| John Anthony McGuckin Paradise PETER C. BOUTENEFF The Greek Paradeisos (cf. the Persian Pardez, meaning “enclosure”) in the Septuagint refers to any enclosed garden (cf. Num. 24.6 ; Neh. 2.8; Eccl. 2.5 ; Jer. 29.5 ), but remains particularly associated with the Garden in Eden ( Gen. 2–3, 13.10 ; also Is. 51.3 ; Ezek. 28.13 ). In Second Temple Jewish literature (e.g., 1 Enoch 60.8, 23, 61.12; Apoc. Abraham 21.3, 6; 3 Baruch 4.10) as well as in the New Testament ( Lk. 23.43 ; Rev. 2.7), Paradise comes to refer also to the destination of the righteous, whether it is an earthly or heavenly topos. St. Paul’s mystical experience which associates Paradise with the Third Heaven ( 2Cor. 12.2–3 ) has deeply influenced the Greek patristic literature, and is frequently cited. PARADISE AS THE GARDEN OF HUMAN ORIGINS Paradise as the earthly garden in Eden, into which the first-created humans were placed, and which Genesis 2 locates on Earth (in what is modern-day Iraq), is treated variously in the Greek fathers. Theophilus of Antioch, almost unique among the early writers for the absence of a typological (christological) exegesis of the Paradise narrative, is concomitantly almost unique in attempting to pinpoint the chronological dating of the events narrated in Genesis 1–3 (as did Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Chronicle, no longer extant). Conversely, and possibly following Philo (cf. Laws of Allegory 1.43), Origen practically mocks anyone who would interpret Paradise as an actual place with physical trees and chewable fruit (On First Principles 4.3.1). Precisely this notion, however, featured strongly in Ephrem’s Hymns on Paradise (Brock 1990). Gregory of Nazianzus is open and provisional in his interpretation: God placed the human person in Paradise, “Whatever this Paradise actually was,” and introduced him to trees which Gregory supposes might represent contemplation (theoria) (Oration 38.12). Contemporary Orthodox theologians tend to follow the fathers in paying scant attention to the question of the physical historicity of the Paradise of Genesis 2–3 , focusing rather on its existential significance or more often on its christological sense. |
| Because many christological motifs recur frequently in the Fourth Gospel, we survey the background for some of John " s terms in this introduction. 2420 We will address in more detail the motifs themselves, including John " s distinctive adaptation of terms that were used more broadly in other streams of early Judaism and Jewish Christianity, at relevant points in the commentary. The Thrust of John " s Christology Christology is John " s central focus, as both the proem (1:1–18) and summary thesis statement (20:30–31) testify. Both of these passages emphasize the highest, most complete Johannine Christology: Jesus is deity (1:1,18; 20:28–31). John advocates multiple christological models, but especially emphasizes the most complete existing model, namely, that Jesus is Torah or Wisdom. No other conception available in his Jewish vocabulary better conveyed the thought of one who was divine yet distinct from the Father. The proem leads us to expect Jesus as divine Wisdom or Word to overshadow a great deal of the Fourth Gospel (without erasing other important christological motifs or historical traditions). Jesus is far greater than Moses the agent of revelation, for he is the «Word,» the content of revelation (1:17–18). Like Torah or Wisdom, Jesus is the agent of creation in the beginning (1:1–3) and is life and light (1:4–9; cf. 8:12; 9:5; 12:35–36, 46; 15:6). Throughout the Gospel as in the proem, John compares Jesus» mission to that of Torah or Wisdom sent to Israel: the world did not know him, his own did not receive him, but those who did receive him by believing him could become God " s children (1:10–13). These verses build John " s soteriology on the model of God " s earlier revelation to Moses: his people must «know,» «believe,» and «receive» God " s revelation (cf. also 3:36; 5:38,47; 12:48; 17:3). In short, John summarizes Jesus» ministry by declaring that the disciples, like Moses, «beheld his glory» (1:14). Thus the whole Gospel becomes a theophany like Sinai, but in this case John the Baptist (1:6–8, 15) and disciples perform the function of witnesses like Moses. Jesus is one greater than Moses, the Torah in flesh, and the Gospel as a whole develops this paralle1. In such a context, even the image of the «uniquely beloved (son)» (1:14, 18), which could otherwise recall Israel or the Messiah, may also recall traditional Jewish imagery for Torah here. |
| It was in answer to the perceived weakness of Syrian statehood and the disorder of Syrian political life that the first Assad regime was established in 1970 by Hafez al-Assad, the father of the current leader. The Assad family came from the Alawi (a.k.a. Nusairi) minority, which includes about one in eight Syrians and about a quarter of a million people in both Lebanon and Turkey. Like the Jews, the Alawis consider themselves the “chosen people,” but they are regarded by Orthodox Muslims as heretics. Under Ottoman pluralism, this mattered little, but as Syrians struggled for a sense of identity and came to suspect social difference and to fear the cooperation of minorities with foreigners, being an Alawi or a Christian or a Jew put people under a cloud. So, for Hafez al-Assad, the secular, nationalist Baath Party was a natural choice: it offered, or seemed to offer, the means to overcome his origins in a minority community and to point toward a solution to the disunity of Syrian politics. He therefore embraced it eagerly and eventually became its leader. Consequently, to understand Syrian affairs, we need to focus on the party. Thus, Saddam became as much the ogre in the bestiary of Hafaz al-Assad as he later became in America’s. The “Resurrection” (Arabic: Baath ) Party had its origins, like the nationalist-communist Vietnamese movement, in France. Two young Syrians, one a Christian and the other a Sunni Muslim, who were then studying in Paris were both attracted to the grandeur of France and appalled by the weakness of Syria. Like Ho Chi Minh, they wanted to both become like France and get the French out of their nation. Both believed that the future lay in unity and socialism. For Michel Aflaq and Salah Bitar, the forces to be defeated were “French oppression, Syrian backwardness, a political class unable to measure up to the challenge of the times,” according to the British journalist Patrick Seale’s account in The Struggle for Syria . Above all, disunity had to be overcome. Their answer was to try to bridge the gaps between rich and poor through a modified version of socialism, and between Muslims and minorities through a modified concept of Islam. Islam, in their view, needed to be considered politically not as a religion but as a manifestation of the Arab nation. Thus, the society they wished to create, they proclaimed, should be modern (with, among other things, equality for women), secular (with faith relegated to personal affairs), and defined by a culture of “Arabism” overriding the traditional concepts of ethnicity. In short, what they sought was the very antithesis of the objectives of the already-strong and growing Muslim Brotherhood. |
| But if «know» is the language of covenant relationship, such as in marital intimacy, it may imply that by virtue of the mutual indwelling of Jesus and believers (14:23; 15:4), believers shared the divine relationship. 7431 Reciprocal knowledge of Jesus and his own is rooted in the reciprocal relationship of Jesus and the Father. 7432 A new husband and wife may not yet have explored the fulness of their intimacy, but they had established a covenant relationship within which such exploration is invited. The rest of the Gospel confirms that such intimacy is indeed meant to be characteristic of believers; they are actually in Gods presence continually ( 14:17) and can continually learn from the Spirit the intimate matters of Jesus» heart and character (14:26; 16:13–15). 7433 Jesus» relationship with the Father–doing always what he sees the Father doing (5:19), doing always the things that please him (8:29), and their mutual love (3:35; 5:20; 10:17; 14:31; 15:9; 17:24, 26)–becomes a model for his followers» relationship with him. Such an emphasis also serves John " s apologetic interests: if believers rather than their accusers held such an intimate relationship with God, they were clearly God " s servants, persecuted like the biblical prophets (cf. Matt 5:12). 4C. Other Sheep and Jesus» Sacrifice (10:16–18) Some have suggested that the «other sheep» (10:16) are the next generation of believers, who have not personally seen the historical Jesus (17:20). But the pregnant imagery for Israel in the context suggests a play on the issue of the people of God, as does the language of scattering (10:12; cf. 11:52) and gathering (10:16). That John uses the imagery of the people of God, however, does not solve all the passagés potential interpretive dilemmas; presumably the original audience may have known what issues John was addressing, but reconstructing them at this distance is speculative. Some suggest that John may refer to the uniting of Ephraim and Judah under one shepherd in Ezek 37:22–24 , and that therefore the «other sheep» are the Samaritan believers of 4:39–42. 7434 In favor of such a suggestion is the clear mention of Samaritan believers in the Gospel, whereas fully Gentile believers may be merely inferred (depending on how one interprets «Greeks» in 12and perhaps 7:35). Against such a suggestion is the fact that the other sheep may not yet have heard Jesus» voice (10:16), in contrast to the Samaritans who had already received him (4:42); further, though the allusion to Ezek 37is probable here, it contextually includes the restoration of Diaspora Israelites to the land ( Ezek 37:21 ). |
| J. Suaresii Dissertatio de operibus S. N., 1310–68. J. Suaresii Liber chronologicus de vita S. N., 1367–1434. Notitia Fessler, 9–24. Notitia Allatii, 25–56. Index anaiyticus, 1503–26. NILUS CABASILAS, Thessalonicensis, metr., s. XIV, 149. De dissidio ecclesiarum, lib. 1, 683–700. De primatu рарæ, lib. 2, 699–730. Notitia Allatii, 671–84. NILUS, CP. patr., 1379–87, 151. Encomium in Gregorium Palamam græce (editio Hieros., 1837), 655–78. NILUS DOXOPATRIUS, s. XII, 132. In Athanasium [contra Arium]. , 25, CCLXXVIII-XXX. Notitia Patriarchatuum (Le Moyne), 32,1083–1114. Notitia Oudin, 1073–84. NILUS EPARCHUS ( Nilus abbas). Versus alphabetici (Boissonade), , 117, 1177–80. NONNUS abbas, s, V, 38. Collectio historiarum S. Gregorii Naz. in orationibus 4, 5, 43 et 39 (Montagu), 36, 985–1072. NONNUS PANOPOLITANUS episc, s. V, 43. Paraphrasis in Joannem, , 749–4120 [cum textu evangelico in imis paginis) (Heinsius). Index græcitatis, 921–42. D. Heinsii exercitationes, 941–1200, quarum Index græcitatis, 1199–1214. latinitatis, 1213–28. Dionysiacorum argumenta (gallice), 1227–32. Fragmenta (græce-gallice), 1231–84. Comitis a Marcello præfatio gallica de Nonno et Dionysiacis, 679–748. Notitia FH., 664–78. NOTARA. Vide LUCAS N. O O_ECUMENIUS Triccæ ep., s. X, 118–119. Commentarii (Donatus-Hentenius). In Acta Apostolorum, 118, 43–308. In Romanos, 307–636. In I Cor., 635–906. In II Cor., 905–1088. In Gal., 1089–1166. In Eph,, 1165–1256. In Philip., 1255–1326. In Coloss., 119, 9–56. In I Thess., 57–106. In II Thess., 105–134. In I Tim., 133–196. In II Tim., 195–240. In Tit., 241–262. In Philem., 261–272. In Hebr., 271–452. In Jacob., 451–510. In I Petr., 509–578. In II Petr., 577–618. In I Joan., 617–684. In II Joan., 683–696. In III Joan., 697–704. In Jud., 703–722. Anonymi ex o_ecumenio in Apoc. (Montfaucon), 721–726. Donati Veronensis epistola, 118, 9–12. Præatio Hentenii, 11–26. Notitia Oudin, 9–10. Index anaiyticus, 119, 1301–10 mutatione facta ab ima col. 1301]. OLYMPIODORUS, s. VII, 93. |
| The manna could also prefigure God s eschatological provision for his people, 6145 and later rabbinic tradition promised eschatological manna. 6146 This picture is not unlikely; Jewish texts, at least from later rabbinic circles, spoke of an eschatological banquet. 6147 The later rabbis also expected a new exodus, 6148 but reflected a broader early Jewish expectation (see comment on 1:23), 6149 a hope rooted in the biblical prophets (e.g., Hos 2:14–15; 11:10–11 ; Isa 2:3; 12:2; 40:3) 6150 and emphasized in early Christianity. 6151 Undoubtedly John " s audience was familiar with the hope of eschatological manna (Rev 2:17). Some Jewish traditions emphasized that the final redeemer would bring down manna like Moses did, 6152 as commentators on John 6 have long pointed out; 6153 these traditions do not seem to predate the third century but represent a natural midrashic assumption based on the new Moses and new manna motifs. An Amoraic tradition that connected the clouds with Aaron and the well with Miriam connected manna with Moses. 6154 The contrast with Moses» «gift» is explicit in 6:32; that Jesus is greater than Moses is important in this context (5:45; 7:19). 6155 The Father " s supreme gift is what matters most (e.g., 3:16), and that is where the discourse is headed (6:37, 39; cf. the Son " s gift in 6:27, 33–34, 51–52). The bread Jesus announces is more essential than the manna given in Moses» day, for it is the " true bread» (6:32). The position of «true» or «genuine» in this sentence is emphatic. 6156 Calling this bread the «genuine» bread is characteristic of metaphors in this Gospel: Jesus, rather than John, is the «true light» (1:9); those who worship in the Spirit rather than merely in the temple are «true worshipers» (4:23); Jesus (perhaps in contrast to Israel) is the «true vine» (15:1). In the same way, God is true (7:28; 17:3), Jesus» judgment is true (8:16), and so is the beloved disciplés witness (19:35). In Platonic thought, the appearance was merely the symbol of the ideal reality behind it, but if such an idea is present here, 6157 it is only remotely so. The vertical dualism of apocalyptic thought blended this Hellenistic conception with analogous ancient Near Eastern ideas to emphasize the superiority of the heavenly mode1. 6158 |
| In churches and mosques in Russia, ordinary believers began raising funds for purchasing humanitarian aid for Syria. In 2017, two aircrafts with humanitarian cargo were sent to the country. With the assistance of the Russian army group in Syria and the Center for Reconciliation of the Opposing Sides, the aid was distributed to the neediest people in Latakia, Homs and recently liberated Aleppo. On behalf of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Interreligious Working Group, I would like to thank the Russian Federation Ministry of Defence and personally the head of the General Staff of the Russian Federation Armed Forces, Valery Gerasimov, for the support of our projects in Syria. In February 2018, 77 tons of high quality foodstuffs were delivered to Damascus and the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon, where there are many Syrian refugees. The food was distributed to families in need. The distribution was made in Syrian churches and mosques together by Syrian and Russian Christians and Muslims. It also became a visible symbol of our solidarity. In November 2018, an aid supply was conveyed to the Damascus boarding school for children of the fallen Syrian military, and by the New Year the classes of this school and dormitories had been fully equipped with warm floors. In March 2019, the Interreligious Group delivered to Damascus and distributed 15 tons of foodstuffs for Syrian families in need. All these humanitarian actions of the Interreligious Working Group were carried out together with religious leaders in Syria. To coordinate the efforts of the Working Group and Christian and Muslim communities in Syria, joint meetings and roundtable conferences were held in Damascus. As a vice-chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, I would like to say that our department, on the instruction of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, has supervised all this work. The problem of Syria was and is one of the principal items on our agenda. In September 2018, a high-level interreligious conference took place at the Patriarchate of Antioch in Damascus. It was attended by heads and representatives of all the religious communities in Syria. The interreligious delegation from Russia was led at that time by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate. The conference was chaired by His Beatitude Patriarch John X of Great Antioch and All the East and His Excellency Shaikh Mohammad Abdul-Sattar al-Sayyed, Minister of Awqaf. At that time, the Syrian brothers spoke of the need to restore the social structure in Syria and asked the Interreligious Working Group to take upon iself one of the socially important facilities. |
| Oden and Hall, Mark Oden, Thomas C, and Christopher A. Hall, eds. Mark. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove, 111.: InterVarsity, 1998. Oesterley, Liturgy Oesterley, William Oscar Emi1. The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925. Oesterley, Proverbs Oesterley, William Oscar Emi1. Proverbs. Westminster Commentaries. London: Methuen, 1929. ÓGrady, «Disciple» ÓGrady, John F. «The Beloved Disciple, His Community, and the Church.» Chicago Studies 37 (1998): 16–26. ÓGrady, «Human Jesus» ÓGrady, John F. «The Human Jesus in the Fourth Gospe1.» Biblical Theology Bulletin 14 (1984): 63–66. ÓGrady, «Shepherd and Vine» ÓGrady, John F. «The Good Shepherd and the Vine and the Branches.» Biblical Theology Bulletin 8 (1978): 86–89. Oke, «Doxology» Oke, C. Clare. «A Doxology Not to God but Christ.» ExpTim 67 (1955–1956): 367–68. Okorie, «Self-Revelation» Okorie, A. M. «The Self-Revelation of Jesus in the Am» Sayings of John " s Gospe1.» Currents in Theology and Mission 28, no. 5 (2001): 486–490. Okure, «Commission» Okure, Teresa. «The Significance Today of Jesus» Commission to Mary Magdalene.» International Review of Mission 81 (1992): 177–88. Olbricht, «Delivery and Memory» Ulbricht, Thomas H. «Delivery and Memory.» Pages 159–67 in Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C.-A.D. 400. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Oldfather, «Introduction» Oldfather, W. A. Introduction. Pages 1:i–viii in Epictetus, The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, the Manual, and Fragments. 2 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1928. Olmstead, History Olmstead, A. T. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. Olsson, Structure Olsson, Birger. Structure and Meaning in the Fourth Gospel: A Text Linguistic Analysis of John 2:1–11 and 4:1–42. Translated by Jean Gray. Lund, Gleerup, 1974. ÓNeal, «Delation» ÓNeal, W. J. «Delation in the Early Empire.» Classical Bulletin 55, no. 2 (1978): 24–28. |
| 1. The event of Christ must be regarded as constituted pneumatologically. I stress the word “constituted” because my intention is to say that Christ is not Christ unless He is an existence in the Spirit, which means an eschatological existence. Such a pneumatological constitution of Christology implies, from the viewpoint of ontology, the understanding of Christ not in terms of individuality which affirms itself by distancing itself from other individualities, but in terms of personhood which implies a particularity established in and through communion. 360 The implications of this for the notion of continuity are clear. In a pneumatologically constituted Christology an event can never be defined by itself, but only as a relational reality. It is this that allows the Biblical notion of “corporate personality” to be applied to Christ: 361 Christ without His body is not Christ but an individual of the worst type. Our continuity, therefore, with the Christ event is not determined by sequence or response based on distance; it is rather a continuity in terms of inclusiveness: we are in Christ, and this is what makes Him be before us, our “first-born brother” in the Pauline sense. 362 This is paradoxical but fundamental for understanding the new existence created in Christ. Christ’s priority over us 363 is not a priority like the one created by our individualized existence and characterized by temporal sequence; it is a priority of inclusiveness: the including one being prior to the included. This is so precisely because the included is already in the including. God as the Spirit, i.e. as communion, is precisely the all-embracing existence which is participated without participating. 364 In the same Spirit of God, Christ contains us in Himself, by His very constitution as Christ in the Spirit. He thus in the Spirit contains by definition the eschata, our final destiny, ourselves as we shall be; He is the eschatological Man – yet, let me repeat, not as an individual but as Church, i.e. because of our being included in Him. It is in this sense that historical existence becomes in Christ and in the Spirit a continuity which comes to us from the future and not through the channels of a divided time sequence like the one we experience in our fallen state of existence. Thus when the eschata enter into history in the Spirit, time is redeemed from fragmentation, and history acquires a different sense. |
| Pity the child whose mother did not teach him to pray, and pity the mother who left this sacred duty to others. It is remarkable that children never doubt the existence of God. Their barely sparkling consciousness is nevertheless somehow capable of grasping the idea of Divinity. The Savior’s words, Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes (Mt. 11:25, Lk. 10:21) opens a lawful field for drawing very necessary conclusions. Having begun his religious life early, the infant soul can advance very far in his religious development while yet in infancy. He can contemplate the mysteries in which, for example, the two famous cherubim in the painting, “The Sistine Madonna” by Raphael are engulfed, placed as they are on the boundary between two worlds. There were incidents in the earlier years of persecution against Christians when babes at the breast were eager to go to torments for Christ together with their parents, and thus they became conscious confessors and martyrs. Whoever has had the chance to observe the facial expressions of infants who have just received Communion can catch in these basically inexpressive faces an extraordinary mark of holy purity, joy, and concentration… This feeling that the soul itself has, what it turns itself toward like a sunflower to the sun—all this must be strengthened, cultivated, and deepened in children. From the very earliest, most tender age, children should be given Holy Communion as often as possible, even every week. Like grafting a wild branch onto a good tree, nothing more readily transforms a soul into a cluster on Christ’s vine than its frequent immersion in Christ’s holiness at His table. The famous spiritual father and preacher, Archpriest Alexei Petrovich Kolokolov, once told how his spiritual daughter was given in marriage to a titled man who later manifested signs of mental illness. The doctors were afraid that the children would be abnormal. For his own part, Fr. Alexei offered what he had in his own hands—spiritual medicine. He advised the mother to commune her three boys from that marriage as often as possible from the earliest months of their lives. They all grew up to be healthy and normal men. |
|
|
