| 7818 Schnackenburg, John, 2:374. He could have even sought to assimilate Passover with Tabernacles to reemphasize his earlier Tabernacles motifs. 7820 Noted, e.g., by Jerome Homilies 94. It may have come to function as a jubilant cry (as some words became in Gentile refrains, e.g., Callimachus Hymns 2 [to Apollo], 21, 25, 97, 103; Catullus 61.117–118,137–138,142–143; Menander Rhetor 2.7,409.11–13); Augustine Tr. Ev.Jo. 51.2 explains it as an interjection. 7822 Of the extant gospels, only the two with the most Jewish audiences, Matthew and John, make the Zechariah allusion explicit (Longenecker, Christology, 112). All four gospels include the colt (for breaking a colt, see Xenophon Horsemanship 2.1–5; Maximus of Tyre Or. 1.8). 7824 With modifications (cf., e.g., Schuchard, Scripture, 71–84): «Do not fear, Zion» may derive from Zeph 3(cf. Isa 10:24; 40:9; Smith, John 236, adds especially Isa 35:4; 40:9), midrashically linked with «Rejoice, daughter of Zion» (Zech 9:9). Menken, «Redaktion,» attributes some changes to Jewish traditions (cf. Gen 49:11 ). Later rabbis applied the messianic promise of salvation (here omitted) to the suffering Messiah (Pesiq. Rab. 34:2). 7825 B. Sanh. 99a; Gen. Rab. 75:6; Ecc1. Rab. 1:9, §1. A second-century Tanna expected the messianic fulfillment at the time of the templés rebuilding. 7826 E.g., Diodorus Siculus 27.16.2; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 3.54.2; Polybius 1.72.3; 3.99.7; 39.7.3–6; Arrian Alex. 1.17.12; 4.19.6; Appian R.H. 10.4.24; Cornelius Nepos 8 (Thrasybulus), 2.6; Herodian 1.2.4; cf. also Josephus Life 353; Sipre Deut. 323.4.1; despite Achilles» more commonly vengeful personality, Homer 17. 24.507–508, 665–670; see further Good, King, 47–49. 7831 Yet in Exodus the wisest of Egypt recognized their state while Pharaoh remained hardened (Exod 10:7); in view of the one greater than Moses, such a comparison portrays the Pharisees as harder than the pagans. 7833 Contrast the reportedly Tannaitic tradition that glory did not dwell in the second temple because Cyrus was responsible for its rebuilding (Pesiq. Rab. 35:1). On appointed times, see comment on 2:4; 7:6. |
| 4013 Zimmerli and Jeremias, Servant, 57ff.; Schoeps, Paul, 134–35, 139. Some think Qumran " s Teacher of Righteousness is described in terms of Isaiah " s Servant Songs (Brownlee, «Motifs, I,» 18–20; Dupont-Sommer, Writings, 361–63); but Sir l:6 " s rhiza and apekalyphthë probably derive from Prov 8:1 , etc., rather than Isa 53:1–2; Pesiq. Rab. 31and the Kabbalah (Ginsburg, Kabbalah, 141–42) are too late to be of value. 4014 Goppelt, Jesus, Paul, and Judaism, 83; cf. R. Simlai (third century C.E.) in Davies, Land, 60, who takes the servant as Moses. (Hooker " s exclusion of it even from Isaiah [Servant, 47, essentially on the grounds that the prophet would not have introduced new ideas] is more questionable.) For this reason many scholars are skeptical of the Isa 53reference here (Morris, John, 145). 4015 On the Targum, see Bruce, Acts: Greek, 193; Yamauchi, «Concord,» 165–66, and Zimmerli and Jeremias, Servant, 57ff. 4016 Justin Dial 13, 43 attests Christian rather than Jewish usage (so also 1 Apo1. 50). Acts 8may not explicitly emphasize vicarious suffering (cf., e.g., Decock, «Understanding»), but the quotation of part of a text implied the rest (e.g., p. Qidd. 4:1, §2) and though atonement is not Lukés emphasis, it is not incongruent with his thought (Luke 22:19–20). 4017 Bultmann, Word, 214, sees it as «a Hellenistic variation» of the older form in Luke 22:27; for evidence that the Markan form is more Semitic, cf. Jeremias, Message, 46. 4018 On Mark 10:45 " s authenticity, see Page, «Authenticity»; Morris, Cross, 29–33; Cullmann, Christology, 65. 4019 So, e.g., Stanton, Jesus, 36. 4020 E.g., Anderson, Mark, 257; Hooker, Servant, 74–79; idem, Message, 93; though Kümmel, Promise, 73, recognizes the allusion, he is reticent to explain it. 4021 Cf. Taylor, Atonement, 14; Jeremias, Theology, 292–93; Cullmann, Christology, 64–65; Higgins, Son of Man, 43–44; Moulder, «Background,» 127; Bruce, Time, 29–30; Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus, 31; Gundry, Matthew, 404; Argyle, Matthew, 154; Albright and Mann, Matthew, 243. For why Jesus could teach his atoning death yet emphasize the kingdom theme more, see Hengel, Atonement, 34. |
| 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). |
| The first person plural could refer to the world; certainly his tabernacling «among us» could be construed in that manner (1:10–11; cf. 12:35), though it is noteworthy that Jesus allows specifically disciples to begin to «dwell» with him (1:38–39; 14:23). Thus believers come to share the same intimacy the Word had with the Father (1:1–2). But «we» in «we beheld» (θεασμεθα), though not emphatic, probably signifies this intimacy only by analogy and points in the first case to a more specific, historical referent. «Behold» and its synonyms 3639 can apply both to seeing physically, which representatives of the world did (6:36; 15:24), and to seeing with eyes of faith (11:45; 14:7, 9; cf. 1 John 3:6; 3 John 11 ); but the latter is more likely here. Because Jesus revealed his glory in ways obscure to the elite but evident to the eyes of disciples (2:11; a continuing paradigm: 14:21–23), those who actually beheld his glory were those who came to believe him (11:40). The Johannine tradition also interprets the language with reference to the eyewitness of disciples (1 John 1:1–3), which fits the rest of this Gospel (19:35). Thus the most natural construal of the first person plural, if all source theories are held in suspension, is that John includes himself among the eyewitnesses. 3640 The eyewitnesses of the Words glory do not evoke the initiates of Hellenistic Mysteries, 3641 but Moses, who beheld God " s glory on Mount Sinai. 3642 (Greco-Roman myth reflects the notion that if the chief deity revealed his glory, a mortal who saw it would be consumed, 3643 and some ancient Israelite traditions reflect a similar conception. 3644 But Moses saw and was transformed, not consumed.) 3645 In other words, Jesus» eyewitnesses, including John, are mediators of a revelation greater than that of Moses but in a manner analogous to Moses; Paul depicts his own ministry in a similar manner in 2Cor. 3 ; 3646 the transfiguration in the Synoptics likewise alludes to this revelation, though as a single event. 3647 Although a connection between «light» and «glory» may not have been obvious to all ancient readers, it is quite possible that John alludes to his portrayal of Jesus as «light» (l:4–9). 3648 Those who could approach the prologue having heard the entire Gospel at least once would also think of others who saw the same glory Moses did, such as Isaiah in his vision in the temple (12:41; Isa 6:1–4). 3649 In this context, at any rate, «glory» especially alludes to the revelation of God to Moses in Exod 33–34, which could also be pictured as shining (cf. Exod 34:29). Whereas many commentators (such as Glasson and Teeple) compare Jesus in the Fourth Gospel with Moses, 3650 it is actually particularly his disciples who represent Moses, while Jesus parallels the glory that Moses witnessed on the mountain. 1D. The μονογενς Son (1:14,18) |
| Jesus tells his disciples about the betrayal beforehand so that, rather than doubting his foresight in choosing Judas, they will recognize him as a prophet and that he controls the situation (13:19; cf. 14:29). 8221 The fulfillment of a prophet " s words attests the prophet " s accuracy ( Deut 18:22 ). 8222 But Jesus» wording in several passages suggests an allusion to the promises of God in the biblical prophets: he foretold the future so that they might recognize his identity as YHWH (Isa 43:9–10). Similarly here, Jesus speaks so that the disciples might realize that «I am,» 8223 alluding to Isaiah " s «I am» formula, which perhaps by this period already appeared in the Passover haggadah. 8224 Likewise, Jesus had «chosen» them (13:18; 6:70; 15:16, 19) and «knew» those he chose. Rabbis rarely chose their own disciples (see comments on 1:38–43), yet in this context «chosen» suggests more than simply an unusually radical rabbi; it suggests that John again portrays Jesus in biblical language traditionally applied to God " s relationship with Israel (see comment on 15:16). Jesus then sounds an ominous warning in 13:20: Jesus is the Father " s agent (see introduction; cf. Matt 10:40); the disciples as Jesus» agents will face the same sort of suffering and betrayal Jesus faced (13:16,18,21). Whereas brokers of patrons could build their own power base in Roman society, the context promises Jesus» agents suffering and the status of servants. 8225 Interpreting the Washing in Light of the Cross (13:21–38) In the context of the betrayal (13:21–30) and another comment on the imminence of the passion (13:31–33), loving and serving as Jesus did demands sacrifice for one another, potentially to the point of death (13:34–35). On the narrative level, however, John emphasizes that such commitment is more easily offered than demonstrated: the most prominent disciple would fall short of even such sacrifice directly for Jesus (13:36–38). 1. The Betrayal Announced (13:21–30) The intimacy of the gathering implied by the seating arrangements (13:23) and perhaps by Jesus» expression of emotion (13:21) provides a model for believers» relationship with Jesus (14:23) and in the immediate context particularly underlines the heinousness of the betrayal (13:18). |
| 30 Meni bilen bolmadyk Maa garydyr, Meni bilen sürüni toplamadyk ony dargadýandyr. 31 onu üçin size uny diýýärin: ynsanlary her bir günäsi, her bir zada dil ýetirmesi bagylanar, emma Mukaddes Ruha dil ýetirenler bagylanmaz. 32 Kim Ynsan Ogluna gary söz aýtsa, bagylanar. Emma Mukaddes Ruha gary aýdylan söz bagylanmaz. Ol u döwürde-de, geljekde-de bagylanmaz. Miweli agaç (Luka 6:43-45) 33 Oat agaç eki, onu miwesi-de oat bolar, erbet agaç ekseiz, erbet miwe alarsyyz, sebäbi agaç miwesinden tanalýandyr. 34 Eý, alahöwrenler nesli! Ynsany dili ýüreginden joanyny sözleýändir. eýlelikde, özüiz erbetkäiz, nädip siz oat zatlar sözläp bilersiiz? 35 Ýagy adam ýüregini ýagylyk hazynasyndan ýagylyk çykarýandyr, ýaman adam ýüregini ýamanlyk hazynasyndan ýamanlyk çykarýandyr. 36 Men size uny diýýärin: adamlar aýdan her bir bo sözi üçin kyýamat güni hasap bererler. 37 Siz öz sözüiz bilen aklanyp, öz sözüiz bilen höküm edilersiiz». Ýunusy alamaty (Mark 8:11,12;Luka 11:24-26,29-32) 38 onda käbir Töwrat mugallymlary we fariseýler Oa jogap berip: «Mugallym, biz Senden bir gudratly alamat görmek isleýäris» diýdiler. 39 Isa olara eýle jogap berdi: «Bu erbet we biwepa nesil alamat talap edýär, emma oa Ýunus pygamberikiden baga alamat berilmez. 40 Ýunusy üç gije-gündiz balygy garnynda galyy ýaly, Ynsan Ogly-da üç gije-gündiz ýeri bagrynda galar. 41 Ninewe halky kyýamat güni bu nesle gary çykyp, ony höküm eder, sebäbi olar Ýunusy wagzy bilen toba geldiler. Ine, bu ýerde Ýunusdan hem üstün Biri bar. 42 Günorta melikesi kyýamat güni bu nesle gary çykyp, ony höküm eder, sebäbi ol Süleýmany pähimini dilemek üçin, ýeri ary ujundan geldi. Ine, bu ýerde Süleýmandan-da üstün Biri bar. 43 Arwah-jyn adamdan çykandan so, gurak ýerlere aýlanyp, dynçlyk gözleýär, emma tapmaýar. 44 onda ol: „Çykan öýüme dolanaýyn“ diýýär. Dolanyp gelende, öýü süpürilgi, hemme zady ýerbe-ýerdigini görýär. 45 Onso gidip, özünden hem erbet ýedi ruhy ýanyna alýar-da, ol ýere baryp mesgen tutýar. eýlelikde, ol adamy soky ýagdaýy öküsinden-de erbet bolýar. Bu erbet nesle-de eýle bolar». |
| All too often, a priest acts as if he were a secular leader, a board president, a CEO of a non-profit, a manager of an organization. To be sure, priests do hold a position of authority in the Church. But what kind of authority is it? What kind of headship? Photo: Konstantin Diachkov I really like the Roman Bishop’s official title: “the servant of the servant of God.” Regardless of how it is realized in the life of any particular pontiff, the title itself is very much Christ-centric and conveys the correct idea: a priest or a bishop receives his authority from Christ, and it is His, Christ’s, authority, not the priest’s. So, in order to find out how a priest is to exercise his authority, we must look at how Christ exercised His authority and learn from His example. “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder…” (Isa. 9:6) What is “the government upon shoulders”? Is it some kind of epaulettes or shoulder boards—the usual symbols of government? Not quite. He was “bearing his own cross” (John 19:17), “He bore the sin of many” (Isa. 53:12). Is this the image of a general in epaulettes?—“He had no form or comeliness that we should look at Him, and no beauty that we should desire Him. He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces He was despised, and we esteemed Him not” (Isa. 53:2, 3). A secular leader acts on the following principle: “Come to me, all ye to whom I have not yet ordered anything, and I will give you duties.” Christ says: “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28). Who is the greatest in a secular kingdom?—He whose hat is the tallest and servants are many. But when Christ was asked who was the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, “calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them…” (Matt. 18:1, 2). “And he sat down and called the twelve; and he said to them, ‘If anyone would be first, he must be last of all and servant of all’” (Mark 9:35). |
| Isa hakdaky aýatlyklar 30 Men Öz-Özümden hiç zat edip bilmeýärin; Atamdan näme eitsem, onu ýaly höküm çykarýaryn. Meni kazylygym hakdyr, sebäbi Men Öz islegim boýunça höküm çykarmaýaryn, Meni Ibereni yradasyny berjaý edýärin. 31 Eger Men Özüm hakda aýatlyk etsem, onda bu aýatlygym hakyky bolmaz. 32 Men hakda aýatlyk edýän baga Biri bar. Onu Özüm hakdaky aýatlygyny dogrudygyny Men bilýärin. 33 Siz Ýahýany ýanyna adamlar ýolladyyz, ol hem hakykata aýatlyk etdi. 34 Men ynsan aýatlygyna mätäç bolmasam-da, muny sizi halas bolmagyyz üçin aýdýaryn. 35 Ýahýa nur saçýan yyk ýalydy. Siz az salym hem bolsa, onu yygyna guwanmak islediiz. 36 Emma Meni Ýahýanykydan has beýik aýatlygym bar, sebäbi berjaý etmegim üçin Atany Özüme tabyran ileri, ýagny u edýän ilerim Meni Atany iberendigine aýatlyk edýär. 37 Meni iberen Atany Özi hem Men hakda aýatlyk etdi. Ýöne siz Onu ne sesini eitdiiz, ne-de ýüzüni gördüiz. 38 Kalbyyzda Onu sözleri ýok, sebäbi siz Onu Iberenine iman etmeýärsiiz. 39 Siz baky ýaaýy Mukaddes Ýazgylardadyr öýdüp, olary yhlas bilen öwrenýärsiiz. Olar bolsa Men hakda aýatlyk edýärler. 40 Emma siz ýaaýa eýe bolar ýaly, Maa gelmek islemeýärsiiz. 41 Men ynsanlardan öwgi agtarmaýaryn. 42 Emma Men sizi tanaýaryn, sizi kalbyyzda Hudaýy söýgüsi ýok. 43 Men Atamy adyndan geldim, siz bolsa Meni kabul etmeýärsiiz. Ýöne baga biri öz adyndan geläýse, siz ony kabul edersiiz. 44 Siz biri-biriizden öwgüler kabul edýärsiiz, emma ýeke-täk Hudaýy öwgüsini gazanmaga çalymaýarsyyz. Onso nädip sizde iman bolsun? 45 Atany öünde Men sizi aýyplaryn öýtmä. Sizi öz umyt baglaýan Musayz aýyplaýandyr. 46 Siz Musa ynansadyyz, onda Maa-da ynanardyyz, sebäbi ol Men hakda ýazdy. 47 Onu ýazanlaryna ynanmaýan bolsayz, onda Meni aýdýanlaryma nähili ynanjaksyyz?» 6-njy bap Isa bä mü adamy doýurýar (Matta 14:13-21;Mark 6:30-44;Luka 9:10-17) 1 undan so IsaJelile kölüni beýleki tarapyna geçdi. Bu köle Tiberiýa köli hem diýilýärdi. |
| A thing may be said to be “created” relatively, as well as absolutely–i.e. it may be “created” when newly appointed for a certain purpose, as when men were “created” consuls, which did not mean that before the convening of the centuries they were absolutely non-existent. 2286 Isa. ix. 6. St. Ambrose’ version is “Filius datus est nobis, cujus principium super humeros ejus.” 2301 Cf. Athanasius, Third Oration Against the Arians, § 35–“But should any man, noticing the divinity revealed in the action of the Word, deny the reality of the body, or marking the things peculiar to the body, deny the presence of the Word in flesh or judging from His human experiences and behaviour, conceive a low esteem of the Word, such a person, like the Jew vintner, mixing water with his wine, will hold the Cross a scandal, and, like a heathen philosopher, regard the preaching as folly–which is just the state of the ungodly followers of Arius.” Horace, Sat. I. v. 3, 4–“inde Forum Appî, Differtum nautis, cauponibus atque malignis.” 2303 The explanation of St. John Baptist’s words in the Fourth Gospel is to be found, indeed, in the same Gospel (i. 27) and in the other three Gospels. See Matt. iii. 11; S. Mark i. 7; S. Luke iii. 16. In S. John i. 30, the Baptist says of Jesus Christ not merely “πρτερς μου ν 2304 Or the meaning may be understood by reference to the fact that in the Man Christ Jesus there was seen, and felt, grace, authority, and power such as was more than earthly, more than human. “Full of grace are Thy lips, because God hath blessed thee for ever.” So it was that He spake as never man spake, teaching with authority, and not as the scribes. 2326 Particeps noster–our partner, companion, sharing all our labours (and taking the lion’s share, too). Isa. liii. 4. 2329 “Priestly nation.”–Ex. xix. 5; 1Pet. ii. 9. We must not understand especial reference to the priestly tribe of Levi only, but to the whole people of Israel. Cf. Heb. vii. 2332 Orig. “typum gerens Domini”–“bearing the stamp of our Lord,” marked with His mark, as a coin is stamped with the image and superscription of the king or other authority who issues it. |
| 180 The construction of the Arm. is uncertain, but the general sense is plain. The preposition “with” in the first place seems to represent σν, in the second place πρς. 186 Cf. Matt, I. 23. – The translator has read μεθ μν for μεθ μν: there is no distinction in sound in the later Greek pronunciation. 189 Cf. c. 71; and Just. M. Ap. I, 47 θαυμαζντων τ γεγενημνα: Dial. 118: τοτο θαυμζων σαις φη. 191 III, xxvi. 2: “In eo autem quod dixerit: Ipse Dominus dabit signum, id quod erat inopinatum generationis ejus significavit. . . . Sed quoniam inopinata salus hominibus inciperet fieri, Deo adjuvante, inopinatus et partus virginis fiebat,” etc. 192 The transposition of «son » and « child » would seem to be an oversight: see however Just. M. Ap. I, 35 (παιδον . . . νεανσκος]: and note that the whole passage is quoted differently in c. 56 below. 193 Isa. IX. 6. – So in IV, lv. 2: cf. III, xx. 2. So above, c. 40. But in c. 56 we have “Angel of great counsel,” as in III, xvii. 3: cf. Just. M. Dial. 76. 196 V, i. 1: “non cum vi . . . sed secundum suadelam . . . suadentem, non vim inferentem:” cf. IV, lix. 1: Βα θε ο πρσεστιν · γαθ δ γνμη πντοτε συμπρεστιν ατ: lx. 1: λλ μ βιαζομνου. Compare Ep. ad Diognetum 7: ς πεθων, ο βιαζμενος · βα γρ ο πρσεστι τ θε. 201 This is Justin’s interpretation in Ap. 1, 35: ο ρχ π τν μων· μηνυτικν τς δυνμεως το σταυρο, προσθηκε τος μους σταυρωθες. 202 Cf. Just. M. Dial. 101: νειδος μν γρ μν τος ες ατν πιστεουσιν νθρποις πανταχο στιν. Justin is interpreting νειδος νθρπων (Ps. xxii. 7). 204 Cf. Just. M. Ap. 1, 34: Οπου δ κα τς γς γεννσθαι μελλεν, κ.τ.λ., quoting Mic. v. 2, which Irenæus quotes below, c. 63. 205 So in IV, xx. 2: “cui repositum est,” corresponding to πκειται, the reading which Justin defends in I 120. 207 Cf. Just. M. Ap. 1, 32: οδας γρ προπτωρ ουδαων, φ ο κα τ ουδαοι καλεσθαι σχκασι. See on this whole chapter Introd. pp. 6 ff. 208 The translation is uncertain. Cf. Justin, ibid.: μεθ ν εθς δοριλωτος μν γ ουδαων παρεδθη. |
|
|
