| 23 «Ибо простираются от чина в чин, пока не достигнут к единству паче всех великого и могущественного – Главы и основания всей твари» (Там же). 24 См. Слово 17. Отношения между Христом и ангелами рассматривались в Heb. 1–2 и в «Пастыре» Ермы (Sim. 8.3.3, 9.1.3, cf. 9.12.7–8). См. об этом: Moxnes Η. God and his Angel in the «Shepherd» of Hermas//Studia Theologica – Nordic Journal of Theology. 1974. Vol. 28. Iss. 1. P. 49–56. 30 «Ибо святые силы существуют теперь в этих побуждениях; и таков их образ бытия; этой тайной восхищены они на всякое мгновение благодаря откровениям, которые получают они различным образом через устремленность свою к божественному Естеству» (См. Исаак Сирин , прп. О Божественных тайнах и о духовной жизни. VIII 6). 31 «...И святые [ангелы] не дошли в этом до совершенства» (Слово 21//Аввы Исаака Сириянина Слова подвижнические. С. 81). 33 Ангельским сущностям «не препятствуют тела или действия по причине быстроты и просветленности умов их», «не нуждаются они во времени и месте» для своих действий (О Божественных тайнах и о духовной жизни. XX 8). Более того, ангельские сущности «быстры в движениях, незамедлительны в действии» ( Исаак Сирин , прп. О Божественных тайнах и о духовной жизни. X 24). 36 «Точное видение ангелов означает быть движимым духовными наитиями, свойственными им. Однако неоткуда видеть природу духовных сил, кроме как изнутри нас самих. Но когда кто-то удостаивается их видения в их естестве, в их измерении как духовного творения, его сокровенное начинает подвигаться благодатью откровением духовных наитий. Когда душа очистилась и стала достойной видения ее братьев-служителей, она не воспринимает их вида этими (материальными) глазами» (Нот. 20//Mar Isaacus Niniυita. De perfectione religiosa. P. 161–162. 38 Созерцание ангелов относится к «естественному состоянию души» в Слове 4 (Аввы Исаака Сириянина Слова подвижнические. С. 19). О видении ангелоподобных душ и ангельских существ см. Слово 17//Там же. С. 69–70. 39 Прп. Исаак называет такие заботы и мысли «естественными движениями разумной души»; они есть у тех, кто еще не достиг любви и достаточного знания ( Исаак Сирин , прп. О Божественных тайнах и о духовной жизни. XX 2). |
| 3B. Diverse but Complementary Christologies There is, in fact, little evidence for any strands of early Christianity that did not recognize Jesus as deity; the usual view of Christological development rests on speculation concerning the way views should have developed, rather than on the evidence of early Christian texts themselves. Although Wisdom Christology by itself could portray Jesus» divinity in a merely Arian sense (to borrow the later description), various NT writers modified such Christology by portraying Jesus as the divine Lord, often applying to him OT and Jewish language and imagery for YHWH (cf., e.g., 8:58; Mark 1:3 ; Acts 2:21, 38; Rom 9:5; 10:9–13 ; 1Cor 8:6 ; Phil 2:6,9–11 ; Rev 1:17; 2:8; 22:12–13). Neither John nor other first-century Christians felt constrained to distinguish Wisdom and divine Christologies; they adapted both by adding them together, coming to understand Israel " s one God as a composite unity. Interestingly, however, they did avoid the later Jewish-Christian compromise of an angel Christology. 2650 Neither Gal 4:14 2651 nor 1 Thess 4:16 2652 actually teaches it, though Michael is the most likely guess, if any, 2653 for the «archangel» of the latter text, 2654 being the most common archangel in early Jewish texts ( Dan 10:13,21; 12:1 ). 2655 Further, Col 1:16; 2:8–11,18; 2656 and Heb 2:5–16 2657 may effectively polemicize against the temptation of an angel Christology. That a first-century Palestinian Jewish movement would within its earliest decades already hold a consensus that their founder rose from the dead and was divine Wisdom is remarkable, considering that we have no comparable evidence for the deification of other first-century Jewish messianic figures. It seems that something distinctive within the movement, rather than merely following a common first-century Jewish social pattern, produced this consensus. It is difficult to comprehend how, without the authority of Jesus» teaching, so many monotheistic Jews in the early church would have simultaneously come to emphasize Jesus» divine character, and, while debating circumcision, food laws, Jerusalem " s authority, and other points, fail to have deeply divided over this aspect of Christology. That Jesus» disciples waited so long to grasp his messianic identity and even then misunderstood it, according to the Markan scheme, does not make it likely that they understood his deity before the resurrection. But if Jesus» teachings after the resurrection (cf. Acts 1:3) made many points clearer, among these may have been the basis for what came to be the common postresurrection view of the early church. In the light of the resurrection (cf. John 20:28 ), the disciples could reinterpret Jesus» earlier sayings (cf. John 2:16–22 ); sayings that they had supposed were enigmatic could retroactively be taken more literally (e.g., Mark 9:10 ; cf. Ezek 20:49 ). 2658 |
| Dodd regards the vision of God as Greek, contending that the motif has little importance in the OT and Judaism. 2147 He is partly right: Johns language in this case reflects Greek motifs, albeit especially by way of hellenized Judaism. But on another level, the Greek motif is insufficient by itself to explain Johns usage, expecially given his biblical allusions (e.g., 12:40). John never means abstract contemplation of a metaphysical reality; 2148 if anything, the frequency with which he employs vision on the literal level suggests encounter with the incarnate Jesus of history. 2149 Although John does not draw the vision analogy explicitly, his comparison of Jesus with Moses» serpent in John 3may identify faith in the historical Jesus with God " s promise: «Whoever looks will live» ( Num 21:8–9 ). Further, the motif of spiritual sight and blindness in the Jesus tradition (e.g., Mark 4:12; 8:18 ; Matt 13:13–16; 15:14; 23:16; cf. Acts 28:27; Eph 4:18 ) was rooted in the OT images. 2150 The motifs of eschatological vision, 2151 spiritual blindness and sight representing straying from or following God " s way, 2152 and spiritual sight representing spiritual insight into God " s character and mysteries, 2153 persisted in «intertestamental» Palestinian Judaism. Most strands of Judaism continued to apply this language, 2154 often even to revelations of God himself. The rabbis had to explain biblical passages referring to Israel seeing God; 2155 they commented on the rare persons who in some sense «beheld» his presence in the present time 2156 but especially focused on the eschatological vision of God. 2157 According to some later rabbis, obedience to the Law produced nearness to, and in some sense vision of, God; 2158 Merkabah literature stressed the mystical vision of God. 2159 John may use the imagery of heavenly ascents (cf. comment on 3:3, 13; cf. Rev 1:10), but usually he uses the term more figuratively: spiritual perception of the true character of Jesus and the realm «above,» insight which enabled an intimate relationship with (not merely a mystical experience of) God. Given John " s predominantly realized eschatology, it is also possible that he implies a realization of the eschatological vision of God in Jesus (cf. 3:3, 36; 8:51, 56; 12:41; Heb 11:13; 12:14; 1 John 3:2 ; Rev 1:7). 2160 4. Vision of God in the Fourth Gospel |
| This understanding of “Christian mysticism” has, generally, been lost in the post-Orthodox West where the subject commonly traced to Plotinus or Plato (from whom the Fathers adopted it); and the realm of “mysticism,” as the Greeks taught, is ordinarily “reserved for the few, an exception to the rule, a privilege vouchsafed to a few souls who enjoy the direct experience of the truth, others, meanwhile, having to remain content with a more or less blind submission to dogmas imposed from without, as to a coercive authority” (Lossky, The Mystical Theology..., p. 8). A valuable work on the modern view of mysticism, see Bernard McGinn. The Foundations of Mysticism (vol. 1): A History of Western Christian Mysticism. New York, 1991. 10 “This To-day is the very essence of Christianity,” writes the late Cardinal Daniélou. He illustrates his meaning with the Crucified Lord speaking to the repentant thief, " Today you will be with me in Paradise.’ The operative word is not Paradise... It is Hodie... We have already remarked that for the Bible, Paradise does not signify a return of the Golden Age, as the pagan religions expected. Neither for Christianity, any more than for the Old Testament, is Paradise a future of an indeterminate nature. Paradise is upon us. It is a presence” (From Shadows to Reality: Studies in the Biblical Typology of the Fathers, trans. by D. Hibberd. London, 1960, p. 16). 12 See my “The Greek Fathers: Polis and Paideia,” SVTh XXIII. 1–2 (1979), 3–21; 67–86. Furthermore, it is the realization of the future in the present – that is, typology: whether of ОТ persons or events anticipating the NT; or the Age to Come as adumbrated by the Church – which explains the “mystical” character of the book of Hebrews rather than the influence of Philo’s allegorism. It is not important who wrote Hebrews; it is important that the author not be viewed as " unphilonien converti au christianisme’ (See C. Spicq. L " Épetre aux Hébrews. Paris, 1952); and it is important that Philo, contrary to H. Chadwick, not be heralded as “the originator of Christian philosophy” (“Philo and the Beginnings of Christian Thought,” The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, ed. by A.H. Armstrong. Cambridge [Eng.], 1970, p. 161). The Liturgy is, indeed, a “shadow” (Heb.10:1), as Casel observed (Ibid., p. 54). |
| The chapter also reflects standard Jewish motifs, such as the unity of God " s people, their love for God, God " s glory, obedience to God " s message, the election and setting apart of God " s people, and the importance of obeying God " s agent (Moses in Jewish tradition). One writer links such motifs specifically to the Cairo Geniza manuscript of the Palestinian Targum to Exod 19–20, 9387 another points to parallels with a hymn from Qumran; 9388 in short, most of the motifs reflect common Judaism, yet reinterpreted in a christocentric manner and reapplied to the christologically defined community. Further, to whatever degree John has adapted the discourse and prayer to encourage his audience in their particular situation, 9389 it is clear that a prayer of Jesus before his passion already stands in the passion tradition ( Mark 14:36 ). 9390 But whereas, in Mark, Jesus prays for the Father to spare him from the passion if possible ( Mark 14:36 ), here he recognizes and accedes to the Father " s purpose, requesting the hour of glorification (17:1). 9391 John does not deny Jesus» reluctance to face the cross (12:27) but places heavier emphasis on Jesus» obedience. 9392 Traditionally some have viewed Jesus» intercession in this passage in terms of the OT role of high priest 9393 (Jesus» role in some early Christian traditions; Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14–15; 5:10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1; 9:11); the chapter title «Jesus» High-Priestly Prayer» has circulated since the theologian David Chyträus (1531–1600). 9394 But Jewish tradition also emphasized the intercessory role of prophets; 9395 more significantly, the probably testamentary character of the final discourse might point to patriarchal blessings, 9396 particularly the prayer and blessing of Moses ( Deut 32–33 ), 9397 as background. But because the content of these blessings does not parallel John 17 very closely, 9398 » one may need to look to the experience of John " s audience for more of the content. A variety of backgrounds are possible, but most important within the context of the Fourth Gospel is that Jesus becomes, before his exaltation, the first Paraclete, or intercessor ( Rom 8:26; 1 John 2:1 ; see extended comment on 14:16). 9399 This suggests that John 17 models part of the ministry of the Paraclete who would come after Jesus» departure (14:16) and of those who share his ministry (15:26–27). 9400 The Fourth Gospel presents the Paraclete especially as an advocate or prosecutor in the disciples» conflict with the world, but Jesus has also been promising them more direct access to the Father in prayer once he goes to the Father (14:13–14; 15:7, 16; 16:26–27). |
| As in subsequent Jewish thought, knowledge of God was always dependent on his prior self-revelation; God often acted in history so that people «might know that I am YHWH» (the phrase appears fifty-four times in Ezekiel alone). 2083 Exodus, like John, stresses the role of signs in revealing God " s glory (Exod 16:7). Pharaoh did not know YHWH (Exod 5:2), but Egypt would come to know God s supremacy (7:5,17; 8:10, 22; 9:14, 29; 10:2; 14:4,18) and Israel (6:3–8; cf. 16:12) would come to know YHWH as their own God in his redemptive acts. 2084 As in John, God " s identity or character was a primary object of knowing in Isaiah (43:10–11), 2085 and only God " s people were in genuine covenant relationship with him. 2086 Whereas the Greek approach to knowledge was often metaphysical, the OT emphasis was a relationship which «continually arises from personal encounter.» 2087 3. Johannine Knowledge of God Although many theologically loaded terms recur frequently in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., believe, life, save) the most common by far are the two verbs meaning «know,» γινσκω and οδα. 2088 The theme of intimacy with Jesus and the Father is developed with other language as well, such as «fellowship» (e.g., 1 John 1:3–7), terms for indwelling, other terms of relationship («with,» «sent from»), and especially Spirit-language; but we focus in this section on the terms translated «know.» 3A. Distribution of Terms Although some have attributed slightly different nuances to Johns two terms for «know,» 2089 a survey of his usage will show that their semantic ranges overlap and that he uses them basically interchangeably. (That the «new covenant» passage of Jer 31 cf. Heb 8:11] employs γινσκω and οδα interchangeably might possibly have influenced John s usage, but probably he would have used both terms for variety anyway.) Both terms signify «recognition» 2090 and " realization»; 2091 both are directly related to witness; 2092 and both can be used confessionally. 2093 The usage «investigate or find out» occurs only once, hence cannot be figured into the count (7:51, γινσκω). The following breakdown further confirms that John uses the two terms interchangeably, as well as employing them as part of his polemic against his community " s opponents. |
| 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 Navigation Synaxis of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches-Message Natalya Mihailova 10 March 2014 Synaxis of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches (Phanar, March 6-9, 2014) Message In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Through the grace of God, the Primates of the Most Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, to the Orthodox faithful throughout the world, all of our Christian brothers and sisters as well as every person of goodwill: we extend God’s blessing and our greeting of love and peace. “We always give thanks to God for all of you and mention you in our prayers, remembering before our God and Father your work of faith, labor of love, and steadfastness of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thess. 1.2-3) 1. Having convened by the grace of our compassionate God, at the invitation of the Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, at the Phanar, from March 6-9, 2014; having deliberated in fraternal love on matters concerning our Holy Church today; and concelebrating in the Patriarchal Church of St. George on the glorious occasion of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, we address you with these words of love, peace and consolation. Inasmuch as our One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Orthodox Church dwells in the world, it also experiences the challenges of every age. Faithful to Holy Tradition, the Church of Christ is in constant dialogue with every period of time, suffering with human beings and sharing their anguish. For “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and to the ages” (Heb. 13.8). The trials and challenges of history are especially acute in our days, and Orthodox Christians cannot remain uninvolved or indifferent to them. This is why we have assembled “together in one place” (Acts 2.1) in order to reflect on the problems and temptations facing humanity today. “There is fighting without and fear within.” (2 Cor. 7.5) These Apostolic words are also valid for the Church today. |
| 3613 1B. The Word Tabernacled among Us (1:14) Just as God «tabernacled» with his people in the wilderness, God " s Word tabernacled among the witnesses of the new exodus accomplished in Jesus (see the introductory comment on the new exodus under 6:32–51). 3614 Some suggest that the LXX translators may have favored this particular Greek term for «tabernacle» because its consonants correspond to the Hebrew consonants for the Shekinah, God " s presence. 3615 That the image of the Word tabernacling among his people would have found a home among John " s readers is suggested by the declaration of Sirach, which would have been well-known: The one who created wisdom caused her tabernacle (σκηνν) to rest; thus she was to dwell (κατασκνωσον) in Jacob. 3616 Not long after this passage Sirach identifies Wisdom with Torah. The allusion would make sense to John s audience, who would recognize the contrast; 3617 this Gospels later imagery from the feast of σκηνοπηγα, Tabernacles (7:2), would reinforce the wilderness background of the image, hence God " s glory dwelling among his people. 3618 The Johannine community probably understood this as the ideal, eschatological state as well (Rev 7:15; 21:3; cf. Heb 8:2). Most Jewish thinkers viewed God " s Spirit as immanent. Wisdom of Solomon mimics Stoic thought, declaring that God " s «incorruptible Spirit is in all things (ν πσι).» 3619 Nevertheless, God " s Shekinah or act of dwelling was sometimes linked with Torah, 3620 and especially localized in some sense in the tabernacle 3621 or temple; 3622 it was uniquely connected with Israel among all nations, 3623 especially in the exodus event when God " s glory led his people forth. 3624 Whether or not John " s «tabernacled» implies any Jewish concepts surrounding the Shekinah (above), «glory» may invite such associations. 3625 In light of these various associations, John may emphasize that Jesus, rather than the temple or tabernacle, is the true locus of God " s activity among humanity (cf. 4120–24). 3626 Especially after 70, when Diaspora Judaism no longer had a central temple to look to, this claim could constitute a powerful challenge to competing versions of Jewish faith. 3627 1C. We Beheld His Glory (1:14) |
| If we extract separate texts and ideas from Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, it is easy to find seeming contradictions in them. Genuine theology, in its understanding of revelation, always applied the principle of (if we can say so) “gnosiological catholicity.” The entire content of Scripture and Tradition expressed in so many books, texts, and ideas must be considered as one whole, of which each element depends on the others and on their totality. Only this understanding which unites the particular with the whole and comprehends everything in the light of the truth in the totality of its content is right. In Scripture and Tradition everything is complementary and each element explains the other. All is necessary for the understanding of the whole. But the foundation of theology is the knowledge of God. Theology must be built in the perspective of this knowledge. There is only one teacher and one true doctrine for the Church, that is: Jesus Christ and His teaching (Matt. 23:8). “Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God” (II John: 9). The preservation of the purity – that is the Orthodoxy–of Christ’s teaching has exceptional importance ( Gal. 1:6–12; II Cor. 4:1–6). All teachers who do not follow Christ or who deform His teaching are useless even for themselves – as food of bad quality (Heb. 13:7–9). All the fleshly, worldly, purely human doctrines and all myths can be harmful (Col. 2:4–23; Phil. 3:17–21; II Tim. 4:2–5). St. Paul violentiy rejects Pharisaical Judaism ( Gal. 1:6–12 ; Phil. 3:1–11 ). Our Lord Jesus Christ proclaims that all that is purely human (inasmuch as it is consciously or unconsciously opposed to God), and Judaism (which is opposed to Him) is derived from Satan (Matt. 16:22–23; John 8:49 ). VIII. Catholicity and Ethics God is holy because His existence and life are perfect. If the life of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit is from the Father ( John 5:26, 15:26 ), their holiness is also from the Father. Is the Son of God not the truth and the Logos of holiness, and the Holy Spirit the very holy hypostatical life? 12 Thus divine holiness, like divine truth, is manifested in three hypostatical forms. |
| Soon after Emperor Constantine took up residence in Nicomedia, the eastern capital, after his victory over Licinius, he was chagrined to learn of this new controversy that was troubling the whole Eastern Church. So, with the advice of St Hosius, Bishop of Spain (c. 257–357), his theological advisor, he summoned the largest council of bishops ever held up to that point. It opened on May 20, 325, in the city of Nicea, near Nicomedia. Constantine himself gave the opening address. According to tradition, 318 bishops were in attendance, including the famous and greatly beloved Saint Nicholas, Bishop of Myra in Lycia, and Saint Spyridon, Bishop of Tremithus in Cyprus. This council, known now as the First Ecumenical Council, decreed that the Logos, the Word and Son of God, is uncreated, ever-existent, and fully divine. He is begotten-that is, “born” or generated-from the Father, and not made or created by Him. He is of one essence (in Greek, homoousios) with the Father. He is true God of true God, the Word of God by Whom all things were made ( Jn 1.3 ; Heb 1.2). It is this uncreated, only-begotten, divine Son of God Who became man from the Virgin Mary as Jesus Christ, the Messiah of Israel and the Savior of the world. The Council of Nicea also decreed a number of canons (i.e., Church regulations) concerning various issues of order and discipline in the Church. Canon 6 confirmed the jurisdictional authority of Alexandria over Egypt and the neighboring regions of Libya and Pentapolis, “since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also [meaning that the Roman Church, in a corresponding way, had jurisdictional authority only over Rome and its neighboring territory-at that time, most likely central Italy]. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces let the Churches retain their privileges.” This canon clearly ratifies the ancient practice of the Churches in the major cities each having full jurisdictional authority only over the surrounding region. Concerning the lapsed, Canon 11 offered the possibility of restoration to Eucharistic communion, but only after a period of 12 years of heartfelt contrition, in three stages: |
|
|
