| 5049 Concerning a double entendre between crucifixion and exaltation by enthronement, see Schwank, «Erhöht.» The Hebrew for «lift» functions both as status elevation and as execution by hanging in Gen 40 (see Hollis, «Pun»). 5051 Thus Glasson, Moses, 36–38, argues that John presents the cross as a sign here; he does concede, however, that the LXX avoids ψω in the clear «ensign» texts. 5053 Cf. Braun, «Vie.» Many argue that all John " s ψω texts include the resurrection-ascension (Holwerda, Spirit, 9–11; Dibelius, Jesus, 141; Grant, Gnosticism, 173). Pesiq. Rab. 37:1, citing a fourth-century Palestinian Amora, depicts God «lifting up» the Messiah to heaven to protect him. 5054 His death is «not … ignominious … but a return to glory» (Nicholson, Death, 163; cf. Hengel, Son, 88). 5055 E.g., Griffiths, «Deutero-Isaiah,» 360; Lindars, Apologetic, 83, 234; Barrett, John, 214; Bauckham, God Crucified, 64–65. 5056 The later Targum applies Isa 52:13–53to the Messiah but its sufferings to Israel (Lourença «Targum»). Chilton, «John xii 34,» thinks Tg. Isa. 52preserves an exegesis similar to John " s; Adna, «Herrens,» thinks Tg. Ps.-J. on Isa 52:13–53follows a traditional Jewish hermeneutic. 5058 Greek literature could also introduce a matter in a somewhat ambiguous manner (e.g.. Agamemnon " s death in Homer Od. 1.29–43; 3.193–194, 234–235) but later clarify with a more detailed description (Homer Od. 3.253–312). 5059 In John 3the aorists for «loved» and «gave» bear their usual, punctilear sense (also Evans, «γαπν,» 68): here the supreme act of love (Brown, John, 1:133). 5061 See comment on 1:14. Some may overemphasize Aqedah allusions here (e.g., Grigsby. «Cross»; Swetnam, Isaac, 84–85). 5063 Cf. also Hanson, Unity, 138. «Hatred» (3:20) was likewise expressed by deliberate repudiation or abandonment of the group (1 John 2:9, 11, 19), not simply a matter of feelings (see Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 87). 5064 In some cases the senses tend not to appear theologically significant to the case. Reflecting Hebrew idiom, God could also «give» (i.e., install or appoint) a king ( 1Sam 12:13; 1 Kgs 1:48; 2 Chr 2:11; 9:8). |
| Following the death of Archbishop Theodosius of Australia and New Zealand, the Synod of Bishops appointed Bishop Paul, Vicar of the German Diocese, to replace him. Archimandrite Mark was then elevated to the episcopacy and appointed Bishop of Munich and Southern Germany. The hierarchal consecration was performed on November 30, 1980 at the Synodal Cathedral of Our Lady of the Sign in New York. In accordance with ecclesiastical law, during the nomination, Archimandrite Mark read a sermon through which he threaded his concern for how he was to lead his flock. Warm words were spoken about his spiritual proximity to the great Serbian ascetic and theologian Archimandrite Justin (Popovic, +1979) and affinity for Holy Mt. Athos. His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky, +1985) officiated at the consecration, along with Archbishop Vitaly (Oustinov, +2006) of Montreal and Canada; Archbishop Anthony (Medvedev, +2000) of San Francisco and Western America; Bishop Laurus (Shkurla, +2008) of Syracuse and Holy Trinity Monastery; Bishop Paul, and Bishop Gregore (Grabbe, +1995) of Manhattan. After the consecration, Vladyka Mark moved with a small group of monks to the Monastery of St. Job of Pochaev in Munich. The monastery underwent reconstruction and renovation. Since 1981, it has published the Vestnik Germanskoj Eparkhii [Messenger of the German Diocese], a publishing house was set up for Russian—and German-language materials, as well as a candle and incense factory. The monastery follows the Mt. Athos rule. In the fall of 1982, Bishop Mark, due to the serious illness of Archbishop Thilophius (Narko), became Bishop of Berlin and Germany, continuing to live at St. Job Monastery, from which he rules the Diocese. In the mid-1980’s, Vladyka Mark was appointed Administrator of the Diocese of Great Britain as well as the St. Alexander Nevsky Parish in Copenhagen. In 1991, the Synod of Bishops elevated Vladyka Mark to the rank of Archbishop. In 1997, he was appointed Overseer of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem. |
| Culpepper R. A. Mark. Macon (Ga.): Smyth and Helwys Publishing, 2007. (SCHBC). Ellis Е. Е. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids (Mich.): Eerdmans, 1974. (New Century Bible). Fitzmyer, J. A. The Gospel According to Luke (X–XXIV). Garden City (N.Y.): Doubleday, 1985. (Anchor Bible; vol. 28a). France R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids (Mich.): Eerdmans, 2007. (NICNT). Geddert T. J. Mark. Scottdale (Pa.): Herald Press, 2001. (BCBC). Geddert T. J. Watchwords. Mark 13 in Markan Eschatology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1989. Gentry K. L . The Olivet Discourse Made Easy. Brentwood (Tenn.): Apologetics Group, 2010. Green J. B. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids (Mich.): Eerdmans, 1997. (NICNT). Hagner D. A. Matthew 14–28. Dallas (Tex.): Word Books Publisher, 1995. (WBC; vol. 33b). Johnson L. T. The Gospel of Luke. Grand Rapids (Mich.): Eerdmans, 1997. Lane W. L. The Gospel According to Mark: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition, and Notes. Grand Rapids (Mich.): Eerdmans, 1974. (NICNT). Liddell H. G. , Scott R . A Greek-English Lexicon. With a Revised Supplement. New York (N.Y.): Oxford University Press, 1996. Lohmeyer E. Das Evangelium des Markus. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1957. McKelvey R. J. The New Temple: The Church in the New Testament. London: Oxford University Press, 1969. Moloney F. J. The Gospel of Mark. Peabody (Mass.): Hendrickson, 2002. Porter S. E. Idioms of the Greek New Testament. Biblical Languages: Greek 2. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Parkhurst J. A Greek and English Lexicon to the New Testament. London: Gilbert and Rivington, 1845. Ridderbos H. The Coming of the Kingdom. Philadelphia (Pa.): Presbyterian and Reformed, 1962. Russell J. S. The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming. London: Forgotten Books, 2018. Sproul R. C. Mark: An Expositional Commentary. Orlando (Fla.): Reformation Trust Publishing, 2019. Stein R. H. Luke. Nashville (Tenn.): Broadman, 1992. (NAC; vol. 24). |
| Mark Eugenikos (1392–1444) was made Metropolitan of Ephesus in the year before the council (1437). In theology, he had studied with Joseph Bryennios, and in philosophy, with Gemistos Pletho; under Pletho, he had received a much more elaborate philosophical training than was customary in monastic circles. Mark " " s view of the Latin West coincided with that of the circle of Cantacuzenos in the preceding century; and he had been willing to recognize the council as ecumenical until he lost hope that what he considered to be the truth would prevail at the assembly. At the beginning of the sessions in Ferrara, prompted by Cardinal Cesarini, Mark delivered to Pope Eugenius a preliminary address in which he called upon the «most holy Father» to receive «his children coming from the East» and «seeking his embrace.» But he also stressed the minimum condition for true unity: the removal of the interpolation introduced unilaterally by the Latins into the common creed. 175 As discussions progressed in quite an opposite direction, his attitude, understandably, grew bitter. In the discussions, he and Bessarion were usually the main Greek spokesmen. His weakest point was a certain inability to go beyond the formal points under discussionpurgatory, Filioque, epiclesisand to reach real issues, such as the juridical Anselmian concept of «justification,» or the difference between the Cappadocian and Augustinian Trinitarian theologies. A lack of historical perspective on both sides and the conviction that all the Fathers must always agree with one another created an impasse: there were no alternatives but to accept or reject the Latin view. When Mark refused to sign, the pope is said to have declared: «We have accomplished nothing.» 176 Obviously, Eugenius IV was aware by then of the real situation in the East and knew that Mark represented much better the prevailing mentality of the East than did the other members of the Greek delegation. Until his death, Mark remained the head of the anti-unionists in Constantinople. He is a saint of the Orthodox Church. |
| B., 1975; Pesch R. Das Markusevangelium. Freiburg im B., 1976-1977. 2 Tle; Holladay С. R. Theios Aner in Hellenistic Judaism: A Critique of the Use of this Category in NT Christology. Missoula, 1977; Kee H. C. Community of the New Age: Studies in Mark " s Gospel. Phil., 1977; idem. Medicine, Miracle, and Magic in NT Times. Camb.; N. Y., 1986; Kürzinger J. Die Aussage des Papias von Hierapolis zur literarischen Form des Markusevangeliums//BiblZschr. N. F. 1977. Bd. 21. S. 245-264; North J. L. Μαρκος ο κολοβοδακτυλος: Hippolytus, Elenchus VII 30//JThSt. N. S. 1977. Vol. 28. N 2. P. 498-507; Watts R. E. Isaiah " s New Exodus and Mark. Tüb., 1977; Gnilka J. Das Evangelium nach Markus. Zürich etc., 1978-1979. 2 Bde; Pryke E. J. Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel. Camb., 1978; Smith M. Jesus the Magician. San Francisco, 1978; Das Markus-Evangelium/Hrsg. R. Pesch. Darmstadt, 1979; Dunn J. D. G. Christology in the Making: A NT Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Phil., 1980; Nickelsburg G. W. E. The Genre and Function of the Markan Passion Narrative//HarvTR. 1980. Vol. 73. N 1/2. P. 153-184; Hurtado L. W. Text-Critical Methodology and the Pre-Caesarean Text: Codex W in the Gospel of Mark. Grand Rapids, 1981; Kealy S. P. Mark " s Gospel: A History of Its Interpretation from the Beginning until 1979. N. Y., 1982; Matera F. J. The Kingship of Jesus: Composition and Theology in Mark 15. Chico, 1982; Mohr T. A. Markus- und Johannespassion: Redaktions- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der Markanischen und Johanneischen Passionstradition. Zürich, 1982; Robinson J. M. The Problem of History in Mark and Other Markan Studies. Phil., 1982; Kim S. The «Son of Man» as the Son of God. Tüb., 1983; Brandenburger E. Markus 13. und die Apokalyptik. Gött., 1984; Markus-Philologie: Historische, literargeschichtliche und stilistische Untersuchungen zum zweiten Evangelium/Hrsg. H. Cancik. Tüb., 1984; Wenham D. The Rediscovery of Jesus " Eschatological Discourse. |
| Suggesting that the Fourth Gospel is not directly dependent on the Synoptics need not imply that John did not know of the existence of the Synoptics; even if (as is unlikely) Johannine Christianity were as isolated from other circles of Christianity as some have proposed, other gospels must have been known if travelers afforded any contact at all among Christian communities. 381 That travelers did so may be regarded as virtually certain. 382 Urban Christians traveled ( 1Cor 16:10,12,17 ; Phil 2:30; 4:18 ), carried letters ( Rom 16:1–2 ; Phil 2:25 ), 383 relocated to other places ( Rom 16:3,5 ; perhaps 16:6–15), and sent greetings to other churches ( Rom 16:21–23 ; 1Cor 16:19 ; Phil 4:22 ; Col 4:10–15). In the first century many churches knew what was happening with churches in other cities ( Rom 1:8 ; 1Cor 11:16; 14:33; 1 Thess 1:7–9), and even shared letters (Col 4:16). Missionaries could speak of some churches to others ( Rom 15:26 ; 2Cor 8:1–5; 9:2–4 ; Phil 4:16; 1 Thess 2:14–16; cf. 3 John 5–12 ) and send personal news by other workers ( Eph 6:21–22 ; Col 4:7–9). Although we need not suppose connections among churches as pervasive as Ignatiuse letters suggest perhaps two decades later, neither need we imagine that such connections emerged ex nihilo in the altogether brief silence between Johns Gospel and the «postapostolic» period. No one familiar with the urban society of the eastern empire will be impressed with the isolation Gospel scholars often attribute to the Gospel «communities.» John could have known one, two, or more other published gospels and yet have chosen not to follow their model or employ them as sources in writing his own. 384 (Xenophon, for example, knows of an earlier work recounting the retreat of Greek mercenaries from Persia, mentioned in Hel1. 3.1.2, but later composes his own eyewitness account.) If, as is likely, Mark circulated widely (and hence could provide a primary framework for both Matthew and Luke), John might even safely assume his readers» knowledge of it. 385 Certainly a few decades earlier the tradition was widely known; given its circulation in Jerusalem and Antioch, «it is historically quite unlikely that Paul would have no knowledge of the Jesus-tradition» that circulated in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Damascus, locations he had frequented. 386 By John " s day, such tradition would be even more pervasive. In other words, independence need not mean anything so dramatic as that Mark and John «developed the gospel form independently.» 387 John " s very divergence from the Synoptics probably led to its relatively slower reception in the broader church until it could be explained in relation to them. 388 |
| Jesus came into Judea (3:22), which either refers to «Judea outside of Jerusalem» (thus the presence of γν) or implies that the author refers to a point after that of 3:1–21, with an unmentioned elapse of time and return to Galilee. If his proximity to John is implied, he may be in the Jordan Valley (3:23). 1B. John " s Location (3:23) According to the most common reconstruction, 5134 «Aenon» («springs») near Salim, the place with much water, is probably near the modern Ainun («little fountain»); though Ainun lacks water, many springs remain in the region. Most significantly, this location lies east of Mount Gerizim and the ancient Shechem, now the leading center of Samaritan habitation. 5135 This means that Jesus» ministry in «unclean» Samaria (4:9) in a sense followed his predecessor " s precedent of ministering near that region. 5136 Early Christian texts from Lukés as well as John " s tradition indicate that Jesus was more open to Samaritans than most of his contemporaries (Luke 10:33; 17:16; Acts 1:8) and that the Samaritan mission was largely successful (Acts 8:5–25). 5137 Would John " s audience, perhaps retaining some roots in Galilee, recognize the Samaritan place names? 5138 Although it remains possible that the Fourth Gospel " s audience knew something of Galilean geography (perhaps at least Salim), John lacks much theological incentive to create Aenon. Historically it seems likely that John the Baptist baptized in this region for at least three reasons: First, John drew adherents especially from Judea, but also from Galilee. 5139 Second, a location near Perea, with its many Nabatean inhabitants, would render politically sensitive his denunciation of Antipas " s affair with Herodias. That affair had led to severely damaged relations with the Nabatean kingdom, whose ruler Antipas had carelessly insulted by preferring Herodias to that king " s daughter whom he had planned to divorce. 5140 (Nabateans also were known for securing water in the desert, which had enabled them to surpass other Arab tribes; 5141 it is possible that this information might be relevant for the Baptist when away from the Jordan.) Third, John was probably executed at Antipas " s fortress, Machaerus, near this region. 5142 1C. John Was Not Yet in Prison (3:24) |
| 2613 Glasson, Advent, 161–79; followed also by Robinson, Coming, 140–41. 2614 Reim, «Jesus as God,» goes too far in seeing a shared background between the Christology of John and that of Hebrews in Ps 45:7–8 . For Jesus» deity in Revelation, where it is emphasized perhaps even more than in the Fourth Gospel, see my discussion in Keener, Revelation, 42. 2615 Cf. McGrath, Apologetic Christology (much was pre-Johannine but developed in the polemical setting). 2616 For these categories, see above on signs. Mark " s signs may have an aretalogical function (Theissen, Stories, 212), and are certainly positive (Kümmel, Introduction, 93; Rhoads and Michie, Mark, 105; Kingsbury, Christology, 76; Vander Broek, «Sitz,» 131–89; against Weeden, Mark, 52–69), but as in John and Acts, peoplés response is varied. 2617 E.g., Manson, Servant-Messiah, 72–73; Longenecker, Christology, 82–92. Although some views of the Son of Man reject its eschatological sense because the phrase could bear a non-eschatological sense (e.g., Vermes, Jesus the Jew, 160–91; Leivestad, «Exit,» 266–67; cf. Cullmann, Christology, 138; contrast Lindars, «Re-Enter»), most scholars recognize a specific eschatological title, whether from an interpretation of Daniel or from the Similitudes of Enoch (Burkitt, Sources, 66–68; Tödt, Son of Man; Ladd, Theology, 145–58; Boccaccini, Judaism, 219; Brown, Death, 509–14). Scholars still dispute whether the Similitudes are Christian (e.g., Agouridis, «Son of Man») or earlier (e.g., Thompson, «Son of Man»); they could prove irrelevant in either case (see Casey, «Son of Man»; Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT, 18, 88–89; compare Knibb and Isaac in their renderings of J En. 71:14). 2618 Barrett, Essays, 48. 2619 See below. It could not derive from gnosticism (see Schnackenburg, John, 1:529–42; Bordiert, John, 150). 2620 Holwerda, Spirit, 12–13. Cf. Borgens connection with Philós «Man after God " s image» (Confusion 146; Alleg. Interp. I A3; Borgen, «Agent,» 146). 2621 Witherington, Christology, 242. |
| Gossip networks were common, so it is not surprising that matters thought to be of interest were often reported to teachers. 5155 The Fourth Gospel recounts the disciples» report to John the Baptist, however, to provide the setting for John " s ready acknowledgment that Jesus holds the supreme authority (3:27–36). 2. Jesus Is Greater Than John (3:27–30) Ancient literature reports numerous rivalries, for instance among philosophical schools, dramatic poets, and politicians (see comment on 17:21–23); rivalries also appeared among first-century Christian workers ( 1Cor 1:11–12 ; Phil 1:15–17; 4:2–3 ; cf. Matt 24:45–51). But once past figures had attained the status of public heroes, the tendency was often to reduce the tensions between the schools. Thus Seneca the Stoic could explain that Epicurus was not so bad as Epicureans. 5156 Likewise, Aulus Gellius could point out that, despite the common belief that Plato and Xenophon were rivals, in reality their followers, out of zeal for their heroes, were rivals. Plato and Xenophon worked together, but their followers tried to show one or the other to be greater. 5157 It would not be surprising if some had made Jesus and the Baptist rivals, especially among the latter " s disciples who did not become part of the Jesus movement (see comment on 1:6–8); 5158 but John lays such suspicions to rest as in 1:19–36. John " s ambition was to fulfill God " s purpose as Jesus» forerunner, not to seek his own glory. 5159 (Just how pervasive this Johannine emphasis is may be surmised from the contrast with Q: whereas John in prison later sends disciples to confirm Jesus» identity, here he confirms it in response to his disciples» information.) 5160 He acknowledges that any significance in his own role is nothing but a matter of divine gift, hence not a cause for boasting (3:27). That a divine gift was not appropriate grounds for self-boasting was often recognized (cf. 1Cor 4:7 ). 5161 «Heaven» was a Jewish surrogate title for God, 5162 but like «above» (3:5), again reiterates John " s vertical dualism, which emphasizes in turn the infinite distance between God and humanity crossed only in Christ (1:51). In contrast to John, Jesus not only receives from heaven but is from heaven (3:12–13); the rest of the Gospel indicates that what the Father gave Jesus, in fact, was authority over all (3:35; 5:27; 13:3; 17:2), especially those the Father had «given» to him (6:39; 10:29; 17:2, 9; 18:9). John reiterates his earlier claim (1:20–27; see comment there) that he was merely sent before the Messiah (3:28). |
| If the Passion Narrative is not simply a martyr story, neither is it a typical Greek apotheosis story; the focus in the Synoptic Gospels is on Jesus» mortal suffering, not a promotion to divinity. 9525 In the Fourth Gospel, however, one may come closer to apotheosis (except for the claim that Jesus was already deity!) than in the Synoptics; his Passion Narrative underlines Jesus» control of the situation (18:4–9; cf. 10:18; 13:26–27). Mark 15:38–39 probably implies a sort of hidden theophany, and Matt 27:51–54 a more explicit one. Jesus suffers, but the focus of his mortality in John is more explicitly theophanic; in his death he is glorified (12:23–24). One might symbolically summarize the difference between Mark " s passion and John " s in Jesus» closing recorded words in each, whether «My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?» ( Mark 15:34 ) or a triumphant «It has been completed!» ( John 19:30 ; cf. Mark 15:37 ). Yet John hardly presents an apotheosis in the Greek sense even though the latter category includes deification in the midst of mortal suffering (as with Heracles). In contrast to Greek heroes becoming divine, Jesus is returning to his préexistent glory with the Father; here is not a mere hero among many but the image of divine Wisdom returning home (cf. 1 En. 42:2). 2. The Historical Foundation for the Passion Narratives The extreme skepticism expressed by the most radical scholars is surely unwarranted. Burton Mack, for instance, suggests that scholars have simply gone easy on the passion narratives from faith prejudice. 9526 Nevertheless, he shows little familiarity with the evidence cited by such «prejudicial» scholarship 9527 and, in dismissing previous scholarship on the passion narratives as uncritical, seems unaware of his predecessors who have focused critical attention on the passion narratives. 9528 In contrast to Mack " s position, we have no record of any Christianity where the basic structure of the kerygma was missing, whether or not Christians had yet constructed full passion narratives. 9529 Other narratives may have figured frequently in early Christian ethical preaching, but it is likely that early Christians would have told and retold the passion story, which lay at the heart of their kerygma, and that the Gospel writers would have here a variety of oral and perhaps written traditions from which to draw. 9530 Paul has a sequence similar to Mark " s ( 1Cor 11:23; 15:3–5 ; cf. Jewish and Roman responsibility in 1 Thess 2:14–15; 1Cor 1:23 ), and if, as is probable, John represents an independent tradition, 9531 it is significant that his Passion Narrative again confirms the outline Mark follows, suggesting a pre-Markan passion narrative. 9532 In preaching, one could flesh out the full sequence or omit some of the stories, but the basic outline remained the same. 9533 |
|
|
