| Photo: http://vk.com/simbirskaya_mitropolia We meet three laws in this life. As soon as we appear in this world, even if our life is only one day, the first law we meet is the law of sin: ‘For who shall be pure from uncleanness? not even one; if even his life should be but one day upon the earth’ (Job 14:4-5). Then, we meet the law of death. Although there are many people who avoid thinking about death, this is the surest truth: our life will reach an end. Thirdly, we meet the law of grace, which has come on earth through Christ, and through the gift of Pentecost. Depending on how we position ourselves with regard to these laws in this life, they can determine our eternity. God created Adam and endowed him with what the Fathers call ‘noetic power’, wherewith he could see the Face of God and live in His presence continually. When Adam accepted the injunction of the enemy, his attention returned to his own self and the consequence of that was his fall: Adam was expelled from the place of the presence of God. In His great love, God attached pain and death to pleasure as a just punishment so that sin should not become immortal (see 1 Cor. 11:32). In fact, death is an act of the mercy of God. Therefore, Adam’s unjust pleasure of sin and his disobedience to God were followed by the just punishment of pain and death. Ever since, because of the fear of death, man sought a false consolation in sin, and the more he sins, the more death creeps in his life. This vicious circle could be broken only by an unjust death, which we see in the Person of Christ. What is really astonishing is that He did not sin, but He voluntarily took upon Himself the fruit of sin, which is death. Only His unjust death could condemn our just death caused by sin. The Lord had to condemn death ‘in His very flesh’ (cf. Eph. 2:15) through the Cross, because in everything He does, His justice precedes His almighty power. God does not have justice, He has mercy. Christ identified Himself with man to such an extent that He took upon Him his death and abandonment by God: ‘My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ (Matt. 27:46). Only after His unjust death did He reveal His almighty power by offering to all of us a new birth, not preceded by sin. Before, suffering and death were just a debt we had to pay for our fallenness, but after we receive this new birth in baptism, when we carry our personal cross for the sake of the commandment of Christ, we are initiated into the great Cross of our Saviour. |
| Testimonia virorum illustrium, 13–20. Card. Albani præfatio, 9–10. Index nominum, 1423–38. Novellæ Constitutiones (Leunclavius), 613–34. BASILIUS NEOPATRENSIS metropolita, s. X, III. Prologus in Prophetas minores (M.), 411–16. [Fg. in Prophetas (M.), 162, 1329]. BASILIUS PROTOASECRETIS, s. XI. Carmina 1–3 in Symeonem juniorem, græce, 120, 308–9. BASILIUS THESSALONICENSIS (ACHRIDENUS), arch., s. XII, 119. Responsio ad Hadrianum papam IV, 919–34. Responsio de matrimonio, 933–36. Responsio altera, 1119–20. BASILIUS SELEUCIENSIS episcopus, s. V, 85. Orationes (cum notis Dausqueii editoris.) I. In illud principio... terram (Gen., I,1), 27–38. 2–3. In Adamum, 37–50; 49–62. 4 . In Cainum et Abelum, 61–76. 5–6. In Noemum, 75–84; 83–102. 7 . In Abrahamum, 101–12. 8 . In Josephum, 111–126. 9 . In Moysen, 127–38. 10 .In Elisæum et Sunamitiden, 137–48. 11 .In sanctum Eliam, 147–58. 12–13. In Jonam, 157–72; 71–82. 14–17. In Davidis historiam, 181–92; 191–204; 203–216; 215–26. 18 .In Herodiadem, 225–36. 19 .In Centurionem, 235–46. 20 .In Chananæam, 245–54. 21 .In claudum ad portam Speciosam sedentem, 253–264. 22 . In illud Navigabant simul (Luc, VIII, 23). (Sedata tempesias), 263–70. 23 .In arreptivum dæmoniacum, 269–78. 24 .In duos filios Zebedæi (in illud Matt., XX, 21), 277–81. 25 . In Petri confessionem (in illud Matt., XVI, 13), 287–98. 26 . In Joan., X, 11 (Ego sum pastor bonus), 299–308. 27 .In Olympia, 307–316. 28 .In Matt., XVIII, 3 (Nisi conversi fueritis...sicut parvuli), 315–26. 29 . In Matt.,XI, 28(Venite ad me... reficiam vos), 325–32. 30 . In Matt., IV, 19 (Venite post me... piscatores hominum), 331–38. 31 . In Marc, X, 33 (Ecce ascendimus... manus peccalorum), 337–50. 32 . In Matt., XXVI, 39 (Pater si possibile,.. calix iste), 349–60. 33 . In homines quinque panibus pastos (Matt., XIV, 14), 359–66. 34 . In Matt., XI, 3 (Tu es qui.., exspectamus), 365–74. 35 .In Publicanum et Pharisæum, 373–84. 36 .In duos Evangelii cæcos, 383–88. 37 .In infantes Bethleem ab Herode sublatos, 387–400. |
| Thus, like most of this Gospel, we lack sufficient external data to verify or falsify this passage from a strictly historical perspective; the stories do not appear in the Synoptics and the language is Johannine. The images employed, however, are certainly consistent with the Synoptic portrait of the historical Jesus (whether John received them as entire stories or wove together images from Jesus tradition or elsewhere). Jesus elsewhere spoke of wolves as false prophets (10:12; cf. Matt 7:15; cf. Matt 10:16; Luke 10:3) and the shepherd who cares sacrificially for his sheep (Matt 18/Luke 15:4–5). Other images such as robbers ( Mark 11:17 ; Luke 10:30) and gates (Matt 7:13–14; Luke 13:24–25) are frequent enough in other teachers» illustrations that the «coherence» is less significant. 7206 «Knowing the Father» (10:14–15) resembles a passage in Q (Matt 11/Luke 10:22). Historically, then, one finds here, at the least, verisimilitude of substance, albeit in Johannine idiom. 3B. The General Background of the Sheep and Shepherd Image (10:1–10) Scholars have proposed various backgrounds for Jesus» teaching about the sheep. Some have argued for a gnostic, 7207 especially Mandean, background. 7208 As we argued in our introduction, however, a demonstrable Mandean background for anything in the Fourth Gospel is virtually impossible, since the earliest extant Mandean sources are over half a millennium later than the Fourth Gospe1. Indeed, the late Mandean «parallels» probably reflect some dependence on John here. 7209 By contrast, Gods intimacy with his flock is clearly an OT image (e.g., Isa 40:11; Ezek 34:12–16 ), and where John goes beyond this he may reflect the early Christian development of the intimacy theme (e.g., in Q, Matt ll:27/Luke 10:22). 7210 While the OT background is paramount, John " s audience would also think of what they knew of shepherds. Less informed members of his original audience, new to the Jewish and Christian conceptual realm, would have at least recognized various affective associations with the shepherd image. Some in the western Mediterranean would have recalled nostalgically «the idyllic life of» shepherds, 7211 but a more widespread perception, especially among urban dwellers, was one of suspicion, since many perceived shepherds «as rough, unscrupulous characters, who pastured their animals on other peoplés land and pilfered wool, milk, and kids from the flock.» 7212 Yet the nature of Jesus» comparisons in the passage will evoke especially the pictures of shepherd as «leader» rather than as unscrupulous. |
| 5899 E.g., 2 Bar. 51:1–2; cf. t. Ber. 6:6. For distinction after death, see 1 En. 22:9–11; cf. sources in Keener, Matthew, 129, on Gehinnom, and 710–11, on the resurrection of the dead. 5900 It appears in most streams of NT tradition and is denied in none: Acts 24:15; 2Cor 5:10 ; Rev 20:4–6; Matt 25:46; cf. Matt 5:29–30; 10:28; Luke 11:32; Bernard, John, 1:245. 5901 1QS 4.13–14; Gen. Rab. 6:6; most sinners in t. Sanh. 13:3,4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 10:4; Pesiq. Rab. 11:5; cf. 2Macc 12:43–45. By contrast, the souls of the wicked will remain in hell on the day of judgment in 1 En. 22:13; 61:5; 108:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 12:12; t. Sanh. 13:5; probably L.A.B. 38:4; Ascen. Isa. 1:2; 3 En. 44:3; t. Ber. 5:31. 5902 Ps 62:12 ; Prov 24:12 ; Sir 16:12,14 ; Matt 16:27; Rom 2:6 ; 2Cor 11:15 ; Rev 22:12; Pesiq. Rab. 8:2; cf. Rhet. ad Herenn. 3.2.3. 5903 It continued in widespread use (Josephus Life 256; Ant. 4.219; b. Sanh. 37b, bar.; p. Git. 4:1, §2; cf. m. Roš Haš. 1:7; 2:6); see further the comment under 8:13. Early Christians also employed this rule; see 2Cor 13:1 ; 1Tim 5:19 ; Matt 18:16. 5904 Boring et al, Commentary, 270–71, cites Cicero Rose. Amer. 36.103. Witnesses confirmed a matter (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 26), and a claim offered without them might be scathingly contested (Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111). 5905 E.g., Lysias Or. 4.5–6, §101; 7.12–18, §§109–110; 12.27–28, §122; 19.24, §154; 29.7, §182; Cicero Quinct. 24.76. Establishing a credible motive was standard procedure for the prosecution (Cicero Rose. Amer. 22.61–62). 5906 E.g., Isaeus Estate of Cleonymus 31–32, §37; Estate of Hagnias 6; Lysias Or. 7.19–23, §110; 7.34–40, §111; 7.43, §112. Cf. the preference for multiple and diverse testimonies, e.g., in Aelius Aristides Defense of Oratory 61, §19D; for challenging the credibility of opposing witnesses, see, e.g., Hermogenes Issues 45.5–10. 5907 Cicero Quinct. 23.75. 5908 The witness of one person was inadequate in many kinds of cases (Boice, Witness, 47, cites m. Ketub. 2:9; Roè Haï. 3:1); self-accusation, by contrast, could invite condemnation (Achilles Tatius 7.11.1; though in early Judaism cf. Cohn, Trial, 98). In some matters, however, onés self-testimony was held reliable (e.g., m. Ketub. 2:10), even against two witnesses (m. Tehar. 5:9). |
| 3982 B. Ketub. 96a, cited by various commentators (many following Billerbeck), cf. Davies, Sermon, 135; Morris, John, 141. 3988 Inscription in Grant, Religion, 122; Martin, Slavery, xiv-xvi (citing Sophocles Oed. tyr. 410; Plato Phaedo 85B; Apuleius Metam. 11.15; inscriptions), 46,49 (against, e.g., Beare, Philippians, 50); cf. Rom 1 (cf. Minear, Images, 156). Slaves of rulers exercised high status (e.g., Epictetus Diatr. 1.19.19; 4.7.23; inscriptions in Sherk, Empire, 89–90; Deissmann, Light, 325ff., passim; P.Oxy. 3312.99–100 in Horsley, Documents, 3:7–9; Suetonius Gramm. 21 [in Dixon, Mother, 19]; cf. Chariton 5.2.2). 3990 Kraeling, John, 53–54 points to «the thong of whose sandals I am not fit to loose» as the most primitive form (enumerating variations therefrom on p. 198 n. 13). Matthew " s form probably reflects his penchant for abridgement (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary, 106; Manson, Sayings, 40, instead suggests «a single Aramaic verb» behind both). 3991 Daube, Judaism, 266, citing Mek. on Exod 21:2; Sipre Num 15:41; b. Qidd. 22b; see also Urbach, Sages, 1(citing Sipre Šelah §115 and comparing Sipre Zuta 190). 3992 On Mark " s editorial subordination of the Baptist, see Trocmé, Formation, 55 (although Mark " s condensation of Q material attested in Matt 3 and Luke 3 probably reflects standard abridgement for an introduction). 3993 Against Kraeling, John, 130 (cf. 159), who doubts Matt 11:2–6 par. (to which we would respond, if this material were anti-Baptist polemic, why would Q include Matt 11:7–15 par.?). Conversely, Mason, Josephus and NT, 159, thinks Matt 11:2–6/Luke 7:18–23, «read by itself… implies the beginning of Johns interest» rather than doubting a previous position; but any datum read «by itself» may contradict other data in an account. Both accounts reflect Q material, and the Baptist " s christological testimony may be multiply attested. 3994 This is especially the case if John writes to a Diaspora audience, even one with Palestinian roots. The exception would be if John presumes a perspective from east of the Jordan (Byron, «Bethany»), in which case this Bethany anticipates the later events at Bethany (12:1–3); but this Bethany is too far from baptismal water (11:18), and geographical digressions were commonplace (Polybius 1.41.6; cf. 1.42.1–7). |
| 4276 That Mark would transfer Andrew and Simon to Capernaum because of their fishing cooperative with James and John is far less probable, though not impossible if Mark has simply connected chronologically discrete narratives for the sake of narrative unity ( Mark 1:21,29 ; cf. 2:1; Matt 4:13,18). 4277 See, e.g., France, Matthew, 103. Clan and village endogamy may have been common (Isaeus Estate of Pyrrhus 63; Horsley, Galilee, 199; Ilan, Women, 75–79), and many in the ancient Mediterranean preferred to marry a woman who lived nearby (Hesiod Op. 700), but Capernaum was directly opposite Bethsaida and ties were undoubtedly close. The husband and the bridés father could determine the new marital home (P.Eleph. 1.5–6, 311 B.C.E.), though it was usually initially with the groom " s parents (see Keener, Matthew, 271, 330, on Matt 8:14; 10:35). 4279 Tracking people down, as with locations (cf. Ling, «Stranger»), was probably done by asking for them; Jesus, however, presumably had other methods (1:48). 4280 Higgins, Historicity, 59. See, e.g., Νατανλου on a Jerusalem ossuary inscription in CIJ 2:296, §1330. 4281 Leidig, «Natanael»; cf. more tentatively Higgins, Historicity, 59–60; Blomberg, Reliability, 82. Hill, «Nathanael,» suggests that the identification with James son of Alphaeus in the Epistula Apostolorum might reflect Asian tradition, perhaps early enough to be known by John. 4284 The contorted argument of Hanhart, «Structure,» 24–26, that he was Matthew depends on fanciful linkages. 4285 The Law and the Prophets together constitute Scripture, e.g., 2Macc 15:9; 4 Macc 18:10–18; Matt 5:17; 7:12; Q (Matt 11=Luke 16:16); Rom 3:21 ; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:484, cite also t. B. Mesi c a 11:23. Cf. also the threefold division in Luke 24(more popular among the sages–Sir pro1.; " Abot R. Nat. 14A; b. c Abod. Zar. 19b; B. Bat. 13b, bar.; B. Qam. 92b; Mak. 10b; Sanh. 90b, Gamaliel II; 106a; p. Meg. 1:5, §3; Ned. 3:9, §3; Šeqa1. 3:2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:13; Gen. Rab. 76:5; cf. Philo Contemp1. Life 25). First-century Jews attributed the Pentateuch to Moses (Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.39). |
| Like the rest of the Fourth Gospel, John here insists that Jewish believers remain faithful to the God of Israel through fidelity to Jesus, not through satisfying the synagogue leadership (12:42–43). This is because Jesus is God " s faithful agent; he neither spoke (14:10; cf. 16:13) nor acted (5:30; 8:28, 42) on his own (12:49), but only at the Father " s command (12:49; see comment on 5:19). 7989 By again reinforcing the portrait of Jesus as God " s faithful agent, John reminds his hearers that their opponents who in the name of piety opposed a high view of Jesus were actually opposing the God who appointed him to that role. «The Father " s commandment is eternal life» (12:50) is presumably elliptical for «obedience to the Father " s command produces eternal life,» but also fits the identification of the word (1:4), Jesus» words (6:68), and knowing God (17:3) with life. For John, the concept of «command» should not be incompatible with believing in Jesus (6:27; cf. 8:12; 12:25), which is the basis for eternal life (3:15–16; 6:40, 47; 11:25; 20:31); faith involves obedience (3:36; cf. Acts 5:32; Rom 1:5; 2:8; 6:16–17; 15:18; 16:19, 26; 2 Thess 1:8; 1Pet 1:22; 4:17 ). Jesus always obeys his Father " s commands (8:29), including the command to face death (10:18; 14:31); his disciples must follow his model of obedience to his commandments by loving one another sacrificially (13:34; 14:15, 21; 15:10,12). 7803 Matthew " s stirring of «the entire city» (Matt 21:10), however, may invite the reader to compare this event with an earlier disturbance of Jerusalem (Matt 2:3). 7804 Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 306; Catchpole, «Entry.» In favor of reliability, see also Losie, «Entry,» 858–59. 7805 In view of ancient patronal social patterns, Jesus» numerous «benefactions» would also produce an entourage, seeking favors, that could potentially double as a political support base, exacerbating his threat to the political elite (DeSilva, Honor, 135). 7806 Also for Matthew (Matt 21:10–11); in Luke those who hail him are disciples (Luke 19:37, 39); even in Mark, where «many» participate, those who go before and after him are probably those who knew of his ministry in Galilee ( Mark 11:8–9 ). This may represent a very different crowd from the one that condemned him (Matt 27:20–25; Mark 15:11–14 ; Luke 23:13, 18, 21, 23)–certainly in John, where the condemning «Jews» are the «high priests» (19:6–7, 12–15). |
| The predicative «I am» christological images emphasize the relationship between Jesus and believers, but they remain more christological than ecclesiologica1. Granted, the latter was by this period a serious issue; but for John, ecclesiology is determined entirely by Christology, because the community is defined solely by allegiance to Christ, who is the only way to the Father (14:6). John " s vertical dualism (e.g., the man from heaven in 3:13, 31) and other contrasts such as «flesh» and «Spirit» (3:6; 6:63) repeatedly appear in the service of his emphasis that all humans are utterly inadequate before God apart from Christ and the Spirit. 2743 Like Mark, though to a lesser extent, he emphasizes some obduracy among the disciples (e.g., John 11:13 ; Mark 8:16–18 ); but «the world» is wholly blind and alienated from God ( John 9:39–41; 15:18–25 ; Mark 4:12 ). Some of the predicative «I am» images emphasize relationship in more familiar relational images. Jesus is the shepherd, and sheep must trust the guidance of their shepherd, heeding his voice and knowing that he will provide pasture and safety (10:9, 11, 14). The Synoptics support John " s association of this image with the Jesus tradition ( Mark 6:34; 14:37 ; cf. also Matt 25:32; Luke 15:4). A related image, though not directly relational, is Jesus as the light of the world; here Jesus is the guide who enables one to walk without falling in the darkness outside him ( John 1:4–5; 8:12; 9:4–5 ). Most of the predicative «I am» images, however, are more organic, taking relationship beyond the boundaries normally possible in human intimacy. Thus Jesus is living bread from heaven, the bread of life (6:35, 48, 51); people depend on bread as a basic staple of life, and Jesus summons his followers to depend on him the same way. Related images would be the Spirit (who mediates Jesus» presence) as living water (4:14; 7:37–38) and perhaps Jesus as the giver of wine (2:4–7; less clear) and the paschal lamb which would be eaten (1:29; 6:51–56; 19:36). The Synoptics do use metaphors of light (cf. Matt 5:14–16; 6:23; Luke 8:16; 11:33–35), bread (Matt 7:9; 13:33; Mark 8:15 ; Luke 11:5,11–13), drinking ( Mark 10:38–39 ), and so forth, though only occasionally are these metaphors explicitly christological ( Mark 14:22–24 ). |
| 10866 In its various forms, οδες appears fifty-three times in the Gospel; but more than any other, 15seems to provide the rationale for the usage here. The other uses of πιζω (7:30, 32, 44; 8:20; 10:39; 11:57), however, are clearly irrelevant. 10867 E.g., Iamblichus V.P. 8.36; Protesilaos resurrecting a dead fish (Herodotus Hist. 9.120.1–2; Philostratus Hrk. 9.5). 10868 Epid. inscr. 47, in Theissen, Stories, 110. Priests also used the types of fish gathering in a sacred pool to divine the future (Athenaeus Deipn. 8.333de). 10869 Tob 6:2–5. Following an old Greek story, some Jewish stories of uncertain date speak of God blessing pious people by having them find precious objects in fish (e.g., Matt 17:27; b. Šabb. 119a; Bultmann, Tradition, 238; Jeremias, Theology, 87); ancients thought such occasional fortune plausible (e.g., Alciphron Fishermen 5 [Naubates to Rhothius], 1.5, par. 1; Valerius Maximus 4.1.ext.7). 10872 Cf. Protesilaos " s participation in farming in Philostratus Hrk. 4.10; 11.4; neither work reflects a gnostic antipathy toward creation. 10873 MacGregor, John, 370. Whitacre, John, 491, notes that the usage «lads» stems from modern Greek, unattested in ancient usage. 10875 Selms, «Fishing,» 310. Fishermen normally used nets (e.g., Ovid Metam. 13.922; Babrius 4.1–5; 9.6; Valerius Maximus 4.1.ext.7; Mark 1:19 ; Matt 13:47) except for personal subsistence fishing by the poor (e.g., Ovid Metam. 13.923; Babrius 6.1–4; cf. Matt 17:27); on traditional fishing in the Lake of Galilee, see Nun, «Net.» 10878 For the beloved disciple as one of the two anonymous eyewitnesses present, see, e.g., Boismard, «Disciple.» 10879 Peter " s quickness to act fits his character elsewhere in this Gospel and the gospel tradition as a whole (see, e.g., Blomberg, Reliability, 275). 10880 See Whitacre, John, 492, following Nun, «Wearing,» 20–23,37; certainly Greeks in this period stripped for strenuous activities (e.g., Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.72.2–3; see further references below). Citing art and texts, Nun, «Wearing,» argues that cast-net fishermen were typically naked. Even Marcus Cato stripped to work alongside his servants (Plutarch Marcus Cato 3.2), but here γυμνς probably means «stripped to the waist» (LCL). |
| In Ps. 96, 603–12 . In Ps. 100, 629–36 . In Ps. 101–108, 1–7 (ex Theodoreto et Eusebio), 635–74. In Ps. 118 , stationes 1–3, 675–708. In Ps. 139, 707–10 . 56 (VI). De Legislatore, 397–410. In illud In qua potestate (Matt., XXI, 23), 411–28. Severiani de serpente, 499–516. In Genesim 1–3, 519–22, 522–6, 525–38. In Abraham et Isaac, 537–42. In Abraham et contra theatra, 541–54. In Pone manum., ( Gen. XXIV ), 2, 553–64. In Job, h. 1–4, 563–82. In Heliam prophetam, 583–6. De Joseph et de castitate, 587–90. De Susanna, 589–94. De tribus pueris, 593–600. Opus imperfectum in Matthæum, 611–946 (homiliæ 1–54, latine). Diatriba Montfaucon, 601–12. 59 (VIII). In Decollationem S. Joan. Baptistæ, 485–90. In Præcursorem Domini, 489–92. In Petrum et Paulum, 491–6. In duodecim apostolos, 495–8. In S. Thomam apostolum, 497–500. In S. Stephanum protomartyrem, 501–8. In illud Sufficit tibi (2 Cor., XII, 9), 507–16. In parabolam de filio prodigo, 515–22. In saltationem Herodiadis, 521–26. In illud Collegerunt Judæi (Joan., XVII, 11), 525–8. In parabolam decem virginum, 527–32. In meretricem et Pharisæum, 531–6. In Samaritanam, 535–42. De cæco nato, 543–54. De pseudoprophetis, 553–68. De circo, 567–70. In illud Attendite ne justitiam (Matt., VI, 13), 571–4. In principium indictionis et hemorrhoissam, 575–8. In Matt., XX, 1, catechistica, 577–88. In parabolam de ficu arefacta, 587–90. De Pharisæo, 589–92. De Lazaro et divite sexta, 591–6. De Publicano et Pharisæo, 595–600. De сæсо et Zachæo, 599–610. De S. Joanne Theologo, 609–14. De negatione Petri et de Joseph, 615–20. In secundum Domini adventum, 619–28. Interpretatio orationis Pater nosier, 627–8. De filio prodigo, 027–36. In mulieres unguentiferas, 635–41. In illud Quomodo scit litteras (Joan., VII, 15), 643–52. In Chananæam, 653–64. In illud Non quod volo (Rom., VII, 19), 663–74. In principium indictionis, 673–4. In venerandam crucem. 675–8. In exaltationem crucis, 679–82. In S. Apostolum Thomam, 681–8. In Incarnationem Domini, 687–700. |
|
|
