| The title «Spirit of truth» is undoubtedly particularly relevant to the Farewell Discourses because of the earlier identification of Jesus as the truth (14:6). 8720 This again binds the Spirit to Jesus. 4. Coming and Staying (John 14:15–20) If the disciples keep Jesus» commandments (14:15), especially loving one another to the death (13:34–35), he will send them another Advocate to minister for them in his stead (14:16–17). Thus, when Jesus comes to them after the resurrection to give them resurrection life (14:18–19), he will in some sense remain with them–indeed, in them (14:20). Although John presupposes that his audience knows of Jesus» ascension (20:17), like Matthew he does not narrate it because, as in Matthew, Jesus in some sense remains among his people (Matt 28:20). Those who love Jesus keep his commandments (14:15, 21; cf. 21:15); those who keep his commandments will abide more securely in his love (14:21; 15:10). What Jesus describes here is not a formula–it is far too circular for that–but the pattern for a developing relationship. For discussion of the significance of the commandments of 14:15, see comment on 14:21–25. 4A. The Paraclete Brings Jesus» Presence (14:16–17) For discussion of the «Paraclete,» the «Spirit of truth,» and possible legal implications of the image, see the lengthy introductory sections above, pp. 953–71. Of primary significance in these verses is the relation of the Spirit to Jesus; he is «another Paraclete,» Jesus» «successor» (see discussion above). Further, like Jesus, the Spirit may be related in some manner to the image of divine Wisdom in early Jewish sources (see discussion above); if this connection is likely, then just as Jesus» opponents attacked the very divine Word they claimed to uphold, so do the opponents of John " s audience attack what they purport to defend. Later, after Jesus returned and the disciples were empowered, disciples would be able to ask what they wished in Jesus» name (16:26), but until that time they remained dependent on Jesus, who would secure the other Paraclete for them (14:16). Clearly, the Father must authorize the Spirit " s sending (cf. Acts 5:32; 1Pet 1:12 ), but Jesus also plays a direct role in it (15:26; 16:7; cf. 3:34; Luke 24:49). Further, as the Father dwelled in the Son (14:10), so would the Spirit dwell in the disciples (14:17). The remaining of the Spirit with them «forever» (14:16) reflects language familiar in the Johannine circle (cf. 2 John 2 ; perhaps John 8:35 ); just as the Spirit «remained» on Jesus (1:32), the Spirit would remain with the disciples (cf. 1 John 2:27 ). The disciples, ready to lament Jesus» departure, would in fact obtain his continuing presence by the Spirit once he was glorified! |
| The usual counter-argument of the Orthodox side was that in Biblical or patristic theology procession «from» or «through» the Son designates the charismata of the Spirit, and not His hypostatic existence. 137 For indeed pneuma can designate the giver and the gift; and, in the latter case, a procession of the «Spirit» from or through the Soni.e., through the Incarnate, historical Christhappens in time, and thus does not coincide with the eternal procession of the Spirit from the hypostasis of the Father, the only «source of divinity.» This counter-argument was recognized as insufficient, however, by the major Orthodox Byzantine theologians of the thirteenth and the fourteenth centuries. Gregory of Cyprus, a successor of Beccos» on the patriarchal throne (1283–1289) and chairman of the council (1285) which officially rejected the Union of Lyons, had this assembly approve a text which, while condemning the Filioque, recognized an «eternal manifestation» of the Spirit through the Son. 138 What served as a background to the council« " s position is the notion that the charismata of the Spirit are not temporal, created realities, but the eternal, uncreated grace or «energy» of God. To this uncreated divine life, man has access in the body of the Incarnate Logos. Therefore, the grace of the Spirit does indeed come to us «through» or «from» the Son; but what is being given to us is neither the very hypostasis of the Spirit nor a created, temporal grace, but the external «manifestation» of God, distinct from both His persons and His essence. The argument was also taken over and developed by Gregory Palamas, the great Byzantine theologian of the fourteenth century, who, like Gregory of Cyprus, formally recognizes that as energy, «the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, and comes from Him, being breathed and sent and manifested by Him, but in His very being and His existence, He is the Spirit of Christ, but is not from Christ, but from the Father.» " 139 As time went on, it became increasingly clear that the Filioque dispute was not a discussion on wordsfor there was a sense in which both sides would agree to say that the Spirit proceeds «from the Son " but on the issue of whether the hypostatic existence of the Persons of the Trinity could be reduced to their internal relations, as the post-Augustinian West would admit, or whether the primary Christian experience was that of a Trinity of Persons, whose personal existence was irreducible to their common essence. |
| The liturgical offices of Pentecost, though centered mainly on the role of the Spirit in redemption and salvation, also glorify the Spirit as «the One who rules all things, who is Lord of all, and who preserves creation from falling apart.» 310 Popular Byzantine customs associated with Pentecost suggest that the outpouring of the Spirit is indeed an anticipation of cosmic transfiguration; the traditional decoration of churches with greens and flowers on that day reflects the experience of new creation. The same idea dominates the «Great Blessing of Water,» celebrated with great solemnity on the Feast of the Epiphany (January 6). Water, the primeval cosmic element, is sanctified «by the power, effectual operation [«energy» " ], and descent of the Holy Spirit» (Great Litany of the Day). Since, after the Fall, the cosmic elements are controlled by the «prince of this world,» the action of the Spirit must have a purifying function: «Thou didst hallow the streams of Jordan,» says the priest, «in that Thou didst send down from heaven Thy Holy Spirit, and didst crush the heads of serpents which lurked there.» The full significance of this rite of exorcism becomes evident when one recalls that, in Biblical categories, water is a source of life for the entire cosmos, over which man is called to rule. Only through the Fall did nature become subject to Satan. But the Spirit liberates man from dependence upon nature. Instead of being a source of demonic power, nature receives «the grace of redemption, the blessing of Jordan,» and becomes a «fountain of immortality, a gift of sanctification, a remission of sins, a healing of infirmities, a destruction of demons.» 311 Instead of dominating man, nature becomes his servant, since he is the image of God. The original paradisaic relationship between God, man, and the cosmos is proclaimed again: the descent of the Spirit anticipates the ultimate fulfillment when God will be «all in all.» This anticipation, however, is not a magical operation occurring in the material universe. The universe does not change in its empirical existence. The change is seen only by the eyes of faithi.e., because man has received in his heart the Spirit which cries: «Abba, Father» (Ga 4:6), he is able to experience, in the mystery of faith, the paradisaic reality of nature serving him and to recognize that this experience is not a subjective fancy, but one which reveals the ultimate truth about nature and creation as a whole. By the power of the Spirit, the true and natural relationship is restored between God, man, and creation. 2. The Spirit and Man " " s Redemption |
| 10637 Morris, John, 841. 10638 See, e.g., Josephus Ant. 4.219; m. Yebam. 15:1,8–10; 16:7; Ketub. 1:6–9; t. Yebam. 14:10; Sipra VDDeho. pq. 7.45.1.1; cf. Hesiod Op. 375; Livy 6.34.6–7; Babrius 16.10; Phaedrus 4.15; Avianus Fables 15–16; Justinian Inst. 2.10.6. 10639 See Keener, «Pneumatology,» 58–114; and Keener, Spirit, 8–26. 10640 For one useful summary, see Bürge, Community, 119–23. 10641 E.g., Holwerda, Spirit, 133 (who sees this as a distinctly apostolic gift, voiding the narrative of its prescriptive function); Carson, John, 648–55; Rossum, «Pentecost.» Acts separates the resurrection, exaltation, and outpouring of the Spirit temporally but not theologically (Acts 2:33; cf. Robinson, Studies, 166). 10642 Turner, Spirit, 90–92, arguing that the verb cannot mean «exhale» and that Carson " s view of the symbolic promise revives the view of Theodore of Mopsuestia, condemned at the Council of Constantinople (553 C.E.). 10643 With Turner, «Spirit»; see also others, including Keener, Questions, 17–78; idem, Giver, 137–69. 10644 See Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 86; Origen Gels. 7.51; Menoud, «Pentecôte»; Horton, Spirit, 127–33; cf. Ladd, Theology, 297. On the symbolic view, see Bürge, Community, 117–18, who notes, however, that it does not work on the level of Johannine theology. Barrett, Acts, 74, doubts Origen " s view on quantity because «the Spirit is personal,» but this may read later Trinitarian theology (or even too much of John " s Paraclete) into passages that are more functional than ontological in description. 10645 Turner, «Spirit,» 28–34, esp. 34. 10646 See Bartlett, «Coming,» 73; Beare, «Spirit,» 96. 10647 Cf., e.g., Beare, «Spirit,» 96; Lightfoot, Gospel, 335. 10648 Hatina, «Context,» also employs Tg. Onq. and Tg. Neof. on Gen 2to argue for genuine rather than merely symbolic eschatological fulfillment here. 10649 Because I doubt that the ascension-glorification is actually complete in 20(cf. comment on 20:17; this is a primary objection of Turner, Spirit, 94), the text allows a subsequent impartation–but I do not believe that the text by itself requires it; Jesus has already «gone away» and returned (14:18–20; 16:7, 16–22). |
| St. Basil, and add to the older Nicene Creed simply these extension terms to elaborate the Orthodox core of belief in the Holy Spirit: “And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and Son is together worshipped and glorified, who spoke through the prophets.” The operations of sanctification and inspiration are especially seen as charisms of the Spirit of God, who is also confessed as “Lord of Life,” especially that divine life (zoe more than bios) which he communicates to the faithful to conform them into the mystery of Christ. Orthodox theology is far more than a semantic history, however, and it is especially in the church’s doxological and ascet- ical traditions that we find extensive evidence of how the church has celebrated and experienced the Holy Spirit of God: as comforter, sanctifier, illuminator, and initiator. The roles of the Spirit in the process of the progressive cleansing and deification of the Christian are especially prevalent in the Orthodox baptismal liturgy and prayers. In the celebration of the Holy Eucharist (and equally in the ordination prayers and prayers of blessing), the most sacred moment of the consecration is attributed to the descent and operation of the Holy Spirit (Epiclesis). The lyrical prayer to the Holy Spirit in the words of the Byzantine mystic Niketas Stethatos (Kephalaia Gnostica 46) sums up well the church’s passionate desire for the Spirit: The Spirit is light, life, and peace. If you are illumined by that Spirit your life will be established in peaceful serenity; a spring will gush out from within you, being the wisdom of the Logos, and the mystical knowledge of existent being. On that day you will come to have the mind of Christ, and know the mysteries of the Kingdom of God, and you will enter the depths of the deity. SEE ALSO: Baptism; Cappadocian Fathers; Council of Constantinople I (381); Epiclesis; Holy Trinity; Logos Theology REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS |
| Следуя александрийской экзегетической традиции (прежде всего Оригену ), с к-рой он познакомился благодаря свт. Иларию Пиктавийскому, З. применял метод духовного (аллегорического) толкования к большинству ветхозаветных текстов и настаивал на единстве двух Заветов как ключе к их правильному пониманию (см.: Serm. I 37). Не придавая решающего значения богословствованию (tractatus, doctrina), З. подчеркивал его определенную пользу при условии, что оно основывается на правильно понятом Свящ. Писании. Поэтому З. относился с нек-рым недоверием и опасением к тем, кто, подобно еретикам, ищут в Свящ. Писании не воли Божией, а удовлетворения своего праздного любопытства относительно тайн веры (Serm. II 3. 2, 4). Вслед за Тертуллианом и сщмч. Ипполитом Римским З. указывал на новоявленность всякой ереси по сравнению с древностью (antiqua) истинной веры (Serm. II 3. 8) и усматривал происхождение ересей из различных философских систем, к-рым они подчиняют Свящ. Писание (Serm. II 3. 13). Кроме того, развивая учение о 3 главных добродетелях, З. отмечал, что ереси и расколы возникают тогда, когда «надменная вера» и «гордая надежда» отрываются от любви как своего незыблемого основания (Serm. I 36. 19). Триадология Согласно З., истинная вера, побуждаемая благодатью Божией, выражается в любви к Богу и служении Ему «в тайне единственной веры в единую Троицу» (in sacramento semel creditae unitae Trinitatis - Serm. II 3. 2). В этом выражении содержится указание на понимание З. тайны Св. Троицы как одновременно Божественного единства и различия, в противоположность предельной рационализации, к-рой подвергалась эта тайна в арианской доктрине. В соответствии с этим тринитарное учение З., сложившееся гл. обр. под влиянием зап. богословов Тертуллиана, свт. Илария Пиктавийского и свт. Амвросия Медиоланского (см.: Sgreva. 1989. P. 410-411), строится прежде всего на библейском и литургическом основании. В доказательствах единства Божества и различия Лиц Св. Троицы З. пользовался библейскими аналогиями, такими как 3 отрока в вавилонской печи (Дан 3. |
| The confusion behind this issue was huge and not easy to dissipate, because, by saying the Holy Spirit came into being only from the Ousia of the Father, someone could imply the abrogation of the homousion, since the Son, too, partakes in the divine Ousia. Alternatively, to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds solely from the hypostasis of the Father as opposed to the common Ousia, provided that the divine hypostases are distinct, could imply, however, the impermissible rationale of tritheism, because, for the early theologians hypostasis could not exist apart from the Ousia and vice versa. The Patriarch Gregory the Cyprius conceptualized the way the Holy Spirit is to be associated with the Father and the Son by using two terms: to have the existence ( παρξιν χει) and to exist ( πρχει) (Alexopoulos 192-193). The first term conveys the idea that ‘the Holy Spirit has his existence solely from the Father (the item of origin), while the second term advances the idea that the Holy Spirit, too, exists from the Son, as the latter makes the Spirit to emanate, appear and to come into the world; the Holy Spirit rests in the Son and is permanently founded in him by virtue of their common essence and co-inherence’ ( De processione Spir. Sancti, PG 142, 275C). Yet, was this emanation of the Holy Spirit his own hypostasis or the grace of God? For the followers of Photius, i.e., Gregory the Cyprius and Gregory Palamas it was the common grace of God that was bestowed on human beings and not the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit as Konstantinis Melitiniotis, the Patriarch John Bekkos, George Metochitis, and others claimed (Alexopoulos 182-185). The argumentation provided by the opponents of the filioque was developed on the ground of differentiation between the divine essence and divine actions. 4.1 The statement of the problem The differentiation between divine essence and divine actions implied a contentious axiom, namely the idea that in communicating with God there should be a difference between the imparticipable ( μεθεκτν) and participable existence ( μεθεκτν) (Savvatos, θεολογικ, 80). |
| For there is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. 1 John 4:18 And in truth if the beginning of wisdom consists in fear, what will its perfection be except in the love of Christ which, as it contains in it the fear which belongs to perfect love, is called not the beginning but the treasure of wisdom and knowledge? And therefore there is a twofold stage of fear. The one for beginners, i.e., for those who are still subject to the yoke and to servile terror; of which we read: And the servant shall fear his Lord; and in the gospel: I no longer call you servants, for the servant knows not what his Lord does; and therefore the servant, He tells us, abides not in the house for ever, but the Son abides forever. For He is instructing us to pass on from that penal fear to the fullest freedom of love, and the confidence of the friends and sons of God. Finally the blessed Apostle, who had by the power of the Lord " s love already passed through the servile stage of fear, scorns lower things and declares that he has been enriched with good things by the Lord, for God has not given us he says a spirit of fear but of power and of love and of a sound mind. 2 Timothy 1:7 Those also who are inflamed with a perfect love of their heavenly Father, and whom the Divine adoption has already made sons instead of servants, he addresses in these words: For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Romans 8:15 It is of this fear too, that the prophet spoke when he would describe that sevenfold spirit, which according to the mystery of the Incarnation, full surely descended on the God man: And there shall rest upon Him the Spirit of the Lord: the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of might, the Spirit of knowledgeand of true godliness, and in the last place he adds as something special these words: And the Spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill Him. Isaiah 11:2–3 Where we must in the first place notice carefully that he does not say and there shall rest upon Him the Spirit of fear, as he said in the earlier cases, but he says there shall fill Him the Spirit of the fear of the Lord. For such is the greatness of its richness that when once it has seized on a man by its power, it takes possession not of a portion but of his whole mind. |
| The section heavily emphasizes love for Jesus and the association of love for him with keeping his commandments. Keeping the commandments (in the context, especially love–13:34–35) seems a prerequisite for acquiring or continuing in the activity of the Spirit. God " s blessings also were often conditional on keeping his commandments, as in 14:15 8551 (e.g., Exod 15:26). Early Judaism generally believed in the renewal rather than the abrogation of Torah in the end time. 8552 Faith and love, the central requirements of the covenant in Deuteronomy, also appear as the basic requirements here; 8553 in biblical covenant tradition, those who love God will keep his commandments (Exod 20:6; Deut 5:10; 7:9; 11:1,13; 30:16 ). 8554 Thus, for John as for the law, love is not mere sentiment but defined by specific content through God " s commandments. 8555 Does this imply that for John the Spirit can be earned? Evidence suggests that many Jewish people thought in terms of meriting the Spirit, 8556 prophecy, 8557 or (sometimes interchangeably in the accounts) the divine presence; 8558 Christian tradition could certainly speak of God giving the Spirit only to the people who obey him (Acts 5:32). 8559 Yet by contrast, early Christian tradition, which viewed the Spirit as more widely available than did most contemporaries, often viewed it simply as an eschatological gift ( Rom 5:5 ; Gal 3:2 ; cf. Ezek 36:24–27 ). Clearly for John the Spirit is not simply merited; apart from Jesus» presence, the disciples can do nothing (15:5), and the Spirit is received through faith (7:39). At the same time, the Spirit comes only to the disciples, to those committed to Jesus (14:17); those who obey (14:15) receive greater power for obedience (14:16–17), moving in a cycle of ever deeper spiritual maturation. For John, an initial «experience» without continuing perseverance is not ultimately salvific (15:6; 8:30–31); the Spirit comes to believers and forms them into stronger believers (on the inadequacy of initial signs-faith, see introduction) who in turn become more obedient to the life of the Spirit. God " s answers to Israel were conditional on obedience (e.g., Deut 7:12 ), but both promise and commandments were given only to a people already redeemed by God " s covenant mercy (Exod 20:2). 8560 |
| 4100 Although God " s «Spirit» means more than «purifying wind» here, perhaps John " s baptism partly symbolized cleansing by the spirit of judgment and burning (Isa 4:4; Mal 3:2 ) that would deliver from eschatological fire (so Dunn, «Spirit,» 695); Barnard, «Matt. Ill,» 107, suggests the Jewish and Iranian image of a fiery stream. 4102 See Kraeling, John, 58–59, against detractors citing the obscure ignorance of Baptist disciples in Acts 19:2. That they were unaware of any Holy Spirit is unlikely, given the prevalence of teachings about the Holy Spirit in early Judaism (with or without the Baptist). 4105 Aune, Prophecy, 132, citing 1QS 4:20–21; for further documentation, see Keener, «Pneumatology,» 65–69. 4106 Cf. Robinson, Problem, 74. For the essential identity between John " s and Christian baptism, cf. Bultmann, Theology 1:39. 4107 On the difference, e.g., Meier, Matthew, 25; Parratt, «Spirit»; on their similarity (Christian baptism and Spirit baptism; John " s may function paradigmatically, but this is not in view here) cf. Beasley-Murray, «Spirit»; idem, Baptism, 275–78; Richardson, Theology, 357. 4110 The aorist here might contrast with Jesus» eschatological baptism; cf. Botha, " Ebaptisa,» who describes it as a «timeless aorist.» 4111 Dunn, Baptism, 24; cf. Beasley-Murray, Baptism, 290; White, Initiation, 87; Robinson, Problem, 9; Hooker, Message, 11; Robinson, Studies, 169. 4117 Jeremiah in 4 Bar. 3:5; apparently David in a manuscript of Ps 152 (but omitted in other Syriac MSS); Israel in Syriac Ps 155 (perhaps also 1 En. 39:7); the righteous in T. Job 4:11/9. Cf., however, the «Chosen» or «Elect» who judges on the throne in Similitudes of Enoch (e.g., 1 En. 39:6; 45:3,4; 49:2; 51:3, 5; 52:6,9; 61:5); 4Q534 1.10 applies it to some eschatological leader. 4118 E.g., Brown, John, 1:55; Ladd, Theology, 44. Ross, «Titles,» 281, prefers «chosen» because John favors variety in his christological terms in the first chapter. 4120 Contrast Cullmann, Christology, 72–73, who contends that only John preserves this original form of the declaration, which he derives from Isa 42(which does fit the context of Spirit bestowal; see below). |
|
|
