| 1052 Cf. Wilson, Luke and Pastoral Epistles, ix, who offers Lukés authorship of the Pastorals as «an extreme hypothesis, that of common authorship, in order to see what the evidence will bear.» 1054 For one thorough treatment of Revelations vocabulary, see Aune, Revelation, ccvii-ccxi. For some further documentation on Revelation passages cited below, see Keener, Revelation, loc. cit. 1056 Rhetoricians learned various styles for different kinds of speeches (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Demosth. 45–46). Though rarely excelling in all, it was not uncommon to compose works in multiple genres (Seneca Controv. 3.pref.8; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Demosth. 23) ; cf. also Rowe, «Style,» 151, 155). Style should be appropriate to a speech " s circumstances (Black, «Oration at Olivet,» 88; cf. 83 n.l). 1057 Cf. Newport, «Prepositions»; idem, «Εκ»; idem, «Evidence»; idem, «Meanings.» Among the most thorough treatments are Thompson, Syntax (who observes that the Apocalypse is « " Jewish Greek», to the fullest extent» of that expression); and Aune, Revelation, clx-ccvii, who also notes the Semitic «interference» (clxii). Of course, most apocalypses were originally composed in Hebrew or Aramaic (Moore, Judaism, 2:280), so conventions inherent in the genre may have affected the style Revelation " s writer adopted. 1058 Morrice, «John,» 43–44, emphasizes his use of Ezekiel in particular. Vanhoye, «Livre,» analyzes Revelation " s creative reapplication of Ezekiel " s imagery. 1059 The OT allusion forms are closer to the Hebrew than to the LXX (Koester, Introduction 2:252; Tenney, Revelation, 26–27; Trudinger, «Text,» 84–85), but the LXX itself is full of Semitic rhythms. 1060 E.g., Ezek 10:1,44:4 ; Dan 10:5 ; cf. also 4 Ezra (e.g., 11:2,5,7,10,12,20,22,24,25,26,28,33, 35,37) and 1 Enoch (e.g., 14:14–15,18,85:3); the simple, «and I saw» (a visionary statement plus the typical Semitic coordinating conjunction) is even more common (e.g., 1 En. 17:3,6,7,8,18:1,2,3,4, 5,9,10,11,12; 2 En. 20:1; 3 En. 42:3,44:7). Like 1QS, Revelation has few explicit quotes from the OT (e.g., 1QS 5.15; 8.14) but is full of allusions. (Ellis, «Uses,» 215 n. 27, observes that nearly 70 percent of the verses contain OT allusions.) Prophetic language was typically recycled in Hellenistic oracular practice as well (Parke, Sibyls, 15). |
| About Pages Проекты «Правмира» Raising Orthodox Children to Orthodox Adulthood The Daily Website on How to be an Orthodox Christian Today Twitter Telegram Parler RSS Donate Navigation All articles What and Who Influence Us? 29 August 2022 Priest Luke A. Veronis Mary the Theotokos Full of Grace 28 August 2022 Fr. Theodore Stylianopoulos The Dormition: Pascha of the Summer 28 August 2022 Evagelos Sotiropoulos Patience: What Growth In Christ Looks Like 27 August 2022 Archpriest Michael Gillis On Self-Esteem and Self-Knowledge 26 August 2022 Protopresbyter Themistoklis Mourtzanos The Goal of a Lesser Life 25 August 2022 Archpriest Stephen Freeman Mountain-moving Faith 24 August 2022 Fr. Theodore Stylianopoulos Why Do We Call The Priest “Father”? 23 August 2022 Fr. James Guirguis Asceticism As Life of Prayer, Fasting and Repentance 22 August 2022 Metropolitan Antonius of Zahle Spiritual Strength Comes Through Entrusting Ourselves to Christ 21 August 2022 Priest Philip LeMasters Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 561 Next News 30 September His Holiness Patriarch Kirill Contracted the Coronavirus 4th Plenary Session between ROC and Coptic Church Held 29 September His Beatitude Metropolitan Tikhon Calls for Prayer for Those Facing Hurricanes Ian and Fiona 28 September Patriarch Kirill: The Church Prays for the Fraternal Strife to End as Soon as Possible Besides intellectual instruction, young people also need prayer, Patriarch Daniel says as new academic year begins 27 September The Synodal Residence in New York hosts the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia Voluntary Blood Donation Takes Place in Churches in Serbia 26 September The work of the Church in society is quiet, but full of hope and love, says the Director of Lumina Publications 25 September Epistle of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia 23 September “The models par excellence are the great hesychast saints,” says Romanian Orthodox Bishop of Oradea Commentary All commentary Other media The Word of the Day How to Deal with Sin Ramblings of a Redneck Priest Party Etiquette Praying in the Rain Humility By Accident More RSS About Contact Us Donate Pravmir.ru © 2008-2024 Pravmir.com Developed by Hamburg Church Studio Design by — |
| Others show that John 20:19–23 fulfills specific promises of the final discourse, especially the promise of the Spirit (14:16–17, 27) and Jesus» promise that after he went away, he would return to them (14:18–19, 22). 10646 Other allusions include the fulfillment of «peace» (14:27; 20:19,21) and «rejoicing» (16:20–24; 20:20), 10647 and the language of rebirth or re-creation in Jesus breathing on them also recalls earlier Johannine pneumatological motifs (3:3, 8; 20:22). 10648 Empowerment for mission (20:21, 23; cf. Acts 1:8) fits Jesus» earlier promises (15:26–27; 16:7–11). Jesus» glorification began at the cross, so it is logical in the narrative for Jesus to make available the Spirit at this point (7:39), although this by itself would not exclude a continuing or further impartation later. 10649 The present passage merely confirms the link between Jesus» return after the resurrection and the impartation of the Spirit already implied in the final discourse; 10650 the fulfillment is nearly as clear as that between Luke 24and Acts 2:4. 10651 Thus some write that this passage and Acts 2 ultimately represent the same event. 10652 After summarizing arguments for identifying 20with Pentecost, Turner offers several reasoned arguments distinguishing the two events, to each of which I will respond in turn. 10653 First, Turner states that the glorification (a prerequisite for the Spirit " s coming, 7:39) is not complete by 20because the ascension remains future (20:17). 10654 I agree that the ascension remains future (see my comment on 20:17), but would argue that for the purposes of John " s theological point, Jesus was already «lifted up» sufficiently on the cross for the Spirit to be «given» proleptically (and symbolically) in 19:30. Second, Turner argues that Jesus will not be present when he provides the Spirit, since 16says he will «send» the Spirit to them after his departure. In view of the larger narrative, I would contend that this argument reads too much into the particular words, which if pressed would undercut Turner " s argument as well; Jesus «goes» at his death and returns at the resurrection (16:16–22), so sending the Spirit in his absence should technically place the Spirit " s coming before the resurrection. The language of «sending» deliberately parallels the Father sending the Son, without necessary reference to distinction in location; it simply involves delegated authority and mission (as in 20:21,23). |
| 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 |
| 1F. Authority for Forgiveness (20:23) Immediately after breathing on them and announcing the Spirit, Jesus grants them the authority of representative forgiveness. 10720 It is anachronistic to read into this passage the later Catholic doctrine of penance or others» views about admission to baptism; 10721 it is likewise anachronistic to read into it Protestant polemic against the Catholic interpretation of the passage. Read on its own terms, the passage makes good sense as it stands. Because the Spirit would continue among them (20:22), they would be able to carry on Jesus» work (cf. 16:7–11); 10722 given the backdrop of 16:7–11, which explains the meaning of the Spirit " s coming here, the disciples announce both righteousness and judgment based on peoplés response to Christ (cf. 14:6). 10723 Although the promise is given directly to those present at the time (20:19), it will no more exclude later generations of Christians (such as John " s audience, 17:20–22) than it would Thomas once he believes (20:24). If the Spirit is for later Johannine Christians as well as for the first ones (3:5; 1 John 2:20, 27), then they, too, will bear witness (15:26–27) and be recipients of the Spirit (16:7), who prosecutes the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment (16:8–11). 10724 The passive is a divine passive; forgiveness comes from God; further, in John " s perspective, only Jesus» sacrifice takes away sin (1:29). In the perspective of Johannine Christians, however, believers can play a role in other believers» forgiveness, at least by prayer (1 John 5:16–17); 10725 the present passage speaks of believers» ministry to nonbelievers, mediating God " s forgiveness through the word they bring (20:21; 16:8–11). 10726 (We mean «word» in its Johannine sense; by proclaiming the message of Jesus, to whom the Spirit testifies, believers proclaim Jesus the word himself, who is revealed by the Spirit to unbelievers.) In the Synoptics, the disciples had already exercised such discretion based on evidence of repentance ( Mark 6:11 ; Matt 10:14; Luke 9:5); John has, however, omitted that preresurrection ministry of the disciples, probably to avoid playing down the full role of Christ before the resurrection and the full role of the Spirit and believers after 20:19–23. 10727 Some take the perfect tense as meaning that «the apostolic sentence is forthwith confirmed–is effective as soon as spoken.» 10728 Others suggest that the perfect tense here, like the future perfect in Matt 16:19; 18:18, may be intended literally, that is, that those who pronounce forgiveness are merely confirming what has already taken place from God " s perspective. 10729 |
| 701 Plutarch Demosthenes 11.1 regards Demetrius as a reliable source because he learned the information from Demosthenes himself in his old age. 703 Streeter, Gospels, 425–26, doubts that John was an eyewitness because John depends on Mark and Luke (a thesis often disputed; see our discussion of the relation between John and the Synoptics). 704 Xenophon Hel1. 3.1.2 cites an account of the Greek mercenaries» escape from Persia, but, though aware of this source, later composed his own account (Anabasis). 706 Especially, though not exclusively, among many conservative and moderate scholars (some allowing for degrees of subsequent redaction), e.g., Carson, John; Bruce, John; Ellis, «Christology,» 1–6; Blomberg, «Reliable,» 30–37; Milne, Message, 17–19; Munn, «Introduction»; Silva Santos, «Autoria»; Watkins, John, 8–18; Wenham, «View»; tentatively, Temple, Core, viii. 707 E.g., Braun, Jean, 301–30; Munoz Léon, «Discipulo.» Barrett, John, 133, attributes all the canonical Johannine literature to disciples of the apostle; Schnackenburg also suggests dependence on Johannine tradition, while allowing that the «spokesperson who transmitted» and interpreted the tradition need not have been the apostle himself (John, 1:102). 712 So Malatesta, Inferiority, 83; Ellis, World, 13–17; Köstenberger, John, 22–24; Blomberg, Reliability, 26–31; cf. Smalley, John, 77; Nunn, Authorship, 99ff. 716 Beasley-Murray, John, lxxiii. One wonders how immediately the author intended the Gospel to circulate outside the Johannine circle of churches, but this is irrelevant to our case. 717 Rigato, «Apostolo,» and Winandy, «Disciple» both even allowing that the priest of Acts 4may be in view. 718 Admittedly πταλον could bear a specifically priestly sense (in Exod 28:36; 29:6; 39:3, 30; Lev 8:9 , five of its seven LXX uses), but its usage was much broader in Greek and probably simply contributes to the metaphor. It is also not impossible, though it is very unlikely, that Zebedee was of levitic descent; similar names appear among Levites (Neh 11:17; 1 Chr 26:2; 2 Chr 17:8; Ezra 10:20), but were hardly limited to them (Josh 7:1, 17–18; 1 Chr 8:19; 27:27). |
| Farewell speeches often included warnings (e.g., Josephus Ant. 4.177–193), but like some other early Christian examples of this genre (e.g., Mark 13 ; Acts 20:28–31), the words of warning in 15:18–25 reflect the traditional apocalyptic perspective of suffering before the end. The Gospel " s emphasis on realized eschatology underlines the immediacy of the eschatological situation of tribulation; one may also compare the similar result of imminent eschatology in the book of Revelation. 1A. Part of the Context Some argue that the focus of 15:18–16is quite different from ch. 14; 9113 certainly the focus moves from the relationship of believers with God and one another (13:31–15:17) to the relationship of believers to hostile society. Yet one need not view 15:18–16:4 as an independent discourse formed under circumstances distinct from the rest of the Gospel; 9114 the Gospel as a whole is basically consistent in its dualism (see introduction). 1B. The Worldview of the Passage The worldview presupposed in 15:18–25 is one common to sectarian groups, in which apocalyptic ideologies (in the modern sense of that expression) often prevai1. Some early Christian writers, such as Luke, seem to represent a socioeconomic stratum and social conditions that provide more optimism for engaging the broader culture from a Christian perspective. Thus Acts includes eschatology (1:11; 3:19–21; 10:42; 17:31; 24:15; 26:6–8) but focuses more on the current mission (1:6–8); one finds favorable and just officials (5:34; 10:4; 13:7; 18:12–16; 19:31; 22:29; 23:9, 23–24; 25:25; 26:31–32; 27:43) and others (e.g., 28:2,10,21). John, however, expects his audience to view the world as hostile, with a perspective comparable to other Johannine literature (1 John 2:15–17; 4:4–5; 5:19; Rev 13:7–17). 9115 This admittedly characterized also those who, while working within society, shared an apocalyptic worldview ( Rom 12:2; 13:11–12 ; 1Cor 10:11 ; Gal 1:4; 2 Thess 2:1–13). 9116 Such hostility from the out-group would also help define the boundaries and strengthen cohesiveness of the in-group. 9117 |
| The symbolic use of «woman» might also be parallel, although this is more questionable (Rev 12vs. 17:3; cf. John 2:4; 4:21; 19:26 ); until one presupposes the connection between John and Revelation, it is not clear that the narrative should be read metaphorically. If John 14:1–3 refers to the coming of Jesus in the Spirit after the resurrection, as the context suggests, the «place prepared» may be a verbal connection between the books, meaning the same in both (Rev 12:6; John 14:3 ). The devil is an opponent in both, though described differently (Rev 2:10,13; John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11 ). While one would not expect exorcisms in an apocalyse, the rarity of demons in the Gospel is harder to explain (Rev 9:20; 16:14; John 7:20; 10:20–21 ; apocalyptic texts portrayed them more as fallen angels, but the other extant gospels emphasize exorcisms). In both, the devil is thrown down at the cross (Rev 12:9, cf. 20:3; John 12:31 ), is a deceiver (Rev 12:9; 20:10; John 8:44 ; cf. 1 John 2:26–27 ) and accuser (Rev 12:10; cf. Jesus» enemies in John and the opposite role of the Paraclete). «Lying» refers to speaking falsehood about Jesus Christ in Revelation (3:9; 14:5) as well as in John (8:44; 1 John 2:22). Satan is connected with heresy (Rev 2:24; John 8with 1 John 2:22 ), and idols, which are connected with heresy (Rev 2:14, 20; 1 John 5:21 ), are connected with demons in Revelation (9:20; 16:14). 2C. Conclusion on John and Revelation None of these parallels (some of which are stronger than others) prove or come close to proving common authorship. They do, however, illustrate that common authorship is not impossible, a possibility which may commend itself on other grounds (such as Revelation " s probably explicit and the Gospel " s possibly implicit claim to authorship by a prominent leader named John, and early Christian tradition). The case is considerably weaker than the argument for unity of authorship of Luke and Acts (two volumes of one work) and of the Gospels and Epistles of John, but perhaps similar to the case that can be made for Pauline authorship of the so-called deuteropauline works, and perhaps better than the case for common authorship of 1 and 2 Peter. |
| 4584 Ellis, Genius, 47, and Smalley, John, 89, also emphasize the theme of replacement that connects 2:1–11 with 2:13–22. 4585 Ellis, Genius, 45, finds some common threads in the narrative, though they may be insufficient to establish his chiasmus: Jesus in Jerusalem at Pesach (2:13, 23–25); the disciples remember (2:14–17, 22); and Jesus will raise the temple they would destroy (2:18–21). 4587 Jesus presumably «descended» to Capernaum because, on the lake, it was lower in elevation than Cana (Barrett, John and Judaism, 37). 4588 E.g., Horsley, Galilee, 194. Evidence also exists for a Gentile (Roman) presence there; see Laughlin, «Capernaum»; Matt 8:5–12/Luke 7:1–10. 4589 See Herford, Christianity, 211; Osiek, «Community.» But Taylor, «Capernaum,» questions the strength of archaeological evidence for an explicitly Jewish-Christian presence before the fourth century C.E. 4592 That the disciples must also adopt Jesus» original household (cf. 19:26) might call Gentile Christians to continue to embrace Jesus» ethnic siblings, although its point may be more specific in familial terms. 4593 He might have «cleansed» it whenever he witnessed abuses (see Köstenberger, John, 76–78, who also notes the accounts» links to their respective contexts); but Jesus» freedom for long after challenging the establishment does not comport well with what we know of municipal elites. 4594 Origen Comm. Jo. 10.20–22; Wiles, Gospel, 15. Augustine, by contrast, argues for two cleansings (Cons. 2.67; Oden and Hall, Mark, 160–61)–as if historically the Sadducees would have allowed his survival during any subsequent visits to Jerusalem! 4599 Some associate the act with Sukkoth (Manson, Servant-Messiah, 78), but this is less probable. 4600 Though Martin Kahler described Mark as a «passion narrative with an extended introduction,» the title fits John no less (see Collins, Written, 87–93). 4603 Freyne, Galilee, 181. Horsley, Galilee, 144–46, challenges the contention that they made pilgrimage three times annually; but he certainly overstates the rarity of visits from Judeans and Galileans. |
| 5724 Manns, «Fête.» 5725 Bruce, Documents, 49; cf. Fenton, John, 67. On rabbinic development of that feast, see, e.g., Adler, «Rosh Hashanah.» 5726 Jub. 16:27; m. Git. 3:8; b. B. Mesi c a 28a (Tannaitic attribution); Sukkah 33b; Pesah. 34b (in 36a it is Pesach, but this is clear from the context); p. Git. 3:8, §4; Gen. Rab. 6:5, 35:3; Safrai, «Temple,» 894. Tabernacles was one of the most prominent feasts (Josephus Ant. 8.100). 5727 Brown, John, 1:206; cf. Yee, «Sabbath.» If John added the Sabbath to the original story (Meier, Marginal Jew, 2:681), the emphasis becomes all the clearer. 5728 See Yee, Feasts, 46–47. 5729 On John " s topographic accuracy, see, e.g., Hunter, «Trends»; Dunn, «John,» 299. 5730 Perkins, «John,» 959. 5731 βραστ is a typically Johannine way of citing Hebrew (5:2; 19:13,17,20; 20:16; Rev 9:11; 16:16; cf. John 1:38 ); Luke and Paul prefer βρας (Acts 6:1; 21:40; 22:2; 26:14; 2Cor 11:22 ; Phil 3:5 ; cf. also 4 Macc 12:7; 16:15). 5732 On the probability of this reading, see Wieand, «Bethesda,» 394–95; Vardaman, «Bethesda,» 29; Cullmann, Worship, 84–85 n. 2; Finegan, Archeology, 143; Wolters, «Copper Scroll» (citing 3Q15 11.12). Cf. the site near the temple in Josephus War 2.328. For the meaning, related to «pools,» see Görg, «Beckenhausen.» 5733 Cf. similarly Selkin, «Exegesis,» 188–89. 5734 For problems with the St. Annés site (as well as other proposed sites), see Selkin, «Exegesis,» 175–79. 5735 Wieand, «Bethesda,» 396–97; Vardaman, «Bethesda,» 28; Cornfeld, Josephus, 338,364; Finegan, Archeology, 145. An allegorical connection between the sheep pool and Jesus» «sheep» (10:1) is unlikely, given the proximity of the pool to Bethesda; on the sheep pool, Finegan, Archeology, 142–43. 5736 Yamauchi, Stones, 104. The term κολυμβθρα suggests a deep pool (Bernard, John, 1:226). 5737 Vardaman, «Bethesda,» 28. The view of some (e.g., Bruns, Art, 65; Ellis, Genius, 88; more skillfully, Selkin, «Exegesis,» 196) that they symbolize the five books of the Law seems to allegorize unnecessarily, despite references to the Law later in the chapter. |
|
|
