| Craig S. Keener Conflict Over the Healing of a Blind Man. 9:1–10:21 This narrative demonstrates Jesus» claims in the previous context and chronologically follows directly on Jesus» departure from the temple on the last day of the festival (7:37; 8:59). It probably begins not far from the temple (cf. 9:7). This section opens with the healing of a blind man (9:1–7) and closes with the recognition that this miracle was not what one expected from a demon (10:21). The narrative between includes Pharisaic charges that Jesus» healing cannot be from God (9:16,22,24), a response from the formerly blind man that challenges the logic of their paradigm (9:25, 27, 31–33), and a response from Jesus, who reverses the charge and shows that it is his opponents who are not from God (9:40–10:18). 7009 Jesus» claim in this section to be the good shepherd (10:11) implicitly advances his previous claim to deity (8:58). Blindness and Sin (9:1–34) Contrary to what the elite supposed (9:34), the man was not born blind due to a sin (9:2–3), nor was his healer a sinner (9:16, 24); by contrast, the elite themselves are sinful and spiritually blind (9:39–41). The true connection between blindness and sin links together the entire section 9:1–41. But because 9:40–41 begin the response to the Pharisees which is continued in 10:1–18 and 9:35–39 begins Jesus» defense of the healed man, we have limited the first section to the material directly related to the healing and responses to it (9:1–34). The following section (9:35–10:18) traces Jesus» own response to the varied responses to his act, especially the responses of the healed man and the Jerusalem elite. Moreover, the contrast between physical and spiritual blindness (dependence on Christ and opposition to him) of 9:39–41 is already implicit at the beginning of this section. Jesus became invisible in some sense to his enemies in 8:59, so they could not see him; but here Jesus cures a man physically blind and so despised by his enemies (9:2, 34). (Indeed, worldly evaluations of the reasons for blindness form an inclusio around Jesus» healing and the man " s fidelity to him; 9:2, 34.) Epistemological terms («know») dominate the dialogue scenes and probably provide the metaphoric meaning of «sight» language also prominent in the chapter. 7010 |
| Craig S. Keener Conflict at Hanukkah. 10:22–42 THE ENTIRE SECTION FROM 7to 10occurs at Sukkoth, the festival of Tabernacles. This passage (10:22–42) occurs at the festival of dedication, not long afterward. Sukkoth motifs dominate 7:1–10far more than Hanukkah motifs dominate this section, which is shorter and overshadowed by it, perhaps as a continuation of it (cf. 4:46–54 with 4:1–42). The conflict about Jesus» identity escalates, with Jesus revealing his identity (10:30) and provoking deadly hostility (10:31) more rapidly than on his previous visit to Jerusalem (8:58–59). In this case as in the last one, Jesus speaks in terms whose meaning is obvious enough in an early Jewish or biblical framework (10:33), but which leave his claim sufficiently inexplicit that he can again escape their grasp (10:34–39). His hour, in other words, had not yet come (7:30; 8:20). The Setting (10:22–23) The setting provides a transition from the festival of Tabernacles (7:1–10:18), if only to emphasize that the debates of that festival continued here not many weeks later. Because the intensity of conflict in 10:19–21 is not great enough to require a transition for narrative reasons (as was necessary in 8:59–9:1, where, however, the transition was by location rather than by time), a historical reminiscence seems the best explanation for it. Some parallels between Jesus and Hanukkah appear, but had John exercised total creative freedom he could have provided much more explicit ones. 1. Hanukkah (10:22, 36) In the Jewish year, Hanukkah, the «feast of dedication» 7449 (10:22), came soon after Sukkoth, the festival of tabernacles, indicating another journey to Jerusalem. That both feasts were seven days in length also linked them in popular thought. 7450 In view of their temporal proximity and the brevity of this section, it is not surprising that motifs would carry over from the previous section, 7451 as if this section somehow stands in the shadow of the previous one. That this feast commemorated national liberation but did not appear in the Bible 7452 would be telling for Johns Jewish-Christian audience; Jesus could also attend an extrabiblical festival as a sign of solidarity with his nation " s heritage. But it is also strikingly ironic that the promised Messiah, Israel " s deliverer, would face rejection at a festival commemorating a national deliverance (cf. 1:11). 7453 |
| Craig S. Keener The Response of the Unorthodox. 4:1–54 THE BULK OF THIS SECTION, which actually continues the general thought of 3:1–36, revolves around a sinful Samaritan woman and her response to Jesus. If the initial faith of the best representative from the Judean elite appears ambiguous (3:1–10), the faith of the socially worst representative from an unorthodox and ethnically mixed sect appears far more positive, even allowing her to bring her people as a whole to Jesus (4:39–42; cf. 1:46). She is one of those who believe, not one on whom God " s wrath remains (3:36); but those who exalt themselves will be brought low (3:30–31), and most, like Nicodemus initially, do not receive Jesus» witness (3:32). Yet Christ is available even to the elite. If we place John the Baptist in the special category of witness, 5206 the context surrounding his witness (3:22–36) in fact alternates between the socially powerful and the weak, providing positive and ambiguous or negative examples of each: Nicodemus (elite, open but uncomprehending), a Samaritan woman (receptive), an official of Antipas (receptive), and a lame man (unfaithful). Only Nicodemus, however, is part of the Judean religious elite, for the royal official could be viewed as unorthodox. This section also includes a much briefer healing miracle with no accompanying discourse (4:46–54). The royal official here represents part of a Galilean economic elite, but like many other Herodian aristocrats would have been religiously impure by Pharisaic standards. Through him the Gospel writer illustrates various levels of faith. True Worshipers in Samaria (4:1–42) This extended narrative contrasts starkly with the Nicodemus narrative. 5207 There a religious teacher in Israel proved unable to understand Jesus» message (3:10); here a sinful Samaritan woman not only received the message (though starting with no less daunting social obstacles–cf. πς in 3:4, 9 and 4:9; perhaps πθεν in 4:11), but brought it to her entire Samaritan town (4:28–29, 39–42). Here, as often, John employs ironic contrasts among characters to convey his emphases. 5208 (That the Samaritan woman, in contrast to Nicodemus, is unnamed is probably not as significant. As a woman, her name was less likely to be recorded in John " s tradition; 5209 further, most characters in the context are unnamed, and perhaps their names had not been preserved–2:1; 4:46; 5:5; 7:3; 9:1. |
| 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) |
| Азбука веры Православная библиотека Orthodox books Contemporary Non-Orthodox Biblical Studies The Gospel of John Пожертвовать Вход Craig S. Keener The Gospel of John Источник 6. Revelatory Motifs: Knowledge, Vision, Signs 1:1-18. The prologue 7. Christology and Other Theology OF ALL THE DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS of Johannine theology in the discourses, the most frequently noted is his Christology. 2413 As scholars regularly observe, Christology is central to this Gospe1. 2414 Prologues normally set the stage for major themes in the works that followed them, and John s prologue does not disappoint, framed by affirmations of Jesus» deity and relationship with the Father (1:1, 18). Most of the prologue addresses Jesus» identity (1:1–5,9,14,16–18) and the responses of various groups (the world, Israel, and the disciples, 1:10–13); it also offers a model for bold witness about Jesus» identity (1:6–8,15). The rest of the Gospel illustrates these responses to Jesus, especially to his signs (e.g., 1:49; 2:11, 23; 3:2; 4:19; 5:16–18; 6:30, 67–69; 7:30; 8:59; 9:16; 10:19–21; 11:45–46; 20:31), which function as the primary summons to recognize his identity (20:30–31; cf. 14:10–11). 2415 That Jesus was rejected by the world just as they were would be relevant for marginalized Johannine Christians, 2416 and the story of divine Wisdom " s rejection provided a fitting backdrop for the experience of Jesus known to the community. 2417 The Gospel " s radical Christology enabled the Johannine Christians «to undertake their radical commitment to God in the face of dire risk.» 2418 As in other biographies, including the other gospels, the Fourth Gospel focuses on one central figure; over half the verbs in John have Jesus as their subject or are uttered by him. 2419 Unlike most biographies, which express the freedom to critique their heroes» shortcomings (e.g., Arrian Alex. 4.7.4; 4.8.1–4.9.6) and mix some measure of praise and blame (e.g., Cornelius Nepos 11 [Iphicrates], 3.2), John will nowhere critique or imply any shortcomings in Jesus. A discussion of the genre and discourses of the Fourth Gospel, undertaken at the beginning of this introduction, invites particular exploration of John " s Christology vis-à-vis that of the earliest Jesus tradition. Granted that John has represented Jesus in Johannine idiom and for his distinctive purposes, does he accurately reflect and interpret some prior tradition here, or does he simply create new material? |
| 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.” |
| Critical Problems of Composition and Authorship Most modern readers of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible that constituted the Hebrew law, or Torah, are aware of something of the results of modern scholarship as to composition and authorship. For nearly two centuries it has generally though not universally been held that the Pentateuch was compiled in the postexilic period (that is, after the exile or Babylonian captivity, which lasted from about 597 to 539 B.C.), making use of earlier materials – histories, legends and law codes–and giving them a narrative structure beginning with the creation of the world or perhaps working them into an already existing narrative structure. The basis for this theory (for it is no more than that) is the existence of parallel passages in which the same event seems to be treated twice and the way in which God is referred to in different passages. So, in the chapters we are concerned with, there seem to be two accounts of creation, Genesis 1:1–2 :4a and one beginning with Genesis 2 :4b that starts with human creation and continues with an account of the fall. Also, in the account of the flood, there are discrepancies in the number of animals taken into the ark: one account seems to envisage pairs, while the other envisages two groups of animals, those ritually clean and those ritually unclean, the former being preserved in groups of seven, while the latter are preserved in pain (cf. Gen 6:18–22 with Gen 7:1–5 ). The difference in the way God is referred to appears in our chapters in that in Genesis l:l-2:4a, 5:1–32, 6:9–22, 7:6–10, 8:1–19 and 9:1–17 God is referred to as God (Hebrew elohim; Greek theos). Elsewhere God is reffered to by using the sacred Tetragrammaton, YHWH (translated into Greek as kyrios, “Lord,” a practice preserved in English translations until recently and written in capitals, Lord, as in the RSV text), the divine name, only pronounced by the priest in the temple liturgy (as a result we do not know how it is pronounced and can only guess). Following up these clues, scholars have distinguished several different sources for the Pentateuch, often referred to by initials: J (the Yahwist, or Jahwist, source, where God is called from the beginning by the divine name YHWH), E (the Elohist source that calls God elohim), D (the Deuteronomic source, connected with the reform just prior to the exile) and P (the Priestly source, much concerned with liturgical and legal matters). |
|
|
