| 5. The Holy Spirit gives Christians true joy and undisturbable peace. They feel this peace and joy even during external difficulties and in times of trial. People, on the other hand, who do not have the Holy Spirit, can never truly rejoice or attain inner peace. When they enjoy themselves, they find their joy is transient, frivolous and pitiful, and on occasion even sinful. After their revelry, a boredom greater than ever before fills their heart. Similarly, when a non-spiritual person feels tranquillity, this is not a true spiritual peace but a sort of dozing or apathy. Woe to the people who do not awaken in time and do not start being concerned with the salvation of their soul! They will remain spiritually dead even while alive physically. 6. The Holy Spirit gives true humility. Even the most intelligent people, if they do not possess the Holy Spirit, cannot know themselves well enough, because their internal illness and spiritual poverty are hidden from them. When they do something good or act honestly, they become haughty, look down on others, and even judge those who in their opinion are inferior to them. Through their own blindness, many self-satisfied falsely righteous ones did not ask the Holy Spirit for guidance and strengthening, and consequently, perished. The Holy Spirit always comes to those who ask for enlightenment and help. As a bright ray of sun penetrates the darkness, enhancing the smallest details found within, so does the Holy Spirit, having descended upon people, disclose to them all the weakness and wretchedness of their soul. Enlightened by the Heavenly light, Christians can no longer boast about their good works, because they realize their soul needs healing and complete renewal. This realization makes them more humble, and they begin to repent and decide to live more carefully. They stop relying on themselves and ask God for guidance and help. 7. The Holy Spirit grants true fervent prayer. Until they receive the Holy Spirit, people cannot pray in a manner truly pleasing to God because they cannot control their scattered thoughts and feelings. Christians in whom the Holy Spirit resides, however, vividly feel the presence of God; their prayer flows evenly, and they know how and for what to ask God. In this inspired state, they can beseech God for anything, even the seemingly impossible. |
| The Holy Spirit, source of these uncreated and infinite gifts, while Himself remaining anonymous and unrevealed yet receives all the multiplicity of names which can be attributed to grace. ‘I am seized with dread’, says St. Gregory Nazianzen, ‘when I think of the abundance of titles…. He is called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Mind of Christ, the Spirit of the Lord, and Himself the Lord, the Spirit of Adoption, of Truth, of Liberty…. The Creator-Spirit, who by baptism and by resurrection creates anew; the Spirit who knoweth all things, who teacheth, who bloweth where and to what extent He listeth … who revealeth, giveth light, quickeneth, or rather is the very Light and Life; who maketh temples, who deifieth; who perfecteth so as even to anticipate baptism, yet after baptism to be sought as a separate gift; who doeth all things that God doeth; divided into fiery tongues; dividing gifts; making Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers … another Paraclete in the sense of another God.’ 271 According to St. Basil, there is no gift conferred upon the creature in which the Holy Spirit is not present. 272 He is ‘the Spirit of truth, the gift of adoption, the pledge of future inheritance, the first-fruits of eternal blessings, the life-giving power, the source of sanctification’. 273 St. John Damascene calls Him: ‘Spirit of God, direct, authoritative, the fountain of wisdom, and life, and holiness; God existing and addressed along with the Father and Son: uncreated, full, creative, all-ruling, all-effecting, all-powerful, of infinite power, Lord of all creation and not subject to any lord: deifying, not deified: filling, not filled: shared in, not sharing in: sanctifying, not sanctified.’ 274 All this infinite multitude of titles relates, as we have said, primarily to grace, to the natural abundance of God which the Holy Spirit imparts to those in whom He is present. Now, He is present in His divinity, which He causes to be perceived while Himself remaining unknown and unmanifested: an unrevealed hypostasis not having His image in another divine Person. |
| While 14designates the Spirit as «another Advocate,» so relating the Spirit to Jesus (see comments on the Paraclete as Jesus» successor, above; 1 John 2:1), 14assigns the Spirit " s presence wholly to believers in Jesus, excluding «the world.» In the context of the Fourth Gospel, «the world» is all those outside Jesus» following and is exemplified particularly by the Judean religious authorities who probably stand for the opposition in John " s day. This passage fits its context by explaining Jesus» return and abiding presence among believers. 8721 The Spirit of truth, foreign to a world that could not know the truth or perceive the risen Christ (14:17, 19; cf. 1 John 3:1 ), would come to the disciples (14:17–18). As John puts it, assuming the more widely accepted reading: 8722 μες γινσκετε αυτ, τι παρ» μν μνει και ν μιν εσται. Although the «with» and the «in» may be equivalent, 8723 if the μνει be read as a present and the εσται as a future, the present presumably refers to God " s Spirit as present in Jesus and the future to the time when the Spirit would indwell the believers directly. 8724 This would fit the Johannine temporal perspective on pneumatology: although the availability of the Spirit could be pro-leptically implied as early as Nicodemus (3:5), the Spirit would be fully available only after Jesus» glorification (7:39,20:19–23). (On the background of the dwelling image, see comment on 14:2–3.) 4B. Jesus Comes to Them (14:18) Jesus promises to «come» to the disciples (14:18); in this context (14:16–17), the coming must refer to his coming in 20:19–23 to impart the Spirit to them (cf. 14:3,23). 8725 At the same time, that he will not leave them bereaved as «orphans» suggests that his presence will continue with them through the Spirit. «Orphan» language was sometimes applied figuratively to the loss of important figures in peoplés lives, certainly applicable to Jesus for the disciples (13:33). 8726 Although «orphan» technically referred to the fatherless, it could also apply to other sorts of bereavement, 8727 such as a proselyte rejected by her family on account of her destruction of their gods. 8728 But the «fatherless» image is likely here. Because teachers could be compared with fathers, great teachers who died could be said to leave a generation «fatherless»; 8729 this fits Jesus» own portrayal of his relationship with them (see comment on 13:33). 8730 In a general sense, the image fits the context of the Paraclete as Jesus» successor; in a pre-Christian testament, Mattathias, nearing death, exhorted his sons that their brother Simeon, a man of counsel (νρ βουλς), would be a father to them (1Macc 2:65). 8731 But more specifically, because Jesus will overcome death and bring his eternal presence to them, they will not be fatherless in this manner. |
| The East responded by over-emphasising the role of the Holy Spirit. In order to demonstrate his difference from the West, Alexis Khomiakov declared that the Church is the communion of the Holy Spirit, and so omitted its foundation in Christ entirely. Khomiakov declared that the Orthodox must regard the Church as the communion of the Holy Spirit, and not as the Body of the historical Christ. This immediately introduces an opposition between the Spirit and the Son, which represents an inadmissible division in God. Sadly we see this division often enough in the assertion that the Holy Spirit has nothing to do with the traditional institution of the Church, or that the gospel cannot be confined within institutional frameworks. We see it in the contrast between the supposed freedom of charismatic ecclesial communities, and the Churches with ‘institutional’ apostolic and episcopal ministry. This contrast is the disastrous outcome of emphasising pneumatology at the expense of Christology. Whenever a new charismatic leader starts a new and more ‘spiritual’ community, they have divided the body of Christ into spiritual and non-spiritual, or charismatic and non-charismatic, and decided that they do not need half of the body of Christ. Such a distinction between the ‘spiritual’ and the ‘institutional’ Church means the abandonment of ordinary Christians, if we may call them that. Are not all Christians members of the body of Christ? Has the Spirit abandoned them? Charismatic leaders who separate themselves from the order and offices of the Church claim that baptism does not transmit the Spirit. But how can the Spirit not be given in baptism when it is the Spirit who baptises us, and who gives us all the sacraments by which we are to be made holy? It is the Spirit who gathers us all in Christ. Some generations later George Florovsky very justifiably corrected Khomiakov, but he did so equally without nuance, by insisting that ecclesiology should be understood merely as a sub-section of Christology. |
| THE DIVINITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT The defence of the divinity of the Son in the course of the fourth century necessarily led the Fathers to confess the divinity of the Holy Spirit and to recall his action in creation, in the life of the Church, and in the personal sanctification of the faithful. The Son and the Holy Spirit, in their joint activity in the world, were visualised by Irenaeus and other early Fathers in an economic sense as «the two Hands of the Father». 65 It was at the second ecumenical council at Constantinople (AD 381) that, following the work of the Cappadocian Fathers with regard to the divinity of the Holy Spirit, the Church affirmed that he should be »worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son». At the same time the feast of Pentecost developed into a celebration especially of the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles in the «upper room», the eucharistic epicleses invoking the Spirit were added to the Divine Liturgy, and the chrismation with oil after baptism, as the »gift and seal» of the Holy Spirit, came into practice. The role and presence of the Holy Spirit are prominent in the contemporary understanding of the Orthodox Church. St Seraphim of Sarov reminds us forcefully that the goal of Christian life is the acquisition of the Holy Spirit. 66 But it is important to trace the development of this tradition from the origins of Christianity to the present day. Along with the major contributions of St Maximus the Confessor and St John of Damascus on this subject, it is necessary to recall the importance of St Gregory Palamas " s theological vision. The latter was a defender of the spiritual tradition of Hesychasm in the final period of Byzantine history. The apostles» vision of uncreated divine Light on Mt Tabor constituted the scriptural and christological foundation for his doctrine of the distinction, without division or confusion, between the inaccessible divine essence and the divine energies, which are uncreated but in which humans may participate. Thus, Gregory understands the Fathers» traditional doctrine on salvation in Christ and in the Holy Spirit as meaning deification, that is, participation and communion in the divine life. The current distinction between negative or «apophatic» theology, which stresses the inadequacy of reason and human language to discern the divine mysteries, and positive or »cataphatic» theology, which validates the usage of this language and which receives affirmation from a doxological perspective, here takes on its full meaning. |
| 4911 Burge, Community, 166; Dunn, Baptism, 192; Turner, Spirit, 68; Talbert, John, 99 (Talbert also cites useful works by Léon-Dufour, «Reading»; Summers, «Born»). 4913 Bürge, Community, 166; Dunn, Baptism, 192, citing 4:23–24; 6:63; cf. the repetition of synonyms in 12:49. 4914 Calvin, John, 1:110–11 (on John 3:5 ), disagreeing with most earlier commentators and citing accurately both the grammar and other water images for the Spirit (e.g., Matt 3:11). See also Beasley-Murray, John, 48 (citing Origen Comm. Jo. 2.249ff.; Calvin, John, 1:64–65), though Beasley-Murray himself finds such interpretations dubious. 4915 So Belleville, «Born,» 134–35, though she argues that the terms together refer to the dual work of God " s Spirit, the «Spirit» here being God " s nature imparted by the Spirit (p. 140), the water here being the Spirit " s purifying work (140; followed by Carson, Fallacies, 42). Westcott, John, 49, argues that «water» and «Spirit» are separate. 4917 Cf. similarly Calvin, John, 1:111. For spiritual purification in early Christianity, see, e.g., Sent. Sext. 23–24. Conversely, Herrn. Vis. 3.3 affirms baptismal regeneration. 4919 Some rabbis appealed to Ezek 36for the eschatological eradication of the evil impulse (b. Sukkah 52a; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 24:17; Exod. Rab. 41:7; Lev. Rab. 35:5; Song Rab. 6:11, §1) and guilt (Pesiq. Rab. 14:15), others for the eschatological pervasiveness of the Spirit (third-century tradition in Gen. Rab. 26:6). 4921 Hoskyns, Gospel, 214; LaSor, Scrolls and NT, 151; Bruce, History, 156–57; Smalley, John, 227; Belleville, «Born,» 140; Suggit, «Nicodemus,» 96; Turner, Spirit, 68; McCabe, «Water and Spirit»; cf. Ladd, Theology, 285. 4922 Lit., «waters of impurity,» an expression often used in the Hebrew Bible for waters that purify one from impurity. 4924 Num. Rab. 7:10. Citing this text, R. Akiba emphasized that God himself would be their mikve, punning on «hope» and the ritual bath (the context in m. Yoma 8applies this promise to Yom Kippur; also noted in Torrance, «Baptism,» 153; idem, «Origins,» 166). |
| 19); И. олицетворяет «народ греха» ( Orig. In Gen. hom. 12. 3). И. является символом всех тех членов Церкви, к-рые любят земные блага, хотят владеть ими или стремятся к земному преуспеянию; всех тех, кто используют веру в Бога, чтобы возрастать в почестях и обрести земное богатство ( Caes. Arel. Serm. 86. 2; Aug. Serm. 4. 12). Так, благословение отцом И. после Иакова (Быт 27. 39-40) символизирует то, что в Церкви терпят и допускают к таинствам злых людей (malis hominibus) ради необходимости сохранять мир (ipsius pacis) (ср.: 1 Кор 11. 29; Aug. Serm. 4. 35). Подчинение И. младшему брату имеет педагогическое значение: неразумный человек должен быть под контролем «мудрого сердцем» (Притч 11. 29) ( Ambros. De Iacob. 2. 3. 11; Basil. Magn. De Spirit. Sanct. 20). Ненависть И. к брату служит символом гонения на Церковь со стороны иудеев ( Iren. Adv. haer. IV 21. 3). Пророчество о том, что старший брат будет служить младшему, раскрывается, по мнению св. отцов, на примере евреев, к-рые сохранили книги закона Божия для христиан ( Caes. Arel. Serm. 86. 2-3; ср.: Barnaba. Ep. 13. 1-3; Aug. De civ. Dei. XVI 35. 1). Судьба И. служит назидательным примером того, к чему приводит отсутствие умеренности и контроля над желаниями плоти ( Aug. Serm. 207. 2; Basil. Magn. Hom. 11. 41), а также порабощение человека завистью ( Cypr. Carth. De zel. et liv. 3) или ревностью ( Clem. Rom. Ep. I ad Cor. 4). Византийский хронист IX в. Георгий Монах возводит в явно уничижительном контексте к имени Исав прозвище имп.-иконоборца Льва III Исавра (в написании хроники Ησαυρος) и название области Исаврия (Ησαυρα) ( Georg. Mon. Chron. P. 735. 13-14 App.). Лит.: Heller B. Der Erbstreit Esaus und Jakobs irn Lichte verwandter Sagen//ZAW. 1926. Bd. 44. N 1. S. 317-320; Maag V. Jacob-Esau-Edom//ThZ. 1957. Bd. 13. S. 418-429; Botterweck G. J. Jakob habe ich lieb - Esau hasse ich//Bibel und Leben. Düsseldorf, 1960. Bd. 1. S. 26-38; Sarna N. M. Understanding Genesis. N. Y., 1966. P. 181-188; Westermann C. Genesis 12-36: A Comment. |
| 9191 Tribble, «Work,» 278; Hunt, «Paraclete,» 94; Sanders, John, 350; Holwerda, Spirit, 52; cf. Schlier, «Geist,» 106–7; Boring, Sayings, 62. Carson, «Paraclete,» 564, thinks the conviction is partly through the disciples. 9192 The lack of questions about his departure does not contradict 13and 14:5; it is present tense, and in the story world the disciples have not been asking questions since 14(Barrett, John, 485; Blomberg, Reliability, 213). 9194 On the technical use of συμφρει in moral texts, see comment on 11:50; but the moralistic usage exercises little influence on this passage. 9195 For parallels between Jesus and the Spirit, see, e.g., Brown, «Paraclete,» 126; Bornkamm, «Paraklet,» 12; Schlier, «Geist,» 107–8. On the Spirit " s relation to the kerygma, see, e.g., Boice, Witness, 120–22, 143–45. 9197 Cf. Bammel, «Paraclet,» 214–16; Zerwick, «Wirken,» 230; Hegstad, «Hellige»; Bultmann, John, 575 (though Bultmann is correct that the Spirit does restate Jesus» word). Haenchen, John, 2:144, argues that the Spirit will go beyond the earthly Jesus as John goes beyond his sources» traditions. 9199 Schlier, «Begriff, " 271. Cf. McNaugher, «Spirit» (Christ is the substance of the Spirit " s revelation). 9202 For an example, see Porphyry Marc. 24.376–384; see esp. Anderson, Glossary, 32–33; Rowe, «Style,» 134. 9204 Marcus Aurelius 1.17.1; 6.21; to «refute» in Musonius Rufus 8, p. 62.39–40; in rhetoric, «refutation» (see Anderson, Glossary, 40). 9209 Lutkemeyer, «Paraclete,» 222, maintains this on the basis of an opposition between a social religious Hebraic sense (after citing Isa 11:4!) and a forensic judicial Greco-Roman sense. Cf. Forestell, «Paraclete,» 168–69 (presenting evidence for both positions); Swete, Discourse, 116–17 (convinces understanding and convicts conscience); Hatch, «Meaning,» 104 (confute or convict). 9210 Smith, « John 16 ,» 60; Carson, Discourse, 138; Trites, Witness, 118–19; Johnston, Spirit-Paraclete, 144; Sanders, John, 350; Witherington, Wisdom, 264; cf. Porsch, Pneuma, 275–89; Potterie, «Paraclet,» 101–5, though Baum, Jews, 129–30, overstates the consensus when he says that «all commentators are agreed that there is a question here of a trial before God, where the world is the accused party and the Spirit the prosecutor.» This is more than just convincing the world that it is wrong (cf. Stevens, Theology, 211; Carson, «Paraclete,» 558). |
| Начиная с Евсевия Кесарийского ( Euseb. Hist. eccl. 1. 6-7), толкователи сообщают подробности смерти И. В., известные из произведений Иосифа Флавия. Согласно Euseb. Hist. eccl. I 8. 5, 16; Ephraem Syr. In Diatess. 3. 1 и «Истории Иосифа плотника» (8), смерть И. В. была наказанием за избиение вифлеемских младенцев. Проповедники часто рассматривали И. В. как прообраз трусливого, хитрого, преступного человека ( Ioan. Chrysost. In Matth. 7. 3; Leo Magn. Serm. 31. 2; 33. 4; 34. 2//SC. Vol. 22. P. 212-214, 232, 240; Petr. Chrysolog. Serm. 86. 3//CCSL. Vol. 24A. P. 533; Idem. Serm. 127//CCSL. Vol. 24B. P. 782-788). Наряду с этим есть и другая интерпретация образа И. В.- его действия направлял сатана (напр.: Orig. Contr. Cels. 1. 61). Прообраз И. В. толкователи видели уже в ВЗ: в ассир. царе, о к-ром говорит прор. Исаия (Ис 8. 4; Iust. Martyr. Dial. 77; Terull. Adv. Marcion. III 13. 10; Idem. Adv. Iud. 9); в фараоне, преследовавшем Моисея, и в Сауле, гнавшем Давида ( Ephraem Syr. In Diatess. 3. 2, 7). И. В. иногда интерпретировали и как собирательный образ, отражающий нападки сатаны на христианина ( Leo Magn. Serm. 35. 2//SC. Vol. 22. P. 256) или как образ гонителей христиан ( Idem. Serm. 38. 1//Ibid. P. 284). Фигура И. В. привлекает внимание экзегетов в связи с толкованием благословения патриарха Иуды, достаточно рано понимаемого христологически (Быт 49. 9-10: «...не оскудеет князь из Иуды, и вождь от чресл его, доколе не придет Тот, Которому отложено, и Он будет чаяние народов…» (цит. по LXX; ср.: Деян 5. 5; Евр 7. 14)). Пророчество о том, что от колена Иуды не отойдет князь (ρχων) и вождь (γομενος), пока не придет обетованный Примиритель, согласно мч. Иустину Философу ( Iust. Martyr. I Apol. 32), относится ко Христу, ибо иудеи вплоть до явления Иисуса Христа имели собственного законодателя и царя. Мч. Иустин упоминает о возражениях иудеев, которые считали, что И. В. не был иудеем, и опровергает их слова, напоминая, что и до Рождества Иисуса Христа иудейский народ имел первосвященников и пророков (ср.: Лк 16. 16), следов., пророчество все же относится к Иисусу Христу ( Iust. Martyr. Dial. 52). Замечание сщмч. Иринея Лионского ( Iren. Adv. haer. IV 10) на Быт 49. 9-10 позволяет предположить, что и он мог встречать такие возражения. |
| 122 Et idcirco Deus ejus est, quia ex eo natus in Deum est. Non tamen per id, quod Pater Deus est, non et Filius Deus est: «Unxit» enim «te, Deus, Deus tuus»: designata videlicet et auctoris, et ex eo geniti significatione, uno eodemque dicto utrumque illum in naturae ejusdem et dignitatis nuncupatione constituit (De Tr., IV, 35). 123 Contestatam de se potestatem, per reverentiae honorem, ei cui omnia meminerat confitenda subjecit; non sibi adimens quod similia Patri posset, sed eum per quem similia posset ostendens (In. Ps. 138, 28 ). Missurus quo que Paracletum, sicuti frequenter spopondit, interdum eum et mittendum dixit a Patre, dum omne quod ageret, pie referre est solitus ad Patrem (De Synod., 54). Sed pietatis subjectio non est essentiae diminuto, nec religionis officium efficit naturam (De Synod., 51). An et hoc ex ignorantia venit, ut cum caeteris Patri subjectus sit Filius: ut dum cum caeteris subjicitur, non discernatur a caeteris? Cum subjectio Filii naturae pietas sit, subjectio autem caeterorum creationis infirmitas sit (De Synod., 79). 124 Quod si acceptio potestatis, sola est significatio nativitatis, in qua accepit id quod est: non est infirmitati datio deputanda, quae totum hoc nascentem consummat esse quod Deus est. Cum enim innascibilis Deus ad perfectam divinae beatitudinis nativitatem unigenito Deo auctor sit, auctorem nativitatis esse sacramentum paternum est. Caeterum non habet contumeliam, quae se auctoris sui esse imaginem genuina nativitate consummat. Dedisse enim potestatem omnis carnis, et ad id dedisse ut det ei vitam aeternam, habet et in dante quod pater est, et in accipiente quod Deus est: cum et in eo significetur Pater esse, quod dederit; et in eo Filius Deus maneat, quod vitae aeternae dandae sumpserit potestatem (De Tr., IX, 31). 125 Haec igitur natura (Deus Filius) non eguit vel demutatione, vel interrogatione, vel allocutione, ut post ignorantiam sciat, post silentium interroget, post interrogationem audiat: sed perfecta in sacramento unitatis suae manens, ut habuit de Deo nativitatem ita habuit et universitatem. Universitatem autem habens, non etiam non quae universitatis sunt tenuit, scientiam scilicet, aut voluntatem: ne quod scit Pater, per interrogationem Filius sciret; vel quod vult Pater, per significationem Filius vellet. Sed cum omnia, quae Patris sunt, sua essent; in ea fuit proprietate naturae, ne aliud aliquid, quam Pater, aut vellet, aut sciret (De Tr.. IX, 74). |
|
|
