| Craig S. Keener Introductory issues. 13:1–17:26 JUST AS MARK 13 INTERPRETS the imminent passion of Mark 14–15 for the disciples in terms of their future tribulation, so Jesus» final discourse in John " s Gospel interprets the meaning of Jesus» passion for his disciples: they will share both his sufferings and his resurrection life. 7994 Unity of the Discourse Source critics have detected a variety of clues, especially alleged changes of focus and editorial seams, that indicate divergent sources in the discourse. 7995 Most commonly, scholars divide ch. 14 from chs. 15 and 16, suggesting that they are either alternative versions (perhaps both hallowed by time, or one perhaps older than the other), 7996 or a reworked version in addition to an original version (the original is more often thought to be John 14 ). 7997 Talbert suggests that John varies these discourses, since ancient critics recognized that repeating words exactly wearies the hearer. 7998 Some scholars have challenged the thesis of duplicate discourses, 7999 others have argued for distinct discourses offered by Jesus himself on different nights of the Passover week, 8000 and a minority of scholars have argued for the discoursés unity. 8001 Some relatively recent source-critical work takes a chronological approach to the development of the discourse: thus Painter thinks that John composed three versions of the Farewell Discourse, the first before conflict with the synagogue (13:31–14:31), the second during rejection by the synagogue (15:l-16:4a) and the third (16:4b-33) in opposition to the synagogue. 8002 Berg largely concurs but adapts this position slightly, 8003 thinking that 15:1–17 is probably «an independent unit» from the time of that conflict. 8004 Such a detailed reconstruction requires so much dependence on hypothetical reconstructions, and assumes John " s lack of creative revision of his sources to such a degree, that it is not likely to commend much assent today despite its brilliance. More speculatively, some, especially earlier source critics, also have suggested displacements in parts of the discourse, 8005 or alterations made in the the use of the discourse in various recensions of the Fourth Gospe1. 8006 Most such source-critical theories remain speculative, although at least one editorial seam (14:31) appears convincing enough to allow the possibility (albeit not the certainty) that John 14 and John 15–16 represent two versions, or two sections, of an original discourse now bound together. This seam in 14may be disputed (see our comment), but it is the strongest argument for the composite nature of the current discourse. 8007 Apparent inconsistencies such as 13and 16are also possible indicators, 8008 though they may simply reflect John " s deliberately ambiguous use of language. |
| Craig S. Keener Revelation of Jesus. 16:5–33 ALTHOUGH A GRADUAL SHIFT takes place from the emphasis on persecution in 16:1–4, there is no decisive break here with the preceding context. When Jesus was with the disciples, they did not need warning about future sufferings (16:5), presumably because he would protect them (18:8–9). But now that he was going and their hearts were burdened with sorrow (16:6), he had to assure them that the Paraclete would continue to reveal him to them and through them (16:7–15). He had warned them of coming sufferings (15:18–16:4), but they could not bear further revelation of such matters now (16:12); when the Paraclete would come, however, he would prepare them for the rest, telling them more things to come (16:13), presumably including events such as those narrated in the book of Revelation (if, as we have argued, John and Revelation reflect the same community). The coming of the Paraclete would enable the disciples to go on the offensive (15:26–27) because through him Jesus would remain among them (16:13–15). In him they would have victory over the world, despite their tribulation (16:33). His Departure for Their Good (16:5–7) In the context of the disciples» discouragement due to the world " s hostility (16:1–6), the Paraclete would come to prosecute the world (16:8–11). The disciples could be strong in the face of persecution, despite Jesus» absence, because the Paraclete would be with them (v. 7); this suggests that the Paracletés prosecution of the world is on their behalf and through their testimony. 9191 They grieved that Jesus was «going» (16:5–6), but resurrection joy would soon swallow their grief concerning the cross (16:22; cf. 1Pet 1:6 ). 9192 Jesus» return would provide them the Spirit, who would continue Jesus» presence with them. Because of their grief (16:6), Jesus assures them emphatically («I tell you the truth») 9193 that they will be better off with him departing to send them the other advocate he has mentioned (14:16). 9194 The Paraclete is better for them than Jesus in the flesh would have been (16:7) because he re-presents Jesus dynamically to the world in each hostile situation. Jesus had also challenged the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment, and the prophetic Spirit, proclaiming the same Jesus through his community, would continue the challenge. 9195 This continuity between the two should not be understood as identity, as in the docetic reading of John, 9196 nor even to imply that the Spirit cannot bring new teachings; 9197 the Spirit will say some new things (16:12–13) but in continuity with Jesus» revelation. 9198 But it does mean that Jesus himself is present in the Spirit, though only those in his community recognize his presence. 9199 The World " s Prosecutor (16:8–11) |
| Craig S. Keener Jerusalem and its King. 12:12–50 ONCE JESUS ARRIVES IN JERUSALEM (12:12–19), people respond to him in various ways. The Gentiles seek him (12:20–22), provoking his remark that the time for his death had come (12:23–33). His own people, however, whose king he is (12:13–15), remained blind (12:37–43; cf. 9:39–41), unable to see Jesus» glory which Isaiah saw, which is the light (Jesus» discussion of which frames the comment on their blindness–12:34–36,44–50). Yet Jesus remained God " s agent and standard for judgment (12:44–50). The Arrival of Zion " s King (12:12–19) Earlier passages had introduced Jesus as rightful king of Israel (1:49), but also warned that his «own» as a whole did not receive him (1:11; or that they misunderstood his kingship–6:15; cf. 18:36–37). Both themes are present here, but John is careful to emphasize that his people as a whole would have been more open to him (12:17–18), but that it was the leaders who were responsible for their people being led wrongly (12:19). 1. Authenticity of the Core Tradition That someone would go out to meet with respect an important teacher (11:20), signs worker (12:18) or king (12:13) is not unlikely (see comment on 11:20); that crowds already present loudly welcomed many incoming pilgrims is virtually certain. Yet because Jesus» claim to kingship is often doubted, some are doubtful that the triumphal entry happened. If people hailed Jesus as king, why did the Romans not intervene suddenly? But the Gospels present the grandness of the event in the light of their theology about Jesus» identity; most of the accounts do not require us to suppose an originally large-scale notice. 7803 In the bustle of a city milling with pilgrims, more of whom were arriving throughout the day, the Romans need not have noticed this relatively obscure event. 7804 The Roman garrison was concentrated on the Temple Mount, and Jesus was hardly the only Passover pilgrim welcomed by the crowds already present. More importantly, leaders of the municipal aristocracy, normally charged with keeping peace for the Romans, were also concentrated on the Temple Mount at this season (being mainly priests) and had they been notified of the entry in time to stop it–which assumes a much longer period of acclamation than is likely–they preferred not to act in front of the crowd anyway ( Mark 11:32; 14:2 ). In John the leaders, who are now Pharisees, continue to be concerned about the opinions of the crowd (12:19). |
| Compared to the contemporary worship of most Protestant churches and post-Vatican II Roman Catholic churches, the worship of the Orthodox Church seems overly-formal, complicated, and rigid in its rubrics. Why are there so many rituals in the Orthodox Church? Why isn’t there more spontaneity, creativity, and freedom of expression? Why is the Orthodox Sunday worship service—the Divine Liturgy—essentially the same week after week, every year, for more than fifteen-hundred years? Most Orthodox believers would respond, “Because it is our Tradition.” However, do you know why it is our Tradition and why rituals are so important to our Christian Faith? The Need For Peace And Order Actually, the Bible and the Church Fathers rarely use the word “ritual” or “rite” when describing Judaic or Christian religious ceremonial practices. The words more often used are “ordinances” and “observances.” These words are more descriptive of what should be going on. For many, “rites” are just a series of behaviors people customarily do without knowing its meaning—perhaps there was once a reason for the behavior, but now people just “go through the motions.” An “ordinance” is a decree that an activity be regulated (Hebrews 9:1)—kept to a particular sequence or boundary. In regards to worship services, the Apostle Paul stated, “all things should be done decently and in order” (1 Corinthians 14:40). The reason for this is given in a previous verse: “for God is a God not of disorder but of peace” (v.33). In fact, St. Paul praises the church at Colosse for how orderly (τξιν) they are (Colossians 2:5). Being that our present day Liturgy of St. Chystostom is based on the first century Liturgy of St. James, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, the Orthodox Church has always practiced a formal, orderly pattern to its worship. However, the formality of worship really goes back to Judaic practices starting 13 centuries before Christ with the exodus of Israel from Egypt. God, through Moses, gave explicit details about a very orderly and elaborate form of worship centered around the Tabernacle or Temple. Why? Because God knows how easy it is for mankind to argue about worship practice differences to the point of confusion (Acts 19:32), prejudice (John 4:20), and violence (Genesis 4:3-8). It is not hard to look through the history of mankind and find wars which were in part justified over disputed religious beliefs and practices. Though inter-faith conflict will likely continue (John 17:14), God wants to prevent intra-faith conflict within His Church (John 17:22-23). Therefore, it is necessary the Church be unified in Her worship practices. The Orthodox Church has kept the unity of the Faith in part by preserving a precise formula in Her worship. In doing so, the Orthodox Church has avoided a lot of dissension that has plagued other branches of Christianity. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Old Testament EUGEN J. PENTIUC TWO TESTAMENTS, ONE BIBLE The Jewish Bible, also known as Tanakh or Hebrew Scriptures, is for the Orthodox Church the first part of the Christian Bible or Holy Scripture. It is called by Christians the Old Testament in a precise theological balance to the affirmation of the New Testament. These terms were first signaled by Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century and were developed into a theory of interpretation using Hellenistic hermeneutics where typology was used to read the Old Testament in the light of the New (Kannengiesser 2006). The early church’s struggle with Marcion of Pontus over the Old Testament’s place and role besides the emerging Christian scriptures occupied most of the 2nd century. Marcion (d. 160) rejected the Old Testament as having any authority for Christians. He argued that the God of the Jews was totally different from, and inferior to, the Christian God. His radical view, one that was often echoed by Gnostic teachers, accelerated the broader Christian embrace of the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole, and most scholars agree that the defeat of Marcion greatly helped to fix the church’s canon of received scriptures. Another early danger, supersessionism, discernible in the indictment of the Parable of the Wicked Tenants ( Mt. 21.33–46 ) and supported by Paul’s teaching that the coming of Christ put an end to the custodian role of the Law ( Gal. 3.24–5 ; Rom. 10.4 ; cf. Heb. 8.13), led to a premature devaluation of the Old Testament among some Christian commentators. The idea that the church and its new Scripture (New Testament) superseded the old Israel and its Hebrew Scripture is attested in many early Christian writings. Even so, the church as a whole has been able to keep the two Testaments in a dialectical unity, in the main avoiding factual reductionism and supersessionism as dangers. The centrality of the Christ event in Christian tradition, not least as a key hermeneutical principle, helped in reaching this objective. |
| Азбука веры Православная библиотека Orthodox books Contemporary Non-Orthodox Biblical Studies The Gospel of John Пожертвовать Вход Craig S. Keener The Gospel of John Источник Revelation of Jesus. 16:5-33 18:1-20:31. The passion and resurrection Jesus» prayer for disciples. 17:1–26 HERE JESUS SHIFTS FROM ADDRESSING the disciples to addressing the Father (17:1–26); after he returns to bestow the Spirit in 20:19–23, the disciples will pray directly to the Father for themselves (16:23–26) because he will have given them a new relationship with the Father (16:27) based on his own (16:28). Nevertheless, this prayer undoubtedly provides a model for their own; disciples concerned with their Lord " s agendas ought to place a high priority on unity with other disciples. Just as such unity would have helped them through the crisis imminent during Jesus» prayer (cf. 16:31–32), it would give believers victory in their continuing conflict with the world (16:33; cf. 13:35; 15:18–27). For comments on ancient prayer and believers praying as Jesus» representatives, see 14:13–14; cf. also comment on Jesus» prayer in 11:41–42. Introductory Issues Käsemann emphasizes the testamentary character of ch. 17, 9382 but as we have remarked earlier, the testament as a whole begins in ch. 13. Where the testamentary genre is most relevant to ch. 17 is the frequency of blessings and wish-prayers in testaments (e.g., Gen 49 ; Deut 32–33 ). 9383 That John closes the previous section of the last discourse before opening this prayer (τατα λλησεν, 17:1) suggests the prayer " s special significance for John " s audience. 9384 Käsemann rightly notes that much of the Gospel " s theology climaxes in this concluding section of Jesus» final discourse in the Gospel, 9385 though one should note that many other passages also provide prisms that refract larger cross sections of Johannine theology. As Minear points out, this prayer represents «the decisive turning point between ministry and passion,» viewing the hour of Jesus» glorification «both proleptically and retrospectively.» 9386 |
| 1 закон молитвы (лат.). 2 здесь и далее, если не оговорено иное, цитаты даются в переводе с английского, с того текста, который имеется в оригинале. 3 Epanagoge fou nomou, 9th С., III, 8, ed. С. E. Zachariae von Lingenthal, in J.Zepos, P.Zepos, Jus Craecoromanum, 2 (Athens, 1931), p. 242. 4 John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa, IV, 17; PG 94:1180bc. 5 Cyril of Jerusalem, Horn, cat., 4, 36; PG 33:500bc. 6 Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit, 27; ed. B. Pruche, Sources Chretiennes 17 (Paris, 1945), p. 234. 7 Chalcedon, Definitio fidei, Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta (Bolognä Istituto per le Scienze Religiose, 1973), p. 84. 8 Gregory of Nyssa, In Cant. or. VI, ed. W. Jaeger (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 6:182; PG 44:893b. 9 PG 3:1045d-1048b. 10 Origen, De princ., I, 1, 6. Ed. B. Koetschau, GCS, 22. 11 Pseudo-Dionysius, Mystical Theology, PG 3:1048A. 12 Barlaam the Calabrian. Second Letter to Palamas, ed. G. Schiro, Barlaam Calabrö epistole (Palermo, 1954), p. 298—299. 13 Gregory Palamas, Triads, II, 3, 67; ed. J. Meyendorff (Louvain: Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense, 1959), p. 527. 14 Ibid., 53; p.493. 15 Gregory of Nyssa, Commentary on EC., sermon 7; PG 44:732d; ed. W. Jaeger (Leiden: Brill, 1962) 5:415—416; trans. H. Musurillo in From Glory to Glory: Texts from Gregory of Nyssa " s Mystical Writings (New York: Scribner, 1961), p. 129. 16 Цепи (греч.) 17 Согласие отцов (лат.). 18 Ин. 1:14. 19 Цитируется по русскому синодальному переводу. В англоязычном оригинале: «Господь сотворил меня в начале трудов Своих» или «Господь создал меня перед началом трудов Своих». 20 Origen, De principiis, Praefatio 8; ed. В. Koetschau, GCS 22 (1913), 14,6—13; trans. G.W.Butterworth, On the First Principles (London: SPCK, 1936), p. 5. 21 John Chrysostom, De paenitentia, horn. 6,4; PG 49:320. 22 Emile Brehier, Histoire de la philosophic (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1931), II, 494. 23 H.A.Wolfson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers (Cambridgë Harvard University Press, 1956), I, vi. |
| The New Testament presupposes the stream of Jewish worship and prayer. The Gospel of Luke records exquisite prayers by the Virgin Mary ( Lk. 1.46–55 ), the priest Zechariah ( Lk. 1.68–79 ), and the elder Simeon ( Lk. 2.29–32 ). Jesus himself, circumcised on the eighth day and presented at the Temple on the fortieth, grew up in the tradition of Jewish prayer and piety with frequent appearances at the Temple and the synagogue. He not only gave instructions on prayer but also practiced heartfelt prayer, seeking solitude in the hills where he could pray all night, not least before making important decisions ( Mk. 1.35 ; Lk. 6.12 ). The personal depth of Jesus’ prayers to God the Father breaks forth in dramatic moments of joyful confession ( Mt. 11.25 ), the giving of the Lord’s Prayer ( Mt. 6.5–13 ), the high priestly prayer to the Father ( Jn. 17 ), and the agony at Gethsemane ( Mk. 14.33–5 ), all of which exemplify the intimate relationship with God as a personal and loving Father which Jesus lived and taught. While the early church inherited much of the Jewish tradition of prayer, it gradually moved away from the Temple worship and cultic practices such as animal sacrifices, circumcision, and kosher foods, regarded as no longer compatible with the gospel. Instead, the church focused on its own rites of baptism, the Mystical Supper or Eucharist, and other rites that gradually developed into a whole tradition of worship continuously elaborated in content and structure. St. Paul, large sections of whose letters read like prayers, is a primary figure of the Christian renewal of prayer and worship in trinitarian forms based on the view that each baptized Christian is a living sacrifice to God ( Rom. 6.4, 13; 12.1 ) and the church is the body of Christ and the temple of the Holy Spirit ( 1Cor. 3.16–17; 12.12–27 ). Stirring echoes of early Christian prayers and aspects of worship, replete with Old Testament language, frequently occur in the Book of Revelation, where the eschatological drama of salvation itself is recounted from the perspective of the worship of God (Rev. 4.4–11; 5.8–14; 7.9–12; 11.15–18; 12.10–12; 15.3–4; 19.1–8). |
| A ROC hierarch attends events marking the anniversary of the Jasenovac tragedy Source: DECR Natalya Mihailova 15 September 2016 Metropolitan Aristarkh of Kemerovo and Prokopyevsk, with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, visited the Serbian Orthodox Church and took part in events marking the 75thanniversary of the tragedy in Jasenovac. Photo: https://mospat.ru In 1941, the Croatian Nazi Ustashas established the largest regional system of concentration camps – Jasenovac. For the number of years, 700 thousand people were killed in it, including half a million Orthodox Serbs, 40 thousand Gypsies and 33 thousand Jews. Executed in the camps were also people suspected of anti-Fascist activities. According to some estimates, among the victims were 20 thousand children under 12. Many Serbs suffered martyrdom for their faithfulness to Orthodoxy. In 2012, the Serbian Church Bishops’ Council canonized the Synaxis of the New Martyrs of Jasenovac and their names were included in the church calendar of the Russian Orthodox Church to be commemorated on August 31 (September 13), as is established by the Serbian Orthodox Church. The events, which began on September 9, were led by His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and His Holiness Patriarch Irenaeus of Serbia. The primates of the two Churches officiated at the prayer service at the Chapel of St. Sava of Serbia in the Orthodox high school in Zagreb, Croatia. The school’s chapel, gymnasium and court were filled with a great number of the faithful. After the prayer service, a conference on ‘New Martyrs: Poly-Prospects II’ took place at the school’s assembly hall. It was opened by His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew. Metropolitan Aristarkh spoke on ‘The New Martyrs of the Church of Christ – A Moral Example of Feat (by the Example of Croatia and Kuzbas)’. On September 10, Metropolitan Aristarkh assisted the primates of the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople and Serbia in celebrating the Divine Liturgy at the St. John the Baptist Monastery in Jasenovac. Among their concelebrants were also guests from the Romanian and Polish Orthodox Churches. |
| In the Prophet Hosea, we find this definition of God: “I am God, and not man.” If God, Who has reason and will, as is clearly reflected in the Bible (3 Kings Kings] 3:28; Job 12:13, 16; Proverbs 3:19-20; Sirach 1:1, 5; 15:18, 42:21; Esaias [Isaiah] 11:2; 28:29; Luke 11:49; Romans 11:33; 14:26; 1 Corinthians 1: 21, 24; 2:7. Will of God: Psalm 106 11; Wisdom 6:4; Mark 3:35; Luke 7:30; Acts 20:27; 1 Peter 2:15; 3:17; 4:2, 19; 1 John 2:17; Romans 1:10; 8:27; 12:2; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 2 Corinthians 8:5; Ephesians 5:17; 6:6; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; 5:18; Hebrews 10:36; Revelation 17:17), is not man, this means that He is a being of another order, located by His nature beyond our world. He, as philosophers and theologians say, is transcendent with respect to the world. This transcendence – that is, God’s natural distinction from the physical world – is described in the Bible by the word “Spirit.” “God is a spirit” (John 4:24. Cf., Genesis 1:2; 6:3; 41:38; Exodus 15:10; 31:3. Numbers 11:29; 23:6; 24:2; Judges 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 13:25; 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Kings Samuel] 10:6, 10; 11:6; 16:13; 19:20, 23; 2 Kings Samuel] 23:2; 3 Kings Kings] 18:12; 1 Paralipomena Chronicles] 15:1; 2 Paralipomena Chronicles] 15:1; 20: 14; 24:20; Neemias [Nehemiah] 9:20; Judith 16:14; Job 4:9; 26: 13; 33:4; Psalms 32 50 103 138 142 Wisdom of Solomon 1:7; 9:17; 12:1; Esaias [Isaiah] 11:2; 32:15; 34:16; 42:1; 44:3; 48:16; 61:1; 63:10–14. Ezekiel 11:1, 5; Aggeus [Haggai] 2:5; Zacharias 4:6; 7:12; 2 Esdras 6:37; Matthew 1:20; 3:16; 4:1; 10:20; 12:31–32; 28:19. Mark 1:10, 12; 3:29; 13:11; Luke 1:35, 67; 2:26; 3:22; 4:1, 18; 11:13; 12:10, 12; John 1:32–33; 3:5–6, 8, 34; 6:63; 7:39; 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13; 20:22; Acts 1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 17–18, 33, 38; 5:3, 9; 7:51; 8:29; 9:31; 10:19; 11:12, 28; 13:2, 4; 15:28; 16:6–7; 19:6; 20:22–23, 28; 21:11; 28:25. 1 Peter 1:2, 11–12, 22; 5:5; 8:9, 11, 14–16, 23, 26–27; 11:8; 14:17; 15:13, 16, 19, 30; 1 Corinthians 2:10–14; 3:16; 6:11, 19; 12: 3–4, 8–11, 13; 15:45; 2 Corinthians 1:22; 3:3, 17–18; 5:5; Galatians 3:5, 14; 4: 6; Ephesians 1:13, 17; 2:18. 22; 3:5, 16; 4:30; 5:9; Philippians 1:19; 1 Thessalonians 1:5–6; 4:8; 2 Thessalonians 2:8, 13; 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1; 2 Timomhy 1:14; Titus 3:5; Hebrews 2:4; 3:7; 6:4; 9:8, 14; 10:15, 29; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22; 14:13; 22:17). |
|
|
