| Those who «delivered» Jesus directly to Pilate were the Jewish leaders (18:30, 35), 10030 though Judas (18:2, 5, 36) and Pilate himself (19:16) provide other links in the same chain of guilt and in the end it is Jesus himself who «delivers» over his life (19:30). By declaring that those who handed Jesus to Pilate are guiltier because (δι τοτο) his authority comes from «above,» that is, from God, the text clearly implies that the high priests» authority did not come from that source. This probably represents an allusion to the Roman interference in the appointment of high priests and perhaps also to Caiaphas " s participation in what appeared to many of his contemporaries unscrupulous politics (see comment on 11:49). Pilatés predecessor Valerius Gratus (15–26 C.E.) had appointed Caiaphas as a priest with whom Rome could work, and Pilate had retained him. 10031 Jesus» answer reflects his willingness to face death, regularly associated with courage and virtue in ancient Mediterranean texts 10032 –for instance, the Spartan boy who allegedly let a fox eat its way through his abdomen to prevent capture during training exercises. 10033 Yet Jesus» allusion to authority «from above» may remind John " s audience of the one whose authorization from above is beyond that of all others (3:27, 31, 35). 5. Handing Over the Jewish King (19:12–16) Pilate may have some interest in justice, but he exhibits greater interest in protecting himself politically (19:12). After a final repudiation of Jesus» rulership (19:14–15), he delivers Jesus «to them» (19:16). On the literal level, this handing over of Jesus means simply «handing him over to their will» (Roman soldiers remain in charge of the execution in 19:23); but on the symbolic level, John again reinforces that it was the machinations of the Judean aristocracy, not the specific hostility of Rome, that would bring about Jesus» execution (18:31–32; 19:6). 5A. Pilatés Political Dilemma (19:12) Pilatés response to Jesus» words is striking: he seeks all the more to release him (19:12). Again the narrative seems to imply that Pilate was taking Jesus» words seriously; but John recognizes that it is possible even to believe Jesus» words yet fail to affirm them because one loves human honor more than God " s (12:42–43). Provincial governors were generally politically ambitious men of senatorial rank aspiring to yet higher offices; 10034 bad reports could mar onés political ambitions. Pilate, who was of lower rank by birth but had gained his office through the graces of the anti-Jewish Sejanus (Tiberius " s immediate agent of government), was more politically vulnerable than most. 10035 Further, more is at stake now than merely political advancement; governors who abused their power could be tried, 10036 but the greatest crime for Romans, even worse than murdering onés father, was treason. 10037 To release a self-proclaimed king (19:12) was to accommodate treason, hence to warrant execution oneself! 10038 |
| Unlike some in the Gospel who received prior explanation of Jesus» identity (e.g., 1:45; 4:29), the healed man has an experience but not yet an adequate interpretation for it (9:25). Feigned ignorance could function as a rhetorical device (πορα); 7132 whether or not the narrative characterizes the man as sophisticated enough to challenge his interrogators on this level, they would be sophisticated enough to infer it as one possible way to understand him. However we read the motives of characters in the story world, the narrative lays open a clear choice: either Jesus is a sinner (9:24), or Jesus is from God, and it is ultimately only the latter claim that matches the data (9:31–33). The man " s interrogators are clear in the response they are looking for; 7133 ancient prosecutors would grill witnesses harder if they were perceived as friendly to the accused. The phrase «give glory to God» (9:24) can refer to praise, 7134 but in a trial or interrogation context, can mean, «give glory to God by confessing your wrong» (Josh 7:19; 1 Esd 9:8). 7135 Thus they may be exhorting the man to admit that he is following a «misleader» (see comment on 7:12)–and exhorting him to glorify God by repenting. Again this is Johannine irony; 7136 the man does not respond the way they intend, but he does glorify God by testifying of God " s works through Jesus (9:25–33) and then suffering the penalty (9:34)–which was one way to glorify God in truth (12:23–24; 21:19). From the perspective of Johannine witness, any other response on the part of the healed man would have deferred to human glory rather than God " s (12:42–43). He proves more courageous than his parents (9:20–22), an example which may also summon Johannine Christians to courage (cf. 7:3–10; cf. Acts 4:20). 3B. Disciples of Moses? (9:26–28) The healed man claims that he had answered their questions before (9:27; cf. 9:15, 19); their repeated question probably reflects traditional Jewish procedures for cross-examining witnesses (e.g., Sus 48–62; m. " Abot 1:9; cf. Mark 14:56 ). The healed man, however, does naively hope that they are as impressed with his new experience as he himself is (9:27), a hope immediately shown vain by their ridicule (9:28). Some scholars would link their ridicule with the Birkath Ha-minim; the term λοιδορω applies to reviling and abuse, which would be nearly as accurate as the more precise «malediction.» Nevertheless, the term (a Johannine hapax) has broader application in early Christianity (Acts 23:4; 1Cor 4:12 ), including to Jesus» sufferings ( 1Pet 2:23 ). 7137 Like the possible hint in 7:49, this is at most a hint; John " s environment (assuming the Birkath had by this point occurred and exercised noticeable effects even in Roman Asia) does not totally overtake the story, and the story world remains internally consistent and plausible. |
| The response of confusion (6:40–41) stems from an inadequate hermeneutic; they knew Jesus according to the flesh but missed his genuine identity, which could be understood only by the Spirit ( John 3:3, 11–12 ; cf. 2Cor 5:16–17 ; Matt 11:25; 16:17; Luke 10:21). 6172 Their grumbling (6:41; cf. 6:61; 7:32) recalls the grumbling of Exod 16:2, 6173 but in that case Israel grumbled before receiving the manna, whereas these hearers complain after receiving bread and the invitation of the ultimate satiation for their hunger. 6174 Perhaps because of their attitude at this point, these Galileans finally receive the ironically pejorative title «Jews,» that is, «Judeans.» 6175 The rejection of Jesus based on familiarity with him (6:42) undoubtedly reflects historical tradition ( Mark 6:1–6 ; Matt 13:53–58), 6176 while also serving John " s particular emphasis (1:11). Johns readers probably know the virgin birth tradition, which is earlier than either Matthew or Luke (their testimonies appear in accounts independent from one another), and if John does know this tradition (see comment on 7:41–42), 6:42 may presuppose the reader " s knowledge that the crowd " s claim to knowledge reveals ignorance. 6177 But John is more interested in their ignorance of Jesus» ultimate place of origin. That other outsiders admit ignorance of his place of origin (7:27) makes the present inadequate claim to know his place of origin all the more ironic. Jesus notes that the Father draws some to him (6:43–44), using biblical language for God drawing Israel to himself in the wilderness or the exile ( Jer 31:3 ; Hos 11LXX); 6178 the reader later learns that the Father draws such adherents through the proclamation of the cross ( John 12:32–33 ). 6179 Only those whom the Father gives to Jesus «come» to him in faith (6:37, 44). Jewish prayers such as the fifth benediction of the Amidah recognized God " s sovereignty even in granting repentance (cf. Rom 2:4 ). 6180 Like most of his Jewish contemporaries, John felt no tension between predestination and free wil1. 6181 Antinomies were in any case standard fare both in Greco-Roman rhetoricians and in Jewish writings. 6182 Because of increasing cosmic fatalism in late antiquity, philosophers had to begin defending a doctrine of free will previously taken for granted, and early Christian commentators likewise proved careful to emphasize that Jesus» statements do not deny free wil1. 6183 |
| About Pages Проекты «Правмира» Raising Orthodox Children to Orthodox Adulthood The Daily Website on How to be an Orthodox Christian Today Twitter Telegram Parler RSS Donate Navigation His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and All Greece Receives Honorary Doctorate from Holy Cross School of Theology admin 20 May 2013 May 18, 2013 Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology conferred today an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Divinity, Honoris Causa, to His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos II of Athens and All Greece, during its 71st graduation ceremony. Archbishop Demetrios of America conferred the honorary title to the Primate of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Greece following the citation by the President of Hellenic College Holy Cross, Rev. Fr. Nicholas Triantafilou. In the citation, Fr. Triantafilou portrayed His Beatitude as a Hierarch, a Shepherd and a Leader and in recognition of his exceptional intellectual, pastoral and ecclesiastical achievements in general asked the recipient for “the singular privilege of honoring you and joining your name with that of our sacred institution.” Archbishop Ieronymos accepted the honor and delivered the commencement address to the graduates. In his address he said that “this School is indeed a jewel of our Church; a lighthouse of Orthodoxy in the vast Western Christian and multicultural world.” He also outlined some crucial and essential questions facing prospective clergymen and Orthodoxy in general, and offered meaningful answers and paternal admonitions. (See the text in its entirety here .) The conferral of Degrees to a total of 63 graduates followed, 20 were graduates from Hellenic College and 43 from the Holy Cross School of Theology. His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios of America spoke at the end of the ceremonies and summarized the key qualities of His Beatitude, noting “his uncompromising faith, his unconditional dedication to the Church and his high sensitivity to people who suffer.” (L to R) Fr. Nicholas Triantafilou, Archbishop Demetrios of America, Archbishop Ieronymos of Athens and All Greece, Metropolitan Methodios of Boston, and Dr. Thomas Lelon, vice-chair of the Board of Trustees. (photo © Dimitrios Panagos/GOA) |
| On the reclining (13:12), see our comment on the setting (13:1–3). By opening with a statement of his superior rank (13:13), Jesus focuses his following words on the inversion of status and power among his followers, a theme elsewhere known from the Jesus tradition (e.g., Mark 9:36–37; 10:15, 42–45 ; Matt 18:3–4, 10; Luke 22:24–27). Whoever instructed a disciple in Torah was his master, 8182 and Jesus certainly was the teacher of his disciples. 8183 While disciples might call their teachers both «teacher» and «lord» («sir»), on the Johannine level of meaning the latter term implies christological authority (13:13). 8184 Following Jesus» example by washing one another " s feet (13:14) evidences following the example of his love (13:34) but also evokes the image of the water motif (see comment on 2:6; 3:5), implying involvement in Christ " s salvific work. 8185 (For imitation of teachers and of God, see comment on 13:34–35.) If Jesus sacrifices his life to serve his followers, then his followers must also be ready to pay such a price to guard one another " s perseverance in the faith. That they «ought» to wash one another " s feet may reflect the moralist use of the language of obligation, 8186 but is certainly acceptable vocabulary in the Johannine circle of believers (cf. 1 John 2:6; 3:16; 4:11 ; cf. 3 John 8 ). When Jesus takes the role of a servant, he plainly inverts the roles of himself and the disciples in that society. 8187 John utilizes in 13a saying also attested in the Q tradition, which in its original form applied to disciples as well as slaves (Matt 10:24–25; Luke 6:40). 8188 A disciple normally would not claim to be greater than his teacher; 8189 if a master suffered, how much more should his servant be willing to endure it. 8190 That a servant or disciple was like the master may have been a proverb and was probably at least a commonplace. 8191 Disciples would do for their teachers almost anything a slave would do except deal with their feet, which was considered too demeaning for a free person (see comment on 1:27). 8192 By the late second century, a sage could exercise much of the authority over a disciple that a master could over a slave; he was even permitted to beat pupils. 8193 Disciples of the sages should attend on the sages; 8194 studying under rabbis involved serving them. 8195 This passage in some sense repudiates the conception of servant-disciples prevalent in the rabbinic movement and probably the larger culture. 8196 Its ideas are certainly consistent with other extant Jesus tradition ( Mark 10:43–45 ). Jesus» disciples were servants (15:20); ultimately servants in the exalted sense of the biblical prophets (cf. Rev 1:1) yet servants of Jesus as well as of God (12:26). But they were also friends (15:15), invited into fellowship by a love that burst the bounds of social propriety (cf. 3:16). |
| With this prayer, the mother is numbered among those who shall stand in His holy place and receive a blessing from the Lord, and mercy from God [their] Savior , praying as they did in preparation for Holy Communion to be not only pure in heart , but, in the inherent union of body and soul, also to be of clean hands (Ps. 23). In the Archangel’s Rejoice! we recognize our deliverance from the curse of old and the hand of Satan. In the Archangel’s Rejoice! we recognize our salvation, of which today is the beginning. “Theotokos and Virgin, rejoice, Mary full of grace, the Lord is with Thee. Blessed art Thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit of Thy womb, for Thou hast borne Christ the Savior, the deliverer of our souls.” 6 апреля 2017 г. Commentary on Genesis 2.30.2. “The distinguishing qualities of male and female were not at all contingent on the divine intention concerning man’s generation. Foreknown to God was yet another way of increasing mankind into a multitude.” St. Maximus the Confessor, On Various Perplexing Topics, PG 91, 1309A. See also St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.24: “ Increase and multiply does not mean increasing by the marriage union exclusively, because if they had kept the commandment unbroken forever, God could have increased the race by some other means.” St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man 17.2: “if there had not come upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from equality with the angels, neither should we have needed marriage that we might multiply but whatever the mode of increase in the angelic nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of men, who were " made a little lower than the angels, " to increase mankind to the measure determined by its Maker. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis 18.12. See also Elder Aimilianos, The Church at Prayer: The Mystical Liturgy of the Heart, p. 124; St. Athanasius, Commentary on the Psalms (Ps. 50:5); St. Diadochos of Photiki, Philokalia Vol. 1, p. 269; St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man 17; St. Gregory Palamas, Homily 43 " On the Gospel Reading for the Seventeenth Sunday of Matthew About the Canaanite Woman,” in Homilies p. 342; St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40.2, On Holy Baptism; St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.22.4; St. Jerome, Against Jovinian 1.16; St. John Climacus, The Ladder of Divine Ascent, Step 15; St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.24; St. Maximus the Confessor, Ad Thalassium 21; Ad Thalassium 61; St. Paisios, Elder Paisios of Mt. Athos, by Hieromonk Isaac, p. 144-145; St. Symeon the New Theologian, Ethical Discourses 13, in On the Mystical Life: The Ethical Discourses, Vol. 2: On Virtue and Christian Life, p. 167; Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus, Questions on Genesis 37.2 |
| This positive understanding of natural contemplation is more developed in the Commentary on John, where Origen discusses the idea that there are logoi, principles, implanted in the created order that can lead man to a conception of God’s eternal wisdom: if anyone is capable of conceiving by thought an incorporeal existence, formed by all sorts of ideas, which embraces the principles of the universe, an existence living and, as it were, animated, he will know the Wisdom of God who is above every creature and who truly says of himself: God created me as the beginning of his ways for his works. (Comm. on John I. xxxiv: GCS, 43) So much for the first two ways. Origen’s understanding of ethics and natural contemplation is deeply Platonic: the aim of these two ways is to subdue the body to the soul and then to free the soul from the body. Only when freed from the body can the soul enter on the way of enoptike, contemplation of God Himself, and on this way the soul passes beyond what it can achieve by its own efforts: it can only pass to this way, characterized by love, by reliance on God’s mercy. 66 This is stated explicitly in the Commentary on the Song of Songs when, discussing the reference to ‘midday’ in the Song, Origen remarks: With regard to the time of vision, then, he ‘sits at midday’ who puts himself at leisure in order to see God. That is why Abraham is said to sit, not inside the tent but outside, at the door of the tent. For a man’s mind also is out of doors and outside of the body, if it be far removed from carnal thoughts and desires; and therefore God visits him who is placed outside all these. (II. 4: GCS 140) This also suggests that enoptike is properly something the soul can look forward to after death. Released from the body by death, the soul becomes mind, and is free to contemplate invisible reality: the realm of the Platonic Forms. Sometimes Origen gives expression to this in a very explicit way, for instance in De Principiis: And so the rational being, growing at each successive stage, not as it grew when in this life in the flesh or body and in the soul, but increasing in mind and intelligence, advances as a mind already perfect to perfect knowledge, no longer hindered by its former carnal senses, but developing in intellectual power, ever approaching the pure and gazing ‘face to face’, if I may to speak, on the causes of (II. xi. 7: GSC 191 f.) |
| Jesus now identifies for them clearly where he is from (8:14)–and why they cannot understand it, because they are not from there (cf. 3:3, 10–12; 8:43): he is from above (cf. 3:13,31), not from the world (17:14), whereas they are from below, from the world. Rabbis sometimes considered discussions of the realms «above» and «below» (8:23) esoteric subjects, 6683 but in the apocalyptic thought world of much of early Judaism, the contrast was simply between the celestial realm of God and his angels on the one hand and that of mortals on earth on the other. 6684 A modern reader might link «below» with birth from the devil (8:44) and envision a world below earth, but whereas Greeks thought of dark deities of the dead in the chthonic or underworld, 6685 Jewish people were more apt to associate Satan with the world of humanity where he worked. 6686 Even in Jewish traditions about fallen angels imprisoned below, which are not in view here, though most versions of the story envisioned them imprisoned below, 6687 some envisioned them imprisoned in the atmosphere. 6688 Jesus does not belong to the world; he comes from God (8:23). (See on vertical dualism in the introduction, pp. 162–63.) 6689 Thus they would die in their sins (8:24; see comment on 8:21,34; cf. 9:41) unless they believed Jesus was «he» (8:24; cf. 3:18; 16:9). Some think Jesus» use of «I am [he]» in 8(cf. 8:28; 13:19) means «I am the Messiah.» 6690 More than likely, however, it reflects a theophanic formula from Isa 43:10, as 8confirms. 6691 If our traditions are accurate, this particular title revealing God " s character was already in use at the festival of Tabernacles. 6692 The ambiguity of Jesus» language («γ εμι» signifying «I am he» or «I am») fits the Gospel " s pattern of double entendres inviting misunderstanding from those disinclined to persevere. This ambiguity is fully resolved in 8:58, however. 6693 Meanwhile, their failure to believe (8:24) announces to the reader their condemnation (3:18). Despite John " s witness in 1:19–27 (cf. 5:35), they appear to have no idea of Jesus» identity (8:25; cf. 8:19). The sense of their question, «Who are you?» (8:25) resembles 10far more than 1:19–22; in this context, Jesus has been clear enough that their lack of understanding says more about their spiritual perception than about his identity. Jesus responds obliquely, as in 10:25, but with a context that would clarify his ambiguity if they cared to understand it. (In both contexts, he invites only anger when he ultimately clarifies his point as explicitly as they desire–8:58–59; 10:30–31). Some translate την αρχν ο τι και λαλ μν (8:25b) as a direct answer to their question about his identity (8:25a): «The one who is (at) the beginning, who is also speaking with you.» 6694 Although this translation is grammatically defensible, most commentators read Jesus» response as a question, perhaps an expression of despairing that they will understand. 6695 |
| P. viii. l. 8. – «Then did great wonder.» The miraculous part of this narrative, which savors so strongly of the superstitious, is omitted from the Greek; and that passage added which, in the Syriac, commences the account of Zacchaeus, but is not found at that place in the Greek. The story of Romanus having spoken after his tongue was cut out is, however, repeated in the other Syriac Acts, and is also told in the Greek Menaum. See Valesius, note ( a ) Eng. Trans. p. 158. Ruinart has the following note: – «Omittit miraculum Romani, etiam abscissa lingua loquentis, quod alias adeo exaggerat. Hinc patet non omnia isto libello contineri.» p. 318. Eusebius himself also, in his book de Resurrectione, affirms the miracle. See Ruinart, Acta prim. Martt. p. 359; and Chrysostom, Oral. 43 et 48. Ibid. See also S. E. Assemanís note, Act. SS. Martt. p. ii. p. 182. l. 20. – «Upon the rack.» The other Syriac version adds here, «to five holes,» [Syriac] . Ibid. p. 181. l. 22. – «Strangling instrument.» [Syriac]. Greek, τ ξυλ βροχ. The other Acts have, «He was strangled in Prison,» fol. 304. l. 30. – «Confession of Timotheus.» These Acts are also given in the other Syriac Translation by S. E. Assemani, Act. SS. Martt. p. ii. p. 184. See Surius, at the 19th of August, and Baillet, at the same day. P.ix. l. 2. – «Edicts from the Emperors.» Respecting these Edicts Valesius has the following note on the Ecc. Hist. b. viii. c. vi. ( e ) – " By the first Edict of the Emperors against the Christians it was ordered that the churches should be ruined and the scriptures burnt, and that those who were honoured with any preferment (if they refused to sacrifice) should be deprived of their dignity. The meaner sort were to lose their liberty. See chap. 2. Another Edict soon followed this, that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons should be imprisoned, and by all ways compelled to sacrifice. The third Edict comprehended all sorts of Christians, as well those of the laity as the clergy; which Edict was proposed (says Eusebius in the chap. 3 of his book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine) in the second year of the Persecution. But this seems rather to have been the fourth Edict: for the second and third concerned the Presbyters only. By the second it was ordered they should be imprisoned, and by the third it was enjoined that they should by tortures be compelled to sacrifice.» Eng. Trans. p. 143. |
| In chapter 4 of the Tao Teh Ching we read: The Tao appears to be emptiness, so its function seems insufficient; But, fathomless, it seems to be the source of all things. (Gi-ming Shien, trans.) And in chapter 45: Great fullness is as if deplete; Yet in its use it is not exhausted. (Fr. Seraphim Rose, trans.) Line 16: Emptied, you will be ever full. Discussing the relationship between emptiness and fullness in the Tao Teh Ching, Fr. Seraphim Rose writes: «We must ask what happens once one has reached the point of ‘con-vergence’, the ‘minim.’ The answer has already been given: one proceeds to the ‘maximal’; when one has ‘expired,’ it remains only for him to ‘inspire’; the end of ‘emptiness’ is ‘fullness.’ «Yet ‘fullness’ is of two kinds for Lao Tzu; there is the true fullness arrived at through the ‘minim,’ and there is the fullness of excess, which leads to exhaustion. «Those who possess this Tao do not try to fill themselves to the brim’ (Tao Teh Ching, ch. 15).... «Lao Tzu takes a dim view of excessive ‘filling,’ but he approves of the right sort. »The valley, by obtaining the One, is filled’ (Tao Teh Ching, ch. 39). For, " if a thing is hollow, it will be filled» (ch. 22). The right kind of ‘filling’ is the ‘great filling’ that Lao Tzu praises in chapter 45....» Finally, Fr. Seraphim asks how it is possible to attain a state of being «ever full»: «Is the ‘sage’ – the man who, through attaining the ‘minim’, has gained everything – beyond all change? Does he, having become ‘full’, never again become ‘empty’? This could not be, for the world Lao Tzu describes is one of constant change. But since his ‘fullness,’ unlike that of the ‘multitudes,’ is not an extreme, but a moderate one – it seems, indeed, as though ‘empty’ (ch. 45) – he will not come to catastrophe. He will ‘turn back’ before the extreme and ‘converge’ in the ‘minim’». 829 Chapter 43 Line 3: Because you cannot see the end. On the metaphysical meaning of «the end», see the commentary on chapter 24. Chapter 44 |
|
|
