| Because many christological motifs recur frequently in the Fourth Gospel, we survey the background for some of John " s terms in this introduction. 2420 We will address in more detail the motifs themselves, including John " s distinctive adaptation of terms that were used more broadly in other streams of early Judaism and Jewish Christianity, at relevant points in the commentary. The Thrust of John " s Christology Christology is John " s central focus, as both the proem (1:1–18) and summary thesis statement (20:30–31) testify. Both of these passages emphasize the highest, most complete Johannine Christology: Jesus is deity (1:1,18; 20:28–31). John advocates multiple christological models, but especially emphasizes the most complete existing model, namely, that Jesus is Torah or Wisdom. No other conception available in his Jewish vocabulary better conveyed the thought of one who was divine yet distinct from the Father. The proem leads us to expect Jesus as divine Wisdom or Word to overshadow a great deal of the Fourth Gospel (without erasing other important christological motifs or historical traditions). Jesus is far greater than Moses the agent of revelation, for he is the «Word,» the content of revelation (1:17–18). Like Torah or Wisdom, Jesus is the agent of creation in the beginning (1:1–3) and is life and light (1:4–9; cf. 8:12; 9:5; 12:35–36, 46; 15:6). Throughout the Gospel as in the proem, John compares Jesus» mission to that of Torah or Wisdom sent to Israel: the world did not know him, his own did not receive him, but those who did receive him by believing him could become God " s children (1:10–13). These verses build John " s soteriology on the model of God " s earlier revelation to Moses: his people must «know,» «believe,» and «receive» God " s revelation (cf. also 3:36; 5:38,47; 12:48; 17:3). In short, John summarizes Jesus» ministry by declaring that the disciples, like Moses, «beheld his glory» (1:14). Thus the whole Gospel becomes a theophany like Sinai, but in this case John the Baptist (1:6–8, 15) and disciples perform the function of witnesses like Moses. Jesus is one greater than Moses, the Torah in flesh, and the Gospel as a whole develops this paralle1. In such a context, even the image of the «uniquely beloved (son)» (1:14, 18), which could otherwise recall Israel or the Messiah, may also recall traditional Jewish imagery for Torah here. |
| John 14:1–17 John 14:18–26 John 14:27–31 1 Be not troubled 18 Not as orphans 27b Be not troubled 3 I will come 181 will come 28 I will come 10 I am in the Father 20 I am in the Father 28 The Father is greater 12 Go to the Father 28 I go to the Father Believes in me 21 Keeps my commands 15 If you love me, keep commands 21 One who loves me keeps commands 31 I love the Father, let us so 16 The Paraclete 26 The Paraclete 30 Prince of the world Although he must omit material to make the pattern fit (and some items do not fit), he at least demonstrates the repetition of ideas, some following clear patterns. It is also possible that most of the unified Farewell Discourse as a whole yields a chiastic structure as follows: A Jesus» departure, glory, love in community (13:31–38 or-14:1) Β Jesus» coming and abiding presence (14or 14:2–15:17) C The World (15:18–16:12) a The world " s hatred (15:18–25) b The Spirit " s testimony to the world (15:26–27) á The world " s hatred (16:1–4) b» The Spirit " s testimony to the world (16:5–12) B» Jesus» Coming and Abiding Presence (16:13–33) Á Jesus» departure, glory, and unity of community (17:1–26) If this basic structure is correct, unity (17:21–23) and love (13:34–35) are essentially synonymous images; secession from the community, as in 1 John, would thus prove equivalent to hatred and death. The discourse provides an interpretive crux, corresponding to the narrator " s perspective, though the narrator has often remained silent in this Gospe1. 8020 Even before current literary-critical emphases, however, commentators could recognize that the discourse in John 13–17 clarifies the significance of the passion events of John 18–20 . 8021 A Testament of Jesus? Scholars have offered various proposals concerning the specific genre or generic associations of this discourse. Given the pervasiveness of the Last Supper tradition in early Christianity ( 1Cor 11:23 ), a meal setting for the discourse (mentioned in passing in John 13:2,4 ) may be presupposed even if John is conspicuous by his lack of emphasis on it; 8022 in this case, ancient Mediterranean readers might view the discourse as taking place in a symposium setting. 8023 This was in fact a common literary setting for important discourses and dialogues. 8024 Most traditional Jews would have continued to discuss Passover among themselves for a few hours after the meal, 8025 providing an opportunity for a discourse such as this one after the Last Supper. Some even understand the passage as Jesus» commentary on his Passover meal with his disciples–albeit before John redacted the Passover to the cross (19:36). 8026 Because little dialogue occurs, however, the observation of a general symposium setting exercises little influence on interpretation. |
| Humphrey Green adds 1:2, 14e to the lines Bernard had excluded in his Aramaic reconstruction, to produce two parallel strophes (each consisting of tristich, distich, tetrastich, and a closing epistrophe of one distich). 2864 J. C. ÓNeill envisions a Greek source of three strophes, each of ninety-two syllables; to make the syllable count fit, however, he has to omit substantial material, sometimes without textual support (parts or all of 1:6–9,12d, 13b, 14a, 15,16,17). 2865 Rudolf Schnackenburg suggests four original strophes (1:1,3; 1:4,9; 1:10, 11; 1:14, 16), 2866 although he finds three sections of the completed prologue (1:1–5; 1:6–13; 1:14–16 or 18). 2867 Coloe finds two sections with three strophes each, reflecting the structure of Genesis 1 . 2868 Mathias Rissi sees eight parallel lines in four strophes in 1:1–13, but suggests that 1:14–18 represents a poem of a completely different structure. 2869 Boismard " s inclusio (the Word as God in 1:1,18) is very likely, 2870 but his chiasmus is forced (especially making 1re-creation, and 1:4–5 a «gift»); it produces uneven symmetry in line counts and subordinates more prominent elements of meaning to those which can fit the parallels he seeks. 2871 Unfortunately, these are not the most speculative proposals. Teeple believes that the original Jewish hymn " s Logos was accidentally identified with Jesus as the hymn was reworked by a gnostic redactor. 2872 W. Bindemann thinks that the verses about John the Baptist were added at the hymn " s incorporation into the Gospel (not unreasonable by itself), and that it was originally a Jewish wisdom hymn expanded by Hellenistic Jewish gnosticizing and transformed into a Christian hymn by adding land l:17bc. 2873 David Deeks finds two sources for John " s prologue: a Christian gnostic myth 2874 and a source from John " s church. 2875 He contends that a scribe added 1:7c, requiring the addition of material in 1:8–9 to explain 1:7c; 2876 1is either from the gnostic source or is a later addition; 1was added by pro-Baptist scribes; 2877 l:14e, 16b-17 were probably added by a Paulinist redactor after publication, and these conclusions allow us to trace the history of the Gospel after its publication. 2878 In contrast to most scholars (who merely subtract from the prologue), Paul Trudinger revives the view that the prologue originally included 3:13–21, 31–36 (but not 1:6–8, 15;3:22–30). 2879 |
| Plate 55 Icon of the myrrh-bearing women at the tomb. By Eileen McGuckin. The Icon Studio: www.sgtt.org the New Testament the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection, based on apostolic memories and oral traditions, vary widely in detail. However, the fact and centrality of the resurrection constitute the bedrock of the Christian faith, attested by more than five hundred eyewitnesses ( 1Cor. 15.5–8 ). The gospels indicate that Jesus anticipated his death as blood covenant renewal and viewed his resurrection as God’s vindication of his ministry (e.g., Mk. 8.27–31; 14.22–5, 36, 61–2 ; cf. Acts 3.13–15). Matthew, Luke, and John link Jesus’ resurrection with the gift of the Spirit and the inauguration of the early Christian mission ( Mt. 28.16–20 ; Lk. 24.44–9 ; Jn. 20.19–23 ; cf. Acts 2.32–3). The Gospel ofJohn magnificently integrates the life, death, resurrection, and enthronement of the Son of God as the mutual glorification between the Father and the Son, marking the decisive victory over the power of death and the gift of abundant life through the Spirit, available to believers in the present as well as the future ( Jn. 1.14 ; 5 .24–9; 7.37–9; 12.30–1; 14.15–24; 17.1–5). In this similar rich vein, the Apostle Paul provides the most detailed theological explication of the death and resurrection of the incarnate Son ( Gal. 4.4–6 ; Rom. 1.1–4 ) and Lord of glory ( 1Cor. 2.8; 15.1–4 ). For Paul, the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ mark the cosmic shift from the old age of sin, corruption, and death to the new era of grace, life, incorruption, and transformed bodily immortality ( Rom. 3.21–6; 5.12–21; 8.18–39 ; 1Cor. 15.50–7 ). In Paul, as in John, God’s powers of salvation are at work both now and in the future in those who are united with Christ through faith and baptism, and who enact the pattern of Jesus’ death and resurrection by crucifying their sinful passions and offering themselves as living sacrifice to God ( Rom. 6.1–23; 8.9–13; 10.9–13; 12.1–2 ; 2Cor. 4.7–18 ; Gal. 3.16–24 ). |
| 2. Was God Once a Man Like Us? The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that God is Spirit (John 4:24; 1 Timothy 6:15,16), He is not a man (Numbers 23:19; Hosea 11:9; Romans 1:22, 23), and has always (eternally) existed as God — all powerful, all knowing, and everywhere present (Psalm 90:2; 139:7-10; Isaiah 40:28; Luke 1:37). By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that God the Father was once a man like us who progressed to become a God and has a body of flesh and bone (Doctrine and Covenants 130:22; " God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! " from Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347; Gospel Principles, p. 9; Articles of Faith, p. 430; Mormon Doctrine, p. 321). Indeed, the Mormon Church teaches that God himself has a father, and a grandfather, ad infinitum (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 373; Mormon Doctrine, p. 577). 3. Are Jesus and Satan Spirit Brothers? The Bible teaches and orthodox Christians through the ages have believed that Jesus is the unique Son of God; he has always existed as God, and is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father (John 1:1, 14; 10:30; 14:9; Colossians 2:9). While never less than God, at the appointed time He laid aside the glory He shared with the Father (John 17:4, 5; Philippians 2:6-11) and was made flesh for our salvation; His incarnation was accomplished through being conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin (Matthew 1:18-23; Luke 1:34-35). By contrast, the Mormon Church teaches that Jesus Christ is our elder brother who progressed to godhood, having first been procreated as a spirit child by Heavenly Father and a heavenly mother; He was later conceived physically through intercourse between Heavenly Father and the virgin Mary (D&C 93:21; Journal of Discourses, 1:50-51; Gospel Principles, p. 11-13; Achieving a Celestial Marriage, p. 129; Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 546-547; 742; Ezra Taft Benson, Come unto Christ, p. 4; Robert L. Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity, p. 31). Mormon doctrine affirms that Jesus, all angels, Lucifer, all demons, and all human beings are originally spirit brothers and sisters (Abraham 3:22-27; Moses 4:1-2; Gospel Principles, pp. 17-18; Mormon Doctrine, p. 192). |
| Peter certainly remains one of the most prominent disciples throughout the Fourth Gospel, as in the other gospels. Given the model for gospel genre found in Matthew and Luke, one most naturally expects report of a commission at the end of the Gospel (which could be and is, to a significant degree, fulfilled in 20but which could also be developed further). Even here Jesus is correcting as well as encouraging Peter (especially if the three questions recall the three denials, 13:38). 10931 The passage is consistent with, but develops, the role of Peter found earlier in the Gospe1. It also may provide a model for other church leaders (cf. 1Pet 5:1–2 ). 2. The Demand of Love Loving Jesus demands fulfilling his commands (14:15), particularly the command to love one another as Jesus did (13:34); in Peter " s case, this general call includes a specific command to care for Jesus» sheep, for whom Jesus cares. The appointed undershepherds of the old covenant scattered when they saw a wolf coming (10:12–13), but Peter was to care for the sheep as Jesus did, ultimately to the point of offering his life (21:18–19, 22), as he had once promised he would (13:36–37). As noted above, Peter is given three opportunities to affirm his love for Jesus (21:15–17)–possibly three in number to balance Peter " s three denials (13:38). Peter was «grieved» by the Lord " s questions (21:17)–a strong term John elsewhere uses of the disciples» sorrow over Jesus» death (16:20). He still felt loyalty for Jesus; but Jesus demands a love that is demonstrated by obedience (14:15), which Peter " s recent behavior failed to demonstrate (18:25–27). Peter is certain that he remains faithful to Jesus–despite his recent lapse in such readily promised fidelity (13:37–38)–and that Jesus must know this, for he knows «all things» (21:17; cf. 16:30; 18:4). That Jesus» knowledge has already led him to refuse to trust untrustworthy believers (2:23–25) might lead the first-time reader– and perhaps Peter–to doubt whether Peter will do any better on this commitment than he did in his first assurance that he would die for Jesus (13:37). Yet Jesus was merely testing and confirming him, for, as Jesus accurately predicted Peter " s betrayal (13:38), he also predicts here that Peter will eventually die for Jesus (21:18). |
| In view of 16(«send him to you»), it appears clear that the Spirit " s work in 16:8–11 is through the disciples. 9200 Jesus sends the Spirit to the disciples (16:7), but through the disciples the Spirit-Paraclete continues Jesus» ministry to the world (16:8–11). Thus, as Jesus prosecuted the world (3:20; cf. 8:46), the Paraclete continues to prosecute the world (16:8–11) through the apostolic preaching of Jesus (cf. 16:7). The image of a speaker in court might follow naturally the context of Jesus» friends (15:13–15) and enemies (15:18–25): at least in Hellenistic Greek practice, one who spoke for another in a court might claim that he acted on behalf of friendship (φιλαν) with one party or enmity (εχθραν) with the other. 9201 The introductory statement of 16is explicated by a specification of the charges in 16:9–11; the outlining of headings that would then be expanded was a common rhetorical technique. 9202 1. Prosecuting the World The verb λγξει can simply mean to reprove 9203 or to prove, 9204 whether by onés conscience, 9205 by the behavior of the righteous, 9206 by the Lord, 9207 or from other sources. 9208 Thus it is natural that some scholars should think a juridical significance too limiting here. 9209 But given the forensic context–a Paracletés witness and defense in the context of synagogue trials (16:2)–the frequent forensic significance of the term 9210 is probably to be preferred here. 9211 Anyone could bring a charge, but under law a Roman governor could not try a case and convict someone without an accuser offering a charge. 9212 Barrett suggests that the Paracletés act of ελγξει «is the activity of a judge and a prosecuting counsel in one.» 9213 Although roles such as prosecutor and advocate were not to be confused, 9214 witnesses «against» functioned as prosecutors (albeit sometimes very skilled rhetoricians), 9215 and God was free to assume all the roles of advocate, prosecutor, and judge. 9216 If the Synoptic promises of the Spirit " s help when one is on trial 9217 stand behind or are related to this passage, «John has characteristically (cf. chs. 9, 18f.) pressed home this idea so that the Spirit, not content with defending the believers, takes the offensive against the world.» 9218 |
| Âdna, «Herrens» Âdna, Jostein. «Herrens tjener i Jesaja 53 skildret som triumferende Messias: Profettargumens gjengivelse og tolkning av Jes 52,13–53,12.» Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke 63 (1992): 81–94. Agouridis, «Son of Man» Agouridis, S. «The Son of Man in Enoch.» Deltion biblikn meletn 2 (1973): 130–47. Agus, «Gnosticism» Agus, Aharon. «Some Early Rabbinic Thinking on Gnosticism.» JQR 71 (1980–1981): 18–30. Alarcon Sainz, «Vocables» Alarcon Sainz, Juan J. «Vocables griegos y latinos en los Proemios (Pètîhôt) de Lamentaciones Rabbah.» Sefarad 49 (1989): 3–10. Albright, «Discoveries» Albright, William Foxwel1. «Recent Discoveries in Palestine and the Gospel of St John.» Pages 153–71 in The Background of the New Testament and Its Eschatology: Essays in Honour of Charles Harold Dodd. Edited by W. D. Davies and D. Daube. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1964. Albright, «Logos» Albright, William Foxwel1. «The Supposed Babylonian Derivation of the Logos.» JBL 39 (1920): 143–51. Albright, Period Albright, William Foxwel1. The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra. New York: Harper, 1963. Albright, Stone Age Albright, William Foxwel1. From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1946. Albright, «Wisdom» Albright, William Foxwel1. «Some Canaanite-Phoenician Sources of Hebrew Wisdom.» Pages 1–15 in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East: Presented to Professor Harold Henry Rowley for His 65th Birthday. Edited by M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas. Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 3. Leiden: Brill, 1955. Albright, Yahweh Albright, William Foxwel1. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan. Jordan Lectures 1965. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968. Albright and Mann, Matthew Albright, W. E, and C. S. Mann. Matthew. AB 26. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1971. Alexander, «3 Enoch» Alexander, P. Introduction to «3 (Hebrew Apocalypse of) Enoch.» OTP 1:223–253. Alexander, «Imago Mundi» Alexander, Philip S. «Notes on the " Imago Mundí of the Book of Jubilees.» JJS 33 (1982): 197–213. |
| 1970 г. 13. “Toward the Origins of the Offertory Procession in the Syro-Byzantine East,” OCP 36 (1970) 73-107. 14. “A Proper Offertory Chant for Easter in some Slavonic Manuscripts,” OCP 36 (1970) 437-448. 15. “On the Use of the Bema in the East-Syrian Liturgy,” Eastern Churches Review 3 (1970) 30-39. 1971 г. 16. Review of Athanase Renoux, Le codex arménien Jérusalem 121. I. Introduction: Aux origines de la liturgie hiérosolymitaine. Lumières nouvelles (Patrologia orientalis 35.1 - no. 1634, Turnhout 1969), OCP 37 (1971) 511-512. 1972 г. 17. “Évolution historique de la Liturgie de Saint Jean Chrysostome,” ch. 1: “Le rite actuel et ses antecedents historiques,” POC 22 (1972) 241-287. 1973 г. 18. “Psalm 24 at the Transfer of Gifts in the Byzantine Liturgy: A Study in the Origins of a Liturgical Practice,” in R.J. Clifford and G.W. MacRae (eds.), The Word in the World. Essays in Honor of Frederick L. Moriarty, S.J., (Cambridge, MA 1973) 159-177. 19. “The Byzantine Divine Liturgy. History and Commentary,” Diakonia 8 (1973) 164-178. 20. Review of Meletius M. Solovey, The Byzantine Divine Liturgy. History and Commentary (Washington, DC 1970), OCP 39 (1973) 255. 1974 г. 21. “Évolution historique de la Liturgie de Saint Jean Chrysostome,” ch. 2: “Le Chéroubicon,” POC 24 (1974) 3-33, 105-138. 22. Review of Thomas F. Mathews, The Early Churches of Constantinople: Architecture and Liturgy (University Park/London 1971), OCP 40 (1974) 199-203. 23. Review of George Galavaris, Bread and Liturgy. The Symbolism of Early Christian and Byzantine Bread Stamps (Madison/Milwaukee/London 1970), OCP 40 (1974) 209-210. 1975 г. 24. “The Continuity of Tradition in a World of Liturgical Change: The Eastern Liturgical Experience,” Seminarium 27=n.s. 15, no. 2 (1975) 445-459. 25. “Évolution historique de la Liturgie de Saint Jean Chrysostome,” ch. 3: “La prière du chéroubicon,” POC 25 (1975) 16-45. 26. The Historical Evolution of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom: The Preanaphoral Rites (doctoral dissertation abstract, Rome: PIO 1975) 75 pp. |
| 13 Brother Lawrence of the Resurrection (1611—1691). The Practice of the Presence of God ed. D. Attwater. Paraclete Books. London, 1962. P. 13, 16. 14 Архимандрит Софроний (Сахаров). Старец Силуан. М., 1991. С. 172. 15 Св. Феофан Затворник.. Собрание писем. П. 902. Т. V. С. 176. 16 Св. Феофан Затворник.. Собрание писем. П. 979. Т. VI. С. 105. 17 кровенные рассказы странника. М., 1992. С. 30. 18 Св. Макарий Великий. Духовные беседы 14:2. ТСЛ, 1994 (репринт). С.105. 19 «Пастырь» Ерма. Подобия 9:14. Писания мужей апостольских. Рига, 1994. С. 272. 20 См. Pedersen J. Israel. Vol. I. London-Copenhagen, 1926. P. 245—259; ср. Barr J. The Symbolism of Name in the Old Testament/Bulletin of the John Rylands Library, 52, 1, 1969. P. 11—29. 21 Pedersen. Op. cit. P. 256. 22 О почитании Имени у средневековых иудейских кабаллистов – см. Greshom G. Scholem. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism 3rd ed. London, 1955. P. 132—133 и ср. с интерпретацией этой темы в знаменитом романе Чарльза Вильямса All Hallow " s Eve. London, 1945. 23 Свв. Варсануфий и Иоанн. Вопросы и ответы. Руководство к духовной жизни в ответах на вопрошения учеников. Отв. 421. Издание Московского подворья Свято-Успенского Псково-Печерского монастыря. М., 1995. С. 282. 24 Преп. Иоанн Лествичник. Лествица 21:7, 27:16. Издание Московского подворья Свято-Успенского Псково-Печерского монастыря. М., 1994. С. 142. 25 Св. Григорий Синаит. Наставление безмолвствующим, 1. Добротолюбие. Т. 5. 26 Св. Феофан Затворник. Собрание писем. П. 957. T.VI. 27 Свв. Варсануфий и Иоанн. Вопросы и ответы. Отв. 91. 28 Св. Марк. Подвижник.. Послание к иноку Николаю, 5. Добротолюбие. Т. 1. 29 Авва Евагрий Понтийский. О молитве, 71. М.: Мартис, 1994. С. 84. 30 Св. Григорий Синаит. Наставление безмолвствующим, 7. Добротолюбие. Т. 5. 31 Преп. Нил Сорский. Устав о скитском житии, 2. О главных способах противоборства с приражающимися помыслами. ТСЛ, 1991. С. 25. 32 Св. Феофан Затворник. Собрание писем. П. 704. Т. IV. 33 Св. Филофей Синайский. 40 глав о трезвении, 27. Добротолюбие. Т. 3. |
|
|
