| 2A. Thomas " s Skepticism (20:24–25) Jesus has lost none except Judas (17:12), and «the Twelve» remain a defined group even without Judas (20:24). 10741 Thus Jesus must appear once more while Thomas is present; this happens after eight days (20:26) to suggest the following Sunday, perhaps to emphasize the worship experience of early Christians as the context for Jesus» revelations (cf. Rev 1:10). Thomas may suppose that his fellow disciples had seen merely a ghost 10742 if in fact they had seen anything at all; but ghost stories were not resurrections (see comments above), and Thomas is unwilling to believe. Because Thomas plays no significant individual role in other extant first-century traditions (i.e., the Synoptics), some scholars have proposed special reasons for Thomas being the particular disciple to fill this role here, proposing a specific Thomas tradition existing in this period. One approach connects Thomas with the beloved disciple, thereby affecting how readers encounter that disciple as a model for faith. 10743 Yet it appears difficult to reconcile the anonymous disciple with Thomas. 10744 Another approach takes Thomas " s appearances in this Gospel as instances of polemic against the Thomas tradition that stood behind the Gospel of Thomas and its community. 10745 If we nuance this view to allow for traditions that later became the Gospel of Thomas rather than that work itself, this approach is possible and plausible. It is not, however, by any means certain. Synoptic tradition recognizes that the disciples responded with skepticism, and some more than others (Matt 28:17; Luke 24:11, 24, 38, 41); it is not impossible that John simply preserves a more detailed tradition where a notably skeptical disciple is named, one who was eager to follow Jesus (11:16; 14:5) though too devastated by Jesus» death to accept the apostolic witness of his colleagues (20:25). That a tradition that later became the Gospel of Thomas adapted some ideas once related to Thomas is possible, but it is also possible that it merely exploited his name. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Excommunication ANDREI PSAREV Excommunication is a formal exclusion from church fellowship until repentance has been attained (cf. 1Tim. 1.20 ). According to the gospel, the church may excommunicate a transgressor if all attempts at persuasion have failed ( Mt. 18.17 ). Excommunication may be public (called anathema; cf. 1Cor. 16.22 ) or private (called aforismos; cf. 1Cor. 5.20 ). Private excommunication may be prescribed by a priest for scandalous personal sins. Nowadays privately excommunicated Christians are allowed to participate in worship, but not to partake of the Eucharist. Excommunication in the Orthodox understanding is not tantamount to damnation. It is meant as a therapeutic remedy intended to hasten an errant Christian’s realization that he or she has deviated, to make necessary life-changes and to appreciate the church membership that their actions have deprived them of. Bishops are required to take care that excommunicants shall not be lost to the church (Apostolic Constitutions 3.12). Canon 4 of the seventh ecumenical council forbade a bishop to impose excommunication while under the influence of passion (anger). The Apostolic Canons (3rd-early 4th centuries) identify the sins that must necessarily be punished by excommunication, although without specifying duration. The Ancyra Council (314) specified for excommunicants various degrees of participation in communal worship (Canon 25). The duration of excommunication depends on the depth of the repentance shown (Canon 5). An anathematized person, whether alive or dead, is not eligible for public Orthodox commemoration. The names of excommunicated bishops are removed from the lists for commemoration. Excommunication is considered a means of exerting moral pressure on errant bishops. An Orthodox Christian cannot take part in the worship of a community that has been excommunicated since it would be a demonstration of disloyalty toward the church hierarchy (Council of Antioch, Canon 2). In order to protect the flock from heterodoxy, Orthodox bishops have usually prescribed rigor toward heretics, but leniency in relation to offenders against ethical or church discipline. |
| 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 Metropolitan Tikhon to Serve Divine Liturgy for Memorial Day – Live-Stream Available Source: OCA Pravmir.com team 24 May 2020 Photo: OCA His Beatitude Metropolitan Tikhon will preside at the Hierarchical Divine Liturgy at the Monastery of Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk on Memorial Day, Monday, May 25, 2020. Despite the postponement of the 116th Memorial Day Pilgrimage , Metropolitan Tikhon and the monastic brotherhood will celebrate the Divine Liturgy on Memorial Day thus continuing uninterrupted a tradition that began in 1905. The Divine Liturgy will begin at 9:00 followed immediately by the Memorial Service for those who gave their lives in service to God and country. The services will be live streamed on the OCA Facebook page and YouTube Channel . “While we cannot be together this year on Memorial Day we want to assure everyone that the entire brotherhood of the monastery is praying for you, and this weekend we are remembering especially those who departed this life while bravely serving their country,” said Archimandrite Sergius. “But we invite you to join us on Monday for the celebration of the Divine Liturgy and in the afternoon for a virtual tour of the Metropolitan Museum here at Saint Tikhon’s.” On Monday afternoon, Archpriest John Perich, curator of the Metropolitan Museum, and a member of the Department of History and Archives of the Orthodox Church in America, will offer a streamed tour of the Metropolitan Museum and speak a bit about the history of the Memorial Day Pilgrimage during challenging times. “As we continue to celebrate the anniversary of Autocephaly , this tour will provide an opportunity for faithful from around the world to visit our museum and learn about the 225 year story of Orthodoxy in America,” said Father John. The Metropolitan Museum houses precious treasures, both spiritual and historical, illustrating the journey the Church in North America has taken from the late 18th century to the present day. Among the items in the collection are personal items of Saint Herman of Alaska , the mantiya of Saint Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow , the chalice of Saint Innocent [Veniaminov] , the miter and vestments of Saint Nicholai [Velimirovic] of Zhica , and the riassa of the ever-memorable Metropolitan Leonty [Turkevich] . The museum tour will begin on the YouTube channel of the Orthodox Church in America at 1:30 EDT (12:30 CDT; 10:30 PT). |
| The aid-raising campaign was completed on 12 April 2013. There were collected around seventy tons of cargo, including over twenty tons of flour, sugar, salt, and cereals to the sum of around one million rubles, as well as around thirty tons of medicaments and bandaging materials. Transferred to the account opened for donations were over three million rubles. The humanitarian cargo was sent to Damascus to be handed over to His Beatitude Patriarch John X of Antioch and All the East and to the Grand Mufti of Syria, Sheikh Ahmad Badr Al-Din Hassoun. The Sacred Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, which took place on 2-5 February 2013, expressed its deep concern over the dramatic aggravation of the situation of Christians in the Middle East and North Africa. “The vanishing of Christianity in the lands where it has existed for two millennia and where the main events of the Holy History took place would become a spiritual and historical tragedy”, the Council stressed in its resolution. The Primates and representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches, who came to Moscow for the celebration of the 1025 th anniversary of the Baptism of Russia, adopted the joint Statement which focuses on the situation of Christians in the Middle East. The document emphasizes that the situation in Syria is particularly tragic today. “ In the heat of the fratricidal war, Christians, as well as representatives of other religious groups, are massacred, driven out of their native cities, towns and villages, out of the places where they used to live for centuries in peace with people of other religious traditions,” the Statement reads. “We are grieving together with all the suffering people of Syria. We demand that the outstanding Christian hierarchs of Syria – Metropolitan Paul of Aleppo and Iskenderun and Syrian Jacobite Metropolitan Mar Gregory John Ibrahim of Aleppo be immediately freed.” The Primates and representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches addressed all the warring sides, as well as those, who can make a political impact on the situation, with an appeal to stop the wave of violence and extermination of civilians, to impose a moratorium on the military hostilities, and to free the captured clergy and other civilians. On 25 of July 2013, during the meeting in the Kremlin, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and all Russia handed over the text of the Statement to Russian President Vladimir Putin on behalf of the Primates and representatives of the Local Orthodox Churches who had signed the document. |
| Mark announces that the whole narrative of Jesus’ ministry is gospel (euangelion, Mark 1.1 ). Luke chooses the verb euangelizesthai for the good news of the Savior’s birth (Luke 1.10–11). In Matthew and Mark, and also Luke but without the same terminology, Jesus begins his public ministry with the announcement that the dawn of the awaited age of salvation is fulfilled in him (Matt. 4.17; Mark 1.14–15 ; Luke 4.16–21). John presents Christ as the incarnation of the eternal Logos or Word of God who mediates the very presence and power of God as grace, glory, truth, light, bread, life, and love ( John 1.1–18; 3.16; 8.12; 17.24–26 ). The witness of the four gospels confirms that the entire ministry of Jesus is good news for humanity, which is the very reason why these documents themselves were eventually named gospels. Their titles “Gospel according to Matthew,” “Gospel according to Mark,” and so forth, derive from the 2nd century, and signify both the essential unity of the gospel message and the freedom of the evangelists to narrate Jesus’ ministry from their own perspective. The heart of the gospel, distinguishable by content, blessings, and demands, is Christ and his saving work. The content is the person of Christ himself in whom God’s rule or kingdom is inaugurated. Jesus not only announced but also enacted the good news of the dawn of God’s rule, bestowing blessings in forgiving sinners, healing the sick, eating with the outcast, instructing the ways of God’s righteousness, anticipating his death and resurrection as the cosmic defeat of evil, and gathering around him followers who formed the nucleus of the church. Jesus’ gospel, proclaimed as the “word of God,” included radical demands most notably recorded in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5–7). Jesus challenged his followers to take up their cross, pray for persecutors, freely forgive others, tend to the needy, and love enemies, to be worthy of him and not risk being cast out of the kingdom (Matt. 7.21–23; 16.24–26; 25.11–12, 46). |
| Greek δξα often meant honor. Thus δξα, reputation, could provide a basis for praise in an encomium (Theon Progymn. 9.18). 7965 Yet many thinkers warned that such reputation depended on peoplés whims and was not worth expending much effort. 7966 Although some thought the pursuit of honor would lead to noble exploits (in contrast to passions), 7967 many thinkers regarded φιλοδοξα, love of glory, as something to be avoided. 7968 Cynics, of course, went so far as to refuse human commendations altogether. 7969 Stoics could ridicule those concerned with what others thought. 7970 In many Jewish texts the righteous who did exploits could be «honored,» sometimes literally «glorified»; 7971 they could seek to bring honor to their nation. 7972 Other Jewish texts praised those who would not concern themselves with human glory (cf. John 5:41,44 ), 7973 and noted that God would shame those presently honored. 7974 Early Christian writers also adopted this virtue of seeking only divine commendation ( Rom 2:29 ; 1Cor 4:3 ; 2Cor 3:1; 1 Thess 2:6). Thus Jewish thinkers, like some Greek and Roman thinkers, emphasized the importance of transcending concern for honor. At the same time, honor was a dominant social value in the ancient Mediterranean, strongest among the elite. Pressures for conformity could be great, especially conformity in the name of public religion (e.g., Josephus Life 291). 7975 The situation Jesus promised (16:2) and which confronted John " s audience was also more severe than mere loss of reputation; unless confessors of Christ within the synagogue achieved sufficient numbers critical mass, they, too, could be expelled with potentially disastrous consequences (see introduction). These who loved human honor more than God " s honor acted from fear rather than from courage (cf. 3:2); this behavior merited only shame, not honor, before the one who knows all hearts (2:23–25). Meanwhile, Jesus himself is about to become an example of relinquishing onés own honor (13:1–11), following the example of Mary (12:3–8) and setting an example for his disciples (13:14–17). Jesus as God " s Standard of Judgment (12:44–50) |
| 20:19). 10331 Given the nature of true discipleship, the other disciples» unwillingness to follow Jesus to this extent–their attempt, by contrast, to, in a sense, become secret disciples as best they could–was an act of temporary apostasy (see 12:25–26). 3. Burial Preparations (19:39–40, 42) Not only because few gathered to mourn but because the Sabbath would begin soon (19:42), Jesus» burial activities were incomplete. In the Synoptic chronology, Jesus died ca. 3 p.m.; after Joseph stopped to seek Pilatés permission, perhaps only an hour remained before sundown and the prohibition of work. John " s chronology (which does not specify the length of the crucifixion) allows perhaps two additional hours but still does not permit full preparation for burial, hence perhaps the importance of Jesus» preliminary anointing (though note the difference between 12and Mark 14:8 ; the former may mean that the full anointing was kept for the day of Jesus» burial). Although anointing (19:39) and washing the corpse were permissible even on the Sabbath (m. Šabb. 23:5), 10332 some other elements of the burial 10333 could be conducted only in the most preliminary manner for the moment, though undoubtedly hastened considerably through the agency of Joseph " s servants. One could not move the corpse or its members on the Sabbath (m. Šabb. 23:5). The Sabbath interrupted various activities, which could be resumed after its completion (e.g., 2Macc 8:27–28). In a Jewish setting, linen shrouds were part of honorable burial (19:40), 10334 specifically for the righteous. 10335 Although the plural form of linen strips in John 19:40; 20:7 10336 could tell against the authenticity of the traditional shroud, 10337 others have argued that the evidence fits the shroud 10338 and that the shroud could be included among the grave clothes or the plural could be idiomatic for «grave clothes.» 10339 (For further discussion of linen and white garments, see comment on 20:12.) They «bound» Jesus» body (19:40),but in contrast to Lazarus at his resuscitation (11:44), Jesus would require no one to loose him at his resurrection (20:6–7). |
| Pilate interrogates Jesus in 18:33; a hearing could consist of a cognitio, an inquiry to determine the truth of the charges. 9891 In such an inquiry, the official could consult his consilium, composed of his " accessores (junior barristers) and comites (attendants)» who functioned as knowledgeable legal aides (cf. Acts 25:12); but the final decision was his own. 9892 Roman judges should attend to imperial edicts, statutes, and custom (moribus, Justinian Inst. 4.17), but provincial officials were free to follow or disregard prior customs. 9893 3B. Jesus as King of the Jews (18:33–35) Although Pilate repeats the Jewish authorities» charge (18:35), it appears fitting that he, as a representative of the Roman Empire, is the first voice in the trial narrative to announce Jesus as «king of the Jews» (18:33), a title to which the Jewish leaders object (19:21) and which they themselves never offer to Jesus. 9894 On the level of the story world, Pilatés presentation of Jesus to «the Jews» as «king of the Jews» (18:39) may be ridicule (cf. 19:3); 9895 the Gospel " s ideal audience, however, will catch the irony (cf. 1:49). Probably the Johannine Christians find most Roman officials more tolerant of their claims to fidelity to their ancestral faith than the synagogue leaders are (cf. 4:9; 18:35). But as in many other cases in the Gospel, John is preaching from genuine tradition rather than creating it wholesale for his purposes. The charge, «king of the Jews» (18:33), is undoubtedly historica1. 9896 Jesus» triumphal entry (12:13) marked him as a royal aspirant; the priestly aristocracy would arrest, and the Romans execute, anyone who offered the slightest grounds for suspicion of treason against Rome. The title is not a traditional Christian confession; Jesus» «you say» in the tradition ( Mark 15:2 ) suggests that it is not the title Jesus or the tradition would have emphasized, and Romans crucified many self-proclaimed kings and their followers under the Lex Iulia de maiestate (Josephus Ant. 17.285, 295). 9897 Other Jewish rebels apparently hoped for kingship (Josephus War 2.443–444; Ant. 17.285), 9898 but unless they desired repression, Christians would have hardly invented the claim that Jesus was crucified on these grounds (cf. Acts 17:7). 9899 As broadly as «treason» could be defined in Roman law 9900 and especially in Sejanus " s Rome, 9901 the charge of claiming to be a king on the part of an otherwise unimportant provincial might require little investigation to secure condemnation. |
| At the same time, they ironically draw legitimate implications from Jesus» words: if Abraham and the prophets died physically (cf. 6:49) but Jesus grants eternal life, he must claim to be greater than Abraham and the prophets (8:53). Grammatically, their question expects the answer, «No»; Jesus is assumed not to be greater than Abraham and the prophets. Ironically, however, the informed reader recognizes that Jesus is in fact greater than the prophets. 6921 Historically, Jesus probably made claims to be greater than earlier prophets (Qmaterial in Matt 12:41–42; Luke 11:31–32); 6922 John " s audience may have known of such traditions, but the irony would be sufficient even without them. In contrast to the Samaritan woman who at first assumes that Jesus cannot be greater than Jacob (4:12) but ultimately embraces him as the promised one (4:25–26, 29), Jesus» dialogue partners here become increasingly hostile. Their suggestion that he «makes himself» something (8:53) fits a pattern of accusation throughout the Gospel: he makes himself out to be equal with God (5:18); God (10:33); God " s Son (19:7); or king (19:12). The irony is that Jesus has not made himself anything but, sent by the Father, became flesh (1:14; 3:17). 6923 5B. Witnesses to Jesus» Superiority (8:54–56) Because most people viewed self-boasting negatively, even much lesser claims often demanded adequate justification; 6924 Jesus thus announces that he is not glorifying himself (8:54). Jesus here cites two other authorities who will testify that he is greater than Abraham: God (8:54–55) and Abraham himself (8:56). In contrast to his interlocutors, who appeal to Abraham and God about whom they have studied and from whom they claim descent, Jesus knows Abraham and God personally. If Jesus» interlocutors claim to obey God " s word, the Torah (cf. 5:38), the reader knows that Jesus is the Word (1:1–18); within the story world, Jesus claims to obey his Father " s word (8:55), which likewise summons them to obey his (8:31, 37,43, 51). |
| Since the 1970s Johannine scholars have often argued that the expulsion of Jewish Christians from the synagogues represents a primary part of the Gospels setting. Some remain skeptical that conflict with the synagogues is a major issue in the Gospel because it is missing in the Epistles; 1755 but the Epistles may address other situations in the Asian churches, whereas conflict with the synagogues is surely implied in two of the communities in Rev 2and 3:9. While conflict at least is central, the question of expulsion from the synagogues is a more vulnerable part of the traditional thesis. Thus others object that biblical evidence for exclusion from the temple might not apply right after 70 and that the clear Qumran evidence for expulsion from the community (cf. 1QS 6.24–7.25) is sectarian. 1756 But while the objection is true, by what method of historiography can we exclude the biblical, Qumran, and rabbinic data, which incidentally accord with the claims of this Gospel (9:22; 12:42; 16:2), then extrapolate a case to the contrary from the silence which remains? If we applied this method elsewhere, we would lack evidence for virtually any claim about first-century Jewish Palestine not treated by Josephus. Whether or not such an expulsion occurred, it does not seem tenable to argue that it cannot have occurred. 1757 Ezra 10:8, which is clearly pre-70, refers to exclusion from the community. Other societies also used banishments of various durations (e.g., Cornelius Nepos 3 [Aristides], 1.5), and Diaspora synagogues seem to have functioned as the community centers through which local Jewish communities would have acted. 1758 Rabbinic literature attests that various degrees of excommunication developed in time, 1759 but many scholars have suggested that in the rabbinic controversy with the minim, a full herem–a cutting off from Israel–was employed. 1760 Certainly exclusion from the community appears as a discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls; see various levels of discipline in 1QS 6.24–7.25, including permanent exclusion (cf. also 4Q265 1 1–2; 4Q266 18 4–5; 4Q284a). The conjunction of synagogue expulsion and (illegal or representative) execution in John 16suggests that the nature of the expulsion experienced by the community or anticipated by the writer was severe. |
|
|
