| 3 . The sexual act is satisfying when it is the expression of the couple’s total union, each living completely for the good of the other. 4 . Honoring, respecting and loving our parents enables us to serve God, who is the “Father of all.” Chapter 7: Sickness, Suffering and Death 1 . The greatest witness is sickness endured with faith and love. 2 . Jesus knew the glory of paradise and the perfect love of God. All this was given to human beings, and the greatest agony Christ suffered was to see the gift scorned and rejected in His own person. 3 . His death is the only one that is completely voluntary. (For reflection: Christianity is based on the willingness of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to live with us and die for us. This is unique to the Christian faith – no other faith teaches that God would do this amazing thing for His creatures, out of completely self-emptying love for them.) Chapter 8: The Kingdom of Heaven 1 . We will be judged solely on the basis of how we have served Him by serving others, including the “least” among us. 2 . It is God’s glorious love, which will be revealed to everyone at the end of the ages. Worship Questions and Reflections for Discussion Introduction When Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko of blessed memory was in the process of revising his series The Orthodox Faith, he requested the Department of Christian Education of the Orthodox Church in America, which had originally published the series, to create questions to accompany the texts of each volume. The following questions are the fulfillment of his request for the Worship volume of the series. There are questions for each chapter of this volume, based on the text. They can be used to review or further consider the material in the chapter. A page number follows each question to show the part of the text it’s based on. A separate document gives numbered answers. We would suggest that a discussion leader, after the group has read a chapter, give each participant a copy of the questions for that chapter. The group can then answer them together, as a way of reinforcing and reviewing what they have read. |
| The man " s loyalty to Jesus set him on the right road, but did not yet confirm him as a disciple. Nicodemus and some of his allies in the synagogue had recognized Jesus as a teacher from God (3:2), but he had not yet confessed him publicly. It is in 9:35–39 that the healed man moves to a more christologically adequate confession of Jesus» identity. 7168 The Father seeks true worshipers (4:23), and Jesus, who does the Father " s will (9:3–4), seeks this man out in 9:35; 7169 parallel language in 1and 5strongly suggests that this description implies Jesus» intention. (That he «heard» that they had cast him out may imply a secondhand report, 7170 but also might imply having heard from the Father, as in 5:19–20 and 8:38.) But John deliberately contrasts this man whom Jesus finds (9:35) with the man he found in 5:14, who after being healed turned on Jesus rather than take responsibility for following his teaching. The two prospective disciples provide a negative and positive model, which together issue a challenge to progress to disciple-ship. The personal pronoun σ in Jesus» inquiry in 9is emphatic: Do you believe? This emphasis suggests a contrast in the immediate context with the Pharisees; 7171 but for Johns informed reader it may also suggest a contrast with the healed man of 5:14–16, who after being healed failed to persevere to discipleship–and now awaited a worse fate than before (5:14; cf. 15:22, 24; 3:36). The healed man still can reason only from his experience and lacks an adequate grid for interpretation (9:36); Jesus now supplies that grid (9:35–37). «Son of Man» by itself might hold ambiguous christological significance 7172 (perhaps suggesting a historical core for these actual words), but its cumulative effect in the Gospel to this point suggests a fuller significance for the informed reader (1:51; 3:14; 5:27; 6:27; 8:28); an even greater weight may rest on «believe» (9:35; see introduction, ch. 7). Jesus responds by revealing himself as he did to the Samaritan woman (4:26); to one who had been blind before their previous encounter, Jesus ironically announces, «I am the one you have now seen " (9:37). 7173 |
| At the same time, John may also adapt the phrase to recall the biblical conception of God " s «voice» to his people, which was often equivalent to his covenant word to them through the law or prophets. 7318 Israel especially heard Gods voice at Sinai ( Deut 4:33, 36; 5:22–26; 18:16 ), as some early Jewish interpreters recognized (1QM 10.10–11). 7319 In Scripture, God s voice was his message to his people through the law and/or prophets; thus Israel was to «hear,» that is, «hearken to» or «obey» God " s voice (Exod 15:26; 19:5). 7320 Jewish tradition commented less on the divine voice, except in terms of the heavenly bat qol and prophetic inspiration; 7321 but for the most part God was held to speak only to the very righteous. 7322 Illustrating this principle, we may note that some rabbis even thought that only Moses could hear God " s voice, despite its power. 7323 The point is that God " s true people hear Jesus because they recognize him as the shepherd; thus the very authorities who have excluded the healed man from the synagogue now prove excluded from the people of God. 7324 John often emphasizes «hearing» Jesus 7325 or the Father; 7326 he speaks of hearing God s «voice» in terms of knowing and recognizing God (5:37), of recognizing Jesus» voice (10:3, 16, 27; 18:37; cf. 3:29), of being resurrected by his voice (5:25, 28) and of the mysterious voice of the Spirit (see comment on 3:8). If John and Revelation stem from the same community (as we argued in the introduction), some in John " s audience may have believed they experienced that voice in physical visions or auditions (e.g., Rev 1:10, 12; 3:20; 4:1); in the total context of John " s Gospel, however, the Spirit might reveal Jesus to all believers in ways not always so dramatic (cf. 16:13–15). In the Fourth Gospel, the community continues to hear Jesus through the word, the orally presented message of the enfleshed word (17:20), and the Spirit who reveals Jesus in that word (16:7–15). 7327 Knowing Jesus» voice (10:4) also means knowing Jesus (10:14), a covenant relationship of intimacy no less serious than Jesus» relationship with the Father (10:15; cf. 10:30). The present tense of 5suggests that Jesus obeyed the Father by continuing revelation, and 10:14–15 suggests that the ideal relationship John envisions for believers is one in which they continually receive divine direction as they carry out God " s wil1. Their experience of this life in the Spirit (16:13–15) distinguishes them from their adversaries but links them with the biblical prophets, undergirding their polemic. 7328 The word of the Lord was not innate (5:38; 8:37), 7329 but dwelled in the righteous community (15:7; 1 John 2:14, 24), as a sign of the new covenant ( Jer 31:33 ). |
| Jesus, however, finds him (as with the healed man in 9:35). That Jesus finds him in the temple suggests an early tradition and/or John " s knowledge of Jerusalem topography; the pool of Bethesda was directly «north-northeast of the temple area.» 5794 Perhaps he had gone directly to the temple to offer thanks for his recovery; 5795 in any case, the place serves a theological as well as geographical function in locating opposition to Jesus in the Jerusalem temple area (5:14–18), hence again with the powerful Judean elite who would have reason to feel threatened by the new temple of Jesus (2:19–21). In contrast to the man blind from birth (9:2–3), this man " s malady apparently stemmed from sin (5:14). 5796 Jesus was sinless (8:46) and came to free people from sin (1:29; cf. 20:23), but those who refused to believe him would remain enslaved to sin (8:21, 24, 34), and those who rejected him after he revealed truth had greater sin (9:41; 15:22,24). Others in the ancient world understood that the disobedience of a suppliant for healing could lead to greater suffering than one had experienced before. 5797 A prominent book of wisdom advised Jews who had sinned to add no more (μηκτι) sins and to repent of their earlier sins ( Sir 21:1 ). 5798 Also in contrast to the man blind from birth (9:38), this man does not become a disciple of Jesus. Like some members of the Johannine community touched by Jesus, he falls away (cf. 6:66; 1 John 2:19 ), becoming a betrayer (5:15; cf. 6:71). Already aware that the leaders opposed Jesus, he informs on Jesus and so prefigures analogous acts of betrayal in the Gospel (cf. the parallel actions in 11:45–46; cf. 18:2–3). 5799 (Confessing Jesus only as healer would not impress the authorities; see introduction on signs, ch. 7. Nor is he disciplined like the man in John 9 .) Thus Jesus may protest that his opponents seek to stone him for «good works» (10:32–33). 2C. Persecuting Jesus for Sabbath Violation (5:16) Under later rabbinic rules, which may or may not reflect earlier Pharisaic ideals, Sabbath violation was in theory worthy of death. |
| The Baptist again intrudes into the narrative; in this instance, his general «witness» to the light becomes more specific in terms of a contrast between himself and the Christ, reinforcing the earlier suggestion of a polemical downplaying of John " s role in the Gospe1. 3724 Here the Gospel declares that, though John " s public ministry preceded that of Jesus, Jesus not only outranked him but existed before him. 3725 Jesus was, after all, «in the beginning with God» (1:1–2). If Jesus «came after» John in the sense that some could claim that Jesus was John " s disciple 3726 –not only did John baptize him but the Fourth Gospel suggests that their ministries overlapped and that John was initially the more prominent of the two (3:22–24, 30)–the pains the author takes to explain the temporal and positional superiority of the Logos to his mere witness are understandable. Normally an inferior would follow a superior; 3727 but John " s theology of the incarnation challenges that assumption anyway (cf. 13:14–16). Although it is unlikely that the Baptist used precisely the words here attributed to him (see ch. 2 in the introduction for ancient writers» liberty to paraphrase), the Synoptics also attest that John humbled himself before the one whose climactic, eschatological ministry was to follow his own chronologically. The Fourth Gospel knows that John recognized the one coming after (οπσω) him, based on a tradition (1:27, 30) also preserved in Mark 1 (cf. Matt 3:11). 3. Greater than Moses» Revelation (1:16–18) Christ is greater than Moses as the one whom Moses saw is greater than Moses; in the Fourth Gospel, the glory witnessed by Israelite prophets was that of Jesus himself (12:41). But the glory of the new covenant is also greater than the glory of the first covenant (cf. 2Cor 3:3–18 ). 3A. Receiving the Fulness of Grace and Truth (1:16) Those who receive Jesus (1:12) receive the full measure of grace and truth present in him, not just the partial, veiled measure in the law. «Fulness» has a wide semantic range, and could allude to God filling the cosmos with his wisdom or his Spirit. 3728 In the context, however, it seems most natural to construe «fulness» in 1as a reference to «full of grace and truth» in 1:14. 3729 The first person plural would naturally refer primarily to the eyewitnesses of v. 14, but the verb indicates that it embraces also all who believe through their witness (1:12; 17:20). (The «all,» πντες, applies only to those in the πντες and πντα of 1:7, 9 who believe the light, not all those to whom it is available.) |
| Yet Jesus is clearly more than a «son» simply in the sense of being an Israelite or even a messiah; in the context of the repeated Father-Son imagery of the Gospel, Jesus appears as the Father " s imitator, agent, and image–in short, as divine Wisdom. That the Father «sanctified» Jesus (10:36) could be ambiguous, though as noted above, in the context of Hanukkah it could present Jesus as a new temple. 7524 Israel was sanctified for God, specially committed to him. 7525 Perhaps more relevant for John was the Jewish tradition that God had hallowed his Torah (cf. 1:1–18), 7526 or sanctified Israel specifically by his commandments (cf. 17:17). 7527 John " s readers know that Jesus is not merely one to whom God " s word at Sinai came (10:35), but is the word revealed in part to Moses at Sinai and now more fully still in the flesh (1:1–18, esp. 1:17). That the Father «sent» Jesus makes the latter the agent of the former; see comments on agency under Christology in the introduction, pp. 310–17. If they would not believe Jesus» words and identity directly, Jesus invites them to believe by means of his works (10:38; cf. 14:11); these were his Father " s works (10:37; cf. 5:17), hence revealed his origin. Such an invitation should have fit the logic patterns of his contemporaries; thus some Tannaim taught that if Israel in the wilderness did not believe God " s future promises, they could at least gain confidence by believing his past works on their behalf. 7528 Likewise, according to some later rabbis, even if one did not study Torah with the highest motives, that is, for its own sake, one should study it nevertheless, and one would eventually study it for its own sake. 7529 The result of such investigation would be the recognition that Jesus was in the Father and the Father in Jesus (10:38; cf. 14:10,20; 17:23), which explained why the Father worked in Jesus. But his opponents, unmollified, again seek to seize him (10:39; cf. 5:18; 7:30; 8:59; 11:57), and he again escapes (10:39). 7530 Responses to Jesus (10:39–42) |
| Because Jesus» primary support in the Fourth Gospel was Galilean and because Judean crowds were divided (7:12; 9:16), John appears to play less on the crowds» fickleness than the Synoptics do. 10070 Because he speaks of the crowds as simply «Jews,» in fact, he makes no distinction between the crowds who now demand Jesus» execution and the authorities who delivered him to Pilate. One could argue that John views all ethnic Jews or, more reasonably, Judeans through the prism of the Jerusalem elite. But given John " s Jewishness, that of his audience, and the smaller number of positive or divided Judeans in this Gospel, it is more probable that John instead lays the behavior of the passion tradition " s crowds at the feet of his «Jews,» who represent primarily the elite of Jesus» day viewed through the prism of those of John " s own (see more fully our introduction, pp. 214–28). 5E. Handing Jesus Over (19:16) In delivering Jesus over (19:16), the prefect would have declared, Ibis in crucem («You will mount the cross») or a phrase much like it. 10071 That he «delivered» Jesus to be crucified implicates Pilate in the chain of responsibility (18:2, 5, 30, 35–36; 19:11); he would bear the political responsibility for it, in any case (Tacitus Ann. 15.44.3). But John " s ominous ατος, «to them,» reverses the direction of their delivering Jesus to him (18:30, 35), confirming Jesus» evaluation: it is the priestly aristocracy who should have perfomed God " s will but instead delivered Jesus to Pilate, whose sin is greater (19:11). Historically Pilate handed Jesus over to the soldiers, as John recognizes (19:23–25); in this context, he hands him over to the will of the Judean leaders. Though the implied subject of the third-person plural verb παρλαβον (19:16b) from the context might again be these Judean leaders, John " s audience would have to know that Roman soldiers would have to carry out the execution, even if they did not know the passion tradition attested in the Synoptics (which is unlikely), and any ambiguity in this regard is cleared up by 19:23–25. But John may allow this ambiguity of language as another of his wordplays: for all practical purposes, the Judean leaders may as well have crucified Jesus themselves (as Pilate ironically invited them to do in 19:6), just as, by accusing disciples to the Roman government, they were de facto killing them themselves (16:2). Jesus» Crucifixion (19:17–37) |
| 10216 If, as we think likely, John " s audience knew the basic form of the passion tradition known to us in Mark, they may have noticed the striking contrast between the final recorded words of Jesus in John (perhaps revealing the content of the loud cry, as we have suggested) and those in Mark. This portrayal of Jesus» triumph in death fits John " s emphasis on Jesus» glorification through death and the events his death introduces (e.g., 12:23–24). The Jewish martyr tradition emphasized courageous defiance, but Mark emphasizes Jesus» brokenness at his death; John is closer to the martyr tradition here, emphasizing Jesus» commitment to his mission. 10217 John of course differs from the martyr tradition as well (see pp. 1068–69 in our introduction to the Passion Narrative); his Jesus is not merely a righteous martyr but deity in the flesh. Nor is this picture of Jesus» triumph docetic, as if he were less human in the Fourth Gospel (cf. 1:14); a Jewish martyr story in the philosophic tradition could go much further in praising triumph in death, even working from an explicit dualism, without ever adopting a fully docetic understanding. Thus, for example, Eleazar in 4 Maccabees treated his torture as if it were a dream (4 Macc 6:5) and maintained the dignity of his reasoning even though his body could no longer withstand the pain (4 Macc 6:7). For all his emphasis on Jesus» deity, John " s Christology appears less docetic than this Hellenistic Jewish work " s anthropology, which itself cannot be properly considered docetic. Jesus had earlier in this Gospel emphasized that he had come to «finish» the Father " s work (4:34); his ministry had «finished» that work (17:4), and his death crowned his ministry as its completed act. John elsewhere discusses this completion of his work in the context of God " s creative work continued even on the Sabbath (5:36). It is possible that John " s audience, especially on encountering 19:31, might recall the pivotal biblical support for the Sabbath, perhaps already used in many Jewish blessings for the Sabbath: 10218 God finished his creative work, and then the Sabbath began. |
| John 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 1. Having in the introduction spoken to us things of urgent importance concerning God the Word, (the Evangelist) proceeding on his road, and in order, afterwards comes to the herald of the Word, his namesake John. And now that you hear that he was sent from God, do not for the future imagine that any of the words spoken by him are mere man " s words; for all that he utters is not his own, but is of Him who sent him. Wherefore he is called messenger Malachi 3:1, for the excellence of a messenger is, that he say nothing of his own. But the expression was, in this place is not significative of his coming into existence, but refers to his office of messenger; for «there was» a man sent from God, is used instead of a man »was sent» from God. How then do some say, that the expression, being in the form of God Philippians 2:6 is not used of His invariable likeness to the Father, because no article is added? For observe, that the article is nowhere added here. Are these words then not spoken of the Father? What then shall we say to the prophet who says, that, Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who shall prepare Your way Malachi 3:1, as found in Mark 1:2 ? For the expressions My and Your declare two Persons. John 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of that Light. What is this, perhaps one may say, the servant bear witness to his Master? When then you see Him not only witnessed to by His servant, but even coming to him, and with Jews baptized by him, will you not be still more astonished and perplexed? Yet you ought not to be troubled nor confused, but amazed at such unspeakable goodness. Though if any still continue bewildered and confused, He will say to such an one what He said to John, Suffer it to be so now, for thus it becomes us to fulfill all righteousness Matthew 3:15; and, if any be still further troubled, again He will say to him too what he said to the Jews, But I receive not testimony from man. John 5:34 If now he needs not this witness, why was John sent from God? Not as though He required his testimony – this were extremest blasphemy. Why then? John himself informs us, when he says, |
| The difference between spiritual fatherhood, and any other form of service is known to every Christian who has a spiritual father. The Orthodox Church takes a negative view of the recent introduction of women priesthood in some Protestant communities. This is not simply because Orthodoxy is traditional and conservative, neither does Orthodoxy wish to denigrate women or consider them lower than men. It is because Orthodoxy, taking fatherhood in the Church very seriously, does not want it to vanish by entrusting to women a service alien to them. Within the Church " s organism every member carries out particular functions and is irreplaceable. There is no substitute for fatherhood and if the Church were to lose it she would be deprived of her integrity and fullness by becoming a family without a father or an organism without all of its necessary members. It is in this sense that we can understand the Christian attitude toward marriage and the role of the woman in the family. The Christian family is a " small church» created in the image of Christ " s Church. According to apostolic teaching, it is the husband, not the wife, who is the head of the family. However, the headship of the man does not entail inequality. The power of the man is the same power of love as Christ " s power in the Church: «As the Church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself up for her... Let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects the husband» ( Eph.5:24–25; 33 ). The headship of the husband is his readiness to sacrifice himself in the same way as Christ loves the Church. As head of the family the husband must love and respect his wifë «Likewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honour on the woman as the weaker sex, since you are joint heirs of the grace of life» (1 Peter 3:7). It is not inequality, but a harmonious unity that retains different functions which should exist in both family and the Church. |
|
|
