| Apparently unaware of Jesus» previous sign known to Johns audience (2:1–11), the authorities now demand a sign (2:18; cf. again 6:30). 4696 In the logic of his contemporaries, 4697 if Jesus acts on Gods authority, he should be able to demonstrate it supernaturally. (John likely borrows this demand for a sign from authentic Jesus tradition, as appears in Mark 8:11 , which was already applied to the resurrection, perhaps as early as the Q tradition in Luke 11and Matt 16:1–4.) 4698 Paradoxically, however, those without power (2:9) and the more open-minded among those in power (3:2) already know of Jesus» attesting signs. Likewise, some characters in the context need only very small signs to believe (1:48–49; 4:18–19,29), in contrast to these sign-demanding Judeans. 4699 By inviting them to «destroy» the temple of his body (2:19), that is, kill him (cf. 8:28), 4700 Jesus stands in the prophetic tradition of an ironic imperative (e.g., Matt 23:32). 4701 Yet without special illumination, his hearers were doomed to interpret the riddle wrongly, as Jesus» opponents throughout the Fourth Gospel habitually misunderstand him, requiring the evangelist to offer inspired interpretation. 4702 Jesus» words could be understood as referring to the natural temple, which is how the «false witnesses» of Mark " s tradition seem to have understood them ( Mark 15:29 ; cf. Acts 6:14). 4703 One could speak of building the second temple as «raising» it up (εγερειν, Sib. Or. 3.290). 4704 John " s εγερω thus functions as another Johannine double entendre, misunderstood by interlocutors in the story world while clear to the informed audience. 4705 «In three days» is equivalent to «on the third day»; part of a day was counted a whole. 4706 In some traditions of uncertain date the soul hovered near the corpse for «three days» after death; 4707 one might also think of resurrection or resuscitation in Hos 6:2 ; Jonah 1:17. But «three days» has so many possible referents 4708 that, apart from a retrospective understanding, his opponents within the story world could not catch an allusion to his resurrection. To Johns audience, however, the allusion is clear, intensifying their distaste for the ignorance of Jesus» opponents who lack the critical revelatory knowledge that John s audience possesses. 4709 |
| 20 Although the Gospels were probably «heard» more often than «read,» at least aristocratic audiences could be described by ancient writers as their «readers» (e.g., Polybius 9.2.6). 21 E.g., Theon Progymn. 2.5–33; even different genres of speeches require different kinds of styles (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Demosth. 45–46); see also the ancient division of Pindar " s various kinds of hymns and songs (Race, «Introduction,» 1). Of course, such categories were never strictly observed even in Greco-Roman texts, and Israelite-Jewish tradition rarely reflected on the theoretical categories (Aune, Environment, 23). Mixed genres were common in the early imperial period (idem, «Problem,» 10–11,48). 24 Certainly ancient writers debated about intention, both regarding deeds and legislative purpose (see Hermogenes Issues 61.16–18; 66.12–13; 72.14–73.3). 26 See Kurz, Reading Luke-Acts, 173, also noting the extrinsic reality of this author and audience regardless of our ability to reconstruct them. 27 See, e.g., Allison, Moses, 3. If various authorial or redactional levels complicate the question of «authorial intention» in John (Smith, John 13), we mean the level of our completed Gospel in our earliest textual tradition, which we believe remained well within the range of earlier Johannine theology. 29 Talbert, Gospel, 2–3, observing that Strauss, Bultmann (see Bultmann, Tradition, 372), and their followers rejected the biographical category because they confused the two. 32 W. Schneemelcher in Hennecke, Apocrypha, 1:80; Riesenfeld, Tradition, 2; Guelich, «Genre.» The designation «Gospels» appears to date from the mid-second century (Aune, Environment, 18, cites Justin Dial 10.2; 100.1; Irenaeus Haer. 3.1.1; Clement of Alexandria Stromata 1.21), though some derive it from Mark " s (Kelber, Story, 15) or Matthews usage (Stanton, New People, 14–16) and it probably has antecedents in the LXX use of the term (Stuhlmacher, «Theme,» 19–25; Betz, «Gospel»). 34 So rightly Borchert, John, 29–30 (though noting differences between John and the Synoptics, p. 37). |
| That the beloved disciple outruns Peter may be significant; 10523 it is one of several comparisons of the two figures in the Gospel (13:22–25; 21:7, 20). Argument by comparison was a standard rhetorical technique, 10524 and rhetorical principles suggested that narrative employ comparison of characters in ways useful to the point. A narrative extolling a person could include a statement of his physical prowess (e.g., Josephus outswimming others, Life 15) as part of the praise. 10525 The beloved disciple becomes the first, hence a paradigmatic, believer (20:8), for he believes before a resurrection appearance, merely on the less substantial basis of the empty tomb (cf. 20:29–31). 10526 Yet if the γρ of 20retains its customary force, this verse may be claiming that although the beloved disciplés faith is a paradigm, it is still signs-faith, faith based on seeing (20:8), not the ultimate level of faith (cf. 2:23; 6:30). Better would have been faith in advance that Jesus must rise, based on understanding the word in Scripture (20:9; cf. 2:22). Scripture remains the necessary means for interpreting the event or witness, just as Nathanael understood Jesus» identity both in light of Jesus» revelation and Philip " s earlier appeal to scriptural categories (cf. 1:45,48). 10527 The Scripture to which John refers is unclear here; none of the other explicit references to «Scripture» in this Gospel (7:42; 10:35; 13:18; 17:12; 19:24, 28, 36–37) speak of a resurrection, though some may be taken to imply it and could be recalled after his resurrection (2:22; 7:38). 10528 Granted, many Pharisaic exegetical defenses of the resurrection, ingenious though they are, were hardly obvious by themselves, 10529 but at least they usually provided their texts. Instead of first appealing primarily to texts supporting the general resurrection, early Christian apologists made significant use of what their contemporaries would accept as specifically Davidic material in Ps 2 (Acts 13:33), Ps 16 (Acts 2:25–28; 13:35), Ps 110 (Acts 2:34–35), and, by means of gezerah sheva (linking together texts on the basis of common key terms), 10530 probably material about the Davidic covenant, as in Isa 55(Acts 13:34). But they seem to have often drawn from a broader base of texts than these alone (e.g., Luke 24:44–47). |
| “Liturgical creatures who are most truly themselves when they glorify God, and who find their perfection and self-fulfillment in worship,” Taking active part in the liturgy itself offers a means for Christians to aspire to that kind of perfection through intent concentration on the divine. As Matthew 5:48 reminds us, “Be ye perfect, therefore, even as your heavenly Father is perfect.” It is through participation in the inner life of the Church most fully expressed in the Divine Liturgy that man begins and continues on his path toward perfection, toward the divinization of his very being. As Bishop Kallistos observes in his much-acclaimed The Orthodox Church the Liturgy is something that “Embraces two worlds at once, for both in heaven and on earth the liturgy is one and the same—one altar, one sacrifice, one presence.” Similarly, St. Germanus, an early Patriarch of Constantinople (r. 715-730, d. c. 733) wrote that “The church is the temple of God, a holy place . . . an earthly heaven in which the supercelestial God dwells and moves.” This is a fitting description of the liturgy; each Sunday is not merely a gathering of the local congregation of the faithful in remembrance of God’s loving kindnesses and Christ’s sacrifice, nor is it only a sacrifice by the people, but a kind of celestial gathering, with the heavenly saints and angels dwelling among the earthly in worship. In the liturgy the faithful are “Taken up into “heavenly places” . . . and the Church universal, the saints, the Mother of God, and Christ Himself” are all present. Anglicans, Lutherans and others of the Reformed tradition will notice, often to their immense surprise, that the Divine Liturgy contains numerous references to Holy Scripture. Bible passages are chanted at every service, sung by the choir in the form of Old Testament psalms while priests will chant the Gospel passage. Mary’s Magnificat (taken directly from Luke 1:46-55) is beautifully sung at each All-Night Vigil in the Slavic tradition (Orthros in the Greek tradition) and the “Our Father” prayer is sung by the entire congregation at every Liturgy. Bishop Kallistos tells us that |
| The idea that a prophet was unwelcome in his own land fits a variety of sayings about philosophers 5667 and prophets 5668 already circulating in this period. Jewish tradition long emphasized that Israel had rejected and persecuted its prophets, amplifying the biblical foundation for this tradition ( Jer 26:11, 23; 1 Kgs 18:4; 19:10; 2 Chr 36:15–16; Neh 9:26). 5669 The basic saying appears in all four gospels (Matt 13:57; Mark 6:4 ; Luke 4:24), but John " s version (4:44) may be the «closest to the original» form. 5670 By dishonoring Jesus, God " s agent, they were dishonoring God himself (5:23; cf. 8:49); by contrast, those who served Jesus would receive honor from God (12:26; cf. 12:43). Jesus meanwhile would receive glory from the Father, whereas his accusers sought glory only from each other (5:41,44). 2. A Galilean Aristocrat Learns Faith (4:46–54) This pericope is linked with the preceding narrative both geographically (Samaria and Galilee as opposed to Judea) and in terms of their unorthodox respondents to Jesus. 5671 The Samaritans received Jesus» ministry (4:4–42); here Galileans sought Jesus for miracles. Jesus» deliberate return to Galilee (4:43–45) leads to another mention of «Cana of Galilee,» with a conscious reference to Jesus» first miracle there (4:46; cf. 2:1–11). Every reference to Cana in this Gospel explicitly adds its connection with Galilee (2:1, 11; 4:46; 21:2); this could be to distinguish it from some other «Cana» elsewhere, but because its mention in 2comes so quickly after 2:1, when the reader would not need a reminder, it may be intended to draw attention to its representative Galilean character. 5672 A geographical inclusio mentioning Galilee explicitly brackets the entire unit (4:43, 54). 5673 The connection with the «first» Cana miracle suggests a comparison of the two stories. 5674 In the first story Jesus» mother is the suppliant and responds to Jesus» rebuke by refusing to take no for an answer (2:3–5); in this passage the royal official acts in the same manner (4:48–50). 5675 In both cases Jesus works a sign but invites those entreating him to a level of faith higher than signs-faith. Presumably Jesus» mother surmounts his rebuke based on confidence in Jesus whereas this story includes a greater element of desperation, but on the formal level they share the same insistence that refuses to be deterred. Indeed, this man offers initial faith without a sign, in contrast to Nicodemus (2:23; 3:2) and the Samaritan woman (4:18–19). The link with the first Cana miracle, a secret miracle which is tightly connected with the temple dispute which follows it (2:13–23), may also help the reader of the second Cana miracle to anticipate the bitter public debates about to come (5:16–18). Jesus» rebuff challenges not only the man but the broader constituency of mere signs-faith that he represents (in 4the «you» is plural). 5676 |
| Отсутствие в Евангелии от Луки параллелей с Мф 16. 16-19 с трудом поддается объяснению, если допустить, что Л. знал и использовал текст Матфея. О. М. Фаррер, один из авторов «гипотезы Марка без Q», утверждал, что Л. не включил данный контекст по идеологическим соображениям (по терминологии Фаррера, Мф 16. 16-19 относится к числу «элементов, неприемлемых для Луки» (Luke displeasing elements)), не предложив развернутой аргументации. Пытаясь восполнить этот пробел, Гудакр утверждает, что Л. сознательно уделял ап. Петру меньше внимания по сравнению с ап. Матфеем. Гудакр считает подтверждением своей т. зр. тот факт, что ап. Петр не упоминается во 2-й половине кн. Деяния св. апостолов (после речи ап. Петра на Иерусалимском Соборе апостолов , Деян 15. 7-11). Клоппенборг справедливо замечает, что в обеих частях своего двухтомника Л. ставит ап. Петра в центре событий. Так, он опускает свидетельство Мк 1. 16-18 о призвании апостолов Петра и Андрея, подробнее др. синоптиков излагает историю чудесного лова рыбы, где ап. Петр является единственным учеником, с к-рым Иисус Христос вступает в диалог. Эта история, предваряемая сообщением об исцелении тещи ап. Петра (Лк 4. 38-39), становится у Л. 1-м упоминанием об учениках Иисуса, и, т. о., Петру с самого начала уделяется наибольшее внимание. В др. местах текста при сравнении с Евангелием от Марка исследователи видят, что Л., редактируя изречения ап. Марка, делает акцент на роли ап. Петра. Так, слова учеников, обращенные к Иисусу Христу, Л. вкладывает в уста ап. Петра, так что он один говорит за всех; в Лк 12. 41 Петр задает вопрос, к-рый служит поводом для новой притчи (Лк 12. 42-48). Наконец, двое учеников, не названных в тексте ап. Марка по имени (Мк 14. 13), Л. идентифицирует как Петра и Иоанна (Лк 22. 8), к-рые часто действуют вместе и в первых главах кн. Деяния св. апостолов. Кроме того,- и в свете утверждения Гудакра это особенно важно - Л. пропускает приводимые ап. Марком (Мк 8. 32-33) обличительные слова Иисуса Христа, обращенные к ап. |
| . . , but I tell you. . . .”—Matthew 5:21-48). He said it is what is within rather than outside of us that makes us unclean (Mark 7:17-23). He taught the spiritual disciplines—like alms giving, prayer, and fasting—in ways contrary to the showy style popular amongst the religious teachers of that time (Matthew 6:1-18). He was against the idolatrous pursuit of wealth and being materialistic (Matthew 6:19-24; 8:20; 19:21), so He opposed the luxurious and comfortable life many of the religious leaders had (Matthew 23:6,25). He cleansed the temple of merchants which was contrary to what religious leaders had allowed (John 2:13-17). He spoke against the self-serving and hypocritical practices of the religious leaders in general (Matthew 23). He gleaned and healed on the Sabbath—both considered “work” and therefore contrary to Jewish religious tradition (Mark 3:1-6; Luke 6:1-11). Though His primary mission was to His fellow Jews, Jesus associated with and helped: tax collectors, Romans, Samaritans, lepers, and others who were “outside” of typical Jewish religious acceptance. So, yes, by our modern definition Jesus was spiritual. However, Our Lord didn’t directly delineate religiosity versus spirituality. It is more accurate to view Jesus as trying to reform Judaism while also establishing the kingdom of God. Yet it is instructive to see by the definitions given above that Jesus was incorporating a life where both religious practice and spiritual understanding were embraced. He never abandoned Jewish religion for a life of pure spirituality, nor did He so toe the religious line that He exhorted external behavioral perfection (i.e., Pharisaical legalism) without internal spiritual transformation. Religion and Spirituality Compared The Church Fathers never separated spirituality from religion. When they used the word “spiritual” it was in reference to “life in the Holy Spirit” rather than our modern definition of being interested in the immaterial. The Church Fathers also didn’t separate religion into physical and non-physical; they thought any division of the body from the spirit was non-Orthodox as it denied the incarnation. |
| The claim that Jesus would rebuild the temple himself may allude to some messianic hopes, 4710 but the attestation for this portrait of a single builder of a new temple is much rarer than attestation for that role for God himself. 4711 Jesus» opponents could have heard this claim, like some of his later ones in the Gospel (5:18; 8:58–59; 10:33), as implicitly blasphemous and offensive to their law. 4712 At this point, however, they simply misunderstand him (2:20; cf. 3:4). Jesus himself is the foundation of the new temple (cf. comment on 7:37–39), the place for worship (cf. 4:23–24) and revelations (1:51). 4713 And with the irony characteristic of this Gospel, their misinterpretation of Jesus proves partly correct: by killing Jesus they would also invite the destruction of Herod " s temple (see 11:48). Whereas Jesus acts in «zeal» for the temple (2:17), his hearers in the story world must assume the opposite. Whereas some sectarian groups felt that the temple was defiled and invited judgment, most Jewish people probably aligned with the perspective of those in power, namely, that the temple was virtually impregnable. 4714 Other wise teachers and prophets also were said to offer true sayings that could be understood only in retrospect; thus the ancient reader would recognize Jesus as at least a great teacher or prophet here. 4715 At the same time, John means more than this in the context of his whole Gospel: the disciples themselves would not understand Jesus» words apart from the retrospective illumination of the Paraclete (2:22; 14:26). 4716 More than likely, their experience remains paradigmatic for the Johannine Christians, who also required further instruction, hence the Fourth Gospe1. 4717 The disciples remember both Scripture and Jesus» words (2:22); that both are on the same level, as God " s word, fits Johannine theology (3:34; 5:47; 6:63, 68; 8:47; 14:10, 24; 17:8). 4718 But as central as Scripture was in understanding Jesus» identity (1:45,49), it was not sufficient apart from the retroactive testimony of Jesus» resurrection (12:16; 20:9; cf. Luke 24:8). John " s audience will learn that this retroactive illumination of the disciples derived from the Holy Spirit (14:26). Untrustworthy Believers (2:23–25) |
| God, one more time, since the fall of Adam and Eve, foretold about the Mother of God that she will be that “woman”—a virgin who shall through her Son crush the head of the snake (Gen 3:15). Later, it was prophesied about her that it will be the virgin who will be the intercessor for the entry to the world of the Savior Jesus Christ (Jeremiah 31:2-23), and to her the Archangel Gabriel came to honor and called her full of grace and blessed among women and Mother of my Lord (Luke 1:40-45), and blessed are her womb and breasts for they held and fed the Savior of the world, Christ (Luke 11:27-28). The Savior, as her Son, obeyed her and submitted to her (Luke 2:51). The first miracle the Savior performed was at the wedding in Cana of Galilee through her supplication (John 2:3-10), the Savior took care of her even then when He suffered excruciating pain on the Cross, trusting to His most beloved of Apostles the care of His Mother, and she herself through the Holy Spirit prophesied that all generations would call her blessed and sing in glory that God made her worthy due to her humility (Luke 1:48-49). The same name of the Mother of God in the Hebrew language is translated as " Lady Virgin. " This Lady and Virgin Queen will sit to the right of the throne of her Son on the day of the Second Coming (Ps 45:9). She conceived and gave birth by the Holy Spirit to the Son of God (Luke 1:35), having been overshadowed by the power of the Almighty and remained virgin even after giving birth (Ezekiel 44:13). She is more honorable than the Cherubim and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim, having no other children but only Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world. The mother of the so called " brothers " of the Lord is not the Theotokos but Mary Klopa (Matt 27:55-56; Mark 15:40-47; John 19:25) while the " brothers " of the Lord are just relatives and not His natural brothers, for in the early years for Hebrews close relatives were called " brothers " (Gen 13:8). The mother of the brothers of the Lord, Mary Klopa, is called sister of the Mother of the Lord, according to the meaning of close relatives (John 19:25, etc.). |
| Proof of the fact that this woman had just such thoughts when she confessed before the Lord and was healed, are contained in the Lord’s words: “Daughter, be of good comfort: thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace” (Luke 8:48). This was the only woman who was deemed worthy for the Lord to call her “daughter.” To others, the Lord said “O woman, great is thy faith” (Matthew 15:28). In two other instances, the Lord called women daughters, but differently: after healing the woman hunch-backed for eighteen years in the Temple, whom He called “daughter of Abraham” (Luke 13:16), and when He was being led to His crucifixion, He saw the women of Jerusalem weeping over Him, and he addressed them with the words “Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for yourselves, and for your children” (Luke 23:26). This blessed woman earned the name of “daughter” from the Lord. In general, during the Lord’s time on earth, He called people “children” only in those instances when He drew back the curtain of His Divinity. And so, He told the man sick of the palsy “Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee” (Matthew 9:2), and then to the bewilderment of those within earshot, explained that He is the One who has the power to release sin, that is, God; He then called Zacchaeus “also a son of Abraham” after Zacchaeus had confessed his faith and his repentance (Luke 19:8); before His sufferings, speaking to His disciples about His Divinity, the Lord said “Little children! Yet a little while I am with you” (John 13:33). When the Lord, following His Resurrection, appeared to His disciples as God, He directly calls them His children: “Children, have ye any meat?” In this way, the Lord, calling the woman He healed “daughter,” shows that she indeed possessed the saving faith, for, as Holy Evangelist John the Theologian bears witness, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (John 1:12). |
|
|
