| 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). |
| Venerable Joseph the Abbot of Volokolamsk, Volotsk Commemorated on September 9 and February 13 Saint Joseph of Volokolamsk, in the world John Sanin, was born on November 14, 1440 (1439 according to another source) in the village of Yazvisch-Pokrov, not far from the city of Volokolamsk. He was born into a pious family with his father named John (in monasticism Joannicius) and his mother Marina (in schema Maria). The seven-year-old boy John was sent to the pious and enlightened Elder Arsenius of the Volokolamsk-Exaltation of the Cross monastery to be educated. Distinguished by rare qualities and extraordinary aptitude for church service, for one year the talented youth studied the Psalter, and, the following year, the entire Holy Scripture. He became a reader and singer in the monastery church. Contemporaries were astonished at his exceptional memory. Often, without having a single book in his cell, he would do the monastic rule, reciting from memory from the Psalter, the Gospel, the Epistles, and all that was required. Even before becoming a monk, John lived a monastic lifestyle. Thanks to his reading and studying of Holy Scripture and the works of the holy Fathers, he dwelt constantly in contemplation of God. As his biographer notes, he “disdained obscene and blasphemous talk and endless mirth from his childhood years.” At twenty years of age John chose the path of monastic striving and, leaving his parents’ home, he went off into the wilderness nigh to the Tver Savvin monastery, to the renowned Elder and strict ascetic, Barsanuphius. But the monastic rule seemed insufficiently strict to the young ascetic. With the blessing of Elder Barsanuphius, he set off to Borov to St Paphnutius of Borov (May 1), who had been a novice of Elder Nikita of the Vysotsk monastery, who in turn was a disciple of St Sergius of Radonezh and Athanasius of Vysotsk. The simple life of the holy Elder, the tasks which he shared with the brethren, and the strict fulfilling of the monastic rule suited John’s spiritual state. St Paphnutius lovingly accepted the young ascetic who had come to him, and on February 13, 1460 he tonsured him into monasticism with the name Joseph, thus realizing John’s greatest wish. With love and with zeal the young monk shouldered the heavy obediences imposed upon him, in the kitchen, the bakery, the infirmary. St Joseph fulfilled this latter obedience with special care, “giving food and drink to the sick, taking up and arranging the bedding, so very anxious and concerned with everything, working, as though attending to Christ Himself.” |
| John Anthony McGuckin Yannaras, Christos (b. 1935) see Contemporary Orthodox Theology Appendix Foundational Documents of Orthodox Theology Contents 1 Creed of Nicea 650–1 2 Creed of Constantinople 651–2 3 Documents of the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 652–9 4 The Definition of Faith of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon 659–60 5 The Definition of Faith of the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople 660–70 6 The Definition of Faith of the Sixth Ecumenical Council 671–3 7 The Definition of Faith of the Seventh Ecumenical Council 674–6 8 The Five Theological Orations of St. Gregory of Nazianzus (the Theologian) 676–734 9 Excerpts from the “Exposition of the Orthodox Faith” by St. John of Damascus 734–71 These documents are adapted from the source collections presented in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Church (series 2), Eerdmans, Grand Rapids; and T&T Clark, Edinburgh. Especially NPNF: vol. 7, 1893 (St. Gregory of Nazianzus), vol. 9, 1899 (St. John of Damascus), and vol. 14, 1900 (Seven Ecumenical Councils). Texts modernized and clarified by the editor. Original text and all secondary references related to it can be accessed from www.ccel.org/fathers.html. Introduction The range of the Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodoxy is immense in both geographical and temporal terms. Its topical coverage, from the front of the alphabet to the end, allows for easy access for a researcher on any major theme that they may wish to follow up. This appendix tries to offer more. It is attached to the main body of the articles, in a sense as if it were the words of the ancients themselves (indeed, that is chiefly in what it consists) telling of the Orthodox faith directly, viva voce, rather than having it presented by contemporary commentators and exegeted in historical context. Both things, of course, are useful and necessary, and should complement one another invaluably. But if someone were to ask, “What are the essential primary texts of the Orthodox faith?” it might be easy enough to answer that here in this appendix one will meet with a good collection of them. Not all of them, by any means, but a representative sample of what the major theologians and dogmatic bishops (fathers) of the early church thought were essential architectural elements of the building. |
| Craig S. Keener True Purification. 2:1–25 AT A WEDDING, JESUS sets aside the purificatory purpose of waterpots that embody traditional religious practices (for comment on Johns water motif, see also comment on 1:25–26, 31; 3:5). At the Gospels first Passover festival, Gods lamb then purifies the temple itself, starting the path of conflict with Judean leaders that leads to the passion of the Gospel " s final Passover. Relationship versus Ritual Purification (2:1–11) Signs-faith is less valuable than faith that merely responds to the Spirit " s witness (20:29); it is nevertheless a better place to begin than no faith at all (14:11). In 2:1–11, disciples who have already begun to believe Jesus (in 1:35–51) come to a new level of faith through Jesus» first sign. Outsiders to the establishment again receive deeper insight (2:9) than those closest to the heart of the social order. Perhaps most significantly, Jesus, who acts with divine authority, does not hesitate to suspend ritual law (again symbolized by water; cf. 1:33; 2:6; 3:5) in favor of a friend " s honor. The Jesus of this narrative prefigures the Jesus of the following narrative, who will act in judgment against the social and religious order represented by the temple. The following interpretive dialogue will reinforce the point that it is Jesus» gift of the Spirit, rather than ritual or heritage, that brings life (3:3–6). Thus this narrative also introduces Jesus» «hour» (2:4), beginning the conflict with the Judean religious and political establishment that in John must inevitably lead to the cross. 4354 1. Preliminary Questions Scholars have offered various proposals about this passagés role in the structure of 2:1–4:54, paralleling the two explicit Cana miracles as a deliberate inclusio. Although details vary, the intervening section moves from a Jewish to a non-Jewish (Samaritan) setting, with extensive christological discourse between. 4355 Some fail to identify a historical core to the account, hence doubt its basic historicity. 4356 Without privileging particular presuppositions about miracles, however, and given John " s consistent rewriting, and hence obscuring, of his sources, evidence for the historicity of the event could be argued in either direction. Royal banquets appear frequently in later Jewish parables, 4357 but one could use the observation about abundant banquet stories to argue for historical veracity as well as against it; the stories are frequent because banquets were frequent, and the Synoptic tradition indicates that the historical Jesus frequently attended banquets. 4358 The account is strictly Johannine in style but, though missing in Synoptic tradition, seems characteristic of Jesus 4359 and not objectionable on Christian presuppositions. 4360 John probably applies prior tradition here as in those cases where we can test his dependence on tradition; yet, as with his other narratives, he clearly reworks this one into his own unique framework and idiom as wel1. |
| 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 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). |
| 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) |
| 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. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Relics MONICA M. WHITE Relics – objects connected with a holy person or event – are venerated in all Eastern Churches. Primary relics are from the body of a holy person (usually bones, but also hair, blood, etc.), while secondary relics are objects from an event in sacred history or with which a holy person has come into contact, most famously the True Cross. Relics can play an important role in the cult of a saint. The discovery of incorrupt relics has often been taken as a sign of sanctity, particularly in Kievan Rus, although this has never been an official requirement for sainthood (Lenhoff 1993). Relics can also help spread a saint’s cult by being broken up and distributed, or by exuding oil which can be collected by pilgrims. The healing power of relics is attested in the Old Testament. In 2 Kings 13.21 a dead man was revived when his body touched that of Elisha. Although the New Testament makes no reference to human remains effecting cures, it does describe miracles accomplished through secondary relics, such as the woman with a haemorrhage who was healed by touching the hem of Christ’s garment in Mark 5.25–9 (see also Acts 19.12). These stories shaped Christian beliefs about relics, encouraging the idea that the body of a holy person had a power which could be transferred to objects with which it came in contact, both before and after death. The practice of keeping relics in homes and churches may have originated in Egypt, where it was not unusual for pagans and Christians alike to store the mummies of relatives in their homes. Christians may have begun distributing pieces of such mummies, particularly if they had belonged to martyrs or holy men, in the belief that they had healing properties (Wortley 2006: 12–14, 18–27). Attempts by the authorities to discourage the distribution of relics (contrary to early Roman Law) were largely ineffectual, and their veneration quickly became widespread in the churches. As their popularity grew, so did the trade in them and the distribution of false relics. Athanasius of Alexandria and the Theodosian Code attacked these practices, apparently to no avail (Wortley 2006: 24–6). |
|
|
