| The call material in 21:19–23 may link with the call story of 1:37–39, bracketing the Gospe1. 4158 The presence of an anonymous disciple here who might match the beloved disciple in the later passage is not, however, a necessary part of the link. One disciple is later named as Andrew (1:40), whereas the other remains anonymous. Some think that the other disciple here is the «beloved disciple» (13:23; 19:26–27; 20:2–8: 21:7, 20, 24). 4159 Granted, this would fit the Gospel " s contrasts between Peter and the beloved disciple, since the anonymous disciple here functions with Andrew as a witness to Peter («we» in 1:41). 4160 But the text never emphasizes the other disciple, and there is no reason to identify the latter with the «beloved disciple» who first appears explicitly in 13:23. 4161 2A. Low-Key Hospitality Because travel was less safe after dark (robbers normally acted at night; Job 24:14 ; Jer 49:9 ; Obad 5) and because people did not normally follow others around without reason, the reader would know that Jesus understands the two disciples» motives even if the reader were as yet unfamiliar with Jesus» supernatural knowledge (1:42, 48). 4162 Like God " s questions to Adam in the garden or to Cain in the field ( Gen. 3:9,11; 4:9 ; see 4:10), Jesus» in 1is thus rhetorical (as with the more hostile crowd in 18:4, 7). One could «seek» Jesus for more than one reason (e.g., 7:19; 18:4). In a status-conscious culture, it was appropriate for the disciples (whether wishing to become his disciples or merely to express respect) to defer to Jesus with the title «Rabbi» 4163 (although this did not identify Jesus with the post-70 C.E. rabbinic movement, it did imply their recognition that he was a teacher). 4164 This was a title that both his disciples (1:49; 4:31; 9:2; 11:8; 20:16) and other inquirers (3:2; 6:25) would apply to him; it also applied to John the Baptist (3:26). For John it seems an honorable title, but ultimately means only «Teacher» (1:38; 20:16), 4165 hence proves christologically incomplete. Those who would doubt John " s Jewishness because he translates «Rabbi» read the later dominance of the title into an earlier period or assume too much knowledge of Semitic languages on the part of Diaspora Jews. Interestingly, while John often interprets Semitic terms for his audience (also 1:41; 9:7), Matthew, whose Jewishness is also almost certain, 4166 rarely translates. But Matthew usually omits Marks Aramaic (except for Jesus» cry of dereliction in Mark 15:34 , which he changes to Hebrew) and does not use «Messiah» (as John twice 4:25], and alone, among the earliest extant Christian writers, does; Matthew uses «Christ»). 4167 |
| The scene cuts between Peter, in the process of denying Jesus (18:15–18), and Jesus» courage (18:19–24), including in protecting his disciples (18:19). In this instance the parallel with the similar Markan digression and resumption need not indicate either dependence on Mark or an independent tradition shared by both; it might simply represent a standard literary device for building suspense. 9726 Immediately following the first report of Peter " s denial (18:17), Jesus evades a question about his disciples (18:19–20) 9727 and suffers for it (18:22), as he earlier embraced arrest to preserve his disciples (18:8). The teachings about which they wished to question him (18:19) may have included his public apparent threat against the temple, which had engendered some hostility (2:19–20); meanwhile the faction represented by Nicodemus, who thought Jesus» teaching was from God, has fallen silent (3:2; cf. 12:42). It is possible that Annas " s line of questioning (18:19) is unethical; certainly striking a prisoner on trial was unethical (18:22). Yet apart from the well-to-do, few in the ancient world could expect justice when in conflict with the well-to-do; even ancient laws were slanted to favor the powerful, 9728 and the powerful in some cases simply circumvented normal legal procedures 9729 (e.g., Roman soldiers impressing animals belonging to local residents). 9730 Other early Jewish reports about members of Jerusalem " s priestly aristocracy (see above) suggest that others besides Jesus experienced this municipal aristocracy in a harsh way. Of course, John could have good polemical reasons for portraying Jesus» oppressors as abusing power; presenting onés opponents as at an advantage even though they have less to lose in the conflict was a useful form of argument. 9731 But arguments did not have to be false to be effective. John hardly creates this charge of abuse of power from thin air; miscarriages of justice occurred frequently, and unless we think Jesus was historically a revolutionary (a thesis that does little to address the radically apolitical movement that preserved his teachings), the Romans and any elite Jewish allies they had committed such an act in Jesus» case. 5A. Interrogation and Response (18:19–21) |
| Craig S. Keener The fish sign. 21:1–14 OTHER SOURCES MAY SUGGEST that Jesus revealed himself on a regular basis to the disciples immediately after the resurrection; Luke seems most emphatic about this point (Acts 1:3), though he omits the Galilean appearances and may therefore refer to a state after the disciples had returned to Jerusalem (reading Luke, one would not know that they had left Jerusalem). In any case, John is emphatic that this is the disciples» third revelation (21:14); that Jesus manifested himself to them also frames this sign narrative (21:1, 14), underlining the significance of this appearance. When John counts, it may be primarily to tie events together (compare 2:1,19; 2:11 with 4:54); this event takes the previous resurrection appearances to a fuller level, though Thomas " s christological confession was climactic. What is John " s point? In the light of the rest of the Gospel, Jesus again provides food for his people (6:10–11; cf. Rev 7:16–17; 12:6); the emphasis here will be spiritual food (4:32–34; 6:35; 10:9; see 21:15–17). Given the following dialogue, the point of the narrative seems to be to define more specifically the character of Jesus» call in 20:21, especially for church leaders: loving Jesus requires Jesus» servants to love Jesus» followers. The Setting: Failing at Fishing (21:1–3) These verses provide examples of typical Johannine language in the nontheological vocabulary when one would least expect it from a later hand: for example, «after these things» (21:1; see 3:22; 5:1,14; 6:1; 7:1). Likewise, only this Gospel calls the lake «the sea of Tiberias» (6:1) or mentions Tiberias at all (6:23). In the very incomplete list of Jesus» followers here, 10853 the two named characters besides Peter (who is necessary to the following story) are distinctly Johannine: only in this Gospel does Thomas appear outside lists of names (11:16; 14:5; 20:24–28) and is he called Didymus, meaning «Twin» (11:16; 20:24) ; 10854 and only in this Gospel do Nathanael and Cana appear (1:45–49; 2:1,11; 4:46). 10855 The «sons of Zebedee» admittedly weigh against the thesis that this epilogue stems from the same author or source, since the rest of the Gospel reflects a studied, probably deliberate avoidance of mentioning them; but it is noteworthy that even here they are not individually named. The mention of Thomas (21:2) provides a connection with the previous narrative (20:24–29), 10856 demonstrating that he did persevere. |
| That the beloved disciple outruns Peter may be significant; 10523 it is one of several comparisons of the two figures in the Gospel (13:22–25; 21:7, 20). Argument by comparison was a standard rhetorical technique, 10524 and rhetorical principles suggested that narrative employ comparison of characters in ways useful to the point. A narrative extolling a person could include a statement of his physical prowess (e.g., Josephus outswimming others, Life 15) as part of the praise. 10525 The beloved disciple becomes the first, hence a paradigmatic, believer (20:8), for he believes before a resurrection appearance, merely on the less substantial basis of the empty tomb (cf. 20:29–31). 10526 Yet if the γρ of 20retains its customary force, this verse may be claiming that although the beloved disciplés faith is a paradigm, it is still signs-faith, faith based on seeing (20:8), not the ultimate level of faith (cf. 2:23; 6:30). Better would have been faith in advance that Jesus must rise, based on understanding the word in Scripture (20:9; cf. 2:22). Scripture remains the necessary means for interpreting the event or witness, just as Nathanael understood Jesus» identity both in light of Jesus» revelation and Philip " s earlier appeal to scriptural categories (cf. 1:45,48). 10527 The Scripture to which John refers is unclear here; none of the other explicit references to «Scripture» in this Gospel (7:42; 10:35; 13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36–37) speak of a resurrection, though some may be taken to imply it and could be recalled after his resurrection (2:22; 7:38). 10528 Granted, many Pharisaic exegetical defenses of the resurrection, ingenious though they are, were hardly obvious by themselves, 10529 but at least they usually provided their texts. Instead of first appealing primarily to texts supporting the general resurrection, early Christian apologists made significant use of what their contemporaries would accept as specifically Davidic material in Ps 2 (Acts 13:33), Ps 16 (Acts 2:25–28; 13:35), Ps 110 (Acts 2:34–35), and, by means of gezerah sheva (linking together texts on the basis of common key terms), 10530 probably material about the Davidic covenant, as in Isa 55(Acts 13:34). But they seem to have often drawn from a broader base of texts than these alone (e.g., Luke 24:44–47). |
Не удалось извлечь искомое из базы ((( |
|
|
| Again the text is laden with John " s irony: Satan would be defeated and dislodged from his place of authority (12:31) and Jesus glorified and exalted (12:32) through the cross (12:33). 7926 Satan " s activity (13:2,27) would undermine the devil himself. 2E. Jesus» Exaltation by the Cross (12:32–34) God could accomplish his purposes even through acts of human rebellion or folly. 7927 It was not through an act of brutal force but through submission to such force, through his death on the cross, that Jesus would «draw» all humanity (12:32). 7928 His language refers not to the salvation of all individuals (cf. 3:36), but representatives among all peoples (cf. Rev 5:9; 13:7); the context is the Pharisaic complaint that «the world» was now following him (12:19), and Gentiles were now ready to approach Jesus (12:20). Only the cross could make Jesus available to all by means of the Spirit (7:39; 15:26–27; 16:7; 17:20). This is truly Johannine paradox: «exaltation» and «glorification» in their positive sense hardly fit the shame of the cross, even the thought of which typically evoked horror. 7929 An ancient audience would readily grasp the wordplay involved; writers could speak of raising one up on a cross. 7930 A writer could also tell that Alexander promised that whoever had killed Darius would be rewarded by being «lifted up»; when the murderers came forward, he fulfilled his words literally by crucifying them. 7931 More importantly, the Hebrew Bible already played on the double meaning of exalted or hanged ( Gen 40:13, 19–22 ). On «lifting up,» see comments on 3:14; 8:28; on «drawing,» see comment on 6:43–44. Jesus used this «lifting up» to «signify» (σημανων, function as a sign; cf. 2:18–19) the kind of death which he was going to die (12:33; also 18:32); this language could apply to prophetic or apocalyptic symbolism (Rev 1:1; Acts 11:28), 7932 but in the Fourth Gospel (if one accepts our argument that John 21 is part of the Gospel) it applies especially to indicating the manner of impending death, Peter " s as well as Jesus» (21:19). |
| However, the formality of worship really goes back to Judaic practices starting 13 centuries before Christ with the exodus of Israel from Egypt. God, through Moses, gave explicit details about a very orderly and elaborate form of worship centered around the Tabernacle or Temple. Why? Because God knows how easy it is for mankind to argue about worship practice differences to the point of confusion (Acts 19:32), prejudice (John 4:20), and violence (Genesis 4:3-8). It is not hard to look through the history of mankind and find wars which were in part justified over disputed religious beliefs and practices. Though inter-faith conflict will likely continue (John 17:14), God wants to prevent intra-faith conflict within His Church (John 17:22-23). Therefore, it is necessary the Church be unified in Her worship practices. The Orthodox Church has kept the unity of the Faith in part by preserving a precise formula in Her worship. In doing so, the Orthodox Church has avoided a lot of dissension that has plagued other branches of Christianity. The Need For Attention and Remembrance “Observance” denotes the need to pay attention and to remember. Six times during the Divine Liturgy the priest or deacon is giving the exhortation “Let us be attentive.” God doesn’t want us to just show up at church and habitually say and do the rites while our minds are occupied with work, grocery lists, or a recent argument with our spouse. Such worship is not “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24). God desires we focus on what every word said and every gesture made alludes to within the Divine Liturgy (and other worship services). This takes discipline on our part, but it is through discipline we become righteous sons and daughters of our Father (Hebrews 12:4-11). Observing the Divine Liturgy disciplines us to “fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith” (Hebrews 12:2). It is only by being attentive we will gain understanding (Proverbs 4:1, 20; 5:1; 7:24; 22:17), find God’s direction for us (Exodus 23:20-21), and enjoy His blessing (Deuteronomy 7:12-13; 28:13). Attending to the teachings of the Church both through Scripture (2 Peter 1:19) and Tradition (Hebrews 2:1) keeps us from drifting into heresy. A good Biblical definition of observance, that we should remind ourselves of as we enter a church, is: “Mortal, look closely and listen attentively, and set your mind upon all that I [God] shall show you, for you were brought here in order that I might show it to you” (Ezekiel 40:4; see also Isaiah 28:23; 34:1). |
| 7. The wells of Canaanite thoughts , my soul, thou hast prized above the Rock with the cleft from which the river of wisdom like a chalice pours forth streams of theology. ( Gen.21:23 ; Ex.17:6 ) 8. Swine’s flesh and hotpots and Egyptian food thou , my soul, hast preferred to heavenly manna, as of old the senseless people in the wilderness. ( Ex.16:3 ; Num.11:4-7 ) 9. When Thy servant Moses struck the rock with his staff, he mystically typified Thy life-giving side, O Savior, from which we all draw the water of life. ( Num.20:11 ; 1Cor.10:4 ) 10. Explore and spy out the Land of Promise like Joshua the Son of Nun, my soul, and see what it is like, and settle in it by observing the laws. ( Sir.2 ) 11. Rise and make war against the passions of the flesh, as Joshua did against Amalek, and ever conquer the Gibeonites — illusive thoughts . ( Ex.17:8 ; Sir.8:21 ) 12. Pass through the flowing nature of time, like the Ark of old, and take possession of the Land of Promise, my soul: It is God’s command. ( Sir.3:17 ; Deut.1:8 ) 13. . As Thou savedst Peter when he cried, «Save me!» forestall and deliver me from the beast, O Savior; stretch out Thy hand and raise me from the depths of sin. ( Mt.14:25-31 ) 14. I know Thee as a calm haven, O Lord, Lord Christ; but forestall and deliver me from the innermost depths of sin and despair. 15. I am the coin with the royal image which was lost of old, O Savior. But light the lamp, Thy Forerunner, O Word; seek and find Thy image. ( Lk.15:8 ) Refrain: Holy mother Mary, pray for us. To St. Mary of Egypt: To extinguish the flame of the passions, O Mary, thou didst ever shed rivers of tears and fire thy soul with divine love. Grant also to me, thy servant, the grace of tears. Refrain: Holy mother Mary, pray for us. To St. Mary of Egypt: Thou didst acquire heavenly dispassion by thy sublime life on earth, O mother. Therefore pray that those who sing of thee may be delivered from the grip of passions. Refrain: Holy father Andrew, pray for us. To St. Andrew of Crete: Knowing thee to be the shepherd and prelate of Crete and intercessor for the world, O Andrew, I run to thee and cry: Deliver me, father, from the depths of sin. |
| Характерная черта этого послания, определяющая его исключительное положение среди книг Нового Завета, состоит в использовании апокрифической иудейской литературы. На этом основании некоторые исследователи приходят к выводу, что Иуда адресовал свое послание еврейской аудитории, но материалы, к которым обращается автор, свидетельствуют скорее о его культуре, чем о культуре его читателей. Цитаты из Вознесения Моисея и Книги Еноха в ст. 9 и 15 и, возможно, других апокрифов в ст. 6 и 8 поставили это послание под сомнение в тот период, когда церковь устанавливала священный канон (список книг, подлежащих включению в Новый Завет). Однако возвышенное учение о богодухновенности Писаний не мешает библейским авторам цитировать не только Библию , но и другие источники. Сам Павел делает это в 1Кор. 10:7 ; 2Тим. 3:8 и Тит. 1:12 (ср.: Деян. 17:28 ). Несмотря на то что перед включением в канон некоторые подвергали это послание сомнению, его цитация раннехристианскими авторами доказывает, что оно имело хождение по меньшей мере с начала II в. (См.: Апокрифы и апокалиптика/Новый библейский комментарий: В 3 ч. СПб., 2000. Ч. 2. С. 562–569.) Какое значение имеет Послание Иуды для нас? Как и мы, Иуда жил в эпоху, когда терпимости отдавали предпочтение перед верой и считали все религии одинаково законными средствами поиска высшего существа. Поэтому он призывает подвизаться за веру в единого Бога, однажды преподанную святым (3,4). Автор решает свою задачу четырьмя путями: 1 . Он напоминает об опасности, бесплодии и предрешенном конце лжеучителей (5–16). 2 . Он призывает народ Божий молиться и возрастать в христианской вере (20,21). 3 . Он заверяет верующих в неизменности Божьих замыслов (24). 4 . Он призывает не упускать возможности проповедовать Евангелие (22,23). Эти предостережения и призывы полезны современным христианам не меньше, чем первым читателям Иуды. См. также главу «Читая послания». Дополнительная литература Kelly J. N. D. The Epistles of Peter and Jude, BNTC (A. and С Black, 1969). |
| Although responding to Peter, Jesus employs the plural pronoun to include all his disciples as clean. 8169 That the disciples were already «washed» (13:10) 8170 may allude physically to the ritual purification preceding the eating of Passover. 8171 (This might appear clearer in the earliest form of John " s tradition than in the finished Gospel, where the events take place the day before Passover; but cf. 11:55.) Some Jews required handwashing before regular meals ( Mark 7:1–5 ), but the Passover meal required a higher level of ritual purity. 8172 Even after this cleansing, however, they would require ritual washing of hands and perhaps feet; 8173 one who had bathed at home but walked to a banquet would likewise need to wash the feet. 8174 On the symbolic level, however, they had been washed by his word which he had spoken (15:3); they no longer needed outward purifications not explicitly commanded in the Torah (2:6–11). Jewish people spoke of purifying the land from Gentile contamination (perhaps idolatry, 4 Macc 17:21); 8175 some expected the greatest purifying in the time of the Messiah (Pss. So1. 17:30). But Greek and Roman philosophers 8176 and Greek-speaking Jewish writers 8177 also spoke of purifying onés mind and soul from impure thoughts. After declaring that all were clean, Jesus qualifies his statement by warning of an exception (13:10); ancients sometimes made general statements that they (or others) then qualified. 8178 Perhaps for emphasis, John repeats Jesus» statement of 13in slightly different words in 13:11, as he does various statements elsewhere (1:48, 50; 9:21, 23); 8179 no one would trifle over divergences in such inexact quotes during repetition (e.g., Gen 39:17–19 ; 1Sam 15:3,18 ). Variation was standard rhetorical practice. 8180 «Nowhere throughout ancient literature. .. did the authors feel the need to reproduce a text with verbal exactness.» 8181 Some modern interpreters of more literalist bent have objected to the writer " s apparent practice of paraphrase reflected in its pervasive Johannine idiom; if they are persuaded by nothing else, this passage should be sufficient testimony that modern literalism would never have crossed the author " s mind. 3. The Interpretation of the Washing (13:12–20) |
|
|
