| Subsequently Romanides became dissatisfied with the standpoint of Eucharistic ecclesiology: see Andrew J. Sopko, Prophet of Roman Orthodoxy: The Theology of John Romanides (Dewdney, BC, Canada: Synaxis Press, 1998), 150-53. Here, for the first time in a fully developed form, I encountered the perspective of “Eucharistic ecclesiology” which has since been popularized by the writings of Father Nicolas Afanassieff See N. Afanassieff, “The Church Which Presides in Love,” in John Meyendorff and others, The Primacy of Peter (London: Faith Press, 1962), 57-110 (new edition [Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 19921, 91-143). Cf. Aidan Nichols, Theology in the Russian Diaspora: Church, Fathers, Eucharist in Nikolai Afanas’ev (1893-1966) (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1989). and Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamum. See John D. Zizioulas, Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985). Cf. Paul McPartlan, The Eucharist Makes the Church: Henri du Lubac and John Zizioulas in Dialogue (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993). On a first reading Father John’s interpretation of the letters of St Ignatius at once convinced me, and when I consulted the actual letters themselves my convictions were fully confirmed. The primary icon of the Church for St Ignatius, so I found, was precisely this: a table; on the table, a plate with bread and wine; around the table, the bishop, the presbyters and the deacons, along with all the Holy People of God, united together in the celebration of the Eucharist. As St Ignatius insisted, “Take care to participate in one Eucharist: for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup for union in His blood, and one altar, just as there is one bishop.” To the Philadelphians 4. The repetition of the word “one” is deliberate and striking: “one Eucharist … one flesh … one cup … one altar … one bishop.” Such is St Ignatius’ understanding of the Church and its unity: the Church is local, an assembly of all the faithful in the same place (epi to avto); the Church is Eucharistic, a gathering around the same altar, to share in a single loaf and a single cup; and the Church is hierarchical — it is not simply any kind of Eucharistic meeting, but it is that Eucharistic meeting which is convened under the presidency of the one local bishop. |
| John " s account of the plot (11:47–53) fits what we know of the period. Plotting seems to have characterized Jewish as well as Roman aristocratic politics in the first century; thus John of Gischalás allies «took counsel» with him how to undo Josephus (Josephus Life 236). 7682 Jerusalem " s leaders were desperate to prevent actions which would provoke the Romans (Josephus War 2.237); Josephus reports that later aristocratic priests and Pharisees desired peace and only feigned to go along with the populace to save their lives (Josephus Life 21–22). Josephus " s report of Antipas " s reason for mistrusting and executing John the Baptist fits the reasoning of these leaders. 7683 Further, one would hardly expect Jesus» execution without the cooperation of a council of Jerusalem aristocrats (see comment on the Sanhedrin at the introduction to the Passion Narrative). Local municipal aristocracies normally brought persons to trial before the Romans; 7684 indeed, the Roman legal system as a whole depended heavily on delatores, accusers. 7685 Many are thus inclined to accept a substantial amount of prior tradition in this report. 7686 Though John may add the Pharisees to preserve the unity of opposition in his Gospel, 7687 the spokesman for the opposition is Caiaphas the high priest (11:49), and the high priesthood is the part of the opposition first named (11:47). The Synoptics and Acts suggest that the most brutal opposition came especially from the Sadducean aristocracy. 7688 Such considerations argue for early tradition, not necessarily historicity. A leak from the Jerusalem aristocracy is not at all implausible and happened on other occasions where the object of discussion had allies in the aristocracy (cf., e.g., Josephus Life 204). 7689 If Joseph of Arimathea became an ally of the disciples at some point, his sharing of information with them is more probable than not. Although evidence suggests that the early Christians carefully guarded their traditions, one cannot be certain on purely historical grounds whether the tradition stems from sources like Joseph or from hearsay that a persecuted sect found believable without eyewitness verification. 2B. Caiaphas, High Priest «That Year» (11:49) |
| Jesus» appeal to the public nature of his teaching (cf. 7:14, 37; 8:20) also implicitly appeals to their failure to arrest him in public (cf. 7:26, 30, 32, 44–46; 8:20, 59; Luke 22:53) 9747 –hence contrasting their secretive behavior with his own public behavior. In general, appeals to public knowledge strengthened onés case rhetorically (e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.107). 9748 Rather than merely appealing to two or three witnesses, Josephus points to the support of the Galilean masses as witnesses on his behalf (Life 257), noting that they can testily how he has lived (Life 258). Some Diaspora readers with a Hellenistic education might recall Socrates» reported claim before his judges never to have taught anything in private that he had not also spoken openly to the world. 9749 An appeal to the public character of onés teaching, and lack of opposition at that point, would count as a strong argument against the subversiveness of onés speech–as well as an indictment of those now requiring a hasty, secret hearing (cf. John 18:13 ; Luke 22:53). That Jesus spoke before the «world» in the synagogues and temple (18:20) continues John " s identification of the Jewish authorities with the world. 9750 The Fourth Gospel only once records Jesus» teaching in synagogues (6:59), but John " s audience may presuppose them from more widely circulated gospel traditions (cf. Mark 1:39 ). The one example in John, however, certainly testifies that Jesus did not withhold potentially offensive information from prospective disciples (6:52, 66), just as his teaching in the temple did not (e.g., 8:59). The other mentions of synagogues in this Gospel all portray them as the ground of conflict between the synagogue authorities and Jesus» Jewish followers (9:22; 12:42; 16:2). Ironically, while Jesus ultimately offered some of his offensive teachings publicly, some who secretly suspected he was from God remained unwilling to say so «openly» for «fear of the Jews» (7:13; cf. 12:42). 5B. Abuse of the Prisoner (18:22–24) |
| 960 Smith, «Gospels,» 12,19. If «scripture» is defined as what a community receives as a message inspired by a deity rather than as specific addenda to a canon, earlier Christians seem to have embraced much apostolic proclamation in this manner (e.g., 1 Thess 2:13; Acts 14:3). 961 Smith, «Gospels,» 15–18. Because the Essenes saw themselves as «recipients of a new covenant,» he suggests they may even have been close to writing their own new testament (17; perhaps in the sense of eventually delimiting their body of authoritative texts). 963 Berg, «Pneumatology,» 72–73, summarizes various distinctions that different scholars have drawn (Swete, Barrett, Braun, Betz). 964 Nagy, «Prologue,» xxx-xxxi (citing Arabic performances in modern Egypt). Studies in India also show poets «possessed» by the hero whose stories they recount (xxxi-xxxii). 965 As also in Hebrew tradition (e.g., Judg 5vs. 4:21); although this should not be overplayed (John is not poetry despite the rhythm and repetition of many of the discourses), a reteller " s homiletical freedom may help explain why he takes more liberty than the Synoptists (cf., e.g., Bruce, John, 6). 966 Kragerund, Lieblingsjünger; he identifies the two especially in ch. 7,113–29. For his view of Peter, cf. ch. 3, 53–66. 968 See Berg, «Pneumatology,» 67,70, who argues that John " s pneumatology is «distinctive» (especially when he personalizes the Spirit in the Paraclete sayings), but that he «does not deviate radically» from early Christian pneumatology. 970 Sasse, «Paraldet»; Boring cites as advocates of such a position also Weinel, Windisch, and Streeter. 971 Hill, Prophecy, 151; Boring, Sayings, 49; Johnston, Paraclete, 131; Bürge, Community, 211. Cf. Philostratus Hrk. 45.7, where prediction of a future poet to announce Achilles» works is fulfilled in Homer. 975 Keener, Matthew, 26–27, 57; see further Hill, «Prophets»; idem, Prophecy; Bauckham, «Apocalypse»; Dunn, «Jesus Tradition»; Aune, Prophecy. 977 Aune, «Matrix»; cf. idem, Prophecy, 197; Hill, Prophecy, 88.1 am less convinced, however, that 11and other texts distinguish prophets from the saints (Aune, Prophecy, 197,206); the community itself is prophetic (19:10), and the parallelism in that case could be either synthetic or synonymous. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Deaconess MARIA GWYN MCDOWELL An ordained female member of the priestly order, at the level of diaconate. The office reached its zenith in the early Byzantine period, though it has never been altogether abandoned. Phoebe, commemorated as “equal to the apostles,” is referred to by Paul as a deacon (diakonos, Rom. 16.1 ) and is the prototype of the later office of the deaconess. The church also commemorates as deacons Tabitha (or Dorcas, Acts 9.36), Lydia (Acts 16.14), Mary, Persis, Tryphosa and Tryphena, Priscilla and Junia ( Rom. 16.3–15 ), the daughters of Philip (Acts 21.9), Euodia and Syntyche ( Phil. 4.2–3 ), all of whom were fellow-workers with Paul and laborers in the gospel; 1 Timothy 3.8–11 presents the requirements for diaconal service. An array of early theologians such as Clement of Alexandria (Stromateis 3, 6, 53.3–4), Ori- gen (Commentary on Romans 10.17), John Chrysostom (Homily 11 on 1 Timothy), Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, all interpret 1 Timothy 3.11 as referring to female deacons. The 4th-7th centuries are rich in archeological, epi- graphical, and literary references in which diakonos with a feminine article and diakonissa are used interchangeably. There is no evidence of significantly different functions between male and female deacons in the earliest church, a time when the diaconate itself was rapidly evolving. By the 3rd century the liturgical function of ordained women mirrored the culturally normative public/private segregation of roles and functions. Early deaconesses assisted in the baptism and anointing of adult (naked) women, and engaged in catechetical, pastoral, social, and evangelistic work among women. Like the male deacon, they were liaison officers for the bishop, specifically with a ministry to the women among whom it would have been inappropriate for a man to venture. The rise of infant baptism reduced their baptismal role but they continued to supervise the liturgical roles of women, to lead them in liturgical prayer, to chant in the church, participate in liturgical processions, and like the other priestly orders, the deaconesses all received the Eucharist at the altar with their fellow clergy. The deaconess did not lead worship in the same manner as male deacons reciting the Ektenies. However, in absence of male clergy, monastic deaconesses read the gospel and scriptures among women, and evidently poured water and wine into the chalice (Madigan and Osiek 2005: 6–7). |
| And similarly, because of his [Tornikios’s] service and great deeds, any place or village [the Georgians] asked for, the God-serving emperors [granted to them], and all was confirmed by a chrysobull and [these places] were not only many in number but also very special, as befits this country. 51 In reality, the foundation of Iviron was not as simple as it was described in the Life of St Euthymios; rather it became the cause of many exchanges between the emperor Basil II and John Tornikios. Instead of the monastery of the Iberians in Constantinople and the monastery of St Phokas in Trebizond, over which Tornikios owned rights, he demanded property nearer to Athos. Therefore, in exchange for these two monasteries Tornikios received from the emperor an imperial monastery situated outside Mount Athos together with its numerous dependencies, a considerable fortune of estates in Macedonia, and the Athonite monastery of Klementos, dedicated to St John the Baptist, a small establishment 11 kilometres north-west of the Great Lavra. 52 This monastery of St John the Baptist was beautifully situated between the woods and the sea. The only disadvantage was that the area was not protected from the wind. This was the place to which the Georgians moved in the 980s when abandoning their kellia near the Great Lavra. According to the chrysobull of 979–80, Tornikios also received the monasteries of Leontia in Thessaloniki and Kolobou in Ierissos. The foundation of Iviron took place with the inclusion of all these monastic lands. 53 Monastic rules, regulations, and statutes written by Euthymios comprised the first Georgian typikon. Although the document is lost, long excerpts from it are quoted in the Life of Euthymios by George the Athonite. Economically, the Georgians contributed very generously to the Holy Mountain, as the documents verify, and not only to Iviron but also to the Great Lavra, a fact that does not necessarily demonstrate their inexhaustible wealth or extreme generosity as such but makes clear the role assigned to Iviron. In other words, the lavish supply of material goods by the Georgians to the Holy Mountain that was under the direct patronage of the emperor and the patriarch of Constantinople and was counted among the favourite places of the leaders of the empire served their long-term strategy. Georgian Royal and Noble Families at the Imperial Court |
| Some later Jewish texts expressed Isaiah " s vision in the language of respectful circumlocution, noting that Isaiah witnessed God " s «glory,» as here. 7954 Isaiah was one of the chief prophets after Moses, 7955 and in the context of the Fourth Gospel, Isaiah becomes a link between Moses and the apostles, who also witnessed Jesus» glory (1:14–18, alluding to Exod 33–34), as did Abraham (8:56). 7956 By contrast, those without spiritual eyes to see could not recognize the glory among them (3:3; 6:30; 9:39–41). The glory revealed to both Moses and Isaiah was rejected by many of their contemporaries; early Christians applied this pattern to many of Jesus» «own» (1:11) rejecting him (cf. Matt 23:31; Luke 11:50; Acts 7:39, 52; 28:25–27; 2Cor 3:13–15; 1 Thess 2:15), though some had seen his glory (1:14–18). 7957 Jewish tradition naturally expanded on Isaiah " s revelations, 7958 and the mystic stream of tradition undoubtedly interpreted Isaiah " s vision as including «a visionary ascent to heaven.» 7959 Some early Hellenistic Jewish texts adapted Hellenistic motifs concerning visionary ascents; thus, for example, a throne-vision may have in some sense deified Moses or at least made him God " s second in command over creation. 7960 Yet Jesus is greater than Moses; as the one who descended from heaven to begin with, he is the supreme revealer (3:11–13). In any case, most of John " s audience would know the biblical accounts to which John has alluded, whereas a smaller part of his audience might know these other traditions. (It is difficult to say how early, popular, or geographically widespread such traditions were, but safe to say that the biblical stories themselves would be most accessible to the broadest range of people.) As in other biblical theophanies, not the visionary but the one beheld is the object of worship. In Isaiah the glory belongs to God; here it belongs to Jesus (12in context). 7961 As Isa 52is contextually implied in the citation of 53:1, Isa 6 relates to Christ " s «glory.» 7962 |
| Much of the remainder of the chapter addresses eating Jesus» flesh (6:52–65). When Jesus speaks of eating his flesh (6:51–53), he invites disgust from his contemporaries. 6196 The ancient Mediterranean world shared nearly universally a disgust for cannibalism. 6197 (It did, however, provoke pity rather than condemnation under extreme famine conditions.) 6198 Early followers of Dionysus were thought to have practiced omophagy (devouring raw flesh), 6199 and Greeks and Romans thought that some barbarians practiced cannibalism. 6200 Some claimed that their patron deities, such as Isis and Osiris, put an end to an earlier practice of cannibalism. 6201 This disgust probably rose to one of its greatest heights in Judaism. 6202 It is known that second-century Christians faced accusations of cannibalism, based on a misinterpretation of the Lord " s Supper; 6203 possibly such accusations were already circulating when John was written. 6204 Like other foils in the Gospel (e.g., 3:4; 4:15; 11:12), the «Jews» here understand Jesus more literally than they should, ignorant of his deeper meaning. 6205 (For other cases of improperly literal understanding of Jesus» words about food, see, e.g., 4:32, 34; 6:27; outside John, cf. Mark 8:15–16 .) Yet others had employed this language symbolically for violent suffering. 6206 Thus Enoch depicts Israel " s suffering before the nations as the flesh of sheep being devoured by wild animals ( 1 En. 90:2–4). 6207 In the context of Passover (6:4), 6208 however, the image most naturally evoked is that of the paschal lamb. Thus, for example, rabbinic texts concerning the Passover speak of eating flesh (the lamb) and drinking the blood of grapes (cups at Passover), here perhaps applicable to Jesus as the true vine (15:1). Although the manna image is dominant, the paschal lamb is a sufficiently Johannine motif (1:19; 19:36) to be possible in the background, though «drinking blood» is a decisive reinterpretation of the Passover, probably by way of the early Christian Lord " s Supper (cf. Mark 14:23–24 ). Here Jesus probably refers not to a sacrament in the modern sense, but to embracing his death; 6209 thus the Gospel spoke earlier of zeal for God " s house «consuming» him–leading to his death (cf. 2:17). 6210 One thinks also of the language of eating and drinking divine Wisdom (see comment above on 6:35). 6211 4A. Sacramentalism? |
| Archive JOHN X Patriarch of Antioch and All the East Homily on the Tenth Anniversary of Patriarch Kirill’s Enthronement 1 February 2019 year 18:53 JOHN X Patriarch of Antioch and All the East Homily on the Tenth Anniversary of Patriarch Kirill’s Enthronement Moscow, February 1, 2019. Your Holiness, Your Beatitudes, Eminences, Reverend Monastics, Beloved Brothers and Sisters in the Lord, With deep heartfelt emotion, I express my joy to be with Your Holiness on this blessed day, and to celebrate together this Holy Eucharist, with the participation of our brother Patriarch Irenaeus of the Church of Serbia, and our brothers, the representatives of the Orthodox Churches and all present bishops and faithful in this holy church, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow. We lift up our prayers to the Lord, that He may cause you to increase in grace, to strengthen you and grant you good health, well-being, and long life, so that you may continue your care for the Church of Russia, with love and wisdom for many years. We thank God, Who chose you ten years ago to lead this Patriarchate, this Holy See, beautified by the greatness that crowned your predecessors, including Patriarch Tikhon, whom we celebrated the centennial of his election in December 2017. We always remember the Russian Church’s labor and Her faithful’s sufferings during the last century, in order to preserve the Right Faith in the time of atheism and oppression. Here, I recall, beloved brother, the labor of your priestly family, which cleaved to the Church in the darkest conditions of history, and the sufferings your grandfather and father endured as priests, the sufferings which you, as an Orthodox family, shared in Your Confessing Church. We cannot but recollect your personal spiritual experience in those difficult times, the times of the communist rule, which had its own means and methods of persecuting the Church and Her faithful, at times when atheism was creative in pressuring the believers and inciting propaganda against the clergy. Thus, we admire your steadfastness on the rock of faith and your long struggle for the preservation of Orthodoxy in Russia |
| With these allusions in mind, we may suggest that Jesus here supersedes two biblical heroes. First, he is in fact «greater than» their «father Jacob,» precisely in contrast to the woman " s expectation (4:12; cf. 8:53). 5226 He, as Jacob " s ladder (1:50–51), grants the salvation that mere descent from Jacob could not ensure. As the foundation stone of the new temple and the well in the wilderness, Jesus provides living water for a sinful Samaritan woman, who becomes a representative disciple. 2. Historical Questions The historical question may be interesting, but inadequate sources remain to test it directly. Brown proposes a hypothetical redaction history behind this section of the Gospel, in which the original Johannine disciples with a low Christology (evident in John 1 ) encounter those with a higher Christology (evident in John 2–3 ), yielding a reconciled Johannine community of disciples and «Samaritans» in ch. 4. 5227 Unfortunately, despite Browns brilliant scholarship in most matters, such a reconstruction is wholly speculative and equally without merit; on what grounds should we think that the layers of redaction happened to be preserved in sequence, as if the Gospel stories grew organically with the community? 5228 Nevertheless, the story does reveal details about Samaritan life and geography that would be neither widely known nor of concern to a Diaspora audience, and probably of little concern to a Galilean one. This may suggest a historical core. 5229 Further, the barriers Jesus crosses here–gender, ethnicity (including, in Luke, among Samaritans), and morality (eating with «sinners»)–all are consistent with the portrait of Jesus revealed in the Synoptics. Like all stories in the Fourth Gospel, however, the story reads in Johannine idiom and is woven into the whole fabric of the Gospe1. 3. The Setting (4:1–6) This paragraph opens by returning to the matter which precipitated John the Baptist " s discourse: Jesus» disciples were baptizing, and doing so more successfully than John " s (3:26, 30). 4:1–3 is no less connected with the section that precedes it than with the section which follows; we include it here because of the geographic transition between 4and 4:4. Because this paragraph also provides the geographical transition into the account of the Samaritan woman, it invites us to look beyond his disciples» physical baptism to the spiritual, «living water» that Jesus describes to the woman. 3A. The Baptism of Jesus» Disciples (4:1–2) |
|
|
