| 2216 Gager, Anti-Semitism, 107–10; Arnold, Ephesians, 31–32; Goodenough, Symbols, 12:58–63; Hengel, Judaism, 1:241; Gaster, Studies, 1:356–60; even Moses came to be associated with magic (Apuleius Apologia in Stern, Authors, 2:201–5; Gager, Moses, 134–61). Jewish magic influenced Greco-Roman magic (cf. Deissmann, Studies, 277–300,321–36; Knox, Gentiles, 208–11; Koester, Introduction, 1:380–81). Among modern Yemenite Jews, cf. Hes, «Mon,» passim. 2217 Cf., e.g., Text 20.11–12 (Isbell, Bowls, 65); 69.6–7 (150); Pr. Jos. 9–12; T. Sol 18:15–16; b. Git. 68a; Num. Rab. 16:24; Isbell, «Story,» 13; Nock, Conversion, 62–63; MacMullen, Enemies, 103; Tiede, Figure, 170. The name of Israel " s God (in various permutations) outnumbers any other deity in the papyri «by more than three to one» (Smith, Magician, 69); cf. also, e.g., CIJ 1:485, §673; 1:490, §679; 1:517, §717; 1:523, §724; 2:62–65, §819; 2:90–91, §849; 2:92, §851; 2:217, §1168. 2218 On name invocation in general (some references including secret names), see Apuleius Metam. 2.28; Theissen, Stories, 64 (citing Lucian Menippus 9; Philops. 12; Plin. Nat. 28.4.6; PGM 4.1609–1611; 8.20–21); Twelftree, «ΕΚΒΑΛΛΩ,» 376. 2219 M. Sanh. 7:11; p. Hag. 2:2, §5; Roš Haš. 3:8, §1; Sanh. 7:13, §2; Urbach, Sages, 1:97–100, 572: Bietenhard, «νομα,» 270. Note also Wis 17:7; Ps.-Phoc. 149; 1 En. 65(Sim.); Asc. Isa. 2:5; 2 Βαr. 60:2; 66:2; T. Reu. 4:9; cf. Sib. Or. 1.96. The rabbis recognized that not all sorcery was genuine (m. Sanh. 7:11; Sipra Qed. pq. 6.203.2.2; b. Sanh. 67b), although Amoraim stressed the dangers more (e.g., b. Hor. 10a; Sanh. 67b; Šabb. 66b; p. Ketub. 1:1, §2; cf. the amulets and charms in Goodenough. Symbols, 2:153–295), but even when genuine, rabbis stressed its limits (e.g., Gen. Rab. 11:5; Pesiq. Rab. 23:8; 43:6). 2220 See Goldin, «Magic»; Neusner, Sat, 80–81; b. Sanh. 65b; 67b; cf. " Abot R. Nat. 25 A (on R. Eliezer ben Hyrcanus); Basser, «Interpretations.» Such syncretism was not intentional; apparently even Jacob employed pagan fertility rituals in Gen. 30:37–42 , though he trusted that God was the one working through them (31:8–9, 12; cf. 28:15). Cf. also some Jewish polemic in b. Git. 56b-57a which may be rooted in earlier magical tradition (Gero, «Polemic»). Many societies believe that magic can be used either for good or for evil (e.g., Mbiti, Religions, 258–59). |
| 4422 E.g., Phaedrus 4.26.17–19; nonattendance was offensive (cf. Xenophon Symp. 1.7; Callimachus Hymns 6, to Demeter; Cicero Fam. 16.9.3; other sources in Keener, Matthew, 519–20). 4424 E.g., b. Ketub. 17b; Ecc1. Rab. 1:3, §1; orators could offer speeches at weddings (Menander Rhetor 2.6, 399.11–405.13). It was praiseworthy to extend hospitality «to sages and their disciples» (Sipre Deut. 1.10.1), and second-century sages apparently felt that they should rank their disciples» seating at banquets (t. Sanh. 7:9); John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 21 (on 1:49–2:4) thinks Jesus was already becoming well known in Galilee, though he was invited on a par with other guests. Invitations were probably sent in writing by messengers if we may judge from the extant evidence; see Kim, «Invitation.» 4426 Cf. also Toussaint, «Significance,» 47; whereas many stressed moderation (Xenophon Symp. 2.24–26; Seneca Dia1. 9.17.9; Philostratus Vit. soph. 2.11.591), few except neo-Pythagoreans demanded total abstinence (Barth, Ephesians, 2:581; Iamblichus V.P. 3.13; 16.68; 21.97; 24.106–107; 31.188; 32.226, though cf. 21.98; cf. also Tatian frg. 10, in ANF 2:82–83). Rabbis understood fruit «juice» in Torah as wine unless it was more specifically designated (p. Ned. 7:1, §6). 4429 Ferguson, Backgrounds, 80; cf. Plutarch Bride 20, Mor. 140F; Philostratus Hrk. 1.6; Sipra Sh. par. 1.100.1.3; b. c Abod. Zar. 30a; Num. Rab. 10:8; Casson, Travel, 213; Cary and Haarhoff, Life, 95; Ruck, «Mystery,» 41; Safrai, «Home,» 742,748 (citing m. Nid. 2:2; b. Šabb. 77a); Neusner, Beginning, 23; see especially various mixtures in Athenaeus Deipn. 10.426CE, 430A. Wine was supposed to be sold unmixed (Martial Epigr. 1.56; 9.98; cf. Theophrastus Char. 30.5; but one said blessings over either mixed or unmixed, t. Ber. 4:3); water, of course, was normally cheaper (Martial Epigr. 3.56; Horace Sat. 1. 5.88–89). Different kinds of wines existed (e.g., b. c Abod. Zar. 30a; Paul, «Wine»), such as «white wine» (Longus 1.16); for commerce in wine, cf., e.g., Tchernia, «Wine» (on Roman wine in Gaul). |
| 4978 This is not a perspective limited to the redaction-critical era; Strachan, Gospel, 95, helc the view in 1917. Suggit, «Nicodemus,» 97, suggests that John addresses his audience directly here-dispensing with Nicodemus, who has fulfilled his function in the narrative; Schnackenburg. «Redestücke,» ends the conversation in 3:12; Michaels, John, 40, ends it at 3:13. 4979 So Heraclitus Ep. 8, commenting on the Ephesians. In general, true testimony rendered one accountable for having heard it (Holwerda, Spirit, 50). 4983 This title would carry great honor; cf. comments about R. Abbahu in Urbach, Sages, 1:610. For the irony, see more fully Duke, Irony, 45–46. 4986 Cf. the similar statement used for ridicule in Pesiq. Rab. 21:2/3, although there R. Joshua defeats his interlocutor in the conclusion. 4987 Nicholson, Death, 89. Brown, John, 1:132, cites b. Sanh. 39a: «You do not know that which is on earth; should you know what is in heaven?» If not influenced by Christian language, Heliodorus Aeth. 10.12 may testify to the more widespread structure of such comparisons (though you marvel at lesser truths, I am about to reveal greater). 4988 Jewish parables in general often attested divine or heavenly realities through banal or earthly analogies (Johnston, Parables, 600); at the same time, a philosopher might refuse to answer questions about divine matters, which were not as lightly discussed as earthly matters (Eunapius Lives 371–372). Theophilus 1.13 reproves those who accept myths but deny God " s revelation. 4990 Cf. Strachan, Gospel, 96 (wind and physical birth). Perhaps also the signs-faith based «on earthly realities» (Collins, Written, 66). 4991 T. Job 38(OTP 1:858), 38(Kraft, 68); cf. 36(OTP 1:857). The date of Testament of Job is debated; hence one cannot absolutely rule out the influence of Johannine logic on it; cf. also with regard to the third-century Philostratus Hrk. 33.6–7 (and 1.2 as interpreted by Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, lxxxi-lxxxii). 4994 Wis 9:15–16. For various parallels between John and Wisdom of Solomon, see Reim, Studien, 193–95. For liberation from «heavy» earthly elements, allowing the soul to rise, see, e.g., Musonius Rufus 18A, p. 112.20, 27–28; Maximus of Tyre Or. 1.5. |
| 8076 Dunn, Baptism, 188. One may contrast interpretations in which the foot washing prefigures Christian baptism (Robinson, Studies, 166; cf. Sylvia Mary, Mysticism, 126–27; Moloney, «Reading»). 8078 Thomas, Footwashing, 126–85, argues that the Johannine community probably employed it as a religious rite. Early Christians retained it as part of baptism, and it persists among some German Pietists and some Anabaptists and Pentecostals today (Martin, «Footsteps,» 43), as well as in Catholic Holy Thursday rites (I owe this observation to Joseph Carey). 8079 Thomas, Footwashing, 42–44 (citing Homer II. 16.235; Od. 22.454–480; Strabo Geog. 7.328; Fabius Pictor De jure sacerdotis 16; Pliny Nat. 24.102). 8083 Carcopino, Life, 39–10. The saying in Lucian Demonax 4 also may correlate unwashed feet with ignorance (hence perhaps with lower-class status). 8084 The tradition that Jerusalem " s streets were swept daily (b. Pesah. 7a) may nostalgically exalt old Jerusalem (cf. tamer epideictic representations of cities such as Isocrates Panathenaicus; Panegyricus; Aelius Aristides Oration to Rome); Jerusalem is idealized as early as Utopian imagery in Let. Aris. 116 and, eschatologically, Tob 13:9–18; 5Q15 (see Licht, «Town Plan»). 8087 Aulus Gellius 1.9.8. On Greco-Roman foot washing for hygiene, see Thomas, Footwashing, 44–46; on Jewish foot washing for comfort, see 31–35. 8095 Gen. Rab. 60:8. A donkey owner had to wash a donkey " s feet (Epictetus Diatr. 1.19.5). Cf. Hierocles, p. 58.27–30=Stobaeus Eel 4.25.53 (Van der Horst, «Hierocles,» 157). 8096 Barrett, John, 440, cites Mek. Nez. 1 on Exod 21to argue that Jewish, unlike Gentile, slaves were exempted from such labor (also Beasley-Murray, John, 233); but cf. also comment on 1:27. 8099 See Thomas, Footwashing, 40–41. This may have been limited by some to Gentile slaves only (see note 48). 8103 It was less common in Greco-Roman thought, though not absent even there (see Lincoln, Ephesians, 235, citing Josephus War 4.494; Epictetus Diatr. 1.9.10; 3.24.56; see esp. Good, King). |
| About Pages Проекты «Правмира» Raising Orthodox Children to Orthodox Adulthood The Daily Website on How to be an Orthodox Christian Today Twitter Telegram Parler RSS Donate Navigation Is Speaking in Tongues The evidence of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? Source: PREACHERS INSTITUTE Fr. John A. Peck 04 March 2018 It has become increasingly common for Christians to suppose that the full gospel includes the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues. Thus the question: Is speaking in tongues the evidence of being baptized by the Holy Spirit? First, as the apostle Paul makes plain, believers are “all baptized by one Spirit into one body” (1 Corinthians 12:13), yet not all who believe speak in tongues (vv. 10, 30). Thus tongues may be a manifestation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but tongues cannot be the manifestation. Furthermore, even if one does speak in tongues it is not a guarantee that they have been baptized in the Holy Spirit. For as Paul puts it, “If I speak in the tongues of men and angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Corinthians 13:1). Indeed, says Paul, without love, “I am nothing!” (v. 2). Moreover, socio–psychological manipulation tactics such as peer pressure or the subtle power of suggestion can induce ecstatic utterances wholly apart from the Spirit. The normative sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not speaking in tongues but the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord, repentance from sin, and obedience to God. Finally, as Scripture makes clear, the normative sign of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is not speaking in tongues but the confession of Jesus Christ as Lord, repentance from sin, and obedience to God (Romans 8:1–17; 1 John 4:12–16; cf. Ephesians 1:13–15). “Those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace” (Romans 8:6). As such, the fruit of the Spirit is not merely speaking in tongues, but |
| All of his Christian ethics are based upon the dogmatic teaching about the Church. Thus, in the last chapters of his epistle to the Romans, the Apostle speaks in detail about Christian morals. This discourse begins with the ninth verse of the twelfth chapter, and in the five preceding verses (4–8), the Apostle briefly sets forth the teaching of the Church as a body. In the first Epistle to the Corinthians, after the teaching about the Church in the twelfth chapter, the «New Testament song of love» directly follows (12:31–13:13). Something similar to this can also be noted in the epistles to the Ephesians and the Colossians. What follows from all that has been said? The teaching of Christ is a teaching not only about the re-creation of a separate moral person, but also about the re-creation of a perfect society, i.e., about the Church. God " s Spirit, living in the Church, gives strength for the realization of Christian teaching in life. Since this teaching is a teaching about love, then its realization again creates a community because love is a foundation which binds and does not divide. Outside the Church and without the Church, Christian life is impossible . Without the Church, the Christian teaching alone remains as an empty sound, for Christian life is Church life. Only in the life of the Church can a person live and develop . In a bodily organism, separate members never grow or develop independently of one another, but always and only in connection with the whole organism. The same applies to the Church. For the growth of the Church is at the same time the growth of its members. In the New Testament writings, the purpose of the existence of the Church is revealed as the moral perfection of human nature. According to Saint Paul, spiritual gifts and all services in general exist in the Church for the fulfillment of the saints, i.e., for the moral re-birth of Christians until we are all come to oneness in our faith and in our comprehension of the knowledge of the Son of God, becoming the perfect man, mature with the fullness of Christ (cf. |
| “Since we have been vouchsafed a larger and more perfect teaching, God having no longer spoken by the prophets, but ‘having in these last days spoken to us by His Son,’ let us show forth a conversation far higher than theirs, and suitable to the honor bestowed on us. Strange would it be that He should have so far lowered Himself, as to choose to speak to us no longer by His servants, but by His own mouth, and yet we should show forth nothing more than those of old. They had Moses for their teacher, we, Moses’ Lord. Let us then exhibit a heavenly wisdom worthy of this honor, and let us have nothing to do with the earth.” Let us have nothing to do with the earth. We will see now how Christians expressed their new life in the elevation of marriage, and the embrace of holy virginity. 2 Corinthians 5:17. McVey (1989), p. 425. These powerful words from Isaiah (LXX) 8:10b, 9a, and again 10b, are chanted as a troparion during the Service of Great Compline. Cf. Essey (1989) The Liturgikon, Engelwood, NJ: Antakya Press, pp. 76-77. Leviticus 26:25. St. Matthew 6:33. St. Matthew 10:28. 2 St. Timothy 3:12. Philippians 1:29. St. Mark 8:34-35. Ephesians 1:3. Philippians 3:20. St. Luke 11:13. 2 Corinthians 4:18. St. John 17:3. St. James 1:25. St. Matthew 5:17-20. St. John Chrysostom, Homily 16 on the Gospel of St. Matthew , Vol. 10, pp. 103-115. This entire homily is devoted to explaining just how Christ did not abolish the Law, but fulfilled it. At the same time Chrysostom would agree with Tertullian who wrote, “The New Testament is compendiously short, and freed from the minute and perplexing burdens of the Law.” Against Marcion, ANF, Vol. 3, p. 349. St. John Chrysostom, Homily 19 on the Statues, NPNF, Vol. 9, p. 469. As an example of this St. John writes, “If under the law it is necessary for a thief to give four-fold, how much more under grace?” Homily 52 on the Gospel of St. Matthew , NPNF, Vol. 10, p. 326. And another example, “If, where the getting of wealth was allowed, and the enjoyment of it, and the care of it, there was such provision made for the [ sic ] succoring the poor, how much more in that Dispensation, where we are commanded to surrender all we have?” St. John Chrysostom, Homily 4 on Ephesians, NPNF, p. 69. |
| 3351 Sipre Deut. 330.1.1 (trans. Neusner, 2:376); cf. later texts in Gen. Rab. 3:2; 28:2; Deut. Rab. 5:13; p. Ber. 6:1, §6; Deut 33in Targum Onqelos (Memra; cited in Moore, «Intermediaries,» 46); cf. also 1 Clem. 27. Targum Neofiti on the creation narrative emphasizes the creativity of the word of the Lord even more; see Schwarz, «Gen.» 3352 E.g., Mek. Sir. 3.44–45,49–51; 8.88; 10.29–31; Mek. c Am. 3.154–155; Mek. Bah. 11.111–112; Mek. Nez. 18.67–68; t. B. Qam. 7:10; Sipre Num. 78.4.1; 102.4.1; 103.1.1; SipreDeut. 33.1.1; 38.1.3–4; 49.2.2; 343.8.1; " Abot R. Nat. 1, 27, 37 A. In later texts, cf. the translation «by whose word all things exist» in b. Ber. 12a, 36ab, 38b; 40b, bar.; 44b; Sanh. 19a (pre-Tannaitic attribution); p. Pesah 2:5; Gen. Rab. 4:4,6; 32:3; 55(all Tannaitic attributions); Lev. Rab. 3:7; Num. Rab. 15:11; Deut. Rab. 7:6; Ruth Rab. 5:4; Pesiq. Rab. 21:7; Tg. Neof. on Exod 3:14; cf. Urbach, Sages 1:184–213; Marmorstein, Names, 89 (comparing also a Sumerian psalm). 3357 M. «Abot 5:1; »Abot R. Nat. 31 A; 36, §91 B; 43, §119 B; Gen. Rab. 16:1; Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 399, §1092, also cite Pesiq. Rab. 108ab; cf. «The Samaritan Ten Words of Creation» in Bowman, Documents, 1–3. 3359 M. «Abot 3:l4; Sipre Deut. 48.7.1; »Abot R. Nat. 44, §124 B; Exod. Rab. 47:4; Pirqe R. E1. 11 (in Versteeg, Adam, 48); Tanhuma Beresit §l, f.6b (in Montefiore and Loewe, Anthology, 170–71, §454; Harvey, «Torah,» 1236); cf. Urbach, Sages, 1:196–201,287. Some later rabbis went so far as to attribute the world " s creation even to specific letters (e.g., p. Hag. 2:1, §16). 3360 Philo Planting 8–10; Heir 206. God is the bonder of creation in 2 En. 48:6; Marcus Aurelius 10.1; cf. Wis 11:25. For the connection between creating and sustaining, cf. John 5:17 . Lightfoot, Colossians, 156, helpfully cites Philo Flight 112 (word); PlantingS (divine law); Heir 188 (word). 3361 Col 1(sustain; hold together) and commentaries (e.g., Lightfoot, Colossians, 156; Kennedy, Theology, 155; Lohse, Colossians, 52; Johnston, Ephesians, 59; Hanson, Unity, 112; Beasley-Murray, «Colossians,» 174); cf. Cicero Nat. d. 2.11.29 (a Stoic on reason); Wis 7(Wisdom " s movement does not contrast with Platós unchanging forms; Plato and others envisioned rapid motion in the pure heavens–see Winston, Wisdom, 182). Cf. 1 Clem. 27A; Sir 43.26 ; cf. Wolfson, Philo, 1:325. |
| 10982 A probably later tradition, purportedly stemming from the late first century, claims that though all the seas were ink and the earth scrolls, R. Eliezer and R. Joshua, teachers of R. Akiba, believed it would not be enough to record all the Torah that they had learned, and they had understood at most a drop of what there was to understand about Torah. 10983 The number of books actually available in John " s day would have been limited in any case, but estimates remained hyberbolic. One widespread Jewish story offers an estimate on the number of books then in circulation; Demetrius of Phalerum reportedly sought to collect for Ptolemy all the books in the world (Let. Aris. 9), which came to over 200,000, reaching for 500,000 (Let. Aris. 10). The point is that the author provided only a small selection of Jesus» works; 10984 Jesus is further praised by what the author must leave unsaid (cf. Heb 11:32). What John does include, however, is sufficient to summon his audience to deeper faith and was selected for that purpose (20:30–31). 10963 Cf, e.g., Hunter, John, 197; Minear, «Audience,» 348; Blomberg, Reliability, 37–39. «Siblings» here refers to believers, at least (though not necessarily exclusively) in the Johannine circle of believers (cf. Brown, John, 2:1110). 10966 Carson, John, 684, though allowing that it may refer to the elders of the Ephesian church; Köstenberger, John, 195. Cf. 3:11; the apostolic circle in 1:14; 1 John 1:2,4 (though church tradition makes John its final survivor). 10968 As frequently noted, e.g., Bultmann, John, 718. Theodore of Mopsuestia thought that 21was a later editorial addition, but there is no textual evidence for this view (Sinaiticus " s first hand omits and then corrects the verse; Birdsall, «Source»). 10969 This is the only verse in John that Robinson, Trust, 83, thinks must be an addition. Morris, John, 879; but his secondary appeal to the transition from plural to singular in 1 Thess 2may recall Silvanus and Timothy (1 Thess 1:1). 10970 Cullmann, Circle, 2. This might be the «elders of the Ephesian church» (Hunter, John, 198), though we think Smyrna somewhat more likely. 10971 The final verses establish the beloved disciplés authority, but not necessarily against Peter (Kysar, John, 321). Smith, John (1999), 400, thinks 21attests that probably «the Beloved Disciplés witness authorized the Gospel,» though he doubts that he actually wrote it down. 10972 E.g., P.Eleph. 1.16–18; 2.17–18; P.Lond. 1727.68–72; P.Tebt. 104.34–35; P.Co1. 270.1.25–28; BGU 1273.36–40; P.Cair.Zen. 59001.48–52; the Aramaic git from Wadi Murabbáat ca. 72 C.E. (Carmon, Inscriptions, 90–91, 200–201); Cicero Quinct. 6.25; cf. further comments in Epictetus (LCL 1:136–37 η. 1). Prof. Dale Martin, then of Duke University, first pointed out this correspondence with legal documents to me (January 23, 1990). |
| 4337 Higgins, Historicity, 74–75, thinks the double αμν form is not historically improbable given the single usage in the Synoptics. Given John " s free restatements of Jesus» language in his own idiom and the uniqueness of the double form to his Gospel, however, it probably represents his own emphatic adaptation of the Synoptic phrase. 4338 For the specific inflected form ψεσθε, which as a plural envisions the other disciples in addition to Nathanael, cf. 1:39; 16:16–19. 4339 Cf. the comments of Sandmel, Judaism, 475 n. 10; Nicholson, Death, 30; Smith, John (1999), 77. 4340 Also Apoc. Mos. 35:2; 2 Bar. 22:1; T. Ah. 7:3A; T. Levi 2:6; see also Lentzen-Deis, «Motiv,» citing especially 2Macc 3:24ff.; 3Macc 6:18. For heaven parting for revelatory messengers, see, e.g., Virgil Aen. 9.20–21; for heavenly vision, see, e.g., Maximus of Tyre Or. 11.11–12; discussion of John " s «vision» motif, pp. 247–51 in the introduction. 4341 The particular ascent and descent of angels (e.g., Rev 7:2; 10:1; 18:1; 20:1; cf. 12:12; Jacob sees an angel descend in 4Q537 frg. 1, beginning), like that of other entities (e.g., Rev 3:12; 21:2,10), made sense within the worldview of apocalyptic literature because of its vertical dualism, which this Gospel shares. 4342 Cf. also Morgen, «Promesse»; cf. Luther, 16th Sermon on John, on John 1 . Unlike the Greek, the Hebrew term for «ladder» is masculine (Smith, John 78); but it is unlikely that John would require complete gender agreement for the analogy in any case. Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 63–64, think John evokes in 1the «heavenly» connotations of «Son of Man» from Daniel and Enoch " s Similitudes. Others might also understand the necessity of a mediator between gods and people (e.g., Janus in Ovid Fasti 1.171–174). 4343 For John " s possible association of Jesus with holy-place imagery, see Barrett, «Old Testament,» 160; cf. Fritsch, «Angelos»; Davies, Land, 299–300. The rabbinic connection between heaven and earth in Gen 28may be relevant (see the summary of this position in Lincoln, Ephesians, 157). Still, some earlier sources, such as Jubilees» suggestion that Jacob sought a sanctuary at Bethel that could be interpreted as an alternative to Jerusalem (cf. Schwartz, «Jubilees»), naturally did not commend themselves to rabbinic development. |
|
|
