| 34:15). 7613 One would honor persons by meeting them and conducting them to their destination (e.g., 12:13; Dionysius of Halicarnassus R.A. 7.7.2; Chariton 4.7.6; Judg 4:18; 11:31,34 ; 1Sam 13:10; 16:4; 21:1; 25:32 ; cf. royal parousia contexts, e.g., 1 Thess 4:17; cf. 2Sam 19:25 ; Jdt 5:4; 7:15; Pesiq. Rab. 51:8). Certainly cities treated visiting dignitaries in this manner, and the same is probably true for visiting scholars among those who respected them (cf. Acts 28:15). Yet at least by later custom, one should not greet a mourner (p. Ber. 2:6, §3). 7616 Haenchen, John, 2:61. Others regard her faith as inadequate; «any Pharisee could have said this» (Fenton, John, 122). 7619 Cf. similarly Koester, Symbolism, 109. On the soul " s immortality, see, e.g., Sir 9:12 ; Josephus War 1.84; 2.154–155, 163; 7.341–348; Ant. 17.354; 18.14,18; Philo Abraham 258; Moses 2.288; T. Ab. 1:24–25A; 4:9; 9:8B; Ps.-Phoc. 108; Apoc. Mos. 13:6; 32:4; 33:2; Jos. Asen. 27:10; Wolfson, Philo, 395–413. For exceptions, see 1Macc 2:63; Josephus Ant. 18.16. 7620 Malzoni, «La résurrection,» prefers the shorter reading «I am the resurrection» (following some Old Syriac witnesses); the textual tradition would more likely be expansive here, and the omission has significant and early geographic range. The longer reading is more widely attested from the beginning, however (cf. Metzger, Commentary, 234). In either case, «life» is implicit in «resurrection» and «lives.» 7621 «Not die» makes «live» more emphatic (e.g., L.A.B. 23:10; see comment on 8:51), but it deals with the question of eternal life, not the question of Lazarus " s physical raising central to the narrative itself (unless to say that Lazarus " s physical state was irrelevant to his eternal life; cf. Gamble, «Philosophy,» 55; 1 Thess 4:13–14). 7622 Such foreshadowing made sense in a Jewish framework, e.g., Pesiq. Rab Kah. 9:4. John elsewhere uses «tomb» only for that of Jesus (19:41–20:11) or the dead he will raise (5:28). Derrett, «Lazarus,» infers a connection, probably anachronistically, between Lazarus " s resurrection and Moses bringing water from the rock (based on later Roman catacomb paintings). |
| Craig S. Keener True Purification. 2:1–25 AT A WEDDING, JESUS sets aside the purificatory purpose of waterpots that embody traditional religious practices (for comment on Johns water motif, see also comment on 1:25–26, 31; 3:5). At the Gospels first Passover festival, Gods lamb then purifies the temple itself, starting the path of conflict with Judean leaders that leads to the passion of the Gospel " s final Passover. Relationship versus Ritual Purification (2:1–11) Signs-faith is less valuable than faith that merely responds to the Spirit " s witness (20:29); it is nevertheless a better place to begin than no faith at all (14:11). In 2:1–11, disciples who have already begun to believe Jesus (in 1:35–51) come to a new level of faith through Jesus» first sign. Outsiders to the establishment again receive deeper insight (2:9) than those closest to the heart of the social order. Perhaps most significantly, Jesus, who acts with divine authority, does not hesitate to suspend ritual law (again symbolized by water; cf. 1:33; 2:6; 3:5) in favor of a friend " s honor. The Jesus of this narrative prefigures the Jesus of the following narrative, who will act in judgment against the social and religious order represented by the temple. The following interpretive dialogue will reinforce the point that it is Jesus» gift of the Spirit, rather than ritual or heritage, that brings life (3:3–6). Thus this narrative also introduces Jesus» «hour» (2:4), beginning the conflict with the Judean religious and political establishment that in John must inevitably lead to the cross. 4354 1. Preliminary Questions Scholars have offered various proposals about this passagés role in the structure of 2:1–4:54, paralleling the two explicit Cana miracles as a deliberate inclusio. Although details vary, the intervening section moves from a Jewish to a non-Jewish (Samaritan) setting, with extensive christological discourse between. 4355 Some fail to identify a historical core to the account, hence doubt its basic historicity. 4356 Without privileging particular presuppositions about miracles, however, and given John " s consistent rewriting, and hence obscuring, of his sources, evidence for the historicity of the event could be argued in either direction. Royal banquets appear frequently in later Jewish parables, 4357 but one could use the observation about abundant banquet stories to argue for historical veracity as well as against it; the stories are frequent because banquets were frequent, and the Synoptic tradition indicates that the historical Jesus frequently attended banquets. 4358 The account is strictly Johannine in style but, though missing in Synoptic tradition, seems characteristic of Jesus 4359 and not objectionable on Christian presuppositions. 4360 John probably applies prior tradition here as in those cases where we can test his dependence on tradition; yet, as with his other narratives, he clearly reworks this one into his own unique framework and idiom as wel1. |
| 7108 Hillelites prevailed after 70 (see, e.g., m. Demai 3:1; t. Ed. 2:3; Neusner, Traditions, 1:339). 7109 Stauffer, Jesus, 92, citing m. Šabb. 22(medical attention); Edersheim, 406, citing m. Šabb. 24(on kneading). The use of clay in slavery symbolism (b. Yebam. 46a) seems too remote for relevance here. 7110 Michaels, John, 152. Kneading, including making clay, was forbidden (commentators follow Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:530, in citing m. Šabb. 7:2); whether eyes might be anointed was debated but often opposed (commentators follow Billerbeck, Kommentar, 2:533–34, citing b. Abod. Zar. 28b); an Amora forbids using tasteless spit to treat eye scabs on the Sabbath (p. Šabb. 14:4, §3). 7111 Whitacre, John, 242, comparing peasants «interrogated by the junta.» He might also abbreviate to avoid incriminating himself if going to Siloam or washing involved a Sabbath breach (9:11); but this is not clear. 7112 Also Pancaro, Law, 51. On the severe meaning of «sinner,» probably in most of the gospel tradition, cf. Pss. So1. 2:34; 13:1; 14:6–7; Sib. Or. 3.304; Tg. Qoh. 6:6; Keener, Matthew, 294–96. 7116 Though cf. later rabbinic critiques of Pharisees with impure motives, e.g., m. Sotah 3:4; Abot R. Nat. 37A; 45, §124B; b. Sotah 22b, bar.; p. Sotah 5:5, §2. 7117 Perhaps also ancient Mediterranean patterns of conflict and invective, in which the powerful expected others to be their allies or else might assume them to favor their opponents (cf. Marshall, Enmity, passim). 7118 The πς δναται probably echoes the same narrative (3:4,9; cf. 6:52; 14:5). Dependence on character classifications (cf. Theophrastus Char.; cf. rhetorical characterization in Anderson, Glossary, 60–61) would render violations of stereotypes more disconcerting. 7120 Stauffer, Jesus, also refers to t. Sanh. 12:9; 13:4; L.A.B. 26(the latter conjoins curse and execution). 7122 Gentile courts typically administered far more blows, sometimes as many as one hundred (Plato Laws 9.881C; P.Ha1. 1.188–189; Petronius Sat. 28). |
| 10201 Cf. the mourning women of Luke 23:27, who may have provided a merciful narcotic (b. Sanh. 43a; Stauffer, Jesus, 135; Blinzler, Trial, 252–53). Some used pennyroyal or mint stored in vinegar to revive those who had fainted (Pliny Nat. 20.54.152); but these were probably not available. People could also use wine to deaden pain ( Prov 31:6–7 ; Tibullus 1.2.1–4; 1.7.39–42; Ovid Her. 14.42; Silius Italicus 13.273–275). 10206 Some (e.g., van der Waal, «Gospel,» 39) apply it more generally to Israel " s rejection of Jesus (1:11), but the Jewish identity of the torturer is not clear here, nor is this act the Gospel " s most decisive or climactic act of repudiation. 10209 «Javelin» appears in miniscule 476, probably accidentally; see Sanders, John, 409; Blinzler, Trial, 256 n. 38. Less probably, Schwarz, «Johannes 19.29,» suggests instead the misreading of the Aramaic «ëz as »êzôb, «switch» as «hyssop.» 10214 Clearly some Diaspora Jews applied the Passover to figurative or spiritual principles (Philo Sacrifices 63). Jewish people expected a new exodus (see comment on 1:23), which probably implied a new Passover of some sort (later, Exod. Rab. 19:6; Pesiq. Rab. 52:8). 10215 The contrast is often observed, e.g., Goguel, Jesus, 172; Stendahl, Paul, 74; Brown, Death, 34. 10218 So Stauffer, Jesus, 141. Later midrash could view «finished» in Gen 2in terms of dedication (Exod 39:32). 10219 Given the multiple attestation that it was the day of preparation for the Sabbath, most commentators concur that lesus was crucified on a Friday (see Brown, Death, 1350–51). 10221 Malina and Rohrbaugh, John, 271, suggest that kings nodded approval (citing Hom. Hymn, Hymn to Aphrodite 222, where Zeus does this; we might add Zeus in Maximus of Tyre Or. 4.8; 41.2; Callimachus Hymns 3 [to Artemis], lines 39–40; Athena in Callimachus Hymn 5 [on Pallas " s Bath], lines 131–136). 10223 E.g., Ovid Metam. 10.43 (exhalata anima); Ps.-Callisthenes Alex. 1.14; T. Ab. 17A; L.A.E. 45(«gave up the spirit,» OTP2:286); 2 En. 70:16; cf. Jas 2:26. One also breathed out (e.g., Homer I1. 13.654, ποπνεωυ; Euripides Phoen. 1454, ξπνευσαν; Herac1. 566, κπνευσαι) onés life, or «breathed» (exanimatus est) onés last (Cornelius Nepos 15 [Epaminondas], 9.3). |
| 9442 Dodd, Interpretation, 96. 9443 Cf. Enz, «Exodus,» 213; Dowd, «Theology,» 334 (comparing Moses and Jesus). Moses declares God " s name, glorifying it, in Deut 32 (Glasson, Moses, 77). 9444 Glasson, Moses, 77. 9445 Cf. " holy Lord» (J En. 91:7); «holy God» (Sib. Or. 3.478). «Holy Father» became more popular in early Christian circles (Did. 10.2; Odes So1. 31:5). 9446 Westcott, John, 243. On Jesus» holiness, see 6:69; 10:36; 17:19. 9447 With, e.g., Brown, John, 2:759. 9448 Robinson, «Destination,» 122, suggests that John parallels Jesus with Jerusalem, where God " s name would dwell ( Deut 12:11 ). While such an observation might fit Johannine theology had one put the question to the author (cf. Rev 21:22), there is no direct indication of such a specific allusion in this text. 9449 See comments in Vellanickal, Sonship, 280–81. 9450 Kysarjohn, 258–59. 9451 Rhetoricians classified such substitution of descriptive titles as antonomasia (Rowe, «Style,» 128, citing Cicero Consi1. 4.9; Porter, «Paul and Letters,» 579, citing Rom 5:14 ; Anderson, Glossary, 23, citing Quintilian 8.6.29–30). 9452 Jub. 10:3; 15:26. Greeks and Romans recognized that some offenses, including betrayal (here, of onés people), could merit punishment in the afterlife (Sallust Speech of Gaius Cotta 3). 9453 For discussion of this figure, see, e.g., Keener, Matthew, 573–75. 9454 Many commentators suspect that John adapted this figure to realized eschatology (e.g., Lightfoot, Gospel, 301; Glasson, Moses, 109; Freed, Quotations, 97; Best, Thessalonians, 285), though cf. the correct caution of Quast, Reading, 115. 9455 Pace Freed, Quotations, 97, who therefore cites Prov 24 :22a, though (p. 96) he thinks an allusion back to Jesus» own words in 6:70–71 is more likely (despite γραφ). 9456 E.g., Carson, Discourse, 192, favors this position, but only very tentatively. 9457 We leave aside uses of τατα in the discourse that refer to others (15:21; 16:3). 9458 Cf. similarly 1 John 5:18 ; Rev 3:10. Prayers for protection from demons (e.g., Tg. Ps.-J. on Num 6:24 ) became common, especially as popular demonological speculation grew. |
| 7318 Thus «voice» here refers not to the «tone» as opposed to the «contents» (the word; Lenski, John, 753), but to covenant language (Betz, «φων,» 278). 7321 On prophetic inspiration in early Judaism, see Keener, Spirit, 10–26 and sources cited there; on the heavenly voice, see comment on 12:28. 7322 Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16:4; Pesiq. Rab. 3:3. God " s voice sounded gentle to Adam before his sin but harsh afterward (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 5:3; Pesiq. Rab. 15:3). God " s voice sometimes appears as a surrogate for God (T. Ab. 14–16; 20:13A; Rev 1:12), which some have even regarded as hypostatic (Charlesworth, Pseudepigrapha and NT, 128–30; idem, «Voice»; but on Rev 1:12, cf. Exod 20:18). 7324 Robinson, «Parable,» 235; Dschulnigg, «Hirt.» Käsemann, Testament, 40, opines that John regarded the church as «exclusively … the community under the Word,» those who embrace Jesus» message. 7326 At least in 5:37; 6:45; 8:47, as Jesus hears the Father (5:30; 8:26, 40; 15:15; cf. 8:38) and the Spirit hears him (16:13). Hearing Jesus is hearing the Father (e.g., 14:24). 7327 Cf. Philós acceptance of the Greek view that God speaks inside rather than to humans (Amir, «Philo»). 7329 Cf. conceptions of innate law (Plutarch Uned. R. 3, Mor. 780C; Apuleius Metam. 3.8), the related idea of innate virtue (Philo Abraham 5–6), innate knowledge (Plato Phaedo 75CD, 76A; Cicero Topica 7.31), and innate knowledge of God (Cicero Leg. 1.22.58–59; Dio Chrysostom Or. 12, Olympic Discourse, §§27–28). 7331 Even in the forests of Corsica, grazing sheep would flee from strangers but gather when their shepherd signaled (Polybius 12.4.2–4). 7332 Longus 1.27. Yet presumably in Johannine theology, even an impostor remains identifiable by his voice (Rev 13:11). 7335 Herdsmen might also use caves in times of emergency, like heavy winter snows (Babrius 45.2–3). 7344 Cf. also Whitacre, John, 255. We base this on the textual contrast; in the culture itself, shepherds were frequently employed by others (MacMullen, Relations, 3; e.g., Polybius 9.17.6). |
| 6512 E.g., 3 En. 48A:7; t. Sotah 12:2; Sipra A.M. pq. 11.191.1.3; par. 8.193.1.7; " Abot R. Nat. 28, 30A; 23, §46B; Esth. Rab. 10:5; Rom 4:3; 9:17 ; Matt 19:4–5; 1 Clem. 56.3; cf. the similar wording, probably intended as analogous to oracular authority, in Epictetus Diatr. 1.10; and appeal to philosophic authority in Epictetus Diatr. 3.13.11. 6513 Guilding, Worship, esp. 92–120. Some have tried to date the triennial cycle as early as the first century (Monshouwer, «Reading»). 6514 See Morris, Lectionaries. 6515 Ancient texts, like modern ones, often assume a fair degree of cultural competence for their ideal audience (e.g., Philostratus Hrk. 1.3; see Maclean and Aitken, Heroikos, 5 n. 6). Informed members of even very hellenized churches a few decades before John knew of the festivals (e.g., 1Cor 5:7; 16:8 ; Acts 20:6,16; 27:9). That some of this information might be unknown in John " s day, however, could also be used to support the tradition " s authenticity (Blomberg, Reliability, 137–38). 6516 Commentators often note this lectionary reading, e.g., Dodd, Interpretation, 350; Hunter, John, 84–85; Schnackenburg, John, 2(citing b. Meg. 31a); Bruce, Time, 46. Haenchen, John, 2:17, curiously takes the tradition for Zech 14, Ezek 47 , and Isa 12 back to 90 C.E. (R. Eliezer b. Jacob) but then denies its relevance to the Fourth Gospe1. Early synagogue readings from the prophets are probable (Riesner, «Synagogues,» 202–3, cites the Masada synagogue scroll and Luke 4:17), though early standard lections are not. 6517 T. Sukkah 3(trans. Neusner, 2:222–23). 6518 T. Sukkah 3:3–10. 6519 T. Sukkah 3(4) (trans. Neusner, 2:218–19). 6520 T. Sukkah 3(trans. Neusner, 2:220). 6521 T. Sukkah 3(trans. Neusner, 2:220). 6522 The gate of John 10 could allude to the prince and his people going in and out through the gate of Ezek 46:9–10 , but the phraseology may be much broader than that: Num 27:17 ; 2Sam 5:2; 1 Kgs 3:7; 1 Chr 11:2. 6523 Hodges, «Rivers,» 247; the other uses of «last day» in the Fourth Gospel are uniformly eschatological (6:39–40, 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48). We base this opinion on Johns propensity for double entendres and his usual use of «last day,» not on the construction, which is acceptable in the form in which it appears (cf., e.g., 1QM 18.1). |
| Notably, the bride and groom do not say a single word throughout the entire Orthodox rite of matrimony. That which is the very core of Western marriage—a contract or a set of promises or vows—is completely absent from an Orthodox ceremony. See 1 Cor. 3:9: “synergoi”—“working together”; 2 Cor. 6:1: “synergountes de”—“ as we work together with him.” 1 Cor. 15:33 All three of these Greek words—erotas, filia, agapi—can be translated into English as “love.” Eph. 5:25 p. 11 Luke 18:8 If we choose a different measure for human progress—human language, for example—then one may argue for clear signs of devolution, not evolution. According to one source, “between a fifth and a quarter of the U. S. population is functionally illiterate,” and the working vocabulary of average 14-year-olds in the U.S. shrunk in half in the last fifty years—Spretnak, Charlene. The Resurgence of the Real. New York: Routledge, 1999, p. 114. Saint Ephrem of Syria, Commentary on Ephesians 5:23 Saint Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity 6 Ibid., 12 Ibid., 14 Saint John Chrysostom, On Virginity 84 Homily 7 on the Hebrews The council of Nicaea, 325 A.D. The Council of Gangra, 340 A.D. Qtd. in Bugge, John. Virginitas: An Essay in the History of a Medieval Ideal. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1975, p. 19 Zion, William, Basil, Eros and Transformation. Sexuality and Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective. Lanham: University Press of America, 1992, p. 73. Ibid. 75 It appears that for some Fathers no sex was ever fully legitimate. John 15:13: “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.” Gal. 5:22-3 God Believes in Love, 73 On Virginity 19:1 For a more detailed study of the Church’s attitudes toward sex, see Sveshnikov, Sergei “There is no Sex in Church!” American Theological Inquiry. Vol. 4, No. 1, January 15, 2011, pp. 61-87 Of course, this is the Orthodox Church we are talking about—there are always exceptions to everything! Source: Fr Sergei Sveshnikov’s blog Code for blog Since you are here… |
| 7783 See Brant, «Husband Hunting,» for comments on how Mary within the story world might view Jesus (though this narrative, in contrast to that of the Samaritan woman, turns to pathos). 7784 See Witherington, Women, 113, citing Petronius Sat. 27. Petronius likely assumes a more widespread custom, probably known to John " s audience and plausibly to Mary as wel1. 7786 Mack, Myth, 200–201. That ancient novelists often combined heroines» heroism with feminine modesty and decency (Wiersma, «Novel») may increase the shock value here. 7787 Abandonment was shameful (e.g., Cornelius Nepos 14 [Datâmes], 6.3) and hence fits the criterion of embarrassment; cf. Keener, Matthew, 642–43; Robbins, Jesus, 30. Still, ancients recognized the difficulty of trusting no one (Polybius 8.36.1–9). 7791 Brown, John, 1:448. Imputing motives to historical figures was a common practice, though it could draw criticism (Plutarch Malice of Herodotus 25, Mor. 861DE). 7792 The contrast here between Mary and Judas is noted also by others, e.g., Blomberg, Poverty, 142. 7793 Ancients recognized that some treasurers grew rich by abusing their office, embarrassing the official for whom they worked (Aeschines Timarchus 56); they respected statesmen who did not touch public revenues (Iamblichus V.P. 27.129). Wisdom warned against entrusting fiscal responsibilities to stingy or greedy persons (e.g., 4Q424 frg. 1, line 10; the issue remained among early Christians, e.g., Acts 6:1–3; 20:33; 1 Thess 2:5; 1Tim 3:3 ; Tit 1:7 ). 7794 In Luke he defended the same Mary on different grounds in Luke 10:42; but Jesus also defends the woman in the other anointing accounts ( Mark 14:6 ; Matt 26:10; Luke 7:40–50). For her continuing «memory» in the oral passion narrative ( Mark 14:9 ), cf. analogous statements in Virgil Aen. 9.446–449; 11.846–847; Ovid Metam. 15.877–879. 7795 Stauffer, Jesus, 107. On the historical level, affection would be a closer motive; but on the theological level, a royal anointing may play a role. |
| 4 I have been unable to locate this precise form of words in Denys the Areopagite. 5 From this point on Maximus comments on Denys’ Ep. 4, phrase by phrase: the quotations are from this epistle, unless otherwise identified. 6 This word, proslepsis (literally: something added), is regularly used in the Fathers to refer to the human nature assumed by the Word in the Incarnation. 7 Members of a dualist-gnostic sect founded by Mani (c. 216–276), that was particularly influential in the fourth and fifth centuries. They were universally (and probably correctly) regarded by the Fathers of the Church as Christian heretics. It was alleged they regarded Christ as a mere phantom. They are thus frequently associated with Monophysites by the Orthodox: a tradition strikingly represented by Pope Leo (see Grillmeier 1987 , 172–94). Much play was naturally made of the similarity of his name with the Greek for madness (mania). 8 Apollinaris was a fourth-century heretic, who denied that Christ had a human soul, its place being taken by the Word of God. It was also generally believed by the Orthodox (wrongly, in fact) that he maintained that Christ brought his flesh down with him from heaven, as mentioned here (see Grillmeier 1975 , 330–333). 9 A quotation from the previous letter of Denys: Ep. 3:1069B. 10 Allusion to Gregory Nazianzen, Sermon 39.13–‘The natures are instituted afresh, and God becomes man’ – discussed by Maximus in Amb. 41, above. 11 Here Maximus is interpreting the account in the Gospels of Jesus’ walking on the water (Matt. 14:25ff. and parallels). His interpretation is very like that of the ‘Monophysite’ Severus of Antioch, Ep. 1 to Sergius: ‘For how will anyone divide walking upon the water? For to run upon the sea is foreign to the human nature, but it is not proper to the divine nature to use bodily feet. Therefore that action is of the Incarnate Word, to whom belongs at the same time divine character and humanity indivisibly’ (trans. in Torrance 1988 , 154). 12 According to Denys, all negation (apophasis) in respect of God is made transcendently (kath’ hyperochin): see, e.g., Divine Names 7.2:869A. |
|
|
