| Their violation of what we know of traditional early Jewish principles concerning evidence suggests a bias so extreme it flouts any amount of evidence provided. 7115 Some other radical ancient sages also noticed that dogmatic certainty was difficult to penetrate with reason (Epictetus Diatr. 1.5.1–2). The arrogance of many Pharisees in this Gospel does not fit what we know of Pharisaic or rabbinic ethics; 7116 it does fit what we know of human nature. 7117 That the Pharisees themselves were divided (9:16), however, reinforces a critical emphasis of this Gospel (cf. «the crowd» in 7:43; «the Jews» in 10:19; others in 12:29). Nicodemus and those for whom he spoke recognized that Jesus was not «able» to do his works unless God had sent him (3:2); some of similar persuasion now do not understand how a sinner would be «able» to do the kinds of signs Jesus does (9:16). 7118 John is certain that despite any public display of unity, many of the elite had to know that Jesus really did come from God (12:42–43). The formerly blind man responds positively (cf. 1:21; 4:19; but inadequately–cf. 6:14; 7:40; cf. Matt 21:11) that Jesus is a prophet (9:17); but for this man, the affirmation allows him to be open to a higher Christology, a Christology which develops in the course of the narrative (9:35–38), from man (9:11) to prophet (9:17) to Son of Man (9:35–36). In this, his faith resembles that of the Samaritan woman (4:19, 29). 2C. Interrogating the Blind Mans Parents (9:18–23) John probably uses φνησαν, «they called,» both as a scene change (cf. 9:24) and to signal the social power wielded by these leaders, who summoned and dismissed witnesses in the course of their legal investigation. It is not impossible, however, that John may also imply a contrast between these interrogators and the good shepherd, who gently calls his own (10:3), just as their casting one out (9:34) may contrast with the gentle way the shepherd leads forth his own (10:4). The testimony of relatives might be considered biased (see comment on 7:3–5), but at least the parents would be accurately positioned to verify whether their son was born blind. |
| Archive Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk: We cannot remain indifferent to such sad facts 23 August 2020 year 16:43 Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate department for external church relations, gave a comment to RIA Novosti news agency about the decision taken by the Turkish authorities on 20 th August 2020 to return the mosque status to one more former Orthodox church – the Church of the Saviour in Chora (Kariye Mosque). “Today the mass media have spread the news about the conversion into a mosque of yet another Orthodox church in the territory of Turkey – the Church of the Saviour in Chora that has been functioning as a museum since 1945. “Just like Hagia Sophia, the Church of Christ the Saviour in the Fields from the ensemble of the monastery in Chora has the status of UNESCO world heritage site. It has preserved its original form better than other Byzantine churches in Istanbul. The church’s splendid mosaics and frescoes are outstanding examples of the Palaiologan Renaissance in the Byzantine art. Obviously, they will also be unavailable for viewing, just like it was done with mosaics of Hagia Sophia, despite the assurances of the Turkish authorities that they would be available to visitors at any time except the hours of Muslim prayer. “It is sorrowful to see how emphatically the current leadership of Turkey disregards the religious feelings of Christians all over the world. It is difficult to justify such disregard by reasonable arguments. It is unlikely that trampling on the priceless Byzantine cultural heritage can be advantageous to the Turkish state. And such steps will surely not help maintain the international reputation of Turkey or strengthen interfaith accord in this country. “The Russian culture and history are linked by bonds of succession with the glorious past of the Eastern Roman Empire, and therefore, we cannot remain indifferent to such sad facts.” DECR Communication Service /Patriarchia.ru Календарь ← 7 April 2024 year |
| 64 Cf. Y.Congar, The Mystery of the Church, 1960 and F.Heiler, Urkirche und Ostkirche, 1937, p.826 65 We have already made a distinction in principle between the history of unity and the theology of unity (see Introduction above). Yet, despite the fact that it is imperative for this reason carefully to distinguish what relates to the historical reality from what the early Church taught or aspired to, it must be admitted here that on the subject of Church unity, history and theology often touch on one another, given that the Church is an integral reality, whether she is understood as a conceptual or an empirical state, and her unity forms an inalienable element of her essence. This is why in the present case it becomes very difficult and often impossible to isolate the evolving “becoming” of the Church from her stable “being” without the risk of misinterpreting or distorting history 67 On the subject of the sources used for this study, it should be explained here that we shall mainly be using those sources which are purely Christian and ecclesial. This is not because we underrate the value of outside sources for the history of early Christianity such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, but on account of the nature of our theme which relates mainly to the Church’s self-understanding which can be reflected faithfully only in her own documents. Besides, theories about a direct relationship between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Church do not seem well-founded. On this subject see K.Stendahl, “Kirche: II. Im Urchristentum” in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3, Aufl. III (1959), p.1300. But more generally, the relationship of these texts to the Holy Scriptures will remain unknown, as Prof. V.Vellas observes, until all the texts discovered are published in full, and others perhaps come to light (V.Vellas, Commentary on the Book of Habakkuk (in Greek), 1958, pp.30, 43). In consequence, it would be at least premature to place these texts alongside the already existing sources of primitive Christianity in studying the unity of the Church. On the relation of the Dead Sea Scrolls to early Christianity, the interested reader may see, inter alia, P.Simotas, The Discoveries of Khirbet Qumran (in Greek), 1952; S.Agouridis, “Judaic Eschatology in N.T. Times” (in Greek) in Theologia, 1956, p.408, n.2; eiusdem The Dead Sea Scrolls and the N.T. (in Greek), 1959; A.Chastoupis, The Dead Sea Scrolls in Relation to Holy Scripture (in Greek), 1958; Th.Kirkasios, The Dead Sea Scrolls (in Greek), 1959; eiusdem “The Damascus or Sadokic text” (in Greek) in Theologia (1960), pp.151–166; M.Siotis, The Dead Sea Scrolls. Story of their Discovery and Description (in Greek), 1961 |
| Again the text is laden with John " s irony: Satan would be defeated and dislodged from his place of authority (12:31) and Jesus glorified and exalted (12:32) through the cross (12:33). 7926 Satan " s activity (13:2,27) would undermine the devil himself. 2E. Jesus» Exaltation by the Cross (12:32–34) God could accomplish his purposes even through acts of human rebellion or folly. 7927 It was not through an act of brutal force but through submission to such force, through his death on the cross, that Jesus would «draw» all humanity (12:32). 7928 His language refers not to the salvation of all individuals (cf. 3:36), but representatives among all peoples (cf. Rev 5:9; 13:7); the context is the Pharisaic complaint that «the world» was now following him (12:19), and Gentiles were now ready to approach Jesus (12:20). Only the cross could make Jesus available to all by means of the Spirit (7:39; 15:26–27; 16:7; 17:20). This is truly Johannine paradox: «exaltation» and «glorification» in their positive sense hardly fit the shame of the cross, even the thought of which typically evoked horror. 7929 An ancient audience would readily grasp the wordplay involved; writers could speak of raising one up on a cross. 7930 A writer could also tell that Alexander promised that whoever had killed Darius would be rewarded by being «lifted up»; when the murderers came forward, he fulfilled his words literally by crucifying them. 7931 More importantly, the Hebrew Bible already played on the double meaning of exalted or hanged ( Gen 40:13, 19–22 ). On «lifting up,» see comments on 3:14; 8:28; on «drawing,» see comment on 6:43–44. Jesus used this «lifting up» to «signify» (σημανων, function as a sign; cf. 2:18–19) the kind of death which he was going to die (12:33; also 18:32); this language could apply to prophetic or apocalyptic symbolism (Rev 1:1; Acts 11:28), 7932 but in the Fourth Gospel (if one accepts our argument that John 21 is part of the Gospel) it applies especially to indicating the manner of impending death, Peter " s as well as Jesus» (21:19). |
| 3. The Elite Despise Jesus (7:45–52) Annoyed that the multitude was divided (7:40–43), as were even their own officers (7:44–46), the elite retreat into the security of knowing that none of their own group has believed in Jesus (7:47–49)–unaware that even on this point they are mistaken (7:50–51). Even their rejection of Jesus on account of his Galilean origins (7:52) reflects their elite understanding, one which simply mirrors many perspectives of the higher class throughout the ancient Mediterranean. From Josephus " s portrait, one may guess that many Pharisees were members of the Jerusalem aristocracy; at the same time, it seems quite doubtful that they constituted a majority of it. 6573 John " s own elite opposition may be primarily Pharisaic in its orientation (see introduction); in Jesus» day, however, the emphasis would have been on the «elite» rather than the Pharisaic elements of opposition. Even here, the groups are not totally identified (7:48; cf. 12:42), though they overlap (cf. 3:1; 7:26, 50). John " s community probably represents a social stratum strongly differentiated from that of the elite; for that matter, the vast majority of ancient people, including urban dwellers, were not part of the elite. By presenting even the guards who came to arrest Jesus as initially reticent to do so (7:45–46; despite 18:3,22), John reinforces his portrait of the synagogue community as divided within itself (7:43), so that the real opposition to Jesus stems from only the most vocal members of the elite. In Josephus, only a small faction causes the war; in John, a small faction is mostly responsible for Israel " s unbelief. While John characterizes Jesus» opponents as «the Jews,» his narrative repeatedly emphasizes that Jesus» opposition is only a small portion of the Jewish community, namely an elite who can sometimes (albeit not always) sway the opinions of the masses. The leaders appeal to their view of Jesus as a false prophet (7:47; see comment on 7:12). Ironically, they question the competence of those who heard Jesus firsthand (7:46) without hearing from Jesus themselves (7:51), merely on the basis of social class (7:48–49). |
| Many ancient biographies pass quickly over the subject " s youth or background, focusing on his public career and sometimes at length on his death. 3793 Thus Josephus covers the first thirty years of his life in an opening section that constitutes less than 5 percent of his autobiography; even some of this introductory material specifically prepares the reader for Josephus " s role in the war (see Life 13–16). The Fourth Gospel, in contrast to Matthew and Luke but like Mark, turns very quickly to the Baptists proclamation and Jesus» ministry. The prologués comments about John bearing witness to the light give way naturally to the narrative of 1:19–37, where John points priests and Lévites (1:19–28) and his own disciples (1:35–37; possibly also 1:29–34) to Jesus. This section about John " s witness fits neatly into the whole narrative concerning Jesus» first disciples (1:19–51), 3794 and introduces various christological titles, some of which the Gospel will develop in more detai1. 3795 Different days become the occasion for different confessions: John confesses the coming king on one day (1:19–28), acknowledges that Jesus is that king on the next day (1:29–34), and sends his own disciples after Jesus on the next day (1:35–39). 3796 In the same way, new disciples witness to Jesus, making other disciples, in both 1:40–42 and (on the next day) 1:43–47, in both cases a self-revelatory encounter with Jesus himself being the converting factor (as in 4:42). The climactic confession of this section on discipleship comes in 1:43–47: Jesus is both Son of God and king of Israel (Messiah), and will further reveal more of heaven to the world. In Johannine ecclesiology, discipleship involves witness, and witness introduces open hearts to the Person whose power to address the truest issues of their hearts convinces them. Because much of this material about John " s witness is also attested in the Synoptic tradition, it is clear that the author of the Fourth Gospel does not fabricate John " s witness from whole cloth, but adapts existing traditions. 3797 As promised in the introduction, we will explore questions of tradition in this Gospel where it is most easily discerned, namely, in passages that overlap with the Synoptics. That much of this material is paralleled in substance elsewhere in extant sources suggests that other material in the narrative may derive from historical tradition as well, whether or not the other traditions remain extant. (The differences from the Synoptic tradition need not require an independent tradition–paraphrase was a common enough exercise and verbatim recitation was not essential 3798 –but other sources besides the Synoptics and Q existed then [cf. Luke 1:1], and the writer would not have selected only those texts now extant as if he knew which texts would remain extant and wished to impress only later generations.) |
| It is not surprising that seeing Jesus walking on the sea would frighten the disciples (6:19). In Mark " s account, they are afraid because they assume Jesus to be a spirit, probably a night spirit 6073 or a spirit of one drowned at sea, 6074 which were thought particularly dangerous. On recognizing him (6:20), they «willed» to «receive» him (6:21), which makes sense on a purely literal level but in the context of the whole Gospel may imply some typical Johannine symbolism (see the comments on «received» in 1:11–12). It contrasts with Jesus» enemies» failure to receive him in 5:43. As after the resurrection, Jesus provides a demonstration of the reality of his epiphany to the disciples (20:27). 6075 Of the four canonical gospels, only John reports that the boat was immediately at land (6:21b); Mark reports instead merely that the wind ceased ( Mark 6:51 ). 6076 Immediacy often, though not always, characterizes miracle reports in antiquity (see also 5:9). 6077 Bultmann compares a hymn in which a ship «reaches its destination with miraculous speed» once Apollo is on board. 6078 Greek tradition could in fact do better than this: in one account, observers reported Pythagoras teaching simultaneously in two different cities! 6079 Rapid teleporting (cf. Acts 8:39) also appeared in Jewish legends, 6080 probably originally rooted in biblical traditions about Elijah (1 Kgs 18:12) and Ezekiel ( Ezek 3:14; 8:3; 11:1, 24; 37:1; 43:5 ). Some have preferred parallels to the exodus event in which God brought his people through the sea, 6081 but, while this fits the Passover and exodus context of the chapter (hence what we should expect to find here), the parallel is not close and John provides at best few clues for this otherwise fertile interpretation. The most analogous phenomenon within the Fourth Gospel itself would be Jesus» sudden appearance in a room behind closed doors (20:19, 26), suggesting that John may close the miracle story proper by alluding forward (albeit not for first-time readers) to the resurrection appearance to the disciples, where Jesus again reveals his divine identity and ultimately is hailed as God by the most skeptical disciple (20:28). The Manna Discourse (6:22–58) |
| The holy archdeacon Stephan quotes these words with precisely this meaning in his God-inspired speech at the dawn of Christianity, as stated in the book of Acts in Chap.7:42–43. Would a Christian believe the concept of the Divine Law of Prof. Wellhausen more than the most inspired first-Christian commentator – Apostle and first martyr? The Prophet Hosea, the younger contemporary of the Prophet Amos, knows the book of Genesis and narrates the whole story of St. Jacob in fairly great detail. See Hos.12:12 . He knows the book of Exodus. See Hos. 2:15; 9:3; 12:13 ; 13and so on. We shall not pile reference upon reference. We can add one thing. Scanning the pages of the holy prophetic writings, one is convinced once more, how fully and perfectly the Holy Prophets are permeated by the Divine Law, given hundreds of years before them to the holy God-seeing Moses. One must be blind to doubt it. Other words of Prof. Kartashev are closer to the truth: «All of the narrated history of the Hebrew people proceeds in a glaring and therefore incomprehensible contradiction of the most basic cult orders of the written Law of Moses» (p. 46). But can our time sincerely be surprised at such lack of correspondence between the Law and its fulfillment? Can an outside observer of modern life believe that we possess and formally respect the Evangelic Law? Can anyone, knowing our contemporary life, say that we belong to the Church, which professes that «neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the Kingdom of God» ( 1Cor.6:9–10 ) and if «any one does not fast during Great Lent, on Wednesday and Friday, let them be anathema» (the Apostolic rule 69)? This violation of the Lord’s law, even total, especially by kings, even «with the incomprehensible concurrence of the legal priesthood» (p.53) cannot surprise us, especially in our time (and in all times) and cannot at all serve as proof of ignorance about the Divine law being violated by these kings, priests and people. |
| The Pharisees will attribute the sin either to them or to the man before birth (9:34; cf. 9:2), yet the parents fear to differ with them openly. The repetition of their statement of 9in slightly different words in 9may be meant for clarification to prevent the reader losing the flow of the narrative after the narrator " s aside in 9:22. 7129 In any case, however, it underlines the point (as in the analogous case of repetition 13:10–11); here it reinforces their unwillingness to commit themselves. They resemble others who fear to contradict the authorities (7:13), especially lest they be dismissed from the synagogues (12:42), because they cared more for human honor (12:43). That 12:42–43 alludes to this passage in part may be concluded from their unique joining of the key phrases «confess» (μολογω) and «become out-synagogued» (πο-συνγωγος with the aorist subjunctive of γνομαι). As argued in the introduction, the dilemma posed to the formerly blind man is equivalent to the dilemma being posed to most of John " s audience; Johannine scholarship as a whole is therefore undoubtedly correct to see a challenge to the Johannine Christians through this character. Many members of John " s audience, at least the younger members not from those Jewish-Christian families which may have migrated from Palestine (possibly as long as two decades earlier), may have faced the unbelief of their families (cf. comment on 7:5). This paragraph also underlines the dogmatism of the elite which keeps them from hearing (or «seeing " –9:39–41) the truth, and the cost that believers pay in terms of their own families (see commenton 7:3–9). The Johannine Christians, perhaps in conflict with the established and wealthy leaders of synagogue communities in Roman Asia, 7130 could not expect justice from Roman courts, within synagogues, and perhaps from family members. They had to recognize a principle applicable in most cultures, that the elite often command more respect by virtue of their powerful status than does the testimony of otherwise believable close associates. 3. Debating Jesus» Identity (9:24–34) This scene is an interrogation of the healed man (9:23), but turns more into a legal debate. The Pharisees wish to guide the man " s response (9:24,28–29), which violates the objectivity that was supposed to attend legal procedures. 7131 The healed man in turn seems at first oblivious to the leaders» bias, but knows his experience and by the end of the discussion hopes to persuade them accordingly (9:30–33). Their predetermined commitment to expel from the synagogue anyone who affirms Jesus» positive character–despite the miracle–exposes their bias (9:22,34). This is the sort of description that a frustrated minority perspective, convinced of the absolute Tightness of its testimony, might offer concerning those they believe to be intentionally repressing their testimony. 3A. Is Jesus a Sinner? (9:24–25) |
| The evangelist especially wishes his audience to overhear 17:20: the prayer for unity concerns not merely the first generation but their own generation as well, just as their generation " s faith will be rewarded even more than that of the first generation (20:29–31). 9474 Subsequent generations would believe through the first generation " s «word» (17:20), thus sanctifying them as well (17:17); their «word» was God " s own word, Jesus himself mediated through the witness of the disciples (see comment on 16:7–11). 9475 The witnesses in the Fourth Gospel, from John the Baptist to the disciples to the Samaritan woman, thus become a bridge to, as well as a paradigm for, the faith of John " s audience. This renders all the more relevant for John " s audience Jesus» specific prayer on their behalf: unity for the sake of their witness. Just as the unity of Father and Son was central to John " s apologetic (one thus dare not oppose the Son while claiming loyalty to the Father, 10:30), the unity of believers is at the heart of John " s vision for believers (10:16; 11:52; 17:11, 21–23). The Fourth Gospel equipped John " s audience with an apologetic approach from Scripture but most of all summoned them to invite the open-minded to «come and see» (1:39,46; 4:29,39–42), which in their day must have included the questioning to experience the presence of Jesus living among his followers by the Spirit. This presence of Jesus would be experienced through prophetic proclamation (16:7–11) but also through the mutual love of the disciples, who thus revealed Jesus» character (13:34–35; 15:8–12). The way believers treat one another is an essential component of proclaiming Jesus to the world. 9476 Indeed, if one compares this prayer with Jesus» earlier prayer in 11:42, one finds that the unity of believers provides the same kind of witness concerning Jesus» origin as Jesus» raising of Lazarus (τι συ pe πστειλας, 11:42; 17:23). It is noteworthy that when the prayer turns to generations after those of the first disciples, the mention of unity (17:11) becomes a central emphasis (17:21–23). Whereas the «world» was divided (e.g., 7:43; 9:16; 10:19; 12:42–43), Jesus» followers were to be cohesive (13:34–35; 17:21–23). 9477 Disunity characterized the broader culture as a whole. 9478 Intercity rivalries, for example, were common. 9479 Writers and speakers emphasized the need for unity for the state, 9480 for armies, 9481 for families, 9482 and so forth, and the dangers of disunity; 9483 they might praise those who made peace. 9484 Personal enmity was standard in partisan politics 9485 but also extended to matters such as favored teachers 9486 and literary competition. 9487 Sometimes, however, enemies could be reconciled. 9488 |
|
|
