier der Moskauer Geistlichen Lehranstalten, in: StdO 1972,8,3–4. Ansprache an Bischof Anatoli, in: StdO 1972 ,11 ,3f. Grußbotschaft an die Moskauer Geistl. Lehranstalten, in: StdO 1973 ,l,6f. Botschaft zum 50. Jahrestag der UdSSR, in: StdO 1973,2,3–5. Brief an Metropolit Nikodim, in: StdO 1973 ,2 ,36f. Botschaft an Papst Schenudah III., in: StdO 1973,7,2–3. Votum an den neugeweihten Bischof Viktorin, in: StdO 1973,8, 5–7. Erklärung zu den Ereignissen in Mozambique, in: StdO 1973 ,9,4f. Schreiben an Generalsekretär Dr. Philipp Potter, in: StdO 1973, 11,3. Schreiben an den Zentralausschuß des Weltkirchenrates, in: StdO 1973,12,3–8. Interviews über seine Finnlandreise, in: StdO 1974 ,8 ,2–3 ;3–7 . Botschaft an das Oberhaupt der Alexandrinischen Kirche, in: StdO 1974,9,4–7. Zu Fragen der Ökumene und des Friedens vor Kirchenvertretern sozialistischer Länder, in: StdO 1974,10,2–6. Die Ökumene der Gegenwart in orthodoxer Sicht. Vortrag an der finnischen Universität Joensuu, in: StdO 1974,10,25–35. Sendschreiben an die im kirchlichen Schisma lebenden Glieder der «Russischen Kirche im Ausland», in: StdO 1974,11,2–4. Botschaft an die Vollversammlung der Konferenz Europäischer Kirchen «Nyborg VII», in: StdO 1974,2–5. Botschaft an den XXI. Internationalen Altkatholikenkongreß, ebda 5–6. Die Verantwortung der orthodoxen Landeskirchen für ihren Dienst in der modernen Welt. Vorlesung anläßlich seiner Promotion zum Ehrendoktor der Sifioter G.A., in: StdO 1975,5/6,12–18. Botschaft (30. Jahrestag des Sieges), in: StdO 1975,7,2–5. Erklärung zum Abschluß der Konferenz für Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa, in: StdO 1975,10,3-f. Telegramm an die Teilnehmer der Vollversammlung des Weltkirchenrates in Nairobi, Kenia, in: StdO 1976 ,2 ,5f. Interview (Nowosti), in: StdO 1976,3,3–4. Ansprache (30 Jahre kirchliches Außenamt), in: StdO 1976,8,2–6. |
| 42 So the unity of the Church is defined in the Augsburg Confession. See Ch.Androutsos, Symbolics from an Orthodox Perspective, 1930 (2ed.), p.96 44 I.Karmiris, Summary of the Dogmatics of the Orthodox Catholic Church (in Greek), 1960, p.80. Karmiris brings out the relationship between Eucharist and unity even more clearly and emphatically in his article “The Body of Christ, Which is the Church” (in Greek) in Ekklesia 39 (1962), p.365f., where he writes: “The Divine Eucharist is the centre of the unity of Christians with Christ in the body of the Church. For it is through this par excellence that the Church is revealed as the Body of Christ and the communion of the Holy Spirit, and the ‘present’ age and world is joined with that which is to come, the earthly Church with the heavenly. In the Divine Eucharist is contained the whole Body of Christ...” 45 See ibid., and inter alia M.Siotis, The Divine Eucharist. The N.T. Information about the Divine Eucharist in the Light of the Interpretation of Church Writers (in Greek), 1957, p.69; P.Trembelas, Dogmatics..., III, 1961, p.154. Cf. G.Florovsky, “Le Corps du Christ”, p.36f.; J.Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, p.22f.; as also G.Bebis, “The Divine Eucharist According to Patristic Interpretation” in Ekklesia 36 (1959), pp.143–145 46 See P.B.Schultze, “Eucharistie und Kirche in der russischen Theologie der Gegenwart” in Z.L.T., 77 (1955), pp.257–300 and E.Lanne, “Die Kirche als Mysterium in der orthodoxen Theologie” in Holböck – Sartory, Mysterium Kirche in der Sicht der theologischen Disziplinen, II, 1962, pp.891–925 47 Unfortunately, we do not have access to the works of these two theologians written in Russian, and have, therefore, drawn our information about their theory mainly from the following articles (as far as we know, only articles exist): 1).N.Afanassieff, “L’Apôtre Pierre et l’évêque de Rome” in Theologia 26 (1955), p.464f.; 2).eiusdem “La Doctrine de la Primauté à la Lumière de l’Ecclésiologie” in Istina 4 (1957), pp.401–20; 3).eiusdem “The Church which Presides in Love” in The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church, ET 1963, pp.57–110; 4).eiusdem “Le Concile dans la Théologie orthodoxe russe” in Irénikon 35 (1962), p.316f.; 5).eiusdem “Una Sancta” in Irénikon 36 (1963), p.436; 6).A.Schmemann, “Unity, Division, Reunion in the Light of Orthodox Ecclesiology” in Theologia 22 (1951), p.242f.; 7).eiusdem “The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology” in The Primacy of Peter (as above); 8).eiusdem “Theology and Eucharist” (in Greek) in Theology, Truth and Life (ed.Zoi Brotherhood), 1962, and 9).eiusdem “Towards a Theology of Councils” in St.Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, 6 (1962), pp.170–184 |
| About Pages Проекты «Правмира» Raising Orthodox Children to Orthodox Adulthood The Daily Website on How to be an Orthodox Christian Today Twitter Telegram Parler RSS Donate Are You a True Christian? Navigation Jesus and Women Source: No Other Foundation: Orthodox Reflections by Father Lawrence Archpriest Lawrence Farley 22 September 2016 Photo: : dinnow, photosight.ru If we read the New Testament through the lenses of our modern egalitarian culture we may miss some things in it which were shocking to the original readers and hearers, especially in the ministry of Jesus. We moderns in the West do not bat an eye when a man stops to speak with a woman in public. If I go down in the elevator of my apartment with a female neighbour, we both think nothing of it if I comment on the weather or if I ask her how she is doing today. In the homes of my parishioners we hold Bible studies which the women attend as well as the men, the ladies contributing comments and questions as frequently as do the gentlemen, and no one thinks anything of it. We mix socially across the gender divide with complete ease, and never even realize that there is a gender divide to be crossed. We do not stop and think to ourselves, “I am speaking with a woman”. For us the person with whom we are speaking is not “a woman”; she is just Christine or Susan or Amy. We naturally project this egalitarianism back upon our reading of the Gospels, and assume it was also like this. But it is not so. In the time of Christ (and in much of the Islamic world today) a respectable man would never speak publicly to a woman, even if that woman were his wife. He would never start a conversation or exchange words in public with a woman he did not know. And Rabbis would certainly not teach the Torah to a woman. Indeed, there was a Rabbinical saying it would be better for the Torah to be burnt that to be taught to a woman. Given this we can appreciate how revolutionary was the example of Jesus. We can appreciate how shocking it was for Him to say that He had the authority to forgive the sins of the sinful woman who wept at His feet at He reclined in the house of Simon the Pharisee (Luke 7:36f). We often fail to appreciate how shocking it was for Him to speak to her in public at all. Yet He did this sort of thing habitually, cheerfully trampling upon what was regarded as respectable in order to reach people. Thus He spoke to the Samaritan woman in public, and even asked her for a drink from her bucket at the well (John 4:4f). When the disciples returned to Him from their errand, John relates in a wonderful and typical bit of New Testament understatement, “They marvelled that He had been speaking with a woman” (v. 27). Respectable Rabbis never did that, but Jesus seemed to do it almost unthinkingly. |
| Take for example the encounter of Christ with a Jewish ruler, narrated in Matthew 19:16f and its synoptic parallels. In this story a man asks Jesus, “What good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?” (in Mark’s version: “What shall I do to inherit eternal life?”), and Jesus answers him, “If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” In response to the man’s further question, “Which ones?”, Jesus refers him to the ones enshrining our responsibility to our neighbour rather than (for example) the ones referring to ritual purity, saying that he should not commit murder or adultery or theft, that he should not bear false witness, that he should honour his parents and love his neighbour. The list is obviously typical and not comprehensive, but His main point is clear: to enter into life in the age to come and be spared eternal punishment, one should live as a good Jew, striving to love God and one’s neighbour. Christ elsewhere referred to such submission as the essence of all that God wanted from us, the entirety of the message of the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 22:36f). The man responded that he was in fact keeping all these commandments, but still felt a lack, a void, a hunger for something more. Christ did not rebuke the man as if his professed obedience to the Law was delusional or wrong. In Mark’s version of the story it says that Christ felt a love for the man (Mark 10:21) indicating that He believed and accepted his testimony. He also saw that the man was ready for something more than mere life in the age to come—namely the adventure of entering the Kingdom of God here and now . Entering the Kingdom was not synonymous with getting through heaven’s gates upon death; it referred to a present reality. In Luke’s Gospel, Christ said that ever since John the Baptist’s ministry, the gospel of the Kingdom of God was being preached “and everyone is forcing his way into it” (Luke 16:16). Entering the Kingdom of God therefore meant a present experience God’s power, and was not to be equated simply with being spared at the Last Judgment at the end. Christ therefore held out the possibility of becoming “perfect” (Greek teleios )—a word meaning not “sinless”, but “mature, reaching the goal/ telos ”. If the man wanted such an experience of God in this age, he must cast aside his old life with all its ambitions and agendas and become a disciple of Jesus—that what was it meant to enter the Kingdom of God. Sadly, the man was not up to the proffered adventure. |
|
|
