| John Anthony McGuckin Paradise PETER C. BOUTENEFF The Greek Paradeisos (cf. the Persian Pardez, meaning “enclosure”) in the Septuagint refers to any enclosed garden (cf. Num. 24.6 ; Neh. 2.8; Eccl. 2.5 ; Jer. 29.5 ), but remains particularly associated with the Garden in Eden ( Gen. 2–3, 13.10 ; also Is. 51.3 ; Ezek. 28.13 ). In Second Temple Jewish literature (e.g., 1 Enoch 60.8, 23, 61.12; Apoc. Abraham 21.3, 6; 3 Baruch 4.10) as well as in the New Testament ( Lk. 23.43 ; Rev. 2.7), Paradise comes to refer also to the destination of the righteous, whether it is an earthly or heavenly topos. St. Paul’s mystical experience which associates Paradise with the Third Heaven ( 2Cor. 12.2–3 ) has deeply influenced the Greek patristic literature, and is frequently cited. PARADISE AS THE GARDEN OF HUMAN ORIGINS Paradise as the earthly garden in Eden, into which the first-created humans were placed, and which Genesis 2 locates on Earth (in what is modern-day Iraq), is treated variously in the Greek fathers. Theophilus of Antioch, almost unique among the early writers for the absence of a typological (christological) exegesis of the Paradise narrative, is concomitantly almost unique in attempting to pinpoint the chronological dating of the events narrated in Genesis 1–3 (as did Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Chronicle, no longer extant). Conversely, and possibly following Philo (cf. Laws of Allegory 1.43), Origen practically mocks anyone who would interpret Paradise as an actual place with physical trees and chewable fruit (On First Principles 4.3.1). Precisely this notion, however, featured strongly in Ephrem’s Hymns on Paradise (Brock 1990). Gregory of Nazianzus is open and provisional in his interpretation: God placed the human person in Paradise, “Whatever this Paradise actually was,” and introduced him to trees which Gregory supposes might represent contemplation (theoria) (Oration 38.12). Contemporary Orthodox theologians tend to follow the fathers in paying scant attention to the question of the physical historicity of the Paradise of Genesis 2–3 , focusing rather on its existential significance or more often on its christological sense. |
| Craig S. Keener The ultimate model for love and service. 13:1–38 THE FOOT WASHING IN JOHN is the narrative introduction for the final discourse, part of the lengthy prolegomena to the Passion Narrative. Jesus» impending death dominates this scene. It intersperses Jesus» words and example of service (13:1, 3–10, 12–17, 31–35) with foreshadowings of his betrayal (13:2, 10–11, 18–30), then opens directly into discussion about Jesus» departure by way of the cross (13:36–38; 14:3–6). 8048 This scene therefore paves the way for the Farewell Discourse (13:31–17:26). 8049 By the foot washing Jesus prefigures his impending glorification, which is the theological subject of most of the context (12:16, 23, 28,41; 13:31–32). This act identifies Jesus as the Suffering Servant and defines his passion as an act of loving service. At the same time, however, it also summons Jesus» followers to imitate his model, serving and loving one another to the extent of laying down their lives for one another (13:14–16, 34–35). The Setting (13:1–3) John again links Jesus» imminent «hour» with the Passover season (13:1). (On the «hour,» see comment on 2:4; cf. 12:23.) In contrast to the Synoptic picture of the Last Supper, however, Jesus» closing hours before his arrest in this Gospel are «before» Passover (13:1). This detail fits John " s chronology (13:29; 18:28; 19:14, 31, 42), 8050 which ultimately supports his portrayal of Jesus as the paschal lamb (1:29,36; 19:36). At this point, however, John underlines a different aspect of the chronology: Jesus loved his own «to the end» (13:1). This is Johannine double entendre: it can imply «to the utmost,» «fully,» as well as «to the point of his death.» 8051 Such a double entendre reinforces the measure of God " s love in the Fourth Gospel (3:16) and early Christianity ( Rom 5:5–9 ): Jesus» death. The preceding context also illustrates Jesus» love (11:5) that would cost him his life (11:7–16), but here the specific objects of his love in the Lazarus story give way to all of «his own» (cf. 10:3) who would be remaining in the world (17:11). |
| Craig S. Keener Revelation of Jesus. 16:5–33 ALTHOUGH A GRADUAL SHIFT takes place from the emphasis on persecution in 16:1–4, there is no decisive break here with the preceding context. When Jesus was with the disciples, they did not need warning about future sufferings (16:5), presumably because he would protect them (18:8–9). But now that he was going and their hearts were burdened with sorrow (16:6), he had to assure them that the Paraclete would continue to reveal him to them and through them (16:7–15). He had warned them of coming sufferings (15:18–16:4), but they could not bear further revelation of such matters now (16:12); when the Paraclete would come, however, he would prepare them for the rest, telling them more things to come (16:13), presumably including events such as those narrated in the book of Revelation (if, as we have argued, John and Revelation reflect the same community). The coming of the Paraclete would enable the disciples to go on the offensive (15:26–27) because through him Jesus would remain among them (16:13–15). In him they would have victory over the world, despite their tribulation (16:33). His Departure for Their Good (16:5–7) In the context of the disciples» discouragement due to the world " s hostility (16:1–6), the Paraclete would come to prosecute the world (16:8–11). The disciples could be strong in the face of persecution, despite Jesus» absence, because the Paraclete would be with them (v. 7); this suggests that the Paracletés prosecution of the world is on their behalf and through their testimony. 9191 They grieved that Jesus was «going» (16:5–6), but resurrection joy would soon swallow their grief concerning the cross (16:22; cf. 1Pet 1:6 ). 9192 Jesus» return would provide them the Spirit, who would continue Jesus» presence with them. Because of their grief (16:6), Jesus assures them emphatically («I tell you the truth») 9193 that they will be better off with him departing to send them the other advocate he has mentioned (14:16). 9194 The Paraclete is better for them than Jesus in the flesh would have been (16:7) because he re-presents Jesus dynamically to the world in each hostile situation. Jesus had also challenged the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment, and the prophetic Spirit, proclaiming the same Jesus through his community, would continue the challenge. 9195 This continuity between the two should not be understood as identity, as in the docetic reading of John, 9196 nor even to imply that the Spirit cannot bring new teachings; 9197 the Spirit will say some new things (16:12–13) but in continuity with Jesus» revelation. 9198 But it does mean that Jesus himself is present in the Spirit, though only those in his community recognize his presence. 9199 The World " s Prosecutor (16:8–11) |
| Craig S. Keener The fish sign. 21:1–14 OTHER SOURCES MAY SUGGEST that Jesus revealed himself on a regular basis to the disciples immediately after the resurrection; Luke seems most emphatic about this point (Acts 1:3), though he omits the Galilean appearances and may therefore refer to a state after the disciples had returned to Jerusalem (reading Luke, one would not know that they had left Jerusalem). In any case, John is emphatic that this is the disciples» third revelation (21:14); that Jesus manifested himself to them also frames this sign narrative (21:1, 14), underlining the significance of this appearance. When John counts, it may be primarily to tie events together (compare 2:1,19; 2:11 with 4:54); this event takes the previous resurrection appearances to a fuller level, though Thomas " s christological confession was climactic. What is John " s point? In the light of the rest of the Gospel, Jesus again provides food for his people (6:10–11; cf. Rev 7:16–17; 12:6); the emphasis here will be spiritual food (4:32–34; 6:35; 10:9; see 21:15–17). Given the following dialogue, the point of the narrative seems to be to define more specifically the character of Jesus» call in 20:21, especially for church leaders: loving Jesus requires Jesus» servants to love Jesus» followers. The Setting: Failing at Fishing (21:1–3) These verses provide examples of typical Johannine language in the nontheological vocabulary when one would least expect it from a later hand: for example, «after these things» (21:1; see 3:22; 5:1,14; 6:1; 7:1). Likewise, only this Gospel calls the lake «the sea of Tiberias» (6:1) or mentions Tiberias at all (6:23). In the very incomplete list of Jesus» followers here, 10853 the two named characters besides Peter (who is necessary to the following story) are distinctly Johannine: only in this Gospel does Thomas appear outside lists of names (11:16; 14:5; 20:24–28) and is he called Didymus, meaning «Twin» (11:16; 20:24) ; 10854 and only in this Gospel do Nathanael and Cana appear (1:45–49; 2:1,11; 4:46). 10855 The «sons of Zebedee» admittedly weigh against the thesis that this epilogue stems from the same author or source, since the rest of the Gospel reflects a studied, probably deliberate avoidance of mentioning them; but it is noteworthy that even here they are not individually named. The mention of Thomas (21:2) provides a connection with the previous narrative (20:24–29), 10856 demonstrating that he did persevere. |
| Craig S. Keener The function of John 21 MANY REGARD JOHN 21 as a later addition to the Gospel from a different hand; those who regard it as from the same author as the rest of the Gospel usually also regard it as an appendix, recognizing its anticlimactic nature following the conclusion of 20:30–31. Many question the historical veracity of its contents. A Later Addition? Many scholars regard the entirety of ch. 21 as an addition to the original Gospe1. Johannine scholarship has traditionally regarded John 21 as an addition distinct from the original Gospel, often for stylistic reasons and nearly always (even by those who believe it was added later by the same author) because the chapter is anticlimactic following the conclusion of 20:30–31. 10803 This chapter is a literary unit, 10804 and undeniably it is anticlimactic to the primary narrative of the Gospe1. Nor would 20:30–31 (or even 20:29) constitute too abrupt a conclusion for the Gospel; ancient books often had abrupt endings. 10805 Yet apart from the special vocabulary needed for the matters at hand (such as fishing), the vocabulary does not differ significantly from that of analogous portions of the Gospe1. 10806 Various features reveal Johannine style; for example, «the variation of synonyms (verses 15–17), the double «Amen» (verse 18), the construction »This he said, indicating ...» (verse 19; cf. 12:33)»; only in this Gospel is the lake called the «Sea of Tiberias» (21:1; 6:1). 10807 Smalley rightly notes that «its general flavour is characteristically Johannine» and that John 21 ties up loose ends previously introduced in the Gospe1. 10808 Westcott, who regarded the chapter as an appendix, nevertheless insisted that it stemmed from the author of the Gospel, noting its «style and the general character of the language»; he also observed that we lack any textual evidence that the Gospel ever circulated without this «appendix.» 10809 The «appendix» itself notes the beloved disciplés presence (21:7), which, if taken at face value, allows for the same source as the rest of the Gospe1. |
| Глава 10 1–2. Бог – податель благ; надежда на идолов суетна и служит источником бедствий. 3–7. Изображение предстоящего восстановления дома Иудина и дома Ефремова. 8–12. Собрание рассеянного Израиля из всех стран и всецелое обращение его к Богу. Зах.10:1 . Просите у Господа дождя во время благопотребное; Господь блеснет молниею и даст вам обильный дождь, каждому злак на поле. Гл. X представляет распространение и пояснение предыдущего. Толкователи разногласят только относительно того, куда отнести Зах.10:1–2 :) к Зах.9:17 или к Зах.10:3 . Кейль видит в Зах.10:1 начало нового ряда мыслей, хотя и стоящего в связи с Зах.9:17 (S. 607). Девятая глава закончена обетованием обилия благ земных для народа Божия; десятая, в первых стихах, указывает на Господа, как на единственного подателя этих благ: к Нему и нужно обращаться с молитвою о дожде в то время, когда он наиболее необходим для успешного роста всех произведений земли, т. е. в весеннее время. Зах.10:2 . Ибо терафимы говорят пустое, и вещуны видят ложное и рассказывают сны лживые; они утешают пустотою; поэтому они бродят как овцы, бедствуют, потому что нет пастыря. Напрасно было бы обращаться с подобными прошениями к идолам (терафимам): вещания от лица их одна пустота, их поклонники – предсказатели и лжепророки обманываются сами и обманывают других, утешительные предсказания их суетны: они не только не приходят в исполнение, но влекут за собою неминуемое бедствие. Штаде, в своем Критическом этюде о Девтерозахарии, указывает на особенность, с которою здесь выступают терафимы: это единственное место в Ветхом Завете, в котором терафимы представляются говорящими; только здесь и в Иез.21:26 ( Иез.21:21 Синод. перев.) являются они вообще прорицающими (Zatw 1881, S. 60; cf. Now. 364). Делать какие-либо выводы относительно времени происхождения второй части кн. Захарии, на основании упоминания в ней об идолах, как поступают ученые критики, однако, нельзя. Вопрос об идолах не утратил своего значения и после плена: пусть у евреев уже не было пристрастия к грубому идолопоклонству; но богоборный дух отступления от истинной веры, имевший всегда столь тесную связь с идолопоклонством, не исчез окончательно. Ружемонт рассуждает: «во время Захарии, без сомнения, у иудеев не было уже терафимов, но дух идолопоклонства не был истреблен совершенно, и если ложные пророки, с которыми имел дело еще Неемия (Неем.6след.), исчезают в века Маккавеев и Иродов, то уступают место ложным учителям и ложным мессиям, в которых живет тот же дух» (с. 222, cf. Zatw 1881, S. 61 u. Anm.). |
| John Anthony McGuckin War PERRY T. HAMALIS “War” carries multiple meanings and describes phenomena from varied contexts within Eastern Orthodoxy. In addition to the common understanding of war as “organized violence carried out by political units against each other” (Bull 1977: 184), Orthodox sources discuss war as encompassing both the personal and communal, the physical and spiritual, the bloody and bloodless. St. John Chrysostom writes: “There are three very grievous kinds of war: The one is public, when our soldiers are attacked by foreign armies; the second is when, even in time of peace, we are at war with one another; and the third is when the individual is at war with himself, which is the worst of all” (Hom. 7 on 1 Tim.). In each of these contexts (interstate, interpersonal, and intrapersonal) the Orthodox Church has a threefold response: it proclaims the ideal of authentic peace, acknowledges the spiritual roots and implications of warfare, and affirms the sinfulness of physical violence even if such violence may be tragically necessary given humanity’s fallen condition. The ideal of authentic peace, while not unique to the Christian East, has been upheld as normative and is reflected clearly within the Orthodox tradition (cf. Harakas 1999; McGuckin 2006; Webster 1998). The Eastern Church’s divine services, oriented toward the eschatological peace of God’s kingdom, are replete with petitions for “peace from above” and “peace in the world,” as well as with exhortations to pray “in peace.” This focus reminds worshippers that the Lord being praised is the “Prince of Peace” (Isa. 9.6) who proclaimed a “gospel of peace” ( Eph. 6.15 ), and that their identity as the church cannot be separated from their calling to be “peacemakers” and imitators of the non-violent Christ (cf. Mt. 5 ; Rom. 12 ; Heb. 12). Notwithstanding their eirenic ideal, voices within Orthodoxy also express an acute sense of the depths of human corruption and resist naive optimism about the possibility for peace on earth. For the Orthodox, the problem of violence and war within human social history goes all the way back to Cain’s act of fratricide ( Gen. 4 ), and stems from the passions that corrupt human beings’ souls. Furthermore, the activity of war tends to exacerbate and institutionalize those same sinful proclivities that sparked conflict in the first place (cf. Harakas 1999). Thus, from an Orthodox perspective, the only truly effective response to the fundamentally spiritual roots of war begins with baptism and continues through a lifetime commitment to wage spiritual warfare against both human passions and the forces of evil in the world. Waging spiritual warfare in the intrapersonal context, then, is the necessary basis of a proper response to war in the interpersonal and interstate contexts. For the Orthodox, such spiritual warfare is the only legitimate “holy war” (cf. Dennis 2001). |
| John Anthony McGuckin Incense JEFFREY B. PETTIS The word incense comes from the Latin incendere, “to burn.” According to Exodus 37.29 incense (Hebrew, qtrt; Greek, thymiama) consists of sweet spices made by an apothecary or skilled perfumer. In ancient Judaism the main ingredient for incense was frankincense or olibanum, a whitish resin from southern Arabia (see Pliny, Natural History xii.14; Jer. 11.20 ; Isa. 60.6). Other ingredients might include a combination of gum resins including stacte, onycha, and galbanum ( Ex. 30.34–35 ). Although burning incense was seen as a domestic luxury in ancient Israel, and sold by specialist perfume merchants (Song of Songs 3.6; 4.6, 14), incense had a particular liturgical use in the Temple as an offering to atone for the people’s sins and propitiate the wrath of God ( Num. 26.46–48 ; cf. Lev. 16.12–13 ; cf. Ps. 141 ). In this sense it was distinguished as being sacred and “holy for the Lord” ( Ex. 30.37 ). Incense was burned in portable censers in the Tent of Meeting ( Lev. 10.1; 16.12 ) and later the altar before the Holy of Holies in the Temple was used ( Ex. 40.26; 1 Kings 7.48). Only the High Priest burned incense, in the morning and in the evening ( Ex. 30.7–8 ). The scripture recounts the improper making and use of incense (referred to as “strange fire”) as exacting the divine wrath ( Num. 10.1–2 ). In the New Testament references to incense are predominantly connected with prayer and the concept of prayer arising like incense (see Psalm 141.2 , which is used in the Orthodox Vesperal service at the time of the incensing of the church). Zechariah enters the Temple of the Lord “praying in the sixth hour of the incense offering [thumiamatos]” (Luke 1.9–10). The use of incense in the funeral procession of St. Peter of Alexandria in 311 represents one of the earliest attestations in Christian liturgical practice. Earlier Greek Christian writers tended to frown upon it because of its associations with the veneration of the pagan gods (Tertullian, Apologeticus 42; cf. 30; Athenagoras, Supplication for the Christians 42). Its use in the West is attested only after the 9th century. In the Eastern Church the incensing of the altar, church, people, etc. is recorded in the 5th century by Dionysius the Pseudo- Areopagite. He explains how it symbolizes prayer and occurs as an invariable accompaniment to Orthodox services. The priestly prayer of blessing which precedes every burning of incense in church reads: “Incense we offer to Thee, O Christ our God, do Thou receive it on Thy heavenly throne, and send down on us in return the grace of Thy all-holy Spirit.” The prayer of incensing in the Presanctified liturgy also expresses the similar thought from Psalm 141 : “Let my prayer be directed to Thee as Incense before Thy presence.” |
| Metropolitan Tikhon sends greetings to St. Catherine’s Representation Parish on their patronal feast day Source: OCA Photo: OCA On December 7, 2021 His Beatitude Metropolitan Tikhon sent his greetings to Archpriest Daniel Andrejuk and the faithful of Saint Catherine’s Representation Parish in Moscow in honor of their patronal feast day. In his letter, His Beatitude encouraged the faithful to look to the example of Saint Catherine the Great-Martyr for inspiration to the Christian life. “Although Saint Catherine was endowed with extraordinary gifts of beauty and intelligence,” he said, “she did not cling to these gifts, but offered them back to God, the Giver of every good gift (cf. James 1:17).” His Beatitude concluded his letter exhorting the faithful to “flee every sin and temptation and run toward embrace of the Father of all, the lover of mankind” through the intercessions of Saint Catherine and and strengthened by her prayers. The Very Reverend Daniel Andrejuk St. Catherine the Great Martyr Representation Church Bolshaya Ordynka 60/2 Moscow 119017 RUSSIA Very Reverend Father Daniel and All the Beloved Faithful of Saint Catherine Parish, Christ is in our midst! With joy I extend my archpastoral greetings to you on your parish feast, the feast of Saint Catherine the Great Martyr. What is a great martyr? Did Saint Catherine (and the other great martyrs recognized by the Church) suffer more torments for Christ than the other martyrs? No, all of the martyrs suffered tremendous mental and physical tortures—and, finally, death—for the sake of fidelity to the Gospel and for the greater glory of God. Saint Catherine is a great martyr, rather, because of the special resonance of her witness down through the ages, and because of her powerful intercession for the Christian people over the course of the centuries. People of all times, and we among them, can draw great strength from Saint Catherine’s double renunciation and double offering to Christ. First, although Saint Catherine was endowed with extraordinary gifts of beauty and intelligence, she did not cling to these gifts, but offered them back to God, the Giver of every good gift (cf. James 1:17). She desired nothing other than to offer all her heart, all her soul, all her mind, and all her strength to Jesus Christ her Creator and Savior, the Bridegroom of the Church and of every Christian soul (cf. Mk 12:30). Second, when Saint Catherine was showered with blandishments by her captor, the Emperor Maximian, and promised many things if only she would repudiate Christianity, she put the emperor and all the so-called wisdom of the world to shame. She was ready to suffer and die rather than renounce her Redeemer. Thus, just as she accepted and offered back the true gifts of God, she rejected the false gifts of the world, death, and the devil. |
| Материал из Православной Энциклопедии под редакцией Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла Содержание ДИДАСКАЛ Дидаскал [дидаскал; греч. διδσκαλος], букв.- учитель. У разных народов и в разные эпохи термин, сохраняя основное значение, приобретал различные смысловые оттенки; менялось и место Д. в обществе. В античности Первоначально (в Греции начиная с гомеровских гимнов; Hymni Homerici. In Mercurium. 556) слово «Д.» обозначало учителя вообще (см., напр.: Aeshyl. Prometheus vinctus. 110; Idem. Eumenid. 279), профессию школьного учителя ( Plat. Apol. Socr. 33ab, cf. 19de; Epict. Diss. I 9, 12), а также театрального деятеля - специалиста по обучению хоров. Хоровой Д. организовывал выступления хоров во время общественных празднеств. В V-IV вв. до Р. Х. Д. этого вида становятся также авторами и постановщиками театральных произведений - дифирамбов, трагедий и комедий (свидетельства античных авторов об этом см.: Reisch E. ιδσκαλος. Sp. 402). Однако уже во 2-й пол. IV в. до Р. Х. греч. драматурги получают название ποιητς. За Д. остаются функции подготовки хора и отчасти театральной режиссуры. В Свящ. Писании и в раннехристианскую эпоху В Септуагинте слово «Д.» используется только 2 раза, обозначая учителя в общем смысле (Есф 6. 1) либо религ. наставника (2 Макк 1. 10). В новозаветных текстах оно выступает аналогом евр. , (равви, почетный титул проповедника религиозно-нравственного учения) и в этом значении употребляется в основном по отношению к Иисусу Христу (Didaskalos//TDNT. Vol. 4. P. 164-165). В отдельных случаях Д. называются Иоанн Креститель (Лк 3. 12), иудейские книжники (Ин 3. 10 - о Никодиме), апостолы (1 Тим 2. 7) и др. Кроме того, в раннехрист. период термин «Д.» применялся для обозначения особого, харизматического служения в церковных общинах. О таких Д. наряду с пророками впервые говорится у ап. Павла (1 Кор 12. 28), а далее - в «Дидахе», у Ерма и др. ( Lampe. Lexicon. P. 364-365; Didaskalos//TDNT. Vol. 4. P. 166). Пророки и Д. в отличие от епископов и диаконов, постоянно путешествовали, переходя из одной христ. общины в другую. Христиане должны были отличать истинных Д. от ложных (проповедников еретических учений, см.: Didache. 11. 1-2; 13. 2). При этом «Дидахе» показывает, что уже к нач. II в. харизматическое служение Д. исчезает и становится одной из функций епископов и диаконов (Ibid. 15. 1-2). Однако у Ерма Д. все еще упоминаются параллельно с епископами и диаконами ( Herma. Pastor. III 5; Sim. IX 15. 16. 25) (см. подробнее о харизматических Д. в I-II вв.: Лебедев. 1904; Zimmermann. 1988; Neymeyr. 1989). |
|
|
