| 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 The fish sign. 21:1–14 OTHER SOURCES MAY SUGGEST that Jesus revealed himself on a regular basis to the disciples immediately after the resurrection; Luke seems most emphatic about this point (Acts 1:3), though he omits the Galilean appearances and may therefore refer to a state after the disciples had returned to Jerusalem (reading Luke, one would not know that they had left Jerusalem). In any case, John is emphatic that this is the disciples» third revelation (21:14); that Jesus manifested himself to them also frames this sign narrative (21:1, 14), underlining the significance of this appearance. When John counts, it may be primarily to tie events together (compare 2:1,19; 2:11 with 4:54); this event takes the previous resurrection appearances to a fuller level, though Thomas " s christological confession was climactic. What is John " s point? In the light of the rest of the Gospel, Jesus again provides food for his people (6:10–11; cf. Rev 7:16–17; 12:6); the emphasis here will be spiritual food (4:32–34; 6:35; 10:9; see 21:15–17). Given the following dialogue, the point of the narrative seems to be to define more specifically the character of Jesus» call in 20:21, especially for church leaders: loving Jesus requires Jesus» servants to love Jesus» followers. The Setting: Failing at Fishing (21:1–3) These verses provide examples of typical Johannine language in the nontheological vocabulary when one would least expect it from a later hand: for example, «after these things» (21:1; see 3:22; 5:1,14; 6:1; 7:1). Likewise, only this Gospel calls the lake «the sea of Tiberias» (6:1) or mentions Tiberias at all (6:23). In the very incomplete list of Jesus» followers here, 10853 the two named characters besides Peter (who is necessary to the following story) are distinctly Johannine: only in this Gospel does Thomas appear outside lists of names (11:16; 14:5; 20:24–28) and is he called Didymus, meaning «Twin» (11:16; 20:24) ; 10854 and only in this Gospel do Nathanael and Cana appear (1:45–49; 2:1,11; 4:46). 10855 The «sons of Zebedee» admittedly weigh against the thesis that this epilogue stems from the same author or source, since the rest of the Gospel reflects a studied, probably deliberate avoidance of mentioning them; but it is noteworthy that even here they are not individually named. The mention of Thomas (21:2) provides a connection with the previous narrative (20:24–29), 10856 demonstrating that he did persevere. |
| 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). |
| Craig S. Keener The function of John 21 MANY REGARD JOHN 21 as a later addition to the Gospel from a different hand; those who regard it as from the same author as the rest of the Gospel usually also regard it as an appendix, recognizing its anticlimactic nature following the conclusion of 20:30–31. Many question the historical veracity of its contents. A Later Addition? Many scholars regard the entirety of ch. 21 as an addition to the original Gospe1. Johannine scholarship has traditionally regarded John 21 as an addition distinct from the original Gospel, often for stylistic reasons and nearly always (even by those who believe it was added later by the same author) because the chapter is anticlimactic following the conclusion of 20:30–31. 10803 This chapter is a literary unit, 10804 and undeniably it is anticlimactic to the primary narrative of the Gospe1. Nor would 20:30–31 (or even 20:29) constitute too abrupt a conclusion for the Gospel; ancient books often had abrupt endings. 10805 Yet apart from the special vocabulary needed for the matters at hand (such as fishing), the vocabulary does not differ significantly from that of analogous portions of the Gospe1. 10806 Various features reveal Johannine style; for example, «the variation of synonyms (verses 15–17), the double «Amen» (verse 18), the construction »This he said, indicating ...» (verse 19; cf. 12:33)»; only in this Gospel is the lake called the «Sea of Tiberias» (21:1; 6:1). 10807 Smalley rightly notes that «its general flavour is characteristically Johannine» and that John 21 ties up loose ends previously introduced in the Gospe1. 10808 Westcott, who regarded the chapter as an appendix, nevertheless insisted that it stemmed from the author of the Gospel, noting its «style and the general character of the language»; he also observed that we lack any textual evidence that the Gospel ever circulated without this «appendix.» 10809 The «appendix» itself notes the beloved disciplés presence (21:7), which, if taken at face value, allows for the same source as the rest of the Gospe1. |
| 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 Judaism, Orthodoxy and EUGEN J. PENTIUC EARLY JEWISH-CHRISTIAN INTERACTION WITH SCRIPTURE In the last decades of the first century CE nascent Jewish Christianity was gradually outnumbered by the ever-growing Gentile element. From the outset, early Christianity and evolving Judaism experienced a long and intricate process of the “parting of the ways,” although there are an increasing number of scholars today who question this construct’s absolute nature, pointing to many continued interactions between the two communities of faith for many centuries. Christians have always been aware of their links with the Jewish people and interacted with them, not least through the sharing of Scripture and moral and prophetic attitudes. The Old Testament, the first part of the Christian Bible, is essentially the Jewish Scripture. The very title “Old Testament” given by Christians to the Hebrew Scripture is a phrase coined by the Apostle Paul with regard to the writings attributed to Moses ( 2Cor. 3.14–15 ) and popularized by Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century. The title “New Testament,” referring to the new collection put together by the early church, is taken from the Book of Jeremiah announcing that God will make a “new covenant” with Israel ( Jer. 31.31 ). What was the relationship between Jesus and Judaism and its Scripture? Any attempt to define this relationship should keep in mind two factors. On the one hand, Jesus places his sayings on the same level of authority as Moses’ teachings ( Jn. 5.47 ), stating that he came to fulfill the whole entirety of the law ( Mt. 5.17 ). On the other hand, Jesus relativizes several important Old Testament injunctions, among which were the Sabbath observance ( Mt. 12.8, 12 ) and ritual purity laws ( Mt. 15.11 ). This makes one think of the relation of the Old and New Testaments as being a relationship balanced between conformity and disruption: a unity under tension. The Lord Jesus stands at one and the same moment within Judaism and beyond it. Although St. Paul never removed the Jews – the heirs of biblical Israel considered as the people of God – from the salvific framework of his theology of redemption ( Rom. 9–11 ), he certainly moved them away from the center, at which axis point he located submission to Jesus, Lord of the New Covenant. |
| The Synaxis of the Seventy Apostles was established by the Orthodox Church to indicate the equal honor of each of the Seventy. They were sent two by two by the Lord Jesus Christ to go before Him into the cities He would visit (Luke 10:1). Besides the celebration of the Synaxis of the Holy Disciples, the Church celebrates the memory of each of them during the course of the year: St. James the Brother of the Lord (October 23); Mark the Evangelist (April 25); Luke the Evangelist (October 18); Cleopas (October 30), brother of St. Joseph the Betrothed , and Simeon his son (April 27); Barnabas (June 11); Joses, or Joseph, named Barsabas or Justus (October 30); Thaddeus (August 21); Ananias (October 1); Protomartyr Stephen the Archdeacon (December 27); Philip the Deacon (October 11); Prochorus the Deacon (28 July); Nicanor the Deacon (July 28 and December 28); Timon the Deacon (July 28 and December 30); Parmenas the Deacon (July 28); Timothy (January 22); Titus (August 25); Philemon (November 22 and February 19); Onesimus (February 15); Epaphras and Archippus (November 22 and February 19); Silas, Silvanus, Crescens or Criscus (July 30); Crispus and Epaenetos (July 30); Andronicus (May 17 and July 30); Stachys, Amplias, Urban, Narcissus, Apelles (October 31); Aristobulus (October 31 and March 16); Herodion or Rodion (April 8 and November 10); Agabus, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon (April 8); Hermas (November 5, November 30 and May 31); Patrobas (November 5); Hermes (April 8); Linus, Gaius, Philologus (November 5); Lucius (September 10); Jason (April 28); Sosipater (April 28 and November 10); Olympas or Olympanus (November 10 ); Tertius (October 30 and November 10); Erastos (November 30), Quartus (November 10); Euodius (September 7); Onesiphorus (September 7 and December 8); Clement (November 25); Sosthenes (December 8); Apollos (March 30 and December 8); Tychicus, Epaphroditus (December 8); Carpus (May 26); Quadratus (September 21); Mark (September 27), called John, Zeno (September 27); Aristarchus (April 15 and September 27); Pudens and Trophimus (April 15); Mark nephew of Barnabas, Artemas (October 30); Aquila (July 14); Fortunatus (June 15) and Achaicus (January 4). |
| His Holiness Patriarch Kirill Calls Local Orthodox Churches to Not Recognize the New “Orthodox Church of Ukraine” Source: DECR A deep wound has been inflicted on the canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine and worldwide, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia wrote in the letters addressed to the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches. The messages were sent to His Beatitude Pope and Patriarch Theodore II of Alexandria, His Beatitude Patriarch John X of Antioch, His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem, His Holiness and Beatitude Catholicos-Patriarch Ilia II of All Georgia, His Holiness Patriarch Irinej of Serbia, His Beatitude Patriarch Daniel of Romania, His Holiness Patriarch Neophytos of Bulgaria, His Beatitude Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Cyprus, His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos II of Athens and All Greece, His Beatitude Archbishop Anastasios of Tirana and All Albania, His Beatitude Metropolitan Sawa of Warsaw and All Poland, His Beatitude Metropolitan Rastislav of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, and His Beatitude Metropolitan Tikhon of All America and Canada. As His Holiness Patriarch Kirill informed them, on December 15, a gathering of “hierarchs,” “clergy” and laity of two Ukrainian schismatic groups took place in Kiev with the direct involvement and under the direct patronage of the government authorities of Ukraine. The participants in that unlawful assembly at the historical Sophia Cathedral in Kiev proclaimed themselves “unification council.” That so-called unification was, in fact, a merger between two schismatic organizations which formed one. Taking part in the “council” were false bishops of the schismatic “Kievan patriarchate” and of another uncanonical structure – “Ukrainian autocephalous orthodox church.” “Meanwhile, the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church led by His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufry of Kiev and All Ukraine, recognized in the entire Orthodox world, refused, in accordance with the decision of its Holy Synod of December 7, to participate in this event, considering it an “unlawful gathering.” Despite the fact that the archpastors of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church were brought under enormous pressure, out of its 90 hierarchs only 2 (one diocesan and one vicar) took part in the pseudo-council. For falling into the schism and flagrantly violating the episcopal oath they both were relieved of their posts and suspended from serving by the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of December 17,” the letters said. |
| Synodal Tomos on the canonization of Venerable Saints Neophyte and Meletios from Stânioara Monastery and Daniel and Misael from Turnu Monastery Synodal Tomos of Canonization no. 1/2016, approved by the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church through its decision ref. no. 2212/25.02.2016, and made public today, 28 September 2016, in the church of Saint Anthimos – Troianu Monastery, dedicated to the Life-giving Spring: The Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church, To the most beloved clergy, the monastics and the true believing Christians in the Romanian Patriarchate, Grace, mercy and peace from God, and from us, hierarchical blessings! Blessed and praiseworthy is it to honor the memory of those who have fallen asleep in the Lord in holiness, who have gained confidence from God for their devout lives full of good deeds. The Most Holy Trinity has foreseen from eternity that they will grow in the likeness of God, partaking of the light of the grace of the Holy Spirit and numbering them in the Church of the first-born, in the ranks of the saints. Our Savior Jesus Christ says about them that because they have listened to His word, they have become His friends (John 15:16). The Church honors these saints with praises and hymns, as the God-inspired Prophet Daniel says: But your friends, O God, were greatly honoured by me, exceedingly were strengthened their beginnings (Psalm 139:17). The saints have truly fulfilled God’s word and will, as we read in the Psalms: As for the saints who are on the earth, They are the excellent ones, in whom is all my delight (Psalm 16:3). Among Gods chosen ones are numbered the venerable fathers from the hermitages of Stânioara and Turnu: Neophyte and Meletios from Stânioara Monastery and Daniel and Misael from Turnu Monastery.These great ascetics and lovers of God from Cozia Monasterym founded by the renowned Prince Mircea the Great, after dedicating themselves entirely to the anchoretic life life and reaching perfection, received from the Holy Spirit the gift of counsel and of spiritual guidance on the path to salvation. Being experienced laborers of the prayer of the heart, they have been honored together with the great hesychasts of Romanian monasticism, being also named hermits. Thus, they remain in the living memory of the Church, in the devoted memory of hierarchs, priests, monastics and lay people, as examples of sacrificial love, of restraint, humbleness and diligent spiritual guidance. |
| 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 |
|
|
