| The response of confusion (6:40–41) stems from an inadequate hermeneutic; they knew Jesus according to the flesh but missed his genuine identity, which could be understood only by the Spirit ( John 3:3, 11–12 ; cf. 2Cor 5:16–17 ; Matt 11:25; 16:17; Luke 10:21). 6172 Their grumbling (6:41; cf. 6:61; 7:32) recalls the grumbling of Exod 16:2, 6173 but in that case Israel grumbled before receiving the manna, whereas these hearers complain after receiving bread and the invitation of the ultimate satiation for their hunger. 6174 Perhaps because of their attitude at this point, these Galileans finally receive the ironically pejorative title «Jews,» that is, «Judeans.» 6175 The rejection of Jesus based on familiarity with him (6:42) undoubtedly reflects historical tradition ( Mark 6:1–6 ; Matt 13:53–58), 6176 while also serving John " s particular emphasis (1:11). Johns readers probably know the virgin birth tradition, which is earlier than either Matthew or Luke (their testimonies appear in accounts independent from one another), and if John does know this tradition (see comment on 7:41–42), 6:42 may presuppose the reader " s knowledge that the crowd " s claim to knowledge reveals ignorance. 6177 But John is more interested in their ignorance of Jesus» ultimate place of origin. That other outsiders admit ignorance of his place of origin (7:27) makes the present inadequate claim to know his place of origin all the more ironic. Jesus notes that the Father draws some to him (6:43–44), using biblical language for God drawing Israel to himself in the wilderness or the exile ( Jer 31:3 ; Hos 11LXX); 6178 the reader later learns that the Father draws such adherents through the proclamation of the cross ( John 12:32–33 ). 6179 Only those whom the Father gives to Jesus «come» to him in faith (6:37, 44). Jewish prayers such as the fifth benediction of the Amidah recognized God " s sovereignty even in granting repentance (cf. Rom 2:4 ). 6180 Like most of his Jewish contemporaries, John felt no tension between predestination and free wil1. 6181 Antinomies were in any case standard fare both in Greco-Roman rhetoricians and in Jewish writings. 6182 Because of increasing cosmic fatalism in late antiquity, philosophers had to begin defending a doctrine of free will previously taken for granted, and early Christian commentators likewise proved careful to emphasize that Jesus» statements do not deny free wil1. 6183 |
| It is also too small a broom to sweep away the clear meaning of the Scriptures cited in Genesis 19, Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. Sanfilippo’s argument revolves around the possible implications of patristic images and parables; these Scriptures reveal the clear import of homosexual acts. The churchmen Sanfilippo objects to do not “fixate” on these Scriptures; they simply cite them as authoritative, for the excellent reason that these texts are the only ones which clearly and unambiguously deal with the subject at hand. Why ruminate upon the possible significance of Maximus’ image when we have the unambiguous teaching of homosexuality’s actual significance? Sanfilippo has yet to deal with these texts in a convincing way. He can only suggest that scientific advances have now proven them wrong and out-dated. Sanfilippo’s error is a basic one: he confounds metaphor with reality, and refuses to see that not everything in a metaphor is directly applicable to the reality of the human condition. It is as if one attempted to justify dishonesty in business because of Christ’s use of the dishonest steward in His parable in Luke 16:1-9, or judicial corruption because Christ compares God to an unjust judge in His parable in Luke 18:1-8. Christ took it for granted that dishonesty in business was worthy of condemnation, and assumed that His hearers would not conclude that dishonesty was acceptable after all because people in His parable praised the dishonest steward for his shrewdness. That dishonesty was a part of the parable, and necessary to make the parable’s point—which was not that dishonesty was acceptable, but that money was to be used and not hoarded. It is the same with the parable of the unjust judge: Christ assumed that His hearers knew that judicial corruption was wrong. The corruption of the judge was there as part of the parable’s furniture, the point of which was not that judicial corruption was fine, but that perseverance in prayer was required. Christ used images of dishonesty and corruption in His parables because He assumed no one would be so stupid as to conclude from His words that dishonesty and corruption were okay after all. |
| There have been many studies in recent times tracing the development of the diaconate from the appointment of the seven Hellenists in Acts, through the apostolic period, beyond Nicaea into the Middle Ages and up to the present day. I shall now summarise this historical trajectory but not in any great depth as this lies outside the scope of this work; and in any event it would merely repeat the work of others. I am indebted to the work of Deacon John Chryssavgis ( ante) for much of what follows. The Diaconate Through Time – the New Testament Some interpreters, both ancient and modern, have tried to discover a template for the diaconate in Jewish practice contemporaneous with Christ. A possible solution is offered by Origen and St Athanasius who refer to the deacon’s liturgical role in post-exilic Levitical terms. The Levites served as doorkeepers, administrators, chanters and custodians of the sacred vessels. Theirs was not a sacrificial priesthood but rather a service binding the people to that priesthood in the offering of prayer and the life of the community. Such service could take many different forms, including attending at tables, but it was by no means restricted to the Levites. Likewise, diaconal ministries in the New Testament were sometimes performed by deacons and at other times by others, but it was the ordained diaconate that manifested service as the hallmark of Christ " s own saving work. Christ emphasised this service in His instruction to the Twelve (Mark 10:42-45; Luke 22:25-27) and offered Himself as a slave as an example when he washed the disciples’ feet at the Last Supper (John 13:1-17). The Levitical model probably informed the general shape of the diaconate when it emerged as an order of ministry by the laying on of hands of the Apostles in Acts 6:1-6, albeit “deacons” as such are not explicitly mentioned in that text. The social and the liturgical aspects of diakonia were carried forward into the life of the Church pre-eminently by this ministry. St. Stephen and St. Philip are perhaps the most prominent of the early deacons; and it is interesting that St. Luke emphasises their witness and preaching in Acts rather than their service to widows, orphans and in the communal meal. In so far as St. Philip baptised the Ethiopian eunuch it is clear that the diaconate had a central missionary, liturgical and ministerial status in the early Church in partnership with that of the Apostles. Nowhere is this partnership more strongly represented than in St. Paul’s autobiographical account of his own ministry. |
| 1 John 3:17 ); but in the gospels which record the saying, the emphasis is on the priority of Jesus and/or the urgency of serving him while he remains with them, since he was soon to depart. 5. The Danger to Lazarus (12:9–11) The narrative (12:10–11) rings with irony: Jesus went to Judea, risking his life to give life to Lazarus; now Lazarus " s new life may cost him his life. The paradigm for disciples could not be clearer: those who would follow Jesus must be prepared to die (12:25,27), for the world will hate them and wish to kill them (15:18; 16:2). But faith would not be decreased by such martyrdom-producing new life; the sign of Lazarus " s new life brought others to faith (12:11; cf. 11:45,48). 7534 He would also go to Lazarus, who was dead (11:14–15), which Thomas ironically misinterprets–yet inadvertently correctly applies–as lesus going to the realm of death and his disciples following him there (11:16). 7535 Since «friend» applies to all disciples (15:15), there is no reason to find in the cognate «beloved» (11:3) an allusion to the «beloved» disciple (pace Nepper-Christensen, «Discipel,» and others; see our introduction, pp. 84–89) or to one of two such disciples in the Gospel (Vicent Cernuda, «Desvaido»). 7537 There are other exodus parallels (e.g., 3:14), but paralleling the signs and plagues could work at best only at the level of general categories (contrast explicit parallels in Rev 8–9; 16): perhaps darkness for healing the blind (Exod 10:21–22; John 9:5 ), but then why does John mention darkness in 8and 12:35, 46 but mention only «night» in 9:4? Crop-destroying locusts (Exod 10:13–14) could oppose the bread of life, but its exodus background is really manna; likewise, Jesus heals (4:50–53; 5:8–9; 9:7) but the object is not boils (Exod 9:9–11). 7538 Pearce, «Raising»; cf. the caution of Smith, John (1999), 217. A connection with Luke 10:38–39, while unlikely, is more plausible than the allusion to the parable of Lazarus (Luke 16:20; the figure in the parable–who is not raised–could as easily derive from the event later reported in John; both stories are quite different, as noted by Streeter, Gospels, 389); Eleazar was a common name (see below). |
| On the social level this may suggest some historical implications for responses to the earliest Christian mission (see introduction concerning Galilee, ch. 5), but on the internal literary level also supports John " s emphasis on God " s activity among those marginalized by the attitudes of the elite (7:52; cf. 2:9). Philip " s name is Greek, perhaps inviting the Greeks to approach him first in 12:20–21, but scholars who would therefore dispute Philip " s Jewishness 4261 reckon neither with the hellenization of Palestine 4262 nor with the Palestinian Jewish use of Greek names. 4263 That a few of Jesus» disciples bore Greek names is not unusual; 4264 further, had Jesus had any immediate Gentile followers, his Jewish disciples and especially his opponents would have pointed this out, and the later church, advocating the Gentile mission through less relevant narratives like the centurion and Syrophoenician woman (Matt 8:5–13/Luke 7:1–10; Mark 7:24–30 /Matt 15:21–28), would have surely exploited it. Unless Philip 4265 is the other anonymous disciple of 1:37, 4266 which is unlikely, 4267 Jesus directly initiates the call of Philip without a mediating witness, in contrast to the above narratives. But Philip quickly becomes a witness to Nathanael, inviting him to a personal encounter with Christ which convinces him as readily as it convinced Philip. John seems to indicate that an honest and open heart confronted with the true Jesus himself–and not merely another " s testimony about him without that encounter–will immediately become his follower (3:20–21). Normally disciples were to seek out their own teachers. Joshua ben Perachiah, a pre-Christian sage, reportedly advised this, as well as acquiring a «Π, a companion (presumably for Torah study). 4268 Rabban Gamaliel repeated the same advice in another context. 4269 Likewise, a writer for Socrates in the Cynic Epistles advises choosing a good education and a wise teacher. 4270 In the call of Philip, however, as in some dramatic examples in the Synoptics ( Mark 1:17; 2:14 ; Matt 4:19; 9:9; Luke 5:10, 27), Jesus directly summons one to follow him, like some radical Greek teachers seeking to convert the open-minded to philosophy. |
| Марии (Лк 2. 48). Но тем не менее И. О. участвует во всех основных евангельских сценах детства Спасителя (Лк 2. 22, 27). Вместе с Девой Марией он заботится о воспитании Отрока Иисуса, Который «был в повиновении у них» (Лк 2. 51). Евангелист Лука рисует образ отца, к-рый живет праведно по естественным и божественным законам и исполняет свои обязанности по отношению к Сыну Божию. И. О.- послушный Богу человек, к-рого слушается Сам Иисус. Слова о том, что Господь Иисус Христос «был, как думали (νομζετο), Сын Иосифов» (Лк 3. 23; ср.: 4. 22), могут означать, согласно одному из возможных толкований, что евангелист Лука говорит об одном из мнений, к-рое он не разделял,- тем самым указывается на непорочное зачатие Иисуса ( Bovon F., Koester H. Luke 1: A Comment. on the Gospel of Luke 1. 1-9. 50. Minneapolis, 2002. P. 136). В целом анализ Мф 1-2 и Лк 1-2 показывает, что рассказ о рождении и детстве составлен у Матфея относительно Иосифа, а у Луки - Девы Марии ( Porter. 1993. P. 975). То, что И. О. происходит из рода Давида, отмечено в 2 отличающихся евангельских родословных; в одной его отцом назван Иаков (Мф 1. 15-16), в другой - Илий (Лк 3. 23). Одна из самых древних попыток согласовать это противоречие принадлежит христ. хронисту Юлию Африкану (ок. 160-240). В сохранившихся у Евсевия Кесарийского фрагментах «Послания к Аристиду» сказано, что упомянутые Иаков и Илий являлись единоутробными братьями по матери и были рождены от разных отцов (также родных братьев - Матфана и Мелхия), к-рые по очереди вступили в брак с женщиной по имени Есфа ( Euseb. Hist. eccl. I 7. 8). Африкан предлагал рассматривать каждое из родословий Спасителя как отражение соответственно естественного (по природе) (Мф 1. 1-17) и правового (по закону) (Лк 3. 23-38) родства ( Euseb. Hist. eccl. I 7. 1-4). Согласно этому предположению, он утверждал: «Илий умер бездетным, Иаков женился на его вдове и родил от нее Иосифа, который был его сыном по природе, а по закону - сыном Илия, ибо Иаков, его брат, «восстановил семя ему»» (см.: Втор 25. 5-10.- Авт.) ( Euseb. Hist. eccl. I 7. 9). Несмотря на древность и широкое признание трактовки Африкана, у нее один недостаток: в используемой им рукописи Евангелия от Луки в тексте родословной было пропущено 2 имени - Матфата и Левия. Впосл. почти все отцы Церкви как Востока, так и Запада, к-рые затрагивали вопрос о родословиях Христа, разделяли т. зр. Африкана (напр.: Aug. Retractat. 33. 2 - Grelot e. al. 1974. P. 1303). Нек-рые совр. библеисты выдвигали предположение, что одна из родословных могла быть родословием И. О., а другая - Девы Марии (см., напр.: Хуффман. 2003. С. 130). В целом проблема, связанная с именами и их последовательностью в евангельских родословных, остается нерешенной (см. подробнее в ст. Родословие Иисуса Христа , Гармонизация евангельская ). Образ И. О. в древней Церкви Сон прав. Иосифа. Роспись ц. Богоматери в Кастельсеприо, Италия. Кон. IX в.(?) Сон прав. Иосифа. Роспись ц. Богоматери в Кастельсеприо, Италия. Кон. IX в.(?) |
| Most striking are the authorities» appeals to group knowledge («we know,» 9:24, 29) and the healed man " s mistaken supposition that he could still speak as a member of their community (9:31). Rhetorical claims to group knowledge (οδαμεν) could be dishonest (Luke 20:21) or could represent affirmations of faith (e.g., Rom 2:2; 3:19; 7:14 ; 2Cor 5:1 ). Here they may recall the first use of οδαμεν in the Gospel, when Nicodemus makes a moderate claim about Jesus» identity («We know that you are a teacher who has come from God,» 3:2) and Jesus countered that «we» (presumably himself and his Father) speak what «we know,» divine revelation from above (3:11). Being able to view these competing claims to knowledge from outside the narrative world, the latter claim rooted in heavenly revelation, would certainly encourage Johannine Christians. This is especially the case given admissions of inadequate knowledge (9:29) and claims to knowledge that the Gospel " s narratives prove inadequate (6:42; 7:27). 7101 Although this epistemological conflict surfaces most dramatically here, surrounding narratives provide its context. The previous encounters between Jesus and the authorities during this festival (chs. 7–8) offer sufficient perspective. Jesus knows his identity and knows the Father, whereas his opponents, despite their false claims and partial knowledge, do not (the use of οδα in 7:27–29; 8:14,19, 55); the rough synonym γινσκω 7102 functions in the same polemical fashion with challenges, condemnations, and responses (7:27, 49, 51; 8:27–28,32,43,52,55). The crucial significance of this conflict is resolved only in Jesus» following discourse (10:4–6, 14–15) and appended material (10:27, 38), which interpret the correct epistemology of Jesus and his followers in terms of the covenant knowledge of God and his people in the earlier biblical record (see comment there). 7103 While various forms of discipline were practiced in this period, and one who grants a high degree of historical verity to John " s narrative can argue that the healed man did in fact confront religious teachers or leaders in Jerusalem, no one can deny that John has framed the dialogue in his own language relevant for his own audience (see introduction on the genre and setting of this Gospel). |
| 2886 Aristotle Rhet. 3.8.1, 1408b; Cicero Or. Brut. 50.168–69.231; cf. Rowe, «Style,» 154; balanced clauses in Anderson, Glossary, 90–91. Mythical language would fit poetry (Menander Rhetor 1.1, 333.31–334.5; cf., e.g., Isa 51:9) but does not require it (cf., e.g., Rev 12:1–9). 2888 See Cicero Or. Brut. 20.67 (though complaining that poetry can emphasize euphony over intelligible content, 20.68). 2890 Even very careful syllabic structures may represent prose rhetoric rather than poetry per se; e.g., the parallelism characteristic of isocolon and homoeoteleuton; see Rhet. Alex. 27.1435b.39–40; 1436a.1–4; Rowe, «Style,» 137 (citing Isocrates Paneg. 4.39; Cicero Mur. 9; Gorgias He1. 7); Porter, «Paul and Letters,» 580; Anderson, Glossary, 90–91 (citing, e.g., Rhet. ad Herenn. 4.27–28; Demetrius 25). 2894 Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 24. Rhetorical handbooks already insisted that the introduction should summarize the arguments the speech would use (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Thucyd. 19; LCL 1:512–513 n. 1 cites Rhet. Alex. 29), though there were some exceptions in spoken rhetoric (Seneca Dial, 1.pref.21). 2896 Quintilian 4.1.5; cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 17; Cicero Or. Brut. 40.137; also Heath, «Invention,» 103. 2897 Artemidorus Onir. 1.pref.; 2Macc 2(at the end of a long prologue). This is not to deny the possibility of long introductory sections after various sorts of prologues (e.g., Polybius 1–2; cf. 2.71.7; Luke 1:5–4:30; Matt 1:18–2:23; probably John 1:1–51 ). 2899 E.g., Xenophon Agesilaus 1.2; Plutarch Themistocles 1.1; Cornelius Nepos 7 (Alcibiades), 1.2; but this was not necessary (Philostratus Vit. soph, pref.480). Noble ancestry (especially from deities) helped define a person " s heroic power (Homer II. 20.215–241); it did not, however, guarantee positive outcome in the end (Sallust Cati1. 5.1). 2902 Käsemann, Questions, 164; cf. comments on the Logos " s mythical language in Kümmel, Theology, 282. 2904 An inclusio surrounding a proem appears in a widely read Greek classic, Homer Od. 1.1–10, where 1.1–2 and 1.10 invoke the Muse to tell the story while 1.2–9 summarizes the whole book " s plot, inclusio is frequent (e.g., Catullus 52.1,4; 57.1,10). Cf. also repetition of a refrain in narratives ( Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25 ); or especially poetry: the wedding invocation to Hymen in Catullus 61.4–5, 39–40, 49–50, 59–60; 62.4–5, 10, 19, 25,31,38, 48,66 (with to added, 61.117–118, 137–138, 142–143, 147–148, 152–153, 157–158, 162–163, 167–168, 172–173, 177–178, 182–183); the bridal summons (Catullus 61.96,106,113); invocation to the Fates (Catullus 64.327, in briefer form thereafter in 333, 337, 342, 347, 352, 356, 361, 365, 371, 375, 381); or a summons to love (Perv. Ven. 1, 8, 27, 36, 48, 57–58, 68, 75, 80, 93). |
| 10172 4 Macc 15:30; Aristotle Po1. 3.2.10, 1277b; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 4.82.3; 6.92.6; Diodorus Siculus 5.32.2; 10.24.2; Livy 2.13.6; 28.19.13; Appian R.H. 2.5.3; 7.5.29; Iamblichus V.P. 31.194. Some philosophers held that women were capable of courage (Musonius Rufus 4, p. 48.8 and that philosophy improved women " s courage (3, p. 40.33–35). 10173 2Macc 7:21; 4 Macc 15:23; 16:14; Diodorus Siculus 17.77.1; 32.10.9; Apuleius Metam. 5.22. «Courage» is literally «manliness» (e.g., 1Macc 2:64; Aristotle E.E. 3.1.2–4, 1228ab; Dio Cassius 58.4.6; Diodorus Siculus 17.45.6; 40.3.6; Theon Progymn. 9.22; Crates Ep. 19; Chariton 7.1.8). 10174 E.g., Homer I1. 7.96; 8.163; 11.389; 16.7–8; Virgil Aen. 9.617; 12.52–53; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 9.7.2; 10.28.3; Diodorus Siculus 12.16.1; 34/35.2.22; Aulus Gellius 17.21.33; Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.46; cf. an unarmed man in Homer I1. 22.124–125; an effeminate man in Aristophanes Lys. 98. 10176 Mothers (Homer I1. 22.79–90,405–407; Euripides Supp1. 1114–1164) mourned sons; see especially a mother " s mourning the death of the son who would have solaced her in old age (e.g., Virgil Aen. 9.481–484; Luke 7:12–13). 10177 It may support an identification with the disciple of 18:15–16. The disciple perhaps departs in 19:27, «to his own» (Michaels, John, 319). 10178 Hoskyns, «Genesis,» 211–13; Ellis, Genius, 271; cf. Peretto, «Maria.» The specific meaning in Rev 12 is clearer, but even there the mariological reading is unclear unless one resorts to subsequent tradition; cf., e.g., Keener, Revelation, 313–14, 325–27. 10180 Cf. Moloney, «Mary.» Boguslawski, «Mother,» sees this new «eschatological family» confirmed by the coming of the Spirit in 19:30. 10183 Witherington, Women, 95. Cf. Jesus» mother as an example of discipleship also in Seckel, «Mère.» 10184 For care of parents in their old age, see P.Enteux. 26 (220 B.C.E.); Hierocles Parents 4.25.53; Diogenes Laertius 1.37; Quintilian 7.6.5; Sir 3:16 ; Gen. Rab. 100:2. Some texts view such care as «repayment» of parents (Homer Ii. 4.477–478; 17.302; 1Tim 5:4 ; possibly Christian interpolation in Sib. Or. 2.273–275). More generally on honor of parents, see comment on 2:4. |
| 7618 The wording of Jesus» response in 11:25–26 would not necessarily resolve any ambiguity in his words for Martha; most Jews believed in the soul " s life after death before the resurrection anyway. 7619 But the wording of Jesus» response (Jesus as the life, 11:25–26; cf. 1:4; 6:48; 14:6; 1 John 1:2; 5:11–12, 20 ) 7620 would encourage John " s audience, who might not expect to customarily face immediate physical resuscitations but believed that they possessed eternal life in the present (3:16, 36). 7621 Temporary resuscitations of mortals in history could be understood to prefigure the ultimate future resurrection (e.g., 4and comment), 7622 so John could make explicit how Jesus» words to Martha applied to his own audience in his own generation. Marthás confession (11:27) is as firm as Peter " s (6:69); the confession of Christ, however, is not Peter " s (6:69), but the Baptist " s (3:28), Andrew " s (1:41), the Samaritan woman " s (4:25,29), perhaps a healed man " s (9:22,35–38), and now Marthás (11:27). That Jesus was the one «coming into the world» (11:27) is Johannine christological language implying his incarnate status (e.g., 1:9, 27; 3:31), though we need not suppose that Martha understood this point (cf. 6:14; 12:13). Jesus offers private revelations of his identity to the Samaritan woman (4:25–26) and to Martha (11:25), and later reveals himself to Mary Magdalene (20:15–17) after Peter and the beloved disciple have departed (20:10). He seems to have favored women and/or those marginalized from the centers of structural power. Whether John, by the confessions of Martha and Peter, is intentionally balancing gender the way Luke seems to do 7623 or (less likely) includes her confession without such considerations, her confession, the climactic confession preceding Jesus» passion, suggests a relatively high role for women " s faith vis-à-vis the majority views of John " s culture. 7624 5. Mourning with Mary and Others (11:28–37) Jesus continues to remain outside the village (11:28, 30), probably for safety (11:8), 7625 to prolong his «hour» until its appointed moment at the Passover (11:46–47). |
|
|
