| 1. Some commentators have suggested that verse 45 of the Early Meccan Sura of the Moon (Al-Qamar) 54, is a prophecy of the victory at the battle of Badr. It reads, «Soon will their multitude be put to flight, and they will show their backs.» However, when we add the context found in verses 43 to 48, we find that the subject is the day of judgement. «Are your unbelievers better than they (the Egyptians who were destroyed)? Or do you have an immunity in the sacred books? Or do they say, are a host victorious»? Soon will their multitude be put to flight, and they will show their backs. Nay, the hour (of doom) is their appointed promise, and that hour will be most grievous and most bitter. Truly those in sin are in error and madness. On the day they will be dragged through the fire on their faces (they will hear) the touch of hell " « Neither Yusuf Ali nor Hamidullah claim it as a prophecy, although it is possible, of course, for a verse to have two meanings. 2. In the Sura of the Spoils of War (Al-Anfal) 8:43 from 2 AH, another dream is mentioned. The verse reads, «Remember in your dream (Muhammad), God showed them to you as few. If He had shown them to you as many, you (Muslims) would surely have been discouraged and would have disputed in your decision. But God saved, for He is a Knower of the secrets of the hearts.» This verse, which came after the battle of Badr, refers to a dream which Muhammad had before the battle, but it leaves more problems than it solves. It does not claim that the dream showed a victory, and it depicts God as showing the 300 Muslim fighters that there will only be a few enemy soldiers instead of 1000. Thus, it shows God using deception to achieve His aims in His own community of believers. For me personally this is a real difficulty. Is this the way the God of heaven and earth, Mighty and All-powerful, named the Truth and the Holy One, acts and carries on His affairs? We see this same type of action in other places. In Sura 19:26 God tells Mary to say that she is fasting when in fact she is eating water and dates. (Yusuf Ali is usually very good but in his comment on this problem he suggests that it means fasting from words?!?) In Sura 34:12–14 God keeps the Jinns working by fooling them that Solomon is still alive? In Sura 4:157 Jesus didn " t die, he wasn " t crucified, it just looks like it. |
| by the emperor Constantine for use in churches; see Life of Constantine 4.36–37). Such acceptance of both the Hebrew and Septuagint versions of the Old Testament – with the Hebrew supplementing but not correcting the Greek Septuagint, by now traditional among Christians – became the norm among Christians. Augustine gave eloquent expression to this understanding of scriptural authority: For the same Spirit that was in the prophets when they delivered those messages was present in person in the seventy men also; and he surely has it in his power to say something else, just as if the prophet has said both, because it was the same Spirit that said both... so as to show that the work was not accomplished by a man enslaved to a literal rule of thumb but by the power of God flooding and guiding the intelligence of the translator... If, then, we see, as it behooves us to see, in these Scriptures no words that the Spirit of God did not speak through men, it follows that whatever is in the Hebrew text but not in that of the seventy translators is something that the Spirit of God did not choose to say through the latter, but only through the prophets. On the other hand, where anything that is in the Septuagint is not in the Hebrew text, the same Spirit must have preferred to say it through the former rather than through the prophets, thus showing that these as well as those were prophets. Likewise he spoke, as he pleased, some things through Isaiah, others through Jeremiah, still others through one or another prophet, or the same things but in different form through the latter prophet as well as the former. Moreover, anything that is found in both places is something that one and the same Spirit chose to say through both kinds of instruments, but in such wise that the one kind led the way in prophesying and the other came after with a prophetic translation of their words. For just as a single Spirit of peace inspired the former when they spoke true and concordant words, so the same Spirit manifested himself in the latter when without mutual consultation they nevertheless translated the whole as if with one mouth. (City of God 18.43) |
| ←463 The acquisition of personhood can be achieved only in community. This is the meaning of what J. Zizioulas calls the ecclesial existence. See Zizioulas, Being as Communion. ←464 For a better understanding that the hypostasis of human beings relates not purely to their cognitive faculties or to consciousness but represents an ontological, existential notion, it may be useful to comment on its meaning by using the language of E. Levinas. Levinas, in his approach to hypostasis, starts with the ontological notion of one’s existing. He writes: “It is thus the being in me, the fact that I exist, my existing, that constitutes the absolutely intransitive element, something without intentionality or relationship. One can exchange everything between beings except existing. In this sense to be is to be isolated by existence. Inasmuch as I am, I am a monad. It is by existing that I am without windows and doors, and not by some content in me that would be incommunicable.” In order to overcome the isolation of the existent in its existing – that is, for the existent to come into existence – there must be, according to Levinas, an ontological event when “the existence contracts its existing.” Levinas calls this event hypostasis. See Levinas, Time and the Other, pp. 42 – 43. In the language used in this chapter, this thought could be rephrased as that the existent, who was brought into being as the composite of the body and soul, contracts its existing in the hypostatic event, when the unity of the body and soul of a particular individual is related to a similar unity of another individual not naturally, but hypostatically (that is, when the existing of the one becomes the existence for the other). ←465 One should note that the idea of man as microcosm in Maximus is a Christian transformation of the old pagan idea of man as microcosmos, which recapitulates in itself all natural elements of the universe. ←466 ET: p. 196. The words in brackets are imported from the Russian translation of the same text, which better clarify the sense of Maximus’s assertion. See Maximus the Confessor, Collected Works, vol. 1 (in Russian) (Moscow: Martis, 1993), pp. 167 – 168. |
| For Jesus» interlocutors to claim that the Lord is «their God» yet not to know him was for them to propagate falsehood (8:54–55), a sin of which Jesus has already accused them for resisting the truth (8:44–46). The biblical covenant motif included the claim that God would be Israel " s God and they would be his people; 6925 in its fullest form, this covenant motif also promised that his people would «know» him, that is, relate to God in covenant (e.g., Jer 31:31–34 ; see introduction, ch. 6; comment on 10:3–4). One could not belong to the covenant while failing to «know» God; and Jesus has already charged that they must not know God, because if they really listened to God they would recognize his agent (8:42–43,47). Jesus did not seek his own glory (8:50); it was his Father who glorified him (8:54). In the total Johannine context, the Father would glorify Jesus through his purpose for him in the cross (12:23–24). Isaiah emphasized that God would not share his glory with any other purported deity (Isa 42:8; 48:11). 6926 If they claim Abraham as their father (8:56)–and Jesus does not deny that Abraham is their father ethnically (8:37) 6927 –then they ought to embrace Jesus» revelation joyfully as their ancestor Abraham did (8:56; cf. 8:39–40). Another witness in advance for Jesus, John the Baptist, in whom Jesus» interlocutors rejoiced for a time (5:35), also rejoiced to see Jesus (3:29). That Abraham had «seen» Jesus» «day» 6928 should not have been surprising–to anyone who believed that Jesus was who he claimed to be (cf. Matt 13:16–17; Luke 2:26). But when did Abraham see Jesus» day? It is unclear if Jesus refers here to a specific Jewish tradition, but if he does, it is interesting that some traditions interpreted Abraham " s laugh ( Gen 17:17 ) as joy in response to God " s revelation. 6929 Others believe that 8alludes to an appearance of the préexistent Logos alongside two angels in Gen 18:2, 13 . 6930 Other suggestions point to more specifically eschatological understandings of Jesus» «day.» Various Jewish traditions emphasized that Abraham saw the future or at least some aspects of it in his vision in Gen 15:12–21 . |
| During the first three centuries at least, the term “catholic Church” was applied almost exclusively to the local Church. Ignatius in his well-known passage in Smyrn., 8, where the term appears for the first time in our sources, seems to contrast the local episcopal community with the “catholic Church” in a way that has led many scholars (Zahn, Lightfoot, Bardy, etc.) to identify the latter with the “universal Church.” But there is not a single indication in the text that would suggest this identification. It is clear from Ignatian ecclesiology as a whole that not only does a “universal Church” not exist in Ignatius’ mind but, on the contrary, an identification of the whole Christ and the whole Church with the local episcopal community constitutes a key idea in his thought (cf. below at note 247). In the Martyrtum Polycarpi the expression κατ τν οκουμνην καθολικ κκλησα has led scholars to similar conclusions in a way which seems to overlook the fact that, if one translated καθολικ by “universal” in this text one would be confronted with an impossible tautology which would read something like: “The universal Church which is in the universe”! That in this document there is no such contrast between “local” and “universal” is shown by the fact that it speaks of Polycarp as being the bishop “of the catholic Church which is in Smyrna” (16, 2) precisely because the local Church is the “dwelling place” (παροικα) of the whole Church (inscr.). In the same way Tertullian can use the term “catholic Churches” in the plural (Praescr. haer., 26, 4, PL 2, 38; see comments by Labriolle-Refoulé in the edition “Sources Chrétiennes” 46, 1957, p. 126, n. 4), while Cyprian can write “on the unity of the catholic Church” having in mind probably the Church of Carthage (see Th. Camelot, “Saint Cyprian et la primauté” in Istina 2 p. 423, and M. Bevenot, St Cyprian: The Lapsed – The Unity of the Catholic Church [Ancient Christian Writers 25, 1957], pp. 74 – 75), and the Roman confessors in the middle third century can speak of “one bishop in the catholic Church” (Cyprian, Ep., 49 2 – 4; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl.,VI, 43, 11). It was probably only in the fourth century, and out of the struggle of such theologians as Optatus of Milevis (Adv. Parm., 2, 1) and Augustine (Ер., XCIII, 23; De Unit., 6, 16, etc.) against the provincialism of the Donatists that the term “catholic” came to be identified with “universal.” Cf. P. Batiffol, Le Catholicisme de Saint Augustin (1929), p. 212. During the same century in the East catholicity receives a synthetic definition, in which “universality” is one of the elements that constitute catholicity. (See Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., 18, 23, PG 33:1044.) |
| 41 . You see what God requires of you, that you remember that grace which you have received, and boast not as though you had not received it. You see by how complete a promise of remission He draws you to confession. Take heed, lest by resisting the commandments of God you fall into the offence of the Jews, to whom the Lord Jesus said: “We piped to you and ye danced not; we wailed and ye wept not.” 3173 42 . The words are ordinary words, but the mystery is not ordinary. And so one must be on one’s guard, lest, deceived by any common interpretation of this saying, one should suppose that the movements of wanton dances and the madness of the stage were commended; for these are full of evil in youthful age. But the dancing is commended which David practised before the ark of God. For everything is seemly which is done for religion, so that we need be ashamed of no service which tends to the worship and honouring of Christ. 43 . Dancing, then, which is an accompaniment of pleasures and luxury, is not spoken of, but spiritually such as that wherewith one raises the eager body, and suffers not the limbs to lie slothfully on the ground, nor to grow stiff in their accustomed tracks. Paul danced spiritually, when for us he stretched forward, and forgetting the things which were behind, and aiming at those which were before, he pressed on to the prize of Christ. 3174 And you, too, when you come to baptism, are warned to raise the hands, and to cause your feet wherewith you ascend to things eternal to be swifter. This dancing accompanies faith, and is the companion of grace. 44 . This, then, is the mystery. “We piped to you,” singing in truth the song of the New Testament, “and ye danced not.” That is, did not raise your souls to the spiritual grace. “We wailed, and ye wept not.” That is, ye did not repent. And therefore was the Jewish people forsaken, because it did not repent, and rejected grace. Repentance came by John, grace by Christ. He, as the Lord, gives the one; the other is proclaimed, as it were, by the servant. The Church, then, keeps both that it may both attain to grace and not cast away repentance, for grace is the gift of One Who confers it; repentance is the remedy of the sinner. |
| This is what was above called heaven and earth, like the seed of heaven and earth. On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 4.12. 43 1:2c The Spirit Was Moving over the Face of the Waters Created by the Spirit. Ambrose: The Spirit fittingly moved over the earth, destined to bear fruit because by the aid of the Spirit it held the seeds of new birth which were to germinate according to the words of the prophet: “Send forth thy Spirit and they shall be created and thou shalt renew the face of the earth.” 44 Hexaemeron 1.8.45 Water Is Easily Movable Formless Matter. Augustine: The matter is first called by the name of the universe, that is, of heaven and earth, for the sake of which it was made from absolutely nothing. Second, its formlessness is conveyed by the mention of the unformed earth and the abyss, because among all the elements earth is more formless and less bright than the rest. Third, by the name water, there is signified matter that is subject to the work of the Maker, for water can be moved more easily than earth. And thus on account of the easiness by which it can be worked and moved, the matter subject to the Maker should be called water rather than earth. On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis 4.13. 46 A Symbol of Baptism. Jerome: In the beginning of Genesis, it is written: ”And the Spirit was stirring above the waters.” You see, then, what it says in the beginning of Genesis. Now for its mystical meaning – “The Spirit was 39 FC 21:379. 40 FC 46:22. 41 FC 42:26, 29. 42 FC 84:53. 43 FC 84:152. 44 Ps 104:30. 45 FC 42:32–33. 46 FC 84:153. stirring above the waters” – already at that time baptism was being foreshadowed. It could not be true baptism, to be sure, without the Spirit. Homilies 10. 47 Creation Initiated Through the Spirit. Ephrem the Syrian: [The Holy Spirit] warmed the waters with a kind of vital warmth, even bringing them to a boil through intense heat in order to make them fertile. The action of a hen is similar. It sits on its eggs, making them fertile through the warmth of incubation. |
| Jesus notes that the thieves have come only to work harm for the sheep (10:10); once they stole the sheep from the rightful owner, they sometimes would even kill the animals (cf. Exod 22:1, 4), and animal herders had good reason to fear this (e.g., Longus 2.22). By contrast, Jesus came to bring life to the sheep (10:10); the emphasis on «more abundant» life 7383 makes clear that the text refers to eternal life, that is, the life of the coming age which, in John s theology, begins in the present with a divine birth (3:3–5; see comments on life in the introduction). John s words about Jesus coming to bring life, versus the Pharisees coming to kill (10:10), naturally leads into the following section where Jesus must die to save the sheep. Yet whereas one would expect him to point again to the Jerusalem elite as those who «kill» the shepherd, John prefers to emphasize Jesus» choice to offer himself rather than his enemies» choice to execute him (10:18; cf. comment on 13:26). 4. The True Shepherd " s Sacrifice (10:11–18) The contrast between the shepherd who cares for and brings life to the sheep and the thieves who come to destroy the sheep (10:10) leads into a discussion of how fully the good shepherd loves his sheep. In this section Jesus demonstrates his relationship with his sheep in terms of his death on their behalf. The «hirelings» (10:12–13) presumably represent the false shepherds of Israel ( Jer 23:1–2 ; Ezek 34:10 ), hence might function as the allegorical equivalent (though certainly not with the same function in the story itself) of the thieves and robbers– those who care about their own office rather than about the sheep. Such people ultimately bring about only destruction (10:10); ch. 11 will provide a narrative contrast between the life-bringing Jesus (11:43–44) and the life-destroying Judean elite (12:10–11; cf. the irony in 11:48); that Jesus himself must die at their hands reinforces the graphic contrast (11:50–52). 7384 The most significant role of the hirelings, however, whether they function allegorically or not, is their foil for Jesus» role: he is committed to the sheep because they belong to him, hence he is prepared to face death from the thieves, robbers, or wolves to protect the sheep. |
| The triumph of Orthodoxy is the story of the Bible, the story of Jesus, the story of the Church, a story of sacrifice and faith. It is a story of grace and life overcoming the powers of sin and death. It is the triumph of God working in and through people, both the righteous and the sinners, a divine struggle in the plains and hilltops of history, for the sake of love, truth, justice and salvation. In the words of today’s Epistle reading: “Through faith the saints conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received promises, stopped the mouths of lions . . . they suffered mocking and scourging, chains and imprisonment, they were stoned, killed, afflicted—of whom the world was not worthy.” It is the story of Almighty God, patiently and lovingly, trying to set the world straight, to draw all humanity into the sphere of His kingdom, through grace and righteousness. Today we rejoice in the treasures of the Orthodox Church. We delight in the veneration of icons which connect us to the communion of saints and angels. We proclaim the truth and glory of Orthodoxy in the form of a great confession of faith, often abbreviated for reasons of time. We triumphantly declare: “This is the faith of the Apostles! This is the faith of the Fathers! This is the Faith of the Orthodox! This is the faith that upholds the universe!” What is the essence of our faith, the center of our joy, the priceless pearl of Orthodoxy, found at the very heart of the Orthodox Church and all its rich heritage of sacraments, teachings and pious traditions? We can answer with the joyous words of the first apostles from today’s Gospel reading (John 1:43-51). The Apostle Philip shouted to the others: “We have found Him of whom Moses and also the Prophets wrote!” And Nathaniel cried out to Christ: “Teacher, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!” Commenting on this passage, St. John Chrysostom wrote: “See how Nathaniel’s soul is filled with joy? See how he embraces Christ with words of faith? See how he leaps and dances with delight? So should we all also rejoice, who have been made worthy to know the Son of God.” |
| The informed reader, however, knows that Jesus is not really a Samaritan: the reader recalls that Jesus denied the centrality of Mount Gerizim as well as that of Jerusalem " s temple (4:21), and told a Samaritan woman that salvation was from the Jews as a people (4:22). John " s Jewish-Christian readers, whose faithfulness to their heritage is being challenged by the synagogues (see introduction, ch. 5), would take heart: Jesus» fidelity to Israel was also wrongly questioned. Many of his own people charged him with being a Samaritan, whereas a Samaritan rightly identified him as a Jew (4:9). They also take the opportunity to respond to another charge of Jesus in their accusation (8:48). If Jesus has accused them of being from the devil (8:44), they hope to return the charge by claiming that he has a demon (8:48; cf. 7:20; 10:20). 6907 In ancient Mediterranean public culture, 6908 particularly in early Judaism, 6909 slander was no small crime. Theirs may represent a charge, not that Jesus is possessed per se, but that he has a spirit under his control, the typical way to do magic (see more fully comment on 7:20). 6910 Charges that Jesus was a magician or guided by an evil spirit figure prominently in early anti-Christian polemic. 6911 Demonization could also be associated with insanity, 6912 as it is explicitly in 10:20. Ancients employed such labeling to control marginal voices viewed as a threat, and evidence suggests that opponents raised such charges even during Jesus» public ministry ( Mark 3:22 ). 6913 That they seem to identify Jesus» Father with an evil spirit suggests to us other attested Jesus tradition ( Mark 3:29–30 ); perhaps John " s first audience also might hear this passage in the context of such traditions (as well as the Johannine traditions themselves, for us no longer extant apart from this Gospel). Jesus honors not a demon but his Father, so by dishonoring Jesus, God " s faithful agent, they dishonor God ( John 8:49 ; cf. 5:23; 1 John 2:23 ), and will answer to the only who who assigns the ultimate honor or disgrace in the end (8:50). In honoring his Father (8:49) Jesus does not seek his own glory (8:50), in contrast to his accusers (5:44; 7:18; 12:43); it was his Father who would vindicate him with glory (5:41; 8:54; 17:5), for he alone had the right to evaluate and bestow glory (8:50). The irony is that in this Gospel Jesus glorifies the Father and receives glory through the cross–truly a glorification his opponents would not seek for themselves. |
|
|
