| In 12:46, discussion about beholding (12:45) may recall Jesus» previous declaration that he is the light (12:35–36), another motif in this Gospel (1:4–9; 3:19–21; 5:35; 8:12; 9:5; 11:9–10); 7983 his «coming into the world» reinforces the Gospel " s testimony to Jesus» incarnation to save the world (cf. 12:47; 1:9; 3:19; 6:14; 9:39; 11:27; 16:28; 18:37; 1Tim 1:15 ). Jesus is the light who, when seen and believed, delivers his followers from darkness. In this context, John " s emphasis on light suggests that those who are not blinded (12:40) can see the light (12:45) of his glory as Isaiah did (12:41), and those who respond in faith will be saved (12:46). In 12another Johannine motif emerges; though Jesus did not come to condemn (3:17; cf. 8:15), his coming itself constitutes a dividing line of judgment (3:19; 9:39; cf. 12:31), and he will act as God " s agent at the judgment (5:22, 24, 27, 29–30; cf. 8:16, 26), whereas his opponents judge inaccurately (7:24, 51; 8:15; 18:31). The image in 12shifts from «seeing» Jesus (12:45) to «hearing» his words (which in this case applies to hearing with or without obeying). 7984 Those who reject the light do not require additional judgment from Jesus; they have simply rejected the salvation that would deliver them from the judgment already otherwise theirs (see esp. 3:17–21). Eschatologically, however, they would be judged by his word they had heard; their very opportunity to respond raised the standard of judgment. 7985 On the judgment at the last day according to Jesus» word (12:48), see comment on 5:24; 7986 they would also be accused by the Father " s previous word in the Torah delivered through Moses, which testified to Jesus (5:39,45). Jesus» word (12:48) is in fact the same as the Father " s word (cf. 3:34; 5:47; 17:8), for all that he spoke he spoke in obedience to the Father (12:49–50). Jesus» teaching that those who reject him as God " s agent reject God himself (12:48) fits Johannine theology (13:20; 14:6; cf. 1 John 2:23 ) but is plainly earlier Jesus tradition ( Mark 9:37 ; Matt 10:40; Luke 9:48). 7987 This word would serve as the criterion for judgment on the «last day» (12:48), a common Johannine expression for the time of the resurrection (6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24) of both righteous and unrighteous (5:29). 7988 |
| 6869 See Jastrow, Dictionary, 1554. Flusser, «Mastema,» 1119–20, prefers «enmity» or «prince of enmity.» Cf. also the «angels of destruction» () in 1QS 4.12. 6870 Brown, John, 1:358. On the close connection between the deception ( Gen 3 ) and homicide ( Gen 4 ), echoed in Jesus» passion, see Thomas, «Menteur.» 6871 Wis 10:3; 4 Macc 18:11; Jub. 4:2–3, 31–32; 1 En. 22:6–7; Josephus Ant. 1.52–59; L.A.B. 16:2; L.A.E. 23; Apoc. Mos. 2–3; Τ Ben). 7:3–5; Philo Worse32; " Abot R. Nat. 31; 41A; Heb 11:4; 12:24; Matt 23:35; Luke 11:51; Jude 11; 1 Clem. 4.1–7; see further Philo LCL l:xxiv-xxv; Grayston, Epistles, 110; Plummer, Epistles, 82; Sidebottom, James, 89. For Abel " s reward, cf. Ascen. Isa. 9:8; Apoc. Mos. 40:4–5; T. Ab. 13:2–3A; 11:2B. For early Syrian Christian application of Cain (including to Jewish opponents of Jesus), see Niklas, «Söhne Kains» (citing Aphrahat Demonstratio 16.8). 6872 Some later rabbis homiletically associated Satan " s creation with Eve (Urbach, Sages, 1:167), but this view is probably late. 6873 Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 4:1; 5:3 ; see Reim, «Gotteskinder/Teufelskinder,» citing Tg. Neof. on Gen 4:7 ; Dahl, «Manndraperen»; McNamara, Judaism, 223–24. 6874 John 8:44 " s term for murder appears elsewhere in the NT only at 1 John 3and nowhere in the LXX. 6875 E.g., T. Job 3:6/3(του Σαταν ν ω πατηθσονται ο νθρωποι); Τ. Dan 3:6; cf. 1QS 10.21–22. Satan (T. Job 3:6) or the devil (διβολος, T. Job 3:3/4) or demons are behind idols (cf. Deut 32:17 ; Ps 96 Bar 4:7 ; 1 En. 19:1; Jub. 1:11; 7:27; 22:17; T. Job 3:3; T. So1. 5:5; 6:4; Sipre Deut. 318.2.1–2; Gen. Rab. 23:6; 24:6; 1Cor 10:20 ; Athenagoras 26; Tertullian Apol 23.5–6). 6876 Phaedrus 1.17.1. 6877 Falsehood and theft also appear together in t. B. Qam. 7:8; cf. John 10:1–10 . 6878 Only three non-Johannine uses of ψεστης appear in the NT; cf. also ψευδς in Rev 2:2; 21:8, of three uses in the NT. 6879 E.g., Lysias Or. 3.39, §99; 4.13, §101; Cicero Mur. 6.13; Quinct. 6.22; Rose. com. 16.46; Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lysias 33; cf. Isaeus Estate of Astyphilus 19. Writers against Jews tell «lies» about them (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.79, 147, 289); Apion is a prime example of such a liar (Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.85,90,98,111,115,121,122). Perkins, «John,» 966, points out that Qumran " s opponents are misled «by the Man of Lies of Interpreters of Error (lQpHab 2:2; 5:11; CD 20:15; 1QH 2:13–14; 4:10).» |
| Successor images could be graphic. A speaker could beseech a governor to be like another (λλος) Alexander. 8702 Romans could speak of Claudius as another Germanieus, or Tiberius as another Augustus, or of the spirit of previous leaders in new ones. 8703 lohn the Baptist could be a new Elijah (Matt 17:12–13; Luke 1:17); Jesus, a greater Moses (Acts 3:22); and among Johannine Christians the beast, probably a new Nero (Rev 13:3, 18; 17:10–11), and the church, a new Moses and Elijah (Rev 11:5–6). 8704 The Spirit is Jesus» successor in stronger ways than these (being more than his successor), but such examples still provide a context for how early Christians would have heard the passage. 3D. Spirit of Truth (14:17; 15:26; 16:13) The phrase «spirit of truth» is not limited to Johannine literature ( John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1 John 4:6 ; cf. 5:6; also p. 618). It appears in Jub. 25as an equivalent of the Spirit of prophecy: «And at that time, when a spirit of truth 8705 descended upon her mouth, she placed her two hands upon the head of Jacob» and blessed him. 8706 Qumran " s Rule of the Community 4.21 equates the (spirit of holiness, «the holy spirit») with the (spirit of truth). 8707 Of course, 1QS 4.3 can speak of «the spirit of humility, patience, love, goodness, wisdom, ... understanding, purity,» and so forth; 8708 but the writer(s) of this document give(s) the aspect of the Spirit special prominence. The spirit of truth seems to be identified with the prince of the host of angels from Dan 8:11 . 8709 In some manuscripts of Jos. Asen. 19:11, Joseph " s kiss imparts the spirit of truth. 8710 The Testament of Judah, if a pre-Christian work, has at least Christian interpolations, but 20may reflect the possible Jewish Grundschrift; either way, it sets the spirit of truth in a forensic context: And the spirit of truth testifies to all things and brings all accusations. He who has sinned is consumed in his heart and cannot raise his head to face the judge. [Και τ πνεμα της αληθεας κατηγορε πντων και μπεπρισται αμαρτωλς κ της Ιδας καρδας, και ραι πρσωπον πρς τν κριτν ο δναται.] 8711 |
| Philip " s request not only evokes the account of Moses but also reflects the assumption that Jesus had access to God " s glory, which he could in turn reveal to others, a true premise in Johannine theology (3:13,32; cf. Q material in Matt 11:27; Luke 10:22). Viewing Jesus as the mediator of divine revelation was true Christology, but by itself it was inadequate; other recipients of revelations also showed the contents of their revelation to their circles (e.g., 1 En. 83:1,10). 2. Doing the Father " s Worh (14:10–11) To see Jesus is to see the Father not as if Father and Son are the same person (see 1:1b) but because they are one (10:30), and here because they dwell in one another so thoroughly, and Jesus remains so utterly dependent on the Father " s will, 8495 that their character is indistinguishable, as his works demonstrate (14:10). To a lesser extent, Jesus» followers will also reflect his glory by reflecting the divine character of unity produced by Jesus» indwelling presence (17:23; cf. 14:20). The way to develop that intimacy is to keep his commandments (15:10; cf. 8:29; 11:42; 1 John 3:22 ). As in the exodus tradition, divine signs attest the identity of the true Lord. 8496 Jesus summons them to believe even if initially only because of the works (14:11). Early Judaism would have grasped the principle of pursuing a goal even if not for its own sake, recognizing that one would ultimately end up pursuing it for its own sake. 8497 Indeed, within a century after the Fourth Gospel " s completion, some teachers felt that God told Israel in the wilderness that even if they would not believe God " s promises concerning the future, they should at least believe what he had already accomplished for them. 8498 See further the comments on 10:25, 38; cf. 15:24. 3. Disciples Doing the Same Works (14:12–14) Comparison was a standard rhetorical technique, 8499 but scholars debate the meaning of «greater works» in 14:12. (All are agreed that Jesus does not imply that the disciples themselves will be greater than Jesus; see 13:16.) Various options must be considered. Some suggest, for example, that it indicates the Gentile mission. 8500 Others apply it to Jesus» ministry–for instance, continuing his ministry of healing and salvation through the church " s sacraments. 8501 One can make a particularly strong case for miraculous signs; certainly the early Christians believed that miraculous gifts continued in their day, 8502 and as late as the fifth century, Theodore of Mopsuestia, not given to credulity, attests continuing miracles. 8503 Because healings in this Gospel function as «signs» glorifying Jesus, it is natural to expect that John intended the reports of Jesus» signs as paradigmatic for his own audience doing signs to reveal Jesus» authority. 8504 Which meaning of «greater works» best fits this context? 3A. The Meaning of «Works» (14:12) |
| John the Theologian (Chapters 11–13). The activity of Antichrist will continue until the very day of Judgment ( 2Thes. 2:8 ). The character of the person of Antichrist and a description of his activities are depicted hypothetically, but in detail, by St. Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures (the fifteenth), and by St. Ephraim the Syrian in his “Homily on the Coming of the Lord and Antichrist.” (See, in the Eerdmans translation of St Cyril« " s Catechetical Lectures, pp. 106–110. St. Ephraim» " s homily, “Concerning the Coming of the Lord, the End of the World, and the Coming of Antichrist,” has been translated into English in Orthodox Life 1970, no. 3.) d) In the Apocalypse of St. John the Theologian there is indicated the appearance of “two witnesses” during the period of the Antichrist’s activity; they will prophesy of the truth and perform miracles, and when they finish their testimony they will be killed, and then after “three days and a half will be resurrected and ascend into heaven (Apoc. 11:3–12). (According to the universal interpretation of the Holy Fathers, these “two witnesses” (mentioned also in Zachariah, ch. 3) are the Old Testament righteous ones Enoch and Elijah, who never died but were carried up alive into heaven, and endure their earthly death only during the reign of Antichrist.) The second coming of the Son of Man. The spiritual gaze of mankind which believes in Christ, beginning with the time of the Ascension from earth to heaven of the Son of God, has been directed to the greatest future event of world history: His Second Coming to earth. Testimony to the reality of this expected Coming was given quite definitely many times by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, together with a whole series of details regarding it (Matt. 16:27 and ch. 24; Mark 8:38 ; Luke 12and 17:24; John 14:3 ). The angels declared it at the Lord’s Ascension (Acts 1:11). The Apostles often mention it: the Apostle Jude (verses 14–15); the Apostle John (1 John 2:28); the Apostle Peter (1 Peter 4:13); and the Apostle Paul many times ( 1Cor. 4:5 ; 1Thes. 5:2–6 ; and other places). |
| For Jesus» interlocutors to claim that the Lord is «their God» yet not to know him was for them to propagate falsehood (8:54–55), a sin of which Jesus has already accused them for resisting the truth (8:44–46). The biblical covenant motif included the claim that God would be Israel " s God and they would be his people; 6925 in its fullest form, this covenant motif also promised that his people would «know» him, that is, relate to God in covenant (e.g., Jer 31:31–34 ; see introduction, ch. 6; comment on 10:3–4). One could not belong to the covenant while failing to «know» God; and Jesus has already charged that they must not know God, because if they really listened to God they would recognize his agent (8:42–43,47). Jesus did not seek his own glory (8:50); it was his Father who glorified him (8:54). In the total Johannine context, the Father would glorify Jesus through his purpose for him in the cross (12:23–24). Isaiah emphasized that God would not share his glory with any other purported deity (Isa 42:8; 48:11). 6926 If they claim Abraham as their father (8:56)–and Jesus does not deny that Abraham is their father ethnically (8:37) 6927 –then they ought to embrace Jesus» revelation joyfully as their ancestor Abraham did (8:56; cf. 8:39–40). Another witness in advance for Jesus, John the Baptist, in whom Jesus» interlocutors rejoiced for a time (5:35), also rejoiced to see Jesus (3:29). That Abraham had «seen» Jesus» «day» 6928 should not have been surprising–to anyone who believed that Jesus was who he claimed to be (cf. Matt 13:16–17; Luke 2:26). But when did Abraham see Jesus» day? It is unclear if Jesus refers here to a specific Jewish tradition, but if he does, it is interesting that some traditions interpreted Abraham " s laugh ( Gen 17:17 ) as joy in response to God " s revelation. 6929 Others believe that 8alludes to an appearance of the préexistent Logos alongside two angels in Gen 18:2, 13 . 6930 Other suggestions point to more specifically eschatological understandings of Jesus» «day.» Various Jewish traditions emphasized that Abraham saw the future or at least some aspects of it in his vision in Gen 15:12–21 . |
| Holy Eucharist The central place among the Sacraments of the Orthodox Church is held by the Holy Eucharist - the precious Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. The central place among the Sacraments of the Orthodox Church is held by the Holy Eucharist – the precious Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. In modern times the Holy Eucharist is celebrated in the Orthodox Church at the following Liturgies: 1. The Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom – the usual Liturgy of Sundays and Weekdays. 2. The Liturgy of St. Basil the Great – celebrated on the Sundays of Great Lent and certain Feast Days. 3. The Liturgy of St. James the Brother of the Lord – celebrated on October 23 (St. James’ Day) in certain places only (e.g., Jerusalem). 4. The Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts – celebrated on Weekdays of Great Lent and Holy Week. (At this Liturgy there is no consecration of the Holy Gifts, but rather Communion is given from the Gifts consecrated on the previous Sunday – hence Pre-sanctified.) The Savior Himself said, I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me shall not hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst… If any one eats of this bread he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My flesh (John 6:35,51). At the Last Supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and give it to the disciples and said, ‘Take, eat; this is My body’. And He took a cup, and when He had given thanks He gave it to them, saying, ‘Drink of it, all of you; for this is My blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’ (Matt. 26:26-28; cf. Mark 14:12-16; Luke 22:7-13; 1 Cor. 11:23-30). This institution of the Eucharist by our Lord is the means whereby we become united with Christ and with each other as a church, for, as St. Paul says, the goal of every Christian is to grow up in every way into Him Who is the head, into Christ, from Whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied – makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love (Eph. 4:15-16). This is so since Christ is the head of the Church, His body, and is Himself its Savior (Eph. 5:23). We become part of the Mystical Body of Christ by our communion of the Holy Eucharist. As St. Paul says: The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread (1 Cor. 10:16-17). |
| The idea of the hour that is «coming» takes on various contours of John " s predominantly realized eschatology throughout the Gospel: 2:4 not yet come 4510 4:21 universal worship, coming 4:23 Spirit and true worship, coming and already is 5:25 resurrection of the dead, coming and already is 5:28 those in the tombs (literal dead) raised, coming 7 «time» (=hour) of his revelation (cf. 7:4; 1 John 2:28 ) 7:8 «time,» revelation, disclosing himself at the feast 7:30 death, not yet come 8:20 death, not yet come ( 11:9 irrelevant; 12:7: «day» of burial) 12:23,27 glorification/death 13:1 death 16 disciples» hour: their suffering/death 16:21 death (messianic travail) 16:25 (probably) after resurrection (v. 26: «that day»: eschatological language for present age) 16:32 Jesus» death and their fear, coming and already come 17:1 glorification of Son The Jesus tradition preserved in the Synoptics sometimes employs «hour» with eschatological significance ( Mark 13:32 ; Matt 24:44, 50; 25:13; Luke 12:39–40, 46), 4511 although it is not a technical term; its usage is by no means exclusively (or even primarily) eschatologica1. While it may be going too far to say that this passage argues that Jesus» death will bring in the wine of the messianic banquet, 4512 Jesus» hour of glorification is meant to usher in the eschatological reality which the church is to experience, and, as we shall see later, that eschatological reality is experienced through the Spirit. But a more obvious source for «hour» in John is the passion tradition, where his hour probably refers to the cross ( Mark 14:35 ). John " s image here is characteristically Johannine but certainly intelligible. Speaking of onés predestined «time» or «hour» of death was not unusual in Jewish texts, 4513 and had long been part of the ancient Mediterranean literary tradition. 4514 Greco-Roman literature is full of ironic stories of those who sought to escape Fatés decree and experienced it in the very process of endeavoring to evade it. |
| Some writers have pointed to the use of both αγαπω and φιλω in 21:15–17, arguing that αγαπω here refers to a deeper kind of love than φιλω entails. 10932 The shift between the terms in the first two examples does seem to provide a discordant note, which might lend credence to this view if one did not approach this text in the context of the rest of the Gospel that has preceded it. Some nineteenth-century scholars wrongly even regarded γπη as an example of «biblical» Greek, as if it were nonexistent in secular Greek. 10933 Secular Greek did not, to be sure, use it frequently, but it had already entered the LXX with reference to God " s love 10934 and appears in the Luke 6:32) and in other examples that do not fit the «divine love» paradigm (Matt 6:24; Luke 7:5; 11:43; 16:13; John 3:19; 12:43 ). Rhetorically skilled writers regularly employed synonyms for the sake of rhetorical variation, 10935 and the Fourth Gospel uses αγαπω and φιλω interchangeably (see analysis in the introduction, pp. 324–25). As Painter puts it, «Both Greek verbs ... are used of the Father " s love for the Son, indicating that no difference of meaning can be attributed to these verbs in John.» 10936 Bruce compares the interchangeability of other terms in the passage, such as ρνα and προβτια, οδα and γινσκω, and (in our view less certainly) βσκω and ποιμανω. 10937 Talbert notes three terms for departure in 16:5–10; three more for sorrow in 16:20–22; two terms for «ear» in 18:10, 26; and two for «guarding» in 17:12. 10938 Thus most scholars today recognize that the interchange of verbs between Jesus and Peter is not of much significance 10939 –unless one wishes to say that Peter finally brings Jesus down to Peter " s level, reducing Jesus» demand for love! Because the demonstration of love remains the same the whole way through, however, it is difficult to imagine that Jesus here makes a concession to Peter " s weakness. 10940 Partially excepting Origen, most Greek commentators (e.g., John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria), as well as other commentators, saw no real distinction between the sense of the terms until the arguments of nineteenth-century British scholars Trench, Westcott, and Plummer. 10941 |
| Небо благих сокровище. Taken from Meffreth, Dominica 3 Post Trinitatis, No. 1. 11. 1–16 cf Meffreth: «In ista etiam hora [i.e. the second hour of the third watch] vigilauit Anselmus in Prosologio, sic dicens. Quid per incerta vagaris, о homuncio, quaerendo bona creata? ama vnum bonum, in quo sunt omnia bona.» 11. 17–32 cf Meffreth: «Si delectat pulchritudo, fulgebunt iusti & sol [Matt. 13.43]. Si libertas aut fortitudo, similes erunt angelis Dei in coelo. Si longa & salubris vita, ibi sanitas aetema. Si satietas aut ebrietas, satiabuntur de gloria Domini, & inebriabuntur ab vbertate domus Dei. Si melodia, ibi canunt angeli. Si societas & amicitiae, ibi beatorum societas & omnium vna voluntas. Si honores & diuitiae, quia gloria & diuitiae in domo eius [ Ps. 112.3 ]» (Pars aestiv., p. 253). Небрежение . Taken from Faber, In Festo Nativitatis Christi, No. 6 «Quid muneris attulerint Christo Pastores», sect. 3 «Agnus, qui est Norma Charitatis»: «Ita qui ignavus est ad omne id, quod in caelo beat, non est censendus haeres caeli. Et mirum est profecto, quod in res caducas tarn avide involemus, in solidas vero et aetemas tarn segniter. Vulneratur quis lethaliter, illico currit ad chirurgum; infirmatur aliquis: illico quaerit remedia et vocat medicum; rumpit aliquis vestem, mox sartorem adhibet; fame aut siti vexatur, illico in panem potumque mit. Solum Deum et animae remedia oscitanter et vix inquirimus: vulnera animae lethalia diutissime gerimus perditam gratiam recuperare differimus: famem et sitim sacrae Eucharistiae diu toleramus.» Небрежение 2. Taken from Faber, Dominica 16 Post Pentecosten, No. 8 «Documenta [on the Gospel for the day, viz. Luke 14. 1–11]», sect. 2 «Salus proximi quaerenda»: «Nam ut argumentatur Dominus, si asinus in puteum lapsus, continuo eripitur [Luke 14.5], quanto magis eripiendus homo e discrimine vitae, e puteo haereseos vel alterius peccati?» Невежда . Taken from Faber, Dominica 4 Post Pentecosten, No. 2 «Piscatio Evangelica quomodo fieri debeat», sect. 3 «Non piscentur noctu»: «Denique neque in nocte ignorantiae piscandum est; nec praesumant aliis ducatum [for «ductum»] praebere, qui coeci sunt, ne illos secum praecipitent.» Published in Eremin. |
|
|
