| Knowing the truth (8:32) in Jewish parlance could refer to the truth about God (who epitomizes truth by his nature). 6719 In the Fourth Gospel it characterizes living and worshiping with integrity (3:21; 4:23–24), 6720 but also the divine message (5:33; 8:40, 44–46; 17:17; 18:37) epitomized by Jesus (1:14,17; 14:6; 17:19) and the Spirit who testifies of him (14:17; 15:26; 16:13). In this context it probably represents Jesus» message (8:40) as more fully comprehensible to those who persevere (8:31). The only «crime» to which Jesus confesses in the following interchange of judicial rhetoric is that of having told them the truth (8:40; cf. Gal 4:16 ); «admitting» a crime that is not really a crime was a common rhetorical maneuver in a defense speech–reflecting well on ones character and integrity. 6721 Jesus» demand that those who claim to believe in him persevere and understand the truth may well echo Wis 3:9: «Those who are persuaded on him will understand the truth, and the faithful in love will remain (προσμενοσιν) with him.» The term «servant» applied to a variety of referents in Tannaitic parables, but often was a positive image for servants of God. 6722 Biblical prophets were often «servants of God» (see comment on 1:27). The image of slave in this context, however, is hardly a favorable one. Dodd finds here the Hellenistic philosophical concept of liberating knowledge; 6723 and it should not be doubted that this concept proved sufficiendy pervasive to influence the Diaspora Jewish or even Palestinian Jewish conceptions of freedom of more direct import to Johns audience. Hellenistic circles spoke of freedom of the soul that relativized or negated the importance of ones natural condition; 6724 wisdom or knowledge 6725 and virtue 6726 brought such freedom, just as falsehood produced enslavement. 6727 One that someone freed (liberat) from evil (malitia) is thereby empowered to free others. 6728 In a closely related sense, many also spoke of simplicity and lack of dependence on others as freedom. 6729 Some said such freedom imitates the deity 6730 and that one who willingly follows God s will (perhaps the decree of Fate) is thereby not his slave. 6731 |
| Philo portrayed Moses» ascent to the heavenly realm of spirit to receive the law as a sort of second birth, whereas Christ is the only true ascender in this passage (3:13). 4773 In support of such an argument we may note that, in the whole narrative, it does become evident that Jesus is the one from above (3:13, 31), and that Jesus was «born» (18:37). 4774 Nevertheless, it is also clear that being " born from above» refers not to Jesus, but to the community regenerated through him who is from above (1:13). The level on which 3responds directly to 3is a summons to a greater depth of insight: by being born «from above,» Nicodemus can truly «see,» that is, understand, the kingdom of God. «Teacher from God» is inadequate, as is a worldly understanding of Jesus» kingship (18:36–37); only supernatural insight can enable one to grasp the character of Jesus» identity. Jesus insists that Nicodemus be born from God–that is, become a child of God and of Abraham. The implication that Nicodemus did not already have this status proved inconceivable to Nicodemus and becomes the focal point of harsh debate between Jesus and Jerusalem leaders in 8:37–47. 2A. Birth from Above and Understanding The narrative is full of plays on words (such as νωθεν; φων; and πνεμα); paronomasia and other kinds of wordplays were a common technique in ancient texts, though advanced rhetoricians advised very restrained use. 4775 John plays here on more than one sense of «see,» just as κατλαβεν in 1suggested both «overcome» and «comprehend.» («Seeing» could refer to their future experience as in 3:36, but in John can also refer to spiritual perception; see pp. 247–51.) As Nicodemus " s misunderstanding quickly confirms (3:4), one cannot «see» the kingdom in the sense of understanding it until one has been born from above. John " s audience may recall that it was divine Wisdom that showed (εδειξεν; cf. 2:18) Jacob the kingdom of God (Wis 10:10), 4776 just as Jesus as divine Wisdom (3:13) tries to reveal it to Nicodemus here (3:11–12, 31–33). |
| The prince is likely the devil, but the devil is associated with those who carry out the devil " s will (cf. 8:44). Interestingly, the language of «ruler» or «rulers» (ρχων) appears elsewhere in John only in regard to Jerusalem " s elite (3:1; 7:26, 48; 12:42). A connection is not necessary but certainly possible; Paul and his contemporaries spoke of angelic «rulers» because they thought of the celestial rulers whose movements stood behind the earthly ones ( Rom 8:38 ; Eph 1:21; 6:12 ; Col 1:16; 2:15; 1Pet 3:19–22 ). 8811 It is these hostile Judean authorities and their socially powerful allies in John " s day (see 16:2) who specifically typify the broader community of «the world» in 15:18–25. Jesus spoke about disciples being «in him» and the reverse, unless they refused to accept his sacrificial service for them (13:8), but is adamant that Satan has no place whatsoever in him (14:30). 8812 That the prince has «nothing in» Jesus echoes a Semitic idiom indicating he has «no claim» on him. 8813 Popular Jewish tradition already recognized that those who are of the devil " s portion (μερδος) would reap death (Wis 2:24). In one Jewish story, Sammael as the Angel of Death could not lay hold of Moses because he had no claim on him, so Moses died directly by God " s agency. 8814 Despite widely circulated traditions about the archangel Michael as Israel " s guardian in apocalyptic circles, in one Jewish tradition God appointed rulers over the nations but dealt with Israel directly ( Sir 17:17 ). The devil has no claim against Jesus because he is sinless (8:46); 8815 Jesus dies exclusively at his Father " s command (14:31). 8816 Against those who attributed Jesus» activity to demons (7:20; 8:48), it is Jesus» opponents who are children of the devil and act accordingly (8:44). 3. Going to the Cross (14:31) Many find in 14a conclusion to a discourse, suggesting a seam between John " s sources; the words can anticipate 18:1, so that an uninformed reader would not notice if chs. |
| 6934 E.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:2; Gen. Rab. 44:15, 22; 56:10; Exod. Rab. 51:7; Lev. Rab. 13:5; Pesiq. Rab. 15:2; cf. 2 Bar. 4:4. Braun, «Sacrifice,» cites Tg. Neof. and Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 22:1–18 to suggest that Isaac functions for John (here and in 8:35–36; cf. 1:29; 3:16) as a type of Christ (cf. Brown, John, 1:360). The future vision of the patriarchs appears to be a favorite emphasis of Genesis Rabbah " s editors, but the earliest tradition refers especially to Abraham; «he went into the days» ( Gen 24:1 , lit.) may have provided a natural basis for rabbis assuming that Abraham saw the future world (e.g., Dodd, «Background,» 334; Fenton, John, 104). 6935 Gen. Rab. 69:7; 97 NV. Joseph also wept for the destruction of the first and second temples (Gen. Rab. 93:10). In a tradition newly created in the third century, many biblical heroes saw a new world, but this may refer to their change in status (Gen. Rab. 30:8). 6936 He also foresaw Joseph " s survival (Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 37:33 , opposite MT!); Jephthah " s victory in Gilead (Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 31:21 ); and Samson (Gen. Rab. 98:14). In earlier texts Jacob receives a revelation apparently of the temple (4Q537 frg. 1–2; so Adam in 2 Bar. 4:3); that Wisdom revealed God " s reign to Jacob (Wis 10:10) may be relevant, though eschatologically oriented Jewish interpreters seem to have done little with this work. 6937 Some Tannaim felt he lost his prophetic sight in Gen 48 (Gen. Rab. 97 MSV). In the Targumim (McNamara, Targum, 140), although Jacob looked for the messianic redemption (Neofiti) he could not see it even in a vision (Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 49:1 ). 6938 Num. Rab. 13:14, extrapolating from the tradition in Gen 49 (cf. T. 12 Patr.). More simply, Jacob simply saw the Lord (i.e., the archangel) in Philo Dreams 1.157. Tg. Neof. 1 on Gen 49allows him an eschatological revelation, which he then forgot (cf. similarly Tg. Ps.-J. on Gen 49:1 ). 6939 Cf., e.g., m. Ber. 1:5; Num. Rab. 13:14; Luke 17:22, 26; other references in Moore, Judaism, 1:346,2:247,375–76. |
| Dallas pastor responds to " GrinchAlert " controversy By Lawrence D. Jones Christian Post Reporter December 13, 2010 Grinch. A Dallas church tired of the political correctness surrounding Christmas has launched a website to report " naughty " businesses that fail to acknowledge the religious meaning of the holiday. But the site has received some negative feedback from Christians who say the church should instead be focused on preaching the Gospel. " I realize saying " Merry Christmas " isn " t going to get anyone into heaven, " said Pastor Robert Jeffress of First Baptist Church of Dallas after his sermon on Sunday. " But I believe our nation overall is going to be healthier as a nation with a public acknowledgment of God than we are if we allow the secularists, the atheists, the infidels to remove any mention of God from our public arena and that " s why I " m doing this. " Jeffress recently started GrinchAlert.com to help keep Christ in Christmas. The site, which has received wide media attention, asks users to place companies that celebrate Christmas in their public interaction, marketing or advertising on the nice list. Businesses that act like a " Grinch " or " use misplaced political correctness to halt the celebration of Christmas " are called out in the naughty list. People from around the nation, not just in Texas, can report their experiences. So far, users have listed about five times more nice businesses than naughty ones. About 100 businesses have been commended for their public expressions of Christmas while 18 left customers disappointed. Walmart made the nice list. One married couple from Hickory, N.C., was pleased that a man wished them " Merry Christmas " as they walked through the produce section. Nordstrom " s policy to say " Happy Holidays " instead of " Merry Christmas " did not impress one shopper who placed it on the naughty list. Target appeared on both the nice and naught lists. One shopper in Appleton, Wis., liked that the store had large " Merry Christmas " signs and that the photo clerk vocalized a " Merry Christmas " greeting. Another disliked that one Target didn " t carry Christmas items with the Holy Family on it but instead those with snowmen, Santa Clauses, snowflakes, birds and glitter. |
| John is not alone in drawing a contrast between servants and friends of God–Philo does the same: indeed, it is folly to imagine that the servants [τος δολους] of God take precedence of His friends [τν φλων το θεο] in receiving their portion in the land of virtue. 9092 Abraham, like Wisdom, is God " s friend and not his servant, and those who are his friends are also his only son (μνος υις). 9093 By saying that he no longer calls his disciples slaves, Jesus could be alluding back to 13and suggesting that they need no longer assume the role of subordinates but rather of equals. Against this proposal is the fact that Jesus cites the same saying in 15:20, after he has promised to call them servants no longer, 9094 and the fact that their friendship is predicated on obedience to Jesus» command to love (15:14). As Carson has pointed out, The distinction Jesus draws between a servant and a friend is not the distinction between obeying and not obeying, but the distinction between not understanding and understanding. 9095 When Jesus declares that he «no longer» (οκτι) calls them slaves (15:15), he signals a new era in salvation history, 9096 the transition point being Jesus» departure to, and return from, the Father in chs. 18–20 (16:16; cf. 14:19, 30; 16:10,16,21,25; 17:11). In communicating to them what he has heard from the Father (15:15), Jesus acts the role of a faithful disciple who passes on the teachings of the Father, 9097 thus providing a model for the Spirit and the disciples (15:26–27). Even more to the point, just as Wisdom possesses all the special, secret knowledge of God (Wis 8:4) 9098 and is thus the truest source of insight about God, Jesus is the truest revealer of the Father. The eschatological king would be «taught by God» (διδακτς υπ θεο, Pss. So1. 17:32; cf. John 6:45 ). 2F. Concluding Observations on Friendship Although an allusion to patronal friendship is possible in this passage, the Greco-Roman ideals of loyalty, intimacy, and sharing are more likely in view. The subordination of the disciples in obedience is probably more an expression of covenant loyalty, qualified by their continuing role as servant-disciples, than the subordination of a client to a patron. The disciples are clearly dependent on Jesus in 15:1–7, and that dependence might have been read by clients patronally; but it need not have been so understood (cf., e.g., Hos 14 :8d). |
| The inability of others to snatch sheep from Jesus» «hand,» explicitly compared with the Father " s hand in 10:29, probably is another Johannine allusion to Jesus» deity. It alludes to Ps 95 (94LXX), where God " s people are the «sheep of his hand.» That this allusion is in view is probably confirmed by the allusion in 10to the contextual summons to «hear God " s voice» ( Ps 95:7 ). This summons contrasts with the example of Israel in the wilderness ( Ps 95:8–9 ); at the new exodus occurring in Jesus» ministry, those who really prove to be his sheep hear him. This clarifies the point that Jesus as shepherd in this Gospel employs the image of God as Israel " s shepherd in the earlier biblical tradition. In this context, Jesus» unity with the Father that follows (10:30) reaffirms his divinity, though outside their Johannine context the words of 10would not have needed to be construed in this manner. (God " s hand was, of course, a frequent metaphor, e.g., Jub. 12:17; Sib. Or. 3.709; including for keeping God " s people, e.g., Wis 3:1.) Just as no one could seize Jesus» life from him (10:18), no one could seize his sheep, because it was ultimately his Father " s flock and he was one with his Father (10:30; cf. 17:22). 7478 Greek thinkers could speak of the deity as a unity, 7479 but Jewish hearers would think even more immediately of the Shema, the basic confession of Judaism that affirmed God " s unity. 7480 With such words, Jesus not only denies that his hearers are in right relation with God but claims a divine status that they could understand only as blasphemy on their presuppositions (10:31). 7481 (This is a more general but also more common use of «blasphemy» than the later technical Mishnaic definition. Yet the use of the neuter for «one» suggests unity of purpose rather than identity of person.) 7482 Jesus goes on to define that oneness in terms of his sonship (10:36), 7483 but the informed reader understands that he is maintaining a level of ambiguity until the appropriate time for his hour of revelation and lifting up (1:1, 18; 8:28). 7484 John " s audience, facing persecution, would take courage that no amount of opposition could seize them from Jesus if they chose to remain faithful to him. 7485 God " s Agent and Human Gods (10:31–38) |
| Those Who Hope in God Do Not Dwell on Earth. Ambrose: Enoch called upon God in hope and so is thought to have been transported. And so only that man who puts his hope in God seems to be “man.” 536 Moreover, the 528 Acts 2:2–3. 529 FC 65:61. 530 FC 91:133–34. 531 Wis 4:11. 532 FC 36:217–18. 533 Gen 4:261 LXX. 534 FGFR 234. 535 FC 41:313–14. 536 L.e., seems thus far to be truly man.” Enoch translates “man”. clear and truthful sense of the passage is that one who puts his hope in God does not dwell on earth but is transported, so to speak, and cleaves to God. Isaac, or the Soul 1.1. 537 Enoch Transcended the Vanity of the World. John Cassian: The mind is so caught up in this way that the hearing no longer takes in the voices outside and images of the passerby no longer come to sight and the eye no longer sees the mounds confronting it or the gigantic objects rising up against it. No one will possess the truth and the power of all this unless he has direct experience to teach him. The Lord will have turned the eyes of his heart away from everything of the here and now, and he will think of these as not transitory so much as already gone, smoke scattered into nothing, He walks with God, like Enoch. He is gone from a human way of life, from human concerns. He is no longer to be found amid the vanity of this present world. The text of Genesis relates that this actually happened to Enoch in the body: “Enoch walked with God and was not to be found because God had taken him away.” 538 The apostle says, “Because of his faith, Enoch was taken up so that he did not have to encounter death.” 539 Conference 3.7. 540 Enoch Does Not Experience Present Death. Augustine: Then the Scripture states that after some time had elapsed, there was a man named Enoch, whose justice merited a a singular privilege: that he should nor experience present death but should be transported to immortality from the midst of mortals. This incident shows that one just man is dearer to God than many sinners. Christian Life 7. 541 |
| Шатуновского. Одесса, изд. «Mathesis». Изд. 2-е, 1909 г., – с присоед. статьи «Док. сущ. трансц. чисел». – Weberu . Wellstein. – Васильев, §§ 18–31. – Ж. Таннери , – Введение в теорию функций одного переменного, 1913 (франц. 1-е изд. стал библиогр. редк.). – Его же, – Курс теоретич. и практич. арифметики. Пер. A. A. Котляревского под ред. Д. Л. Волковского, M., 1913. – M. Волков , – Эволюция понятия о числе. СПб., 1899. – Ф. Клейн , – Вопросы элементарной и высшей математики, Ч. 1, Одесса, 1912, пер. под ред. В. Когана, изд. «Mathesis», стр. 47–56. – F. Klein – Anwendung d. Differential- u. Integralrechnung auf die Geometrie. Eine Revision d. Principien, Lpz. 1901, 2-te Ausg. 1907. г. – A. Фосс , – O сущности математики. Пер. И. В. Яшунский. СПб., 1911. Изд. «Physice». – Ch. du Méray , – Nouv. Précis d’Analyse infini tésim. Paris, 1872 (он называет основной ряд «сходящеюся вариантою», a равные ряды – «эквивалентными». – G. Cantor , – Ueb. die Ausdehnung eines Satzes aus der Theorie d. trigon. Reihen («Mat. An.», Bd. 5). – Pasch , – Einl. in d. Dif. u. Int.-rechn., Lpz. 1882. – B. Russel , – Principles of math., 1902. – Heine , – Die Elemente d. Functionenlehre («Crelle’s Journ.», Bd. 74). – Теория Вейерштрасса не изложена им в ориг. трудах; изл. ее: Korsak , – Die Elemente d. Arithmetik, Berlin, 1872. – Dini , – Grundl. für eine Theorie d. Fuktionen, Halle, 1880; 2-te Aufl., 1898 A. Pringsheim , – Irrationalzahlen u. Konvergenz unendlicher Processe («Enc. d. Math. Wis.» Lpz. 1898–1904, Bd. 11, SS. 47 ff.). – P. Natorp , – Die logischen Grundlagen d. exakten Wissenschaften, Lpz. 1910. – O. Stolz u. I. A. Gmeiner, – Theoretische Arithmetik, Lpz. 1902. – Cout ., – Inf. Mat. . 841 N. H. Abel, – Note sur un mémorie de M. L. Olivier ayant pour titre «Remarque sur les séries infinies…» («Oeuvres compl.» de N. H. Abel, nouv. éd. par L. Sylov et S. Lie, T. 1, p. 399–402). Абель доказывает, что признак сходимости не м. б. дан в виде равенства, – [H. В.] Бугаев , – Сходимость беск. |
| Functionenlehre («Crelle’s Journ.», Bd. 74). — Теория Вейерштрасса не изложена им в ориг. трудах; изл. её: Korsak, — Die Elemented. Arithmetik, Berlin, 1872. — Dini, — Grundl. für eine Theorie d. Fuktionen, Halle, 1880; 2–te Aufl., 1898 A. Pringsheim,— Irrationalzahlen и. Konvergenz unendlicher Processe («Enc. d. Math. Wis.» Lpz. 1898–1904, Bd. 11, SS. 47 ff.). — P. Патогр, — Die logischen Grundlagen d. exakten Wissenschaften, Lpz. 1910. — O. Stolz и. I. A. Gmeiner, — Theoretische Arithmetik, Lpz. 1902. — Соит., — Inf. Mat. [ 844 ]. ( < < back) < >< back) > N. H. Abel, — Note sur un memoire de M. L. Olivier ayant pour titre «Remarque sur les series infinies …» («Oeuvres compl.» de N. H. Abel, nouv. ed. par L. Sylov et S. Lie, Т. 1, p. 399–402). Абель доказывает, что признак сходимости не м. б. дан в вид равенства. — [Н. В.] Бугаев, — Сходимость беск. рядов по их внешн. виду, М., 1863. — Его же, — Введ. в анализ и диф. исч. лит. лек., изд. 2–е, [М.], 1898, стр. 143–144. — L. Euler, — De Infinities infinitis gradibus («Acta Petrop.», 1778). — P. du Bois–Reymοnd, — Die allgemeine Funktionentheorie, Tübingen, 1882. — E. Воге1, — Legons sur la theorie des Fonctions, Paris, 1898. — Его же, — Lec. s. les Fonctions entieres, P., 1900. — Его же, — L. s. l. series divergantes, P., 1901. — Его же, — L. s. l. series a termes positifs, rec. et red. par R. d’Adhemar, P., 1902. — Его же, L. s. l. Fonctions meromorphes. — H. Парфентьев, — Исслед–ия по теории роста функции, Казань, 1910 г. ( < < back) Из немногих попыток в эт. напр., да и то только в отнош. иррациональностей, — мне известны: попытка Соломона Маймона (о нем см.: Б. Яковенко, — Философск. концепция Сол. Маймона, «Вопр. фил. и псих.», 1912, кн. 114 (IV) и 115 (V);зameм: Веппо Kerry, — System einer Theorie d. Grenzbegriffe. Eine Beitrag zur Erkenntnisstheorie. Erst. Theil, her. von G. Kohn, Lpz. u. Wien, 1890. Посмертн. соч., 2–я часть не выходила, — К. Жаков, — Основы эволюционной теории познания (лимитизм). СПБ., 1912. (Автор расходится с основн. теч. совр. матем.). — Свящ. П. Флоренский, — Пределы гносеологии, Серг. Пос., 1913 (=«Бог. В.», 1913 г., янв.). Пользуются понятием предела и новейшие трансценденталисты, но, к удивлению, далеко не в тех размерах, в каких могли бы воспользоваться, не только не нарушая, но даже укрепляя основные линии своих построений. ( < < back) < >< back) > Фома Акв., — Summa. I. q. XLVII, a. 2с; Contra Gent., 92; Qq. dispp., De Ver., q. XII, a. 13 ad 3. ( < < back) Nuntius Signoriello, — Lexicon peripateticum philosophico–theologicum in quo scholasticorum distinctiones et effata principua explicantur. Ed. novissima, locupletior atque emendatior. Neapoli, 1906, litt. G, II, pp. 150–151. Цит. [ 858, 859 ] — оттуда же. |
|
|
