| Craig S. Keener The Witness of the First Disciples. 1:19–51 ALTHOUGH THE GOSPEL " S NARRATIVE opens with 1:19, the implied reader knows Jesus» origin from 1:1–18 (and most of John " s earliest audience probably were already Christians; see introduction). That the narrative can open abruptly after the prologue (especially the preparation of 1:6–8,15) is to be expected, and a Diaspora audience conditioned by Mediterranean dramatic culture would feel at home here. Greek dramas often started by informing the viewer of what had happened prior to the opening of the play. The Odyssey opens abruptly and afterwards explains more of Odysseus " s travels through flashbacks, but its hearers could also presuppose what they knew of Odysseus from stories about him in the Iliad (if they knew that work first; probably they heard both repeatedly). The prologue introduces John the Baptist as a model witness for Jesus, leading immediately into a section (1:19–51) about the nature of witness and disciple-making for Jesus, which John the Baptist (1:19–28) opens. 3790 Apart from the prologue, the evangelist starts his Gospel essentially where Mark did and early Christian evangelists often did (Acts 1:22; 10:37; 13:24). 3791 This witness also fits the Gospel " s specifically Jewish framework by opening with a witness to Israel (1:31,49) embraced by true Israelites (1:47). 3792 The writer of the Fourth Gospel wishes his audience not only to continue in the faith themselves (20:31), but to join him in openly confessing Christ (12:42–43), proclaiming him in a hostile world (15:26–27). The Witness of the Forerunner to Israel (1:19–28) In 1:19–34, as in 3:27–36, John the Baptist models the activity of a «witness» (1:8) by deferring all honor to Jesus. This model may counter the tendency of some to exalt John unduly at Jesus» expense (see comment on 1:6–8); it may also respond to some leaders in the Johannine circle who have proved too ambitious for personal honor (3 John 9). This context explains who John is not (1:20–21), his function as a witness to another (1:22–27), and his testimony for the other (1:29–34). |
| Craig S. Keener The ultimate model for love and service. 13:1–38 THE FOOT WASHING IN JOHN is the narrative introduction for the final discourse, part of the lengthy prolegomena to the Passion Narrative. Jesus» impending death dominates this scene. It intersperses Jesus» words and example of service (13:1, 3–10, 12–17, 31–35) with foreshadowings of his betrayal (13:2, 10–11, 18–30), then opens directly into discussion about Jesus» departure by way of the cross (13:36–38; 14:3–6). 8048 This scene therefore paves the way for the Farewell Discourse (13:31–17:26). 8049 By the foot washing Jesus prefigures his impending glorification, which is the theological subject of most of the context (12:16, 23, 28,41; 13:31–32). This act identifies Jesus as the Suffering Servant and defines his passion as an act of loving service. At the same time, however, it also summons Jesus» followers to imitate his model, serving and loving one another to the extent of laying down their lives for one another (13:14–16, 34–35). The Setting (13:1–3) John again links Jesus» imminent «hour» with the Passover season (13:1). (On the «hour,» see comment on 2:4; cf. 12:23.) In contrast to the Synoptic picture of the Last Supper, however, Jesus» closing hours before his arrest in this Gospel are «before» Passover (13:1). This detail fits John " s chronology (13:29; 18:28; 19:14, 31, 42), 8050 which ultimately supports his portrayal of Jesus as the paschal lamb (1:29,36; 19:36). At this point, however, John underlines a different aspect of the chronology: Jesus loved his own «to the end» (13:1). This is Johannine double entendre: it can imply «to the utmost,» «fully,» as well as «to the point of his death.» 8051 Such a double entendre reinforces the measure of God " s love in the Fourth Gospel (3:16) and early Christianity ( Rom 5:5–9 ): Jesus» death. The preceding context also illustrates Jesus» love (11:5) that would cost him his life (11:7–16), but here the specific objects of his love in the Lazarus story give way to all of «his own» (cf. 10:3) who would be remaining in the world (17:11). |
| Craig S. Keener The Response of the Unorthodox. 4:1–54 THE BULK OF THIS SECTION, which actually continues the general thought of 3:1–36, revolves around a sinful Samaritan woman and her response to Jesus. If the initial faith of the best representative from the Judean elite appears ambiguous (3:1–10), the faith of the socially worst representative from an unorthodox and ethnically mixed sect appears far more positive, even allowing her to bring her people as a whole to Jesus (4:39–42; cf. 1:46). She is one of those who believe, not one on whom God " s wrath remains (3:36); but those who exalt themselves will be brought low (3:30–31), and most, like Nicodemus initially, do not receive Jesus» witness (3:32). Yet Christ is available even to the elite. If we place John the Baptist in the special category of witness, 5206 the context surrounding his witness (3:22–36) in fact alternates between the socially powerful and the weak, providing positive and ambiguous or negative examples of each: Nicodemus (elite, open but uncomprehending), a Samaritan woman (receptive), an official of Antipas (receptive), and a lame man (unfaithful). Only Nicodemus, however, is part of the Judean religious elite, for the royal official could be viewed as unorthodox. This section also includes a much briefer healing miracle with no accompanying discourse (4:46–54). The royal official here represents part of a Galilean economic elite, but like many other Herodian aristocrats would have been religiously impure by Pharisaic standards. Through him the Gospel writer illustrates various levels of faith. True Worshipers in Samaria (4:1–42) This extended narrative contrasts starkly with the Nicodemus narrative. 5207 There a religious teacher in Israel proved unable to understand Jesus» message (3:10); here a sinful Samaritan woman not only received the message (though starting with no less daunting social obstacles–cf. πς in 3:4, 9 and 4:9; perhaps πθεν in 4:11), but brought it to her entire Samaritan town (4:28–29, 39–42). Here, as often, John employs ironic contrasts among characters to convey his emphases. 5208 (That the Samaritan woman, in contrast to Nicodemus, is unnamed is probably not as significant. As a woman, her name was less likely to be recorded in John " s tradition; 5209 further, most characters in the context are unnamed, and perhaps their names had not been preserved–2:1; 4:46; 5:5; 7:3; 9:1. |
| Fulani herdsmen pose for a picture in Zango, Zango-kataf local govt, Kaduna State, Nigeria, in March 22, 2014. Photo: Reuters/Afolabi Sotunde At least 20 Christians, including nine children, were massacred and killed by Fulani herdsmen during an attack on a Nigerian village last week, human rights watchdog organizations are reporting. International Christian Concern, a U.S.-based non-denominational advocacy group, announced in a press release shared with The Christian Post on Monday that 19 members of the Salama Baptist Church in the village of Ancha in the Plateau state were killed by Fulani herdsman in last Thursday’s attack, while one of the deceased was a member of a Methodist church. At least five other Christians were also injured in the assault and were taken to the hospital for treatment. The organization noted that the attack left one entire family with no surviving members. According to Morning Star News , an independent Christian organization dedicated to reporting on human rights abuses around the world, police believe the attack was an act of revenge after a Fulani boy who resided in the village was beheaded in a nearby village. John Bulus, church secretary of Salama Baptist Church in Ancha, told Morning Star News that those killed during last week’s massacre came from three different households in the 50-home village. Among those killed, he said, were children aged from three months old to 17. According to Bulus, the children killed in the attack are 3-month-old Azumi Monday, 3-year-old Lami Monday, 5-year-old Aveh Ishaya, 6-year-old Emmanuel Sunday, 7-year-old Deba John, 8-year-old Ishaya Sunday, 9-year-old Sati Ishaya, 10-year-old Ayo John and 17-year-old Friday John. The adults killed in the attack are 18-year-old Bala Ishaya, 19-year-old Sei Musa, 20-year-old Tona Monday, 21-year-old Musa Ishaya, 40-year-old Ishaya Ahmadu, 40-year-old Lami Ishaya, 45-year-old Laraba Bulus, 48-year-old Kande Ahmadu, 50-year-old Bulus Rohun, 75-year-old Gada Oda and 80-year-old Ahmadu Rohun. |
| Craig S. Keener Conflict Over the Healing of a Blind Man. 9:1–10:21 This narrative demonstrates Jesus» claims in the previous context and chronologically follows directly on Jesus» departure from the temple on the last day of the festival (7:37; 8:59). It probably begins not far from the temple (cf. 9:7). This section opens with the healing of a blind man (9:1–7) and closes with the recognition that this miracle was not what one expected from a demon (10:21). The narrative between includes Pharisaic charges that Jesus» healing cannot be from God (9:16,22,24), a response from the formerly blind man that challenges the logic of their paradigm (9:25, 27, 31–33), and a response from Jesus, who reverses the charge and shows that it is his opponents who are not from God (9:40–10:18). 7009 Jesus» claim in this section to be the good shepherd (10:11) implicitly advances his previous claim to deity (8:58). Blindness and Sin (9:1–34) Contrary to what the elite supposed (9:34), the man was not born blind due to a sin (9:2–3), nor was his healer a sinner (9:16, 24); by contrast, the elite themselves are sinful and spiritually blind (9:39–41). The true connection between blindness and sin links together the entire section 9:1–41. But because 9:40–41 begin the response to the Pharisees which is continued in 10:1–18 and 9:35–39 begins Jesus» defense of the healed man, we have limited the first section to the material directly related to the healing and responses to it (9:1–34). The following section (9:35–10:18) traces Jesus» own response to the varied responses to his act, especially the responses of the healed man and the Jerusalem elite. Moreover, the contrast between physical and spiritual blindness (dependence on Christ and opposition to him) of 9:39–41 is already implicit at the beginning of this section. Jesus became invisible in some sense to his enemies in 8:59, so they could not see him; but here Jesus cures a man physically blind and so despised by his enemies (9:2, 34). (Indeed, worldly evaluations of the reasons for blindness form an inclusio around Jesus» healing and the man " s fidelity to him; 9:2, 34.) Epistemological terms («know») dominate the dialogue scenes and probably provide the metaphoric meaning of «sight» language also prominent in the chapter. 7010 |
| 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). |
| John Anthony McGuckin Holy Spirit SERGEY TROSTYANSKIY The subject of the Holy Spirit is one of the deepest mysteries in the church. He is the Sanctifier who never becomes incarnate and whose personal being always stays mysteriously hidden, though universally extensive. From the beginning to the present day the Holy Spirit has never been a subject to comprehend, or an easy subject to speak about. Sergius Bulgakov suggested that this will not change until that time beyond time when the glorified church in Heaven, at the last day, will be able to look upon the true icon of the Holy Spirit, in the form of the glorious communion of elect saints, the completion of the sanctifying operations of the Divine Spirit in the cosmos; as then it will have a more graphic understanding of his hypostatic reality. In the meantime, the church knows him through his fundamental energy of sanctifying believers, molding them into conformity with the redeeming Christ. This mysterious character is equally present in the history of the expression of the church’s theological tradition. Orthodox pneumatology passed through a number of stages in its development. The basic insights of the New Testament authors presented the Spirit as a personal being. They concurred with the Old Testament view that the Spirit raised up judges, prophets, and seers, friends of God who led the people correctly in worship and belief, speaking as of God himself ( Judg. 3.10, 6.34 ; Neh. 9.30; Is. 11.2 ). The Old Testament also associates the gift of the Spirit with creativity ( Gen. 1.2 ), with the finding and making of beauty (especially human craft and skill: Ex. 35.31 ). However, the proper terminology capable of expressing the Spirit as a personal subsistence (hypostasis) of the trinitarian God was yet to be developed. The profound teachings on the Spirit as presented by Jesus in the final discourses in the Gospel of John have always been the church’s goal and inspiration for all pneumatological thought. The early patristic authors, in their turn, attempted to comprehend the Spirit in terms of his operations and relations to the Father and the Son. These attempts were not without certain historical and semantic confusions, witnessed among the early 2nd-century writers such as Theophilus of Antioch, and other early fathers concerned with understanding God’s work of creation and revelation. |
| Craig S. Keener Conflict at Hanukkah. 10:22–42 THE ENTIRE SECTION FROM 7to 10occurs at Sukkoth, the festival of Tabernacles. This passage (10:22–42) occurs at the festival of dedication, not long afterward. Sukkoth motifs dominate 7:1–10far more than Hanukkah motifs dominate this section, which is shorter and overshadowed by it, perhaps as a continuation of it (cf. 4:46–54 with 4:1–42). The conflict about Jesus» identity escalates, with Jesus revealing his identity (10:30) and provoking deadly hostility (10:31) more rapidly than on his previous visit to Jerusalem (8:58–59). In this case as in the last one, Jesus speaks in terms whose meaning is obvious enough in an early Jewish or biblical framework (10:33), but which leave his claim sufficiently inexplicit that he can again escape their grasp (10:34–39). His hour, in other words, had not yet come (7:30; 8:20). The Setting (10:22–23) The setting provides a transition from the festival of Tabernacles (7:1–10:18), if only to emphasize that the debates of that festival continued here not many weeks later. Because the intensity of conflict in 10:19–21 is not great enough to require a transition for narrative reasons (as was necessary in 8:59–9:1, where, however, the transition was by location rather than by time), a historical reminiscence seems the best explanation for it. Some parallels between Jesus and Hanukkah appear, but had John exercised total creative freedom he could have provided much more explicit ones. 1. Hanukkah (10:22, 36) In the Jewish year, Hanukkah, the «feast of dedication» 7449 (10:22), came soon after Sukkoth, the festival of tabernacles, indicating another journey to Jerusalem. That both feasts were seven days in length also linked them in popular thought. 7450 In view of their temporal proximity and the brevity of this section, it is not surprising that motifs would carry over from the previous section, 7451 as if this section somehow stands in the shadow of the previous one. That this feast commemorated national liberation but did not appear in the Bible 7452 would be telling for Johns Jewish-Christian audience; Jesus could also attend an extrabiblical festival as a sign of solidarity with his nation " s heritage. But it is also strikingly ironic that the promised Messiah, Israel " s deliverer, would face rejection at a festival commemorating a national deliverance (cf. 1:11). 7453 |
| John Anthony McGuckin Resurrection THEODORE G. STYLIANOPOULOS Belief in resurrection, and specifically resurrection from the dead, is a distinct biblical teaching that derives from Judaism and finds its full significance in the person and life of Jesus of Nazareth, historically proclaimed to have died, been buried, and risen from the dead. Much more so than in Judaism, resurrection is absolutely central to Christianity ( 1Cor. 15.12–19 ), especially Eastern Christianity, because the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ constitute the foundational saving events, and the core of the gospel, which lie behind the birth and character of the church, the New Testament, and Christian theology and spirituality. While resurrection is chiefly tied to the resurrection of Jesus and to the hope of the resurrection of the dead at his glorious return, the term also carries diverse metaphorical meanings such as the historical restoration of a people, life after death, immortality of the soul, and even an experience of spiritual renewal in this present life. In ancient paganism the theme of resurrection was connected not to a historical person or historical event, but rather to mythological deities such as Isis and Osiris whose cult celebrated the annual rebirth of nature and the power of fertility, a phenomenon that scholarship has widely judged to be entirely different from the Christian understanding in origin, scope, and meaning. In the Old Testament the focus was on this present order of life, the main arena of God’s blessings and chastisements. Existence after death was viewed as virtual nonexistence, called Hades, a “land of forgetfulness,” a place of shades ( Ps. 88.10–12; 87.11–13 LXX), having no contact with the living and cut off from God himself ( Ps. 6.5; 6.6 LXX). Exceptionally, some righteous persons such as Enoch ( Gen. 5.24 ) and Elijah (2 Kings 2.11) escaped death not by resurrection but by direct transfer to heaven. In other rare cases, Elijah and Elishah revived dead children to ordinary life as apparent acts of healing (1 Kings 17.21–22; 2 Kings 4.34–5). Texts such as Hosea 6.1–3 and Ezekiel 37.1–14 look to the resurgence and restoration of Israel in space and time, although also easily seen by Christian interpreters as prophecies of the final resurrection of the dead. A singular text such as Isaiah 26.19 that foresees a resurrection of the dead is as rare as it is peripheral to classic Old Testament teaching. Regular belief in a future resurrection of the dead, especially of the righteous as reward for their persecution and martyrdom, developed among Jews after 200 bce and is attested notably in Daniel 12.1–3 and 2Maccabees 7.9, 22–9. By the time of Jesus, among other divergent views of the afterlife, this doctrine was firmly established among the Pharisees (in contrast to the Sadducees, Mk. 12.18 ) and subsequently became a key teaching of mainstream Christianity. |
| 1 Архим. Софроний. Письма в Россию. М., 1997. С. 19. 2 Архим. Софроний. Письма в Россию. М., 1997. С. 22. 3 Он же. Преподобный Силуан Афонский. Эссекс, 1991. С. 20, 59, 89 и т. д. 4 Он же. Письма в Россию. С. 28. 5 Архим. Софроний. Письмо к Д. Бальфуру от 31 октября 1961 г.//Archive of the Gennadeios Library, Athens. G 2 . 6 Архим. Софроний. Письмо 18 к Д. Бальфуру от апреля 1934 г. (G 1 : В-19). 7 См.: Бальфур Д. Письмо к отцу Софронию от 27 сентября (10 октября) 1932 г.//Archive of the Monastery of St. John the Baptist. M BS . 8 О раннем периоде жизни Д. Бальфура и его обращении в Православие упоминает матушка Силуана (Соболева) в книге «Три встречи» (Москва, 1997. С. 76–83). Однако в ее повествовании встречаются некоторые исторические неточности. Так, она, называя отца Давида «лордом», по-видимому, приняла его за известного политического деятеля начала XX в. — лорда Бальфура, тогда как отец Давид имел более скромное социальное происхождение. Кроме того, занимательный рассказ о том, как Давид Бальфур «пожертвовал много денег Римскому папе» и «основал Шевтонский монастырь для борьбы с Православием», не имеет под собой реальных исторических оснований. 9 Из письма отца Софрония епископу Вениамину. Письмо не сохранилось. Некоторые отрывки восстановлены благодаря заметкам, сделанным самим Д. Бальфуром. См.: Бальфур Д. Заметки из письма отца Софрония к митрополиту Вениамину//Archive of the Gennadeios Library, Athens. G 1 : Excursus. 10 Бальфур Д. Письмо к отцу Софронию от 7 апреля 1936 г. (M BS ). См. Приложение II, 1: «Старец — не оракул». 11 Архим. Софроний. Письмо к Д. Бальфуру 23 от 7 (20) апреля 1936 г. (G 1 : С-11). 12 См.: Каллистос Уэр, еп. Obituary: David Balfour//Sobornost (incorporating Eastern Churches Review). T. 12, 1. Лондон, 1990. С. 55. 13 См.: Каллистос Уэр, еп. Obituary: David Balfour//Sobornost (incorporating Eastern Churches Review). T. 12, Лондон, 1990. С. 55. 14 Архим. Софроний. Письмо к Марии Семеновне Калашниковой (сестре отца Софрония) от 24 августа 1973 г.//Archive of the Monastery of St. John the Baptist. |
|
|
