| Craig S. Keener The passion. 18:1–19:42 THE «HOUR» JESUS ANNOUNCED as early as 2has arrived; Jesus is the paschal lamb that John announced in 1:29. Peter Ellis suggests that John " s Passion Narrative fits a chiastic structure, as follows: 9506 A Arrested in a garden, bound and led to trial (18:1–12) Β True high priest tried; beloved disciple present (18:13–27) C Jesus, king of Israel, judged by Pilate, rejected by his people (18:28–19:16) B» True high priest carries wood of his own sacrifice (like Isaac); beloved disciple present (19:17–30) Á Bound with burial clothes, buried in a garden (19:31–42) Because many of the features on which he focuses to achieve this structure are so secondary and because the units may be adapted to suit the proposed structure, the suggested chiasmus ultimately proves less than persuasive. It does, however, evidence some patterns that point to the narrative artistry of their designer. More persuasive is the observation by Ellis and others that irony pervades the narrative. Thus Judas who went forth into «the night» in 13now returns in darkness to arrest the light of the world; Pilate the governor questions if Jesus is a king when the readers know that he is; Pilate demands, «What is truth?» when the readers know that Jesus is (14:6); the soldiers hail Jesus as «king of the Jews» in mockery, unaware that Jesus truly is the king of Israel (1:49), whose lifting up on the cross must introduce his reign. 9507 Historical Tradition in the Passion Narrative We must address some preliminary issues concerning John " s narratives and the history behind them (especially as preserved in the Synoptics) before examining the specific texts in John 18–19 . 9508 Where John diverges from the traditions reported in the Synoptics, we do think likely that John adapts rather than contradicts the passion sequence on which they are based, probably at least sometimes on the basis of other traditions and probably at least sometimes for a measure of theological symbolism. Although, on the whole, we think John essentially independent from the Synoptics, the Passion Narrative is different; John " s audience probably already knows the basic passion story from other sources (cf. 1Cor 11:23–25 ). Their prior knowledge would not render John " s version of the story any less intriguing to his audience, however: stories were told repeatedly in the ancient Mediterranean, and a good story could build suspense even if one knew the final outcome. 9509 John " s very adaptations, at least wherever they might diverge from the traditions commonly known among his ideal audience, invite his audiencés special attention. Where theological symbolism guides his adaptations, it is generally in the service of Christology: Jesus is the Passover lamb (cf. 1:29), who lays down his life freely (10:17–18). 1. The Genre of the Passion Narratives |
| John Anthony McGuckin Africa, Orthodoxy in JUSTIN M. LASSER Christianity on the African continent begins its story, primarily, in four separate locales: Alexandrine and Coptic Egypt, the North African region surrounding the city of Carthage, Nubia, and the steppes of Ethiopia. The present synopsis will primarily address the trajectories of the North African Church, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, and the Nubian Orthodox Church. The affairs of Christian Alexandria and the Coptic regions have their own treatments elsewhere in the encyclopedia. ROMAN-COLONIAL NORTH AFRICA After the Romans sacked the city of Carthage in 146 during the Third Punic War, they began a sustained colonizing campaign that slowly transformed the region (modern Tunisia and Libya) into a partially “Romanized” society. In most instances, however, the cultural transformations were superficial, affecting predominantly the trade languages and local power structures. It was Julius Caesar who laid the plans for Carthage’s reemergence as Colonia Junonia in 44 bce. This strong colonial apparatus made North African Christians especially susceptible to persecution by the Roman authorities on the Italian Peninsula. Because the economic power of Carthage was an essential ingredient in the support of the citizens in the city of Rome, the Romans paid careful attention to the region. The earliest extant North African Christian text, the Passion of the Scillitan Martyrs (180 ce), reflects a particularly negative estimation of the Roman authorities. Saturninus, the Roman proconsul, made this appeal to the African Christians: “You can win the indulgence of our ruler the Emperor, if you return to a sensible mind.” The Holy Martyr Speratus responded by declaring: “The empire of this world I know not; but rather I serve that God, whom no one has seen, nor with these eyes can see. I have committed no theft; but if I have bought anything I pay the tax; because I know my Lord, the King of kings and Emperor of all nations.” This declaration was a manifestation of what the Roman authorities feared most about the Christians – their proclamation of a “rival” emperor, Jesus Christ, King of kings. The Holy Martyr Donata expressed that sentiment most clearly: “Honor to Caesar as Caesar: but fear to God.” Within the Roman imperial fold such declarations were not merely interpreted as “religious” expressions, but political challenges. As a result the Roman authorities executed the Scillitan Christians, the proto-martyrs of Africa. Other such persecutions formed the character and psyche of North African Christianity. It became and remained a “persecuted” church in mentality, even after the empire was converted to Christianity. |
| John Anthony McGuckin Parousia MATTHEW J. PEREIRA The Greek term parousia, within the context of the New Testament, denotes the “presence” or “arrival” of Jesus Christ at the Eschaton (Matt. 24.3; 1Cor. 15.23 ). Early Christian expectations of apocalyptic salvation were foreshadowed in Palestinian literature, as can be seen by reference to the Old Testament pseudepigrapha and the Qumran texts (Russell 1964). The early church’s sense of the delay of the glorious return of Christ in judgment ( Jn. 21.21–23 ) provided Christians the opportunity to rearticulate the Parousia in a manner that reflected their own theological concerns, which were shaped within specific social and ecclesial settings (Aune 1975). Beyond exclusively focusing on the “last days,” patristic theologians extensively interpreted the Parousia as a present spiritual reality, part of the resurrection mystery, which pointed towards a future hope. In the early church the Parousia denoted a wide range of spiritual realities, such as the nearness of the gospel, the day of resurrection, Christ’s healing ministry, judgment, and accommodation to humanity. In his Letter to the Philadelphians Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 35-ca. 98/117) proclaimed that the gospel possesses the transcendent “appearance” of our Lord Jesus Christ, his passion and resurrection ( Phil. 9.2 ). Justin Martyr (ca. 100–165) interprets the Parousia as Christ’s power, whereby the Lord resurrects the dead and heals the sick upon his arrival. In his Dialogue with Trypho Justin Martyr also interpreted the deluge as a Christ-event; Noah and his family totaled eight people and thus allegorically represented the eighth day, which is when Christ “appeared” (had his Parousia) and rose from the dead (Dial. 88.2). Further, in his First Apology, Justin parallels the prophecy of Isaiah with Christ’s healing presence; it is at the Lord’s “coming” that the “lame shall leap ... the lepers be cleansed, and the dead shall rise” (I Apol. 48.2). In the Stromateis Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–215) argues that the “advent” of the Savior will divide the believers from the disobedient (Strom. 1.18). The Lord’s arrival clearly reveals the spiritual state of each person, and thus ensures there will be only just judgment. Further, Clement teaches God has no natural relation with humanity, yet the Lord “accommodated” himself to our weakness (Strom. 2.16). In brief, Christian theologians in the first three centuries interpreted the Parousia as a fundamental christological event associated with Christ’s resurrection power, healing, judgment, and nearness to redeemed humanity. |
| Exhortation on the Prayer Rule St. Ignatius (Brianchaninov) Bishop Ignaty (secular name, Dimitry Aleksandrovich Brianchaninov; 1807-1867) was an outstanding ecclesiastical writer and ascetic of the nineteenth century. He had no special theological education. He studied at the main engineering college in St. Petersburg and in 1824 graduated from it, receiving an officer’s rank. During the following four years he fulfilled various obediences as a novice in several monasteries, after which he took monastic vows and was appointed in 1883 as Father Superior of the St. Sergei Hermitage of the St. Petersburg Diocese. He gained profound experience in the knowledge of God by studying the works of the holy fathers. In 1857 he was consecrated bishop of the Black Sea and the Caucasus. In 1861 he retired for reasons of health and settled in the Babaevsky Monastery of St. Nicholas. Besides his feats of prayer and extensive correspondence with his spiritual children, Bishop Ignaty devoted much of his time during these years to literary work. The reader of his works discovers in their author a pastor-ascetic engaged in an intense spiritual combat and who is tragically depressed by setbacks in this struggle. The main motivation behind his ascetic works is his awareness of the damage done to human nature by sin. He wrote: “Our nature is contaminated by sin so that it is quite natural for it to generate unnatural sin” (Essays of Bishop Ignaty Brianchaninov, 3 rd edition, St. Petersburg, 1905, Vol. 5, p. 435). “The Christian discerns within himself the human Fall inasmuch as he can see his own passions. Passions are the sign of the sinful mortal disease which afflicts the entire human race” (1.528). “In order to achieve success in the spiritual life, it is necessary for our passions to reveal themselves by coming to the fore. When passions reveal themselves in an ascetic he comes to grips with them” (1.345). These ideas are further elaborated in all of the works of Bishop Ignaty. In all of his writings on any subject, including practical pastoral advice, Bishop Ignaty takes the reader back to the understanding of the root cause of the misfortunes of the human race, which helps to combat each and every concrete manifestation of sin. Thus defining monastic self-reproach, he points out that it is “a good cause, counterposed to and counteracting the morbid condition of our fallen nature …” (1.345). Elsewhere he writes: “Speaking of books, one should say … that it is necessary to choose among them not the most elevated ones, but the ones that are nearest to our own condition, which describe actions pertinent to ourselves” (2.292). “When a person does not arrange his responsibilities in due order, does not attach to each of them the priority it deserves, then the fulfillment thereof cannot yield virtue, but will only produce sinful mistakes which are all the more dangerous because they have a virtuous appearance” (4.421). |
| Craig S. Keener The ultimate model for love and service. 13:1–38 THE FOOT WASHING IN JOHN is the narrative introduction for the final discourse, part of the lengthy prolegomena to the Passion Narrative. Jesus» impending death dominates this scene. It intersperses Jesus» words and example of service (13:1, 3–10, 12–17, 31–35) with foreshadowings of his betrayal (13:2, 10–11, 18–30), then opens directly into discussion about Jesus» departure by way of the cross (13:36–38; 14:3–6). 8048 This scene therefore paves the way for the Farewell Discourse (13:31–17:26). 8049 By the foot washing Jesus prefigures his impending glorification, which is the theological subject of most of the context (12:16, 23, 28,41; 13:31–32). This act identifies Jesus as the Suffering Servant and defines his passion as an act of loving service. At the same time, however, it also summons Jesus» followers to imitate his model, serving and loving one another to the extent of laying down their lives for one another (13:14–16, 34–35). The Setting (13:1–3) John again links Jesus» imminent «hour» with the Passover season (13:1). (On the «hour,» see comment on 2:4; cf. 12:23.) In contrast to the Synoptic picture of the Last Supper, however, Jesus» closing hours before his arrest in this Gospel are «before» Passover (13:1). This detail fits John " s chronology (13:29; 18:28; 19:14, 31, 42), 8050 which ultimately supports his portrayal of Jesus as the paschal lamb (1:29,36; 19:36). At this point, however, John underlines a different aspect of the chronology: Jesus loved his own «to the end» (13:1). This is Johannine double entendre: it can imply «to the utmost,» «fully,» as well as «to the point of his death.» 8051 Such a double entendre reinforces the measure of God " s love in the Fourth Gospel (3:16) and early Christianity ( Rom 5:5–9 ): Jesus» death. The preceding context also illustrates Jesus» love (11:5) that would cost him his life (11:7–16), but here the specific objects of his love in the Lazarus story give way to all of «his own» (cf. 10:3) who would be remaining in the world (17:11). |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy Metropolitan Hilarion of Budapest and Hungary: Vatican concedes to liberals on the issue of same-sex couples DECR Communication Service, 20.02.2024. His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus’ is considering the conclusion of the Synodal Biblical Theological Commission on the Catholic declaration " Fiducia supplicans " . The declaration, recently adopted by the Congregation for Doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, deals with the blessing of unmarried heterosexual unions and same-sex couples. In an exclusive interview with RIA Novosti, Metropolitan Hilarion of Budapest and Hungary, chairman of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission, discussed this high-profile topic, talked about the dialogue with the Catholics, the " papal " claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the communities of the Russian Orthodox Church in Hungary. - Vladyka Hilarion, how did the commission which you head deal with the declaration " Fiducia supplicans " ? - We studied this document on behalf of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus’. We held a plenary session of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission, and I had the opportunity to present the results of the work of the plenary to His Holiness the Patriarch personally. - Why did the Russian Orthodox Church take up this declaration at all, since it is an internal document of the Roman Catholic Church? - Because we have a dialogue with the Catholic Church, an interaction. And we felt it our duty to respond to such a radical innovation. - There are many different interpretations of the declaration: some say that it is an intermediate step towards the church weddings of same-sex couples, others say that the document opens up the possibility for people to receive help fr om the Church, including in the struggle with their passions, that those who come are blessed one by one, and that no imitation of weddings is allowed. What is your opinion? |
| Craig S. Keener Introductory issues. 13:1–17:26 JUST AS MARK 13 INTERPRETS the imminent passion of Mark 14–15 for the disciples in terms of their future tribulation, so Jesus» final discourse in John " s Gospel interprets the meaning of Jesus» passion for his disciples: they will share both his sufferings and his resurrection life. 7994 Unity of the Discourse Source critics have detected a variety of clues, especially alleged changes of focus and editorial seams, that indicate divergent sources in the discourse. 7995 Most commonly, scholars divide ch. 14 from chs. 15 and 16, suggesting that they are either alternative versions (perhaps both hallowed by time, or one perhaps older than the other), 7996 or a reworked version in addition to an original version (the original is more often thought to be John 14 ). 7997 Talbert suggests that John varies these discourses, since ancient critics recognized that repeating words exactly wearies the hearer. 7998 Some scholars have challenged the thesis of duplicate discourses, 7999 others have argued for distinct discourses offered by Jesus himself on different nights of the Passover week, 8000 and a minority of scholars have argued for the discoursés unity. 8001 Some relatively recent source-critical work takes a chronological approach to the development of the discourse: thus Painter thinks that John composed three versions of the Farewell Discourse, the first before conflict with the synagogue (13:31–14:31), the second during rejection by the synagogue (15:l-16:4a) and the third (16:4b-33) in opposition to the synagogue. 8002 Berg largely concurs but adapts this position slightly, 8003 thinking that 15:1–17 is probably «an independent unit» from the time of that conflict. 8004 Such a detailed reconstruction requires so much dependence on hypothetical reconstructions, and assumes John " s lack of creative revision of his sources to such a degree, that it is not likely to commend much assent today despite its brilliance. More speculatively, some, especially earlier source critics, also have suggested displacements in parts of the discourse, 8005 or alterations made in the the use of the discourse in various recensions of the Fourth Gospe1. 8006 Most such source-critical theories remain speculative, although at least one editorial seam (14:31) appears convincing enough to allow the possibility (albeit not the certainty) that John 14 and John 15–16 represent two versions, or two sections, of an original discourse now bound together. This seam in 14may be disputed (see our comment), but it is the strongest argument for the composite nature of the current discourse. 8007 Apparent inconsistencies such as 13and 16are also possible indicators, 8008 though they may simply reflect John " s deliberately ambiguous use of language. |
| Elder Cleopa on the Eight Sources of Temptation On the second Sunday of Great Lent,the Orthodox Church celebrates the memory of St. Gregory Palamas, Archbishop ofThessalonica, the great defender of hesychasm. In order to demonstrate that thespiritual experience so beautifully described by St. Gregory Palamas continuesto live to this day within the Orthodox Church, we offer the following accountof a spiritual instruction offered by an outstanding contemporary hesychast, Elder Cleopa (Ilie) (1912-1998) of Sihastria Monastery in Romania. On the second Sunday of Great Lent, the Orthodox Church celebrates the memory of St. Gregory Palamas , Archbishop of Thessalonica, the great defender of hesychasm . In order to demonstrate that the spiritual experience so beautifully described by St. Gregory Palamas continues to live to this day within the Orthodox Church, we offer the following account of a spiritual instruction offered by an outstanding contemporary hesychast, Elder Cleopa (Ilie) (1912-1998) of Sihastria Monastery in Romania. What follows is an excerpt from an article written by His Grace, Atanasije (Jevtic) , Retired Bishop of Zahumlje and Herzegovina (Serbian Orthodox Church), entitled “Teachings of the Blessed Elder Cleopa.” In it, Bishop Atanasije describes a pilgrimage he undertook in 1976 with a fellow disciple of St. Justin Popovich , Metropolitan Amfilohije (Radovic) of Montenegro and the Littoral – both bishops were then hieromonks – to visit Elder Cleopa. Following a detailed history of the practice of hesychasm in Romania, His Grace relates how, sitting on a hill overlooking the fruit orchard, with Elder Cleopa kneeling before them, he asked the Elder how to live in this world while struggling with one’s passions and the temptations of the world. This is the reply the Elder offered him, as related by Bishop Atanasije: Teaching on the Eight Means of Temptation and the Struggle Against Them The Holy Fathers say (this is how Fr. Cleopa began to express concisely his spiritual experience to us, inherited from the Holy Fathers and personally experienced by him, as every one of his words clearly confirms) that on the path of salvation one is tempted by the devil from eight sides: from the front, from behind, from the left, from the right, from above, from below, from inside, and from the outside. |
| The Middle East is once again demonstrating its international geopolitical and geostrategic centrality at the intersection of Asia, Africa and Europe. This is shown by the start of Russian intervention and airstrikes in Syria, but also by the forces of the Western coalition, the Chinese navy, without mentioning the consequent regional military forces of Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Israel and so on. This center of the world that is the Middle East constitutes a strategic crossroads of influences that pivot on a central geopolitical line of three B’s– Berlin, Byzantium and Baghdad– that can cut the world in two.Since the earliest times, this center has not ceased to be a crucible where the appetites of the great powers manifest themselves, meet and kill each other. Today, the confrontation between all these powers that are gathering in the Eastern Mediterranean around the Syrian conflict, raging in this threatened and threatening region, is at its peak under “open skies”. An impressive deployment of fleets, friendly or hostile, that are concentrating unprecedented military resources, whether logistical, intelligence-gathering or command posts. A theater of operations where nations and their most divergent interests oppose each other and where the most voracious passions and tensions are growing. A veritable inferno stoked by explosive regional and international embers, threatening the region with general conflagration at any moment. There is, of course, the context of the internal Syrian conflict, but also the conflict against Syria. There is also the regional context of an Arab world imploding from within with nation-states long dominated by dictatorships and draconian autocracies. Nations-states of the Arab world that were unable to remedy the situation with a liberating Arab Spring are today decaying and giving way to a vacuum that is being filled by an extreme religious radicalism that gleefully wields unspeakable terror on a regional and international level and does not hesitate to reawaken all the old demons. Thus it reawakens and stirs up at will the old internecine wars of Islam, between Shiites and Sunnis. Thus it exploits the sacred for political purposes without restraint and disenters the old demons of the historical subconscious of this region that is still traumatized by the memory of the Crusades and colonialism, associating the Western coalition fighting it with the Crusaders. |
| 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. |
|
|
