| The Bible was always understood not simply as a source of revealed doctrinal propositions, or as a description of historical facts, but as a witness to a living Truth which had become dynamically present in the sacramental community of the New Testament Church. The veneration of the Virgin, Mother of God, for example, was associated once and for all with a typo-logical interpretation of the Old Testament temple cult: the one who carried God in her womb was the true «temple,» the true «tabernacle,» the «candlestick,» and God« " s final «abode.»» Thus, a Byzantine who, on the eve of a Marian feast, listened in church to a reading from the Book of Proverbs about «Wisdom building her house» (Pr 9:1ff.) naturally, and almost exclusively, thought of the «Word becoming flesh " i.e., finding His abode in the Virgin. The identification of the Old Testament Wisdom with the Johannine Logos had been taken for granted since the time of Origen, and no one would have thought of challenging it. As early as the fourth century, when much of the Arian debate centered on the famous text «The Lord created me at the beginning of his works» (Pr 8:22), it was quite naturally interpreted by the Arians in favor of their position. Athanasius, and other members of the Nicaean party, declined to challenge the identification between Logos and Wisdom, preferring to find references to other texts supporting the uncreated character of the Logos-Wisdom. No one questioned the established exegetical consensus on the identification itself. Much of the accepted Byzantine exegetical method had its origin in Alexandrian tradition and its allegorism. St. Paul, in describing the story of Abraham« " s two sons as an allegory of the two covenants (Ga 4:23), gave Christian sanction to a non-literal method of interpreting Scripture, known as midrash, which had developed among Palestinian rabbis in pre-Christian times. Thus, in pushing the allegorical method of interpreting Scripture to its very extremes, the Alexandrian Hellenistic milieu, common to Philo, Clement, and Origen, could refer to the illustrious precedent of St. |
| Chapter III. Antinomies of Christian History: Empire and Desert Christianity entered history as a new social order, or rather a new social dimension. From the very beginning Christianity was not primarily a «doctrine,» but exactly a «community.» There was not only a «Message» to be proclaimed and delivered, and «Good News» to be declared. There was precisely a New Community, distinct and peculiar, in the process of growth and formation, to which members were called and recruited. Indeed, «fellowship» (koinonia) was the basic category of Christian existence. Primitive Christians felt themselves to be closely knit and bound together in a unity which radically transcended all human boundaries – of race, of culture, of social rank, and indeed the whole dimension of «this world.» They were brethren to each other, members of «One Body,» even of the «Body of Christ.» This glorious phrase of St. Paul admirably summarizes the common experience of the faithful. In spite of the radical novelty of Christian experience, basic categories of interpretation were taken over from the Old Testament, of which the New Covenant was conceived to be the fulfilment and consummation. Christians were indeed «a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people set apart» (I Peter, 2:9). They were the New Israel, the «Little Flock,» that is, the faithful «Remnant» to which it was God’s good pleasure to give the Kingdom (Luke 12:32). Scattered sheep had to be brought together into «one fold,» and assembled. The Church was exactly this «Assembly,» ekklesia tou Theou, – a permanent Assembly of the new «Chosen People» of God, never to be adjourned. In «this world» Christians could be but pilgrims and strangers. Their true «citizenship,» politeuma, was «in heaven» ( Phil. 3:20 ). The Church herself was peregrinating through this world (paroikousa). «The Christian fellowship was a bit of extra-territorial jurisdiction on earth of the world above» (Frank Gavin). The Church was an «outpost of heaven» on the earth, or a «colony of heaven.» It may be true that this attitude of radical detachment had originally an «apocalyptic» connotation, and was inspired by the expectation of an imminent parousia. |
| Synagogues functioned as judicial assemblies even in the Diaspora; Roman laws usually permitted them to exercise internal discipline over their own communities. In many rabbinic texts, the OT image of God " s angelic court is developed and applied either to angels or to sages in heaven, and it is possible that this image was in wide enough circulation by the end of the first century for readers of the Fourth Gospel to have caught an allusion to it. But here the verdict of the earthly courts is contrasted with that of the heavenly court, in contrast to usual rabbinic teaching (cf. also Matt 16:19, 18:15–20); typical Johannine irony makes the accusers of Jesus and his community the ones really on trial before God. (An ancient Mediterranean audience may not have found such irony foreign; for example, a king might unwittingly condemn a deity, only to learn in the end that it is he himself who would suffer.) 9160 The Paraclete, who defends the disciples brought before worldly courts (cf. Mark 13:11 ; Matt 10:19–20), is also the one who will charge the world with its sins (16:8–11). 9161 3C. Prophetic Witness Prophets in the OT also functioned as witnesses to God " s righteousness, particularly when they declared his covenant lawsuits against Israe1. Lukan pneumatology (which emphasizes the Spirit of prophecy more than that of any other extant early Christian writer) also connects prophetic empowerment to declare the risen Christ with Lukés witness motif (Acts 1:8; 2:32–33; 4:33; 5:32), although Luke probably limits the immediate use of «witness» to eyewitnesses more strictly than John does. 9162 Thus the Paraclete not only continues the presence of Jesus in a general way and expounds Jesus» teachings but also enables the believers to boldly testify for Jesus, recognizing that it is the world, and not the believers, that is really on trial before God. 9163 This image naturally leads to the next Paraclete passage, in which the Spirit acts as prosecutor ( John 16:8–11 ). The disciples who would bear witness in this passage were those with him from «the beginning» (15:27), undoubtedly the beginning of his ministry (2:11; 8:25; 16:4; cf. 6:64; Acts 1:21–22; Phil 4:15 ), 9164 perhaps intended to evoke the era of the new creation (cf. 1:1–2; 8:44; 9:32; 17:24; 1 John 1:1; 2:13–14; 3:8 ). 9165 But for the Johannine community, perhaps all believers could count their first experience of the gospel analogously (1 John 2:24; 3:11; 2 John 6 ). 4. Coming Persecution (16:1–4) |
| 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 Important Areas That Deserve Our Attention Source: St. Andrew Greek Orthodox Church Protopresbyter George D. Konstantopoulos 30 August 2019 Photo: blogs.voanews.com My beloved syndiakonoi (co-workers) in Christ God, As we are about to embark on the new ecclesiastical (Church) year, September 1st, we all need to re-examine closely areas of importance within our church, areas which should concern every member (steward) and family of our parish. What are these areas? Worship (Divine Liturgy). For the Orthodox Christian worship on Sunday and throughout the week is indispensable and irreplaceable. Worshipping the Almighty God for the Christian believer is just as important as the air that we need to breathe and live. Attending the divine services of our Holy Church as a Christian family is absolutely necessary to maintain communion with our Creator. There is no life without the communion with God through worship, prayer, and the reception of the Holy Eucharist. Through the Divine Liturgy, through our Lord Jesus Christ and His new covenant with us, He, heals our nature, He unifies the inner man–heart and mind are joined in union with God, and He gives perfect forgiveness. This is what we receive when we attend and participate in the Divine Liturgy: a) “cleansing of soul”, b) “remission of sins”, c) “communion of the Holy Spirit”, d) “fulfillment of the Kingdom of Heavens”, e) “boldness toward God”, f) “not unto judgment or unto condemnation”. (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom) What more can we ask for? Another area of deep concern is the parish ministry of religious education for all of our children. A greater effort must be made to teach all of our parish children the Orthodox Christian Faith. To know who our Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior, is and to follow His Commandments. To learn Christian morality, values, principles, the new life that He has given us. The purpose of the church as a hospital and a place of healing and reconciliation, the grace that a believer receives through the sacraments, the Lives of the Saints, the veneration of the Mother of God, the veneration of the holy icons and Saints, holy Fathers and Mother of the Church and more. To, through faith, come to feel God’s unconditional love within heart, and soul, and for all of mankind. |
| The Patriarch also added: “The mission of the Church is to build peace. If we have the peace of God in us, we will be reconciled with our human beings and we will be reconciled with ourselves. I want to remind you of the Apostle Paul’s request that there was no discord among us, but that we all be perfected in one mind. Be one thought with each other and may the God of suffering and consolation give us the same thoughts among ourselves […] so that we may glorify God with one voice and one mouth. With this, I want to dedicate time to my patriarchal ministry. My program will not contain elements of modern alienation and partial involvement in politics.” At his first Patriarchial homily, he mentioned Kosovo and Metohija: “In my prayers, the Serbs in the affected Kosovo and Metohija will be in the first place. Kosovo is a covenant for us, and that covenant is related to the New Testament, the foundations of which are Holiness.” In the end, he pointed out: “On July 2014, I said in Zagreb and I do not give up that I will work on connecting people, on building bridges, on establishing a dialogue with everyone. And through that dialogue, I made friends, and I am convinced that both the Serbian Church and the Serbian people gained them.” The Holy Liturgy was attended by Serbian President Mr. Aleksandar Vucic; Serbian member of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina Mr. Milorad Dodik; President of Republic Srpska Mrs. Zeljka Cvijanovic; Prince Philip Karadjordjevic with his princess Danica; Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Culture and Information, Mrs. Maja Gojkovic; Serbian Minister of Foreign affairs Mr. Nikola Selakovic; Minister of the interior Mr. Aleksandar Vulin; Minister of Labour, Employment, Veteran and Social Affairs Mrs. Darija Kisic Tepavcevic; Apostolic Nuncio to Serbia Mr. Luciano Suriani; Roman Catholic Archbishop of Belgrade Stanislav Hocevar; Roman Catholic Bishop of Zrenanin Mr. Laszlo Nemet; Mufti of Belgrade Mr. Mustafa Jusufspahic. In the end, Metropolitan Hrizostom of Dabar-Bosnia, the Locum Tenens for the Throne of Serbian Patriarchs, introduced newly-elected Patriarch Porfirije to the Throne of the Serbian Patriarchs. On that occasion, Metropolitan Hrizostom handed over the patriarchate insignia (white pan-kamilavka, encolpion, zezlo) toArchbishop of Pec, Metropolitan of Belgrade and Karlovac and Patriarch Porfirije of Serbia. |
| Most readings of the Fourth Gospel allow that its polemic against «the Jews» represents the situation of John " s community, threatened by real opponents, rather than a racial attack. 1870 Since in Johns day the leaders of the most powerful competing Jewish sect challenged the orthodoxy of the Johannine Christians, John sees the adherents of this opposing movement as the spiritual heirs of Jesus» persecutors. The primary issue is not ethnic (both persecutor and persecuted are Jewish) but power: a minority feels repressed and believes that their Lord was unjustly executed, and their cause unjustly rejected, by the Judean elite. (This repressed-minority status would place them in a situation analogous, e.g., to the much longer period in which European Jews were often repressed by medieval Christians despite their shared monotheism.) But while this may explain who the Johannine Jews are, it still does not explain why they are called, «the Jews.» At this point there seem to be two ways to read John. The first would propose that his community has rejected, or John is urging them to reject, links with their Jewish heritage. This could appropriately explain his characterization of «the Jews» as opponents of the Jesus movement for his own period. The other way to read John would be to argue that John writes as a Jew to his fellow Jews, as a prophetic witness within Israe1. In this case, his polemic could be part of his Jewishness, because he defines relationship to Israel " s God by onés relationship to Jesus the Christ. 1871 John A. T. Robinson " s observations remain appropriate here: «Moreover, so far from being anti-Semitic, that is, racially anti-Jewish, it is, I believe, in the words of J. B. Lightfoot " s magisterial but far too little known lectures on St John, " the most Hebraic book in the New Testament, except perhaps the Apocalypse.» If Judaism is condemned, it is always from within and not from without.» 1872 Most of the Gospel, including the portrayal of Jesus» followers as «true Israelites» (1:31,47,49), could support the second way of reading John. 1873 The problem, is that by itself this view cannot explain why the religious authorities retain the title while the Johannine Christians» identity is defined in other ways (albeit ways compatible with earlier biblical imagery for God " s covenant people). |
| Even apart from our loyalty to the ecumenical council which produced the formula, such a decision would also sever Pascha from its Old Testament roots. The very name “pascha” tethers us theologically to those roots, for “pascha” is simply a Greek transliteration of the Hebrew word “pesach”, meaning “passover”. Thus John 13:1: “Now before the feast of the passover [Greekpascha], Jesus knew that His hour had come to depart from this world”. This term pesach in turn was derived from the Hebrew verb meaning “to pass (over)”. Thus Exodus 12:11f: “It [this supper] is the Lord’s passover [Hebrew pesach]…when I see the blood [on your houses] I will pass over you [Hebrew pasachti alekem] and no plague shall fall upon you to destroy you when I smite the land of Egypt”. (Despite some popular etymology, the Greek word pascha/πασχα has nothing to do with the verb “to suffer” [Greek pascho/πασχω]. Indeed, when the Passover lamb was slain, care was taken to inflict upon it as little suffering as possible. What mattered was its death and blood, not its experience of suffering.) This connection with the Jewish feast is important, for it roots our Christian celebration in its original Hebrew and Biblical soil. The Jewish feast is determined by the lunar cycle and the appearance of the full moon. Fixing a date for the Christian feast determined solely by the solar calendar and independent of the lunar cycle would weaken this historical linkage. Maintaining this Jewish connection allows us to see more easily the common connecting themes of history, blood sacrifice, death, deliverance, and a call to freedom in the promised land. It serves to underscore the underlying Jewish nature of our Christian faith, and the unity of the new covenant with the old. Casting aside history and theology for the sake of knowing in advance when to plan the school holidays would be a poor trade. Thus both our theological loyalty to the ecumenical councils as well as our theological connection with the Old Testament serve to dissuade us from junking the present formula. |
| One may dispute whether the «other sheep» are Diaspora Jews, like much of John " s probable audience, 7435 or Gentiles, 7436 which John " s audience would have to know had joined Christian groups in large numbers. Some might adduce in favor of Diaspora Jews «Gods scattered children» in 11:52, since the high priest would have meant Diaspora Jews rather than Gentiles in 11:50; the high priest does prophesy that Jesus will die on others» «behalf» (11:50). But the high priests own intention is irrelevant to the deeper sense the narrator intends for his audience; clearly the high priest intends Jesus» vicarious death differently from how John intends his audience to hear it (11:51). Moreover, «scattered children of God» is the narrator " s interpretation rather than the high priest " s phrase in any case (11:52), and in this Gospel the term must refer to believers in Jesus (1:12). Also possibly in favor of Diaspora Jews are the texts in the biblical prophets from which the image is drawn ( Jer 23:1–8; 31:1–10 ; Ezek 34:5–6; 37:21–28 ). 7437 But if John views Gentiles as spiritual proselytes to Israel (cf. 3:5) and challenges the sufficiency of ethnic descent from Abraham (8:34, 39), he might apply these same biblical images for the people of God to include Gentile converts. (In contrast to later Gentile Christian teachings about a new Israel replacing the old, however, John would think in terms of Gentiles being grafted into the covenant community through conversion to biblical Judaism; cf. Rom 11:16–24 .) John " s emphasis on a mission to the «world» broader than «the Jews» (1:10; 4:42; 12:32) probably also implies the inclusion of Gentile believers. 7438 Most importantly, John implies the Gentile mission in 7and 12(see comment there). If «other sheep» at least includes Gentile Christians, it is significant that they become part of the «flock,» which in the Hebrew Scriptures was the people of God (cf. Eph 2:15–19 ). 7439 But it was already understood that when Gentiles converted to Judaism they became part of the Jewish people (e.g., Josephus Ag. Ap. 2.210). Jesus» death (10:15) is the prerequisite for the ingathering of Gentiles (10:16), which fits Johannine theology (12:20–24) 7440 and might also serve an apologetic function, if it is necessary to explain why the Jesus tradition includes so little outreach to Gentiles. As in Jewish tradition about God and Israel, the «oneness» of the people in this Gospel (10:16; 11:52) mirrors (10:30, 38; 5:44; 17:3) and derives from (17:11, 21–23) the oneness of God and Jesus. 7441 The Samaritans recognized that Jesus was «savior of the world» (4:42), which would have to include Gentiles. 7442 |
| The NCAO-EOC, led by Gillquist, therefore, lies squarely within American Christian restorationism " s tendency to produce authoritarian expressions, even while the EOC was seeking freedom not merely from a strict leadership but also «parachurch» status itself. At one point, in order to lay claim to being a legitimate church over and against a more sectarian existence, Gillquist had been instrumental in publishing a book by Jack Sparks through Thomas Nelson Press, in which Sparks labeled the Witness Lee and The Local Churches as a cult. 348 Thomas Nelson was quickly sued and had to retract the claim. According to testimony from the libel litigation, Gillquist had been instrumental in publishing the book. 349 Presenting others as «cults,» Gillquist and Sparks and the NACO clearly did not see the NACO in the same way that others had viewed it. Gillquist even explained the change in name from «New Covenant Apostolic Order» to «Evangelical Orthodox Church» precisely along the lines of a shift from parachurch ministries to the establishment of a new church: It may well be that denominations will continue on as sub-governments with the total government of the One Holy Church, confessing her common faith and worship. ... it was the will of God for us to adopt as our name The Evangelical Orthodox Church, a denomination of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. 350 Shifting from an order to a church proved consistent with the struggle Gillquist was having with the notion of parachurch. The importance of a church/parachurch distinction was such an important aspect of the EOC movement that the adoption of authoritarian hierarchy should be placed within the context of this very struggle. 351 What seems to have concerned Gillquist and his colleagues about the parachurch movement was that it was not ministerial arms within a unified church but, rather, independent entities unsupported by ecclesiastical oversight. Gillquist believed that hierarchical authority was an essential part of the Church. |
| 7 For an accessible account of the debate and its consequences, see John Barton, Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Christianity (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox, 1997), 2 – 14. 8 The term itself in Greek ( κανν ) does not appear to have been used for the contents of Scripture until the middle of the fourth century. But long before the words ‘canon’ and ‘canonical’ were employed for the writings now in the New Testament, Christian preachers and theologians were referring to most if not all of them (as well as occasionally some other books) as ‘Scripture,’ and with the use of adjectives such as divine, holy, and as covenantal or ‘testamental’. 10 J. K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament. A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993) . 11 William L. Petersen, ‘The Diatessaron and the Fourfold Gospel’, in Charles Horton (ed.), The Earliest Gospels: The Origins and Transmission of the Earliest Christian Gospels – The Contribution of the Chester Beatty Gospel Codex P45 (London and New York: T. & T. Clark International, 2004), 50 – 68, at 51. In another publication Petersen even constructs an argument that two of these (Gospel of the Nazoraeans, Gospel of the Ebionites) and possibly a third (Gospel according to the Hebrews) are actually different names for the same Gospel (William L. Petersen, Tatian’s Diatessaron: Its Creation, Dissemination, Significance, and History in Scholarship (Leiden, New York, and Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1994) , 40 – 1). This would bring the number of rival Gospels down to eight or possibly seven. It must be said, however, that few if any scholars have been persuaded by these arguments, and most continue to identify three separate ‘Jewish’ Gospels. For a recent, balanced assessment of the data on the number of Jewish Christian Gospels, see Andrew Gregory, ‘Jewish Christian Gospels’, in Paul Foster (ed.), The Non-canonical Gospels (London: T. & T. Clark, 2008), 54 – 67. |
|
|
