Εκκλησιαστικοί πατέρες, πλατωνισμός & νεοπλατωνισμός / The Church Fathers, Platonism & Neoplatonism

Δυστυχώς, μερικοί παραπληροφορημένοι εξακολουθούν να νομίζουν ότι η άποψη περί επίδρασης του πλατωνισμού στους λεγόμενους «εκκλησιαστικούς συγγραφείς» ή «Πατέρες» είναι περιθωριακή ή έστω προτεσταντική. Η απλή πραγματικότητα είναι πως αυτή είναι η άποψη της πλειονότητας όσων ασχολούνται επιστημονικά με το αντικείμενο και πως περιθωριακή είναι η αντίθετη άποψη, σαν αυτή που διατράνωνε και ο καθηγητής Νίκος Ματσούκας.

* earlychristiandoctrine,
26 Φεβρουαρίου 2012,
«Ποιοι υποστηρίζουν ότι ο πλατωνισμός επηρέασε τη διαμόρφωση των δογμάτων του χριστιανισμού;»

Ο αυτοκράτορας Κωνσταντίνος Α΄ & οι χριστιανοί /Emperor Constantine I & the Christians

* Νικόλαος Χ. Μαγγιώρος,
Ο Μέγας Κωνσταντίνος και η δονατιστική έριδα: Συμβολή στη μελέτη των σχέσεων εκκλησίας - πολιτείας κατά την Κωνσταντίνεια περίοδο,
εκδ. Βυζάντιον, 2001,
σ. 44.

Χρ. Βούλγαρης: Η χιλιετής Βασιλεία του Χριστού /Chr. Voulgaris: The thousand year Reign of Christ

* Χρήστος Βούλγαρης,
Εισαγωγή εις την Καινήν Διαθήκην *,
Εν Αθήναις, 2003,
τόμ. 2, σσ. 1070-1073.

Ε. Tsalampouni: “Election” and “People of God” in the Old Testament /Αι. Τσαλαμπούνη: Οι όροι 'Εκλογή' και 'Λαός του Θεού' στην Παλαιά Διαθήκη

*

Israel’s election by God and her appointment to be Yahweh’s chosen people, as manifested through various events in Israel’s history, is one of the major theological themes of the Old Testament (Hebrew Scriptures) and therefore, often has been identified either as the centre of its theology or as its fundamental theological structure. The primary word that is used to denote this divine act is the verb bḥr (בהר , choose, elect) and its derivatives (although the word is also used in a profane sense in contexts such as Gen. 6:2; 13:11 and 1 Sam. 17:40). The biblical authors also use certain images to describe the close and mutually binding relationship of Israel to God, for example, those of marriage (Hos.; Jer. 2:17; 3:11–22; Ezek. 16, 23; Is. 50:1; 54:5, 8, 10; 62:4–5), of the father-son relationship (Ex. 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Hos. 11:1; Is. 63:16; 64:7–8), and of the potter and clay ( Jer. 18:1ff; Is. 64:8). The abstract noun for “election” is absent in the biblical texts, but the prominent use of various verb forms to describe the divine decision and act, shows that the Old Testament authors understood election as a series of concrete acts that took place within history. As such, the biblical texts name the election of patriarchs, kings, priests and Zion. Most prominently, the Exodus itself is a concrete act of election, an event often reflected upon later; it functions as the interpretive lens through which Israel’s adventurous course in history is interpreted.

The subject of these elective acts is God, who takes the initiative and manifests divine free decision and authority. The objects of election can be either places (e.g. the temple in 2 Chron. 7:16 and Mt. Zion in Ps 78:68), individuals (e.g. Saul, David, Solomon but also the Pharaoh, Cyrus and the Messiah or Servant of Yahweh), the people of Israel or a particular group within Israel (the house of Phinehas or the Davidic line). However, even in the case of the election of individuals, the election mostly remains a corporate concept; references to elected individuals gain significance within the covenant community.

The idea of election is interconnected with other main theological themes of the Old Testament, such as that of God’s righteousness, the covenant, the law or the promised land. God’s righteousness should be understood, first of all, as God’s faithfulness and committed decision to make Israel God’s elected people. This has a salvific character. Additionally, righteousness should be understood within the context of the covenantal relationship of God to Israel. The covenant is a theme closely related to the election, expressing their mutual bond. This is evident in the election formula (Bundesformel) in later texts (e.g. Ex. 6:7; Jer. 7:23; 24:7; Ezek. 11:20; 14:11; Zech. 8:8: “I will be your God, and you shall be my people”) as well as its earlier partial formulations (e.g. Judg. 5:3, 5; Ex. 3:7, 10). Israel was elected by God to become God’s own people. However, along with this election came obligations to God, Israel’s commitment to the covenant, and the imperative to do God’s will, as expressed in the Decalogue and other statutes.

Finally, the concept of the “land of the promise” is also closely connected. The land to which Israel was led after the exodus from Egypt was seen as God’s gift to the elect people (Deut. 26:5–10; cf. Deut. 11:10–11). This gift could be taken away, and was, when Israel proved to be unfaithful and oblivious to being God’s elect (Amos 3:11; Hos. 2:16–25). Yet again, this became the promised hope in the time of the Exile ( Jer. 11:5; Is. 11:10–16; Ezek. 47:13ff; Ob. 19–21). The land always was perceived as a divine gift in the context of the covenant and of Israel’s election by Yahweh, related to God’s faithfulness and righteousness and to Israel’s obligations towards God (Deut. 30:16–20). It demonstrated this relationship. As a divine gift (according to Lev. 25:23, it remained Yahweh’s land), occupying the land should never be regarded as self-evident and permanent, for it depended on Israel’s obedience to God’s commandments and faithfulness to the covenant.

The motives that led to Yahweh’s decision for and commitment to the people of Israel usually remain unexplained. It is not, therefore, clear why Abraham or the other Patriarchs or even Israel were chosen. Moreover, in Deuteronomy, where “electiontheology” is most fully developed, it explicitly states that Israel was the smallest among the nations (Deut. 7:7), and Israel also is chastised for stubbornness and ingratitude (Deut. 9:6–7). In Deuteronomy 7:6–8 (cf. Deut. 14:2; 26:18–19; Ex. 19:3–8), however, it is stated that Israel was elected to be Yahweh’s possession, God’s holy people, based on God’s love and faithfulness to what was promised to Israel’s forebearers. The idea of divine love as the motive for God’s act of election is also prominent in Deutero-Isaiah, where God’s faithfulness to the people is stressed, along with the role that the elected Israel will play in God’s plans for other nations in the future (Is. 42:6: “I will make you to be a covenant to the people, a light to the nations”).

For Israel this divine initiative can have a double meaning: it is a high honor and privilege and at the same time a heavy responsibility and commitment. Israel becomes God’s precious possession and inheritance (e.g. Ex. 19:5; Deut. 4:20), is called holy or separate from the other nations (Deut 7:6), and receives God’s law (Deut. 4:8). God dwells with this people (Ex. 40:34–38) and promises divine blessing (Deut. 28:1–14). On the other hand, God’s blessing and faithfulness entail that Israel respond in faith and obedience (Deut. 4:37). Despite the fact that the election is the result of a divine initiative and is rather a corporate concept, Israel is not regarded as a passive recipient of God’s decision; each Israelite and the people as a community are perceived as active participants in a dialogic relationship with God. They consciously choose God as their partner in a mutually binding covenant (cf. Josh. 24:14). This willful acceptance of God’s calling demands righteousness, loyalty to God’s law and separation from the other nations (Lev. 18:2; 20:22; Deut. 14:1 ff.; Ezek. 20:5–7).

However, in the course of history Israel often abused this commitment. Lured by other cults and false prophets, Israel turned her back to Yahweh. Often in the prophetic texts Israel was warned not to take her election for granted (Amos 3:2), but because these warnings seemed ineffective, Israel was chastised (Lev. 26:14ff.) and her election revoked. In the prophetic texts, especially in Isaiah, the idea emerged of a faithful remnant of Israel. This righteous remnant that remained faithful to God’s covenant guaranteed the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel and functioned as the loyal representative of Israel as a whole.

Election and Israel’s role as the chosen and holy people in the midst of the other nations inevitably leads to difficult questions regarding the particularistic or universal consciousness of Israel as God’s people. Recent discussions in New Testament scholarly circles, influenced by Ferdinand Christian Baur’s scheme of theological history, juxtapose Jewish nationalistic and exclusive notions of election against the spirit of universalism and freedom of the early church. However, this stereotype based on post-Enlightenment and Hegelian ideology, clearly reflects contemporary concerns. It is not found in the patristic exegetical texts, despite the anti-Jewish rhetoric that can be detected in some of them. Furthermore, the Old Testament itself calls for discretion and avoidance of over-simplifications. In many texts of especially the post-exilic period, it is emphasized that Israel was chosen among the other nations, not so that they would be condemned to perish but that they might know God and be blessed through Israel. This is particularly evident in biblical texts that reflect the eschatological expectations of Israel. Here, again, we can find traces of universalism and of an “open-ended hope.”

We agree with Jon D. Levenson that the biblical election is “instrumental,” meaning the elected people are to act as the particular witness and agent of God. This election is not self-evident or self-sufficient, nor does Israel’s failure to fulfill this role cause Yahweh to abandon them.

* Ε. Tsalampouni,
"'Election' and the 'People of God': An Orthodox Theological Perspective"
[«Η 'Εκλογή' και ο 'Λαός του Θεού': Ορθόδοξη Θεολογική Προοπτική»],
Ecumenical Review 64:1 (2012): 14-26.

Bayerische Staatsbibliothek / Bavarian State Library / Δημόσια Βαυαρική Βιβλιοθήκη

* Bavarian State Library

Byzantine monasteries: When defrauding is not called by its name /Βυζαντινά μοναστήρια: Όταν η απάτη δεν λέγεται με το όνομά της

 

* Κωνσταντίνος Γ. Πιτσάκης,
«Έγκλημα χωρίς τιμωρία; Τα πλαστά στη βυζαντινή ιστορία»,
στο Σπύρος Τρωιάνος (επιμ.),
Έγκλημα και τιμωρία στο Βυζάντιο,
Ίδρυμα Γουλανδρή-Χορν, 1997, σ. 381.

NT textual criticism /Κριτική του κειμένου της ΚΔ

* Paula Gooder (ed.),
Searching for Meaning:
An Introduction to Interpreting the New Testament,
Westminster John Knox Press, 2009, p. 49 /
Αναζητώντας το νόημα:
Μια εισαγωγή στην ερμηνεία της Καινής Διαθήκης,
Χ. Ατματζίδης & Αι. Τσαλαμπούνη (επιμ. ελλ. έκδ.), Π. Πουρναράς, 2011, σ. 79.

YHWH: the One who exists for us /ΓιΧΒΧ: Εκείνος που υπάρχει για εμάς

Even in that apparently primitive and anthropomorphic passage in the Book of Exodus where Yahweh promises to "proclaim the Name of the Lord" to Moses, this proclamation of the Name of God by God Himself is connected with the sovereign, freely electing, grace of God: "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy." God's self-manifestation is the act by which God steps out of the sphere of His own glory and self-sufficiency, in which the One who exists for Himself alone becomes the One who exists for us.



Ακόμη και σε αυτή τη φανερά αρχαϊκή και ανθρωπομορφική περικοπή στο Βιβλίο της Εξόδου όπου ο Γιαχβέ υπόσχεται να “διακηρύξει το Όνομα του Κυρίου” στον Μωυσή, αυτή η διακήρυξη του Ονόματος του Θεού από τον ίδιο τον Θεό συνδέεται με την υπέρτατη, ελεύθερα επιλέγουσα, χάρη του Θεού: «Θα είμαι φιλεύσπλαχνος σε αυτόν που θα είμαι φιλεύσπλαχνος και θα δείξω έλεος σε αυτόν που θα δείξω έλεος». Η αυτοφανέρωση του Θεού είναι η πράξη με την οποία ο Θεός εξέρχεται από τη σφαίρα της δόξας Του και της αυτάρκειάς Του, στην οποία Εκείνος που υπάρχει για τον Εαυτό του και μόνο γίνεται Εκείνος που υπάρχει για εμάς.


* Emil Brunner,
The Christian doctrine of God
Dogmatics vol. 1,
The Westminster Press,
p./σ. 124.

Origenism, Lucianism & Arianism on God /Ο ωριγενισμός, ο λουκιανισμός & ο αρειανισμός περί Θεού

* David Sutherland Wallace-Hadrill,
Christian Antioch A study of early Christian thought in the East
[Η Χριστιανική Αντιόχεια: Μελέτη της πρώιμης χριστιανικής σκέψης στην Ανατολή],
Cambridge University Press, 1982,
pp./σσ. 83-86.

Britannica on the forms of eschatology: Messianism, apocalypticism & millennialism/H Britannica για τις μορφές εσχατολογίας: Μεσσιανισμός, αποκαλυπτικισμός & χιλιετισμός

The forms of eschatology

Historical eschatology appears in one of three distinct forms— messianism, millennialism, or apocalypticism. Messianic hopes are directed toward a single redemptive figure who, it is believed, will lead the people of God, now suffering and oppressed, into a better historical future. Messianism sometimes promotes visions of the vengeance and justice that befall tyrannical political and religious leaders. In these instances, local historical expectations shape the belief in the fulfillment of history before its end. Apocalypticism, on the other hand, promises a sudden, cataclysmic intervention by God on the side of a faithful minority. According to this view, "this world," unable to bear the "justice of God," will be destroyed and replaced by a new world founded on God’s righteousness. Millenarian, or chiliastic, hope is directed toward the 1,000-year earthly kingdom of peace, fellowship, and prosperity over which Christ and his saints will reign following the destruction of the forces of evil and before the final end of history.

Messianism

The term messiah, or mashiah (Hebrew: "anointed"), has been applied to a variety of “redeemers,” and many movements with an eschatological or utopian-revolutionary message have been termed messianic. Although messianic movements have occurred throughout the world, they seem to be especially characteristic of the Jewish and Christian traditions. Therefore, many of the terms used to describe messianic phenomena are derived from the Bible and from Judeo-Christian beliefs—prophetic, millenarian, and chiliastic movements. Moreover, the scientific study of messianic beliefs and movements—originating in the Western theological and academic tradition—initially concerned phenomena that occurred mainly in Christian history or in cultures exposed to Western colonial and missionary influences. Because the Western origins of messianic terms and concepts give discussions of messianism an almost unavoidable Judeo-Christian slant, sociologists and anthropologists prefer more neutral terminology—nativistic, renewal, or revitalization movements and crisis cults. Many of these terms, however, fail to convey the essential features of the phenomena. Thus, recent scholarship has preferred the term millennial (used by Church Fathers and anthropologists alike) to describe movements of collective redemption.

Apocalypticism

Apocalypticism refers to Western eschatological views and movements that focus on cryptic revelations about a sudden, dramatic, and cataclysmic intervention by God in history, the judgment of all men, and the rule of the elect with God in a renewed heaven and earth. The archetypal apocalyptic work in the Judeo-Christian tradition, The Book of Daniel, is the only apocalyptic book to be admitted to the canon of the Hebrew Bible, just as the Revelation to John is the only apocalypse included in the canon of the New Testament. There are many noncanonical apocalyptic works from both Jewish and Christian authors, including the three Books of Enoch, the Second Book of Esdras, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the Apocalypse of Peter. Nonetheless, all the apocalyptic works written during the first efflorescence of millennialism, including the Revelation to John, owe much of their shape and style to Daniel.

Millennialism

Millennialism (from the Latin word for “1,000 years”) is the branch of eschatology concerned with the earthly prospects of the human community, rather than the worldly and eternal prospects of the individual. Millennialism focuses on collective, public salvation and asserts that humanity will endure the great cataclysms of the coming Endtime before fulfilling the age-old dream of dwelling in an earthly paradise. The term is derived from a passage in the Revelation to John (Revelation 20) that describes a vision of Satan bound and thrown into a bottomless pit and of Christian martyrs raised from the dead to reign with Christ for a 1,000-year period, the millennium.

Millennialism has had broad appeal throughout history. The original Jewish and Christian millennial treatises of the Hellenistic Age (c. 300 bc to c. ad 300), particularly the books of Daniel and Revelation, provided the building blocks from which the successive millennial structures were erected (as they had done for apocalypticism). In constant repetition the motifs, leading characters, symbols, and chronologies of these works have arisen in the teaching of some prophet of the end of the world, each time taking on new significance from associations with contemporaneous events. Jesus, according to some scholars, was a millennialist who announced the imminent arrival of the earthly kingdom of God. Millennialism also remains active in a number of modern Protestant groups, including the Adventists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and certain Evangelical and fundamentalist Christian denominations. Anthropologists, historians, and sociologists also have found millennialist currents in non-Western cultures.

* "eschatology." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 14 Mar. 2012.
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/192308/eschatology>.

The anti-synodical priest & the the baser phobic instincts of the Greek Orthodoxy /Ο αντισυνοδικός ιεράρχης & τα κατώτερα φοβικά ένστικτα της ελληνορθοδοξίας

* Το Βήμα,
«Ανάθεμα του μητροπολίτη Πειραιώς κατά Πάπα και λοιπών... αιρετικών
Ο κ. Σεραφείμ επιτέθηκε σε όλες τις άλλες θρησκείες,
αλλά και τον διαχριστιανικό διάλογο»,
12 Μαρτίου 2012.



Ενημέρωση:29 Μαρτίου 2012:
Επιστολή Βαρθολομαίου σε Ιερώνυμο για τον Πειραιώς

Ενημέρωση:

Νέα αναθέματα, παλαιά ερωτήματα

 

Από τον ΣΤΑΥΡΟ ΖΟΥΜΠΟΥΛΑΚΗ

 

Την Α΄ Κυριακή των Νηστειών, που έχει καθιερωθεί από τον 9ο αιώνα ως Κυριακή της Ορθοδοξίας, εορτάζεται η αναστήλωση των εικόνων. Ένα από τα ιδιαίτερα γνωρίσματα του τυπικού της ημέρας αποτελεί η ανάγνωση ελάχιστων αποσπασμάτων του Συνοδικού της Ορθοδοξίας, ενός ιδιόμορφου και πολύ σημαντικού κειμένου, που θα βρει την τελική διαμόρφωσή του τον 14ο αιώνα.[1]

Ένα από τα στοιχεία που περιέχει το Συνοδικόν είναι τα αναθέματα κατά πατριαρχών, επισκόπων, μοναχών, βασιλέων και άλλων, που θεωρούνται εχθροί της ορθής πίστης. Επί δεκαετίες τώρα στους ναούς της Ελλάδος δεν διαβάζονται πια κατά την ημέρα αυτή τα αναθέματα, αλλά αναπέμπεται μόνο το «αιωνία η μνήμη» υπέρ των προμάχων της Ορθοδοξίας. Εξαίρεση αποτελούν οι παλαιοημερολογίτες και κάποιοι νεοφανείς φονταμενταλιστές. Ο μητροπολίτης Πειραιώς ανήκει σε αυτήν την κατηγορία και διάβασε –μόνος επίσκοπος, υποθέτω, της ελλαδικής Εκκλησίας– και μερικά αναθέματα, από τον Άρειο ώς τον Βαρλαάμ και τον Ακίνδυνο. Δεν αρκέστηκε όμως σε αυτά, που υπάρχουν εν πάση περιπτώσει και στο βιβλίο του Τριωδίου, αλλά πρόσθεσε και δικά του:

 

– Τω κανονικώς ανυποστάτω και εκπεσόντι αιρεσιάρχη Πάπα και Πατριάρχη Παλαιάς Ρώμης Βενεδίκτω τω 16ω και τοις αυτώ κοινωνούσι, ανάθεμα.

– Τοις Μαρτίνω Λουθήρω, Ιωάννη Καλβίνω, Ουρλίχω Σβιγλίω και Ερρίκω τω Ογδόω δυσεβεί βασιλεί και τοις συν αυτοίς συγκροτήσασι τας αιρετικάς παραφυάδας της Διαμαρτυρήσεως, ανάθεμα.

– Τοις αρνουμένοις και καθυβρίζουσι την Παναγίαν, Ομοούσιον, Αδιαίρετον και Ζωοποιόν Τριάδα, Ραββίνοις του Ιουδαϊσμού, Ισλαμισταίς και μέλεσι της ανωνύμου φυλλαδικής Εταιρίας Σκοπιά του Πύργου, των Μαρτύρων του Ιεχωβά, ανάθεμα.

– Τοις αρνουμένοις τας Αγίας τετάρτην, πέμπτην, έκτην και εβδόμην Οικουμενικάς Συνόδους Μονοφυσίταις, Μονοθελήταις και Μονοενεργήταις, ανάθεμα.

– Τοις κηρύσσουσι και διδάσκουσι την παναίρεσιν του Διαχριστιανικού και Διαθρησκειακού Συγκρητιστικού Οικουμενισμού, ανάθεμα.

 

Κάθε ανάθεμα που εκφωνούσε ο δεσπότης ο χορός κατά την τάξιν το επαναλάμβανε τρις.

 

Από πού να αρχίσει τώρα και πού να τελειώσει κανείς; Όποιος μάλιστα δει και το σχετικό βίντεο (http://tiny.cc/0x9rbw), το οποίο κυκλοφορεί ευρέως στο διαδίκτυο, θα τα χάσει ακόμη περισσότερο –άλλο να σου λένε και άλλο να βλέπεις–, δεν θα ξέρει κυριολεκτικά πού βρίσκεται, αν δηλαδή βρίσκεται σε μια χώρα της Ευρώπης του 2012 ή μήπως στο Ιράν, τη Σαουδική Αραβία και, πιθανότερο, στο Πακιστάν.

Τι νόημα έχει να αναθεματίζεις και να αποκόπτεις από το σώμα της Εκκλησίας ανθρώπους, εκατομμύρια ανθρώπους, που ούτε ήταν ποτέ ούτε είναι σήμερα ούτε θέλουν να είναι μέλη της; Η γελοιότητα είναι πρόδηλη. Είναι σαν να διαγράφεις συλλήβδην από ένα δικηγορικό σύλλογο ανθρώπους που δεν είναι δικηγόροι ή να αποκλείεις από αθλητικές διοργανώσεις ανθρώπους που δεν είναι αθλητές. Την ίδια ακριβώς σημασία έχει ο αναθεματισμός, η καταδίκη και η αποκοπή από την Εκκλησία Εβραίων και μουσουλμάνων – γιατί όχι και ινδουιστών, βουδιστών, σιντοϊστών, ταοϊστών και άλλων ων ουκ έστιν αριθμός; Από την άλλη, αντιλαμβάνεται ο μητροπολίτης Πειραιώς τι σημαίνει η λέξη Συνοδικόν, στο πλαίσιο του οποίου ενέταξε τα δικά του αναθέματα; Ποια Σύνοδος, θέλω να πω, αναθεμάτισε τον πάπα Βενέδικτο ΙΣΤ΄ και δεν το πήραμε είδηση; Στην προκειμένη μάλιστα περίπτωση, ισχύει το αντίστροφο: τα ιστορικά αναθέματα μεταξύ Ορθόδοξης και Καθολικής Εκκλησίας έχουν αρθεί από τον Δεκέμβριο του 1965, με πρωτοβουλία του πατριάρχη Αθηναγόρα και του πάπα Παύλου ΣΤ΄.

Δεν είναι βέβαια η πρώτη φορά που ο Σεραφείμ κηρύττει δημόσια τη μισαλλοδοξία, ούτε θα είναι ασφαλώς η τελευταία, όσο μένει ή τον αφήνουν στη θέση του. Όρεξη να ’χεις να ασχολείσαι. Ένα από τα τελευταία δείγματα, η μήνυση κατά του Καθολικού αρχιεπισκόπου Αθηνών, της διευθύντριας του σχολείου Ζαν ντ’ Αρκ και ενός καθολικού ιερέα, επειδή κατά την έναρξη του τρέχοντος σχολικού έτους τελέστηκε αγιασμός στο σχολείο, γεγονός που «αμβλύνει την Ορθόδοξον αυτοσυνειδησίαν των μικρών ευπλάστων μαθητών», καθώς στο σχολείο φοιτούν και Ορθόδοξοι μαθητές – ενώ όταν συμβαίνει το αντίστροφο, δηλαδή τελείται αγιασμός στα σχολεία από Ορθόδοξο ιερέα δεν αμβλύνεται η αυτοσυνειδησία των καθολικών, μουσουλμάνων, Εβραίων ή άθεων μαθητών.

Το θέμα μας παρακάτω δεν θα είναι ο Σεραφείμ και ο φονταμενταλισμός του –ο οποίος βρίσκει υποστηρικτές και μέσα στα πανεπιστήμια (!), ιδίως στη Θεολογική Σχολή της Θεσσαλονίκης– αλλά η στάση της Εκκλησίας απέναντί του. Ο Σεραφείμ είναι αυτός που είναι και λέει αυτά που λέει. Σημασία έχει τι κάνει ο αρχιεπίσκοπος της Εκκλησίας της Ελλάδος, τι κάνει η Ιεραρχία, τι κάνουν οι ιερείς.

Μπορεί οι περισσότεροι να νιώθουμε ανακούφιση που έχουμε απαλλαγεί από τις εξαλλοσύνες του Χριστόδουλου, δεν μπορεί όμως να νιώθουμε ικανοποιημένοι από την πολιτική της ακινησίας του Ιερώνυμου. Ο νυν αρχιεπίσκοπος δεν έχει ιδέες, δεν έχει θεολογία, δεν έχει όραμα, δεν έχει πρόγραμμα, εξαρχής δεν γνώριζε τι ήθελε να κάνει αν εκλεγόταν αρχιεπίσκοπος, ήθελε απλώς να πάρει τη ρεβάνς για την εκλογή που έχασε το 1998 και την οποία πίστευε ότι δικαιούτο. Δεν έχει ιδέα τι γίνεται σήμερα στον κόσμο και τι κάνουν οι άλλες Εκκλησίες για να αντιμετωπίσουν τη νέα πραγματικότητα και τις προκλήσεις της. Φτάνει να ακούσει κανείς τα κηρύγματά του: απροετοίμαστος πάντα, λέει τα ίδια και τα ίδια, συμπαθείς κουβεντούλες αγαθού γέροντα. Δεν δίνει μάχες, δεν συγκρούεται, υπόσχεται σε όλους, αφήνει τα πράγματα να πηγαίνουν από μόνα τους, αρκεί αυτός να ελέγχει την εκλογή των νέων μητροπολιτών. Κινείται δηλαδή στη γραμμή του αρχιεπισκόπου Σεραφείμ, του οποίου υπήρξε στενός συνεργάτης επί πολλά χρόνια: ένας ευγενής, αστικός σεραφειμισμός –κατ’ αντιδιαστολή προς το ορεσίβιο και λαϊκό στοιχείο του προκατόχου και δασκάλου του– είναι η αρχιεπισκοπική πολιτεία του. Με μια τέτοια πολιτική, είναι απολύτως αναμενόμενο να μην κάνει τίποτε ο αρχιεπίσκοπος έναντι του μητροπολίτη Πειραιώς, ακόμη και όταν αυτός διαπράττει κανονικά παραπτώματα, όπως η αναγνώριση (με επιστολή της 31.1.2011) ως κανονικού επισκόπου Ράσκας και Πριζρένης του Αρτεμίου, τον οποίο η Ιεραρχία της σερβικής Εκκλησίας –με την οποία η ελληνική διατηρεί κανονικές σχέσεις– έχει καθαιρέσει και επαναφέρει στην τάξη των μοναχών.[2] Ας θυμίσω ακόμη ότι λίγες μέρες μετά τις τερατώδεις δηλώσεις του Σεραφείμ (Mega, 20.12.2010) ότι ο Χίτλερ ήταν όργανο του διεθνούς σιωνισμού και σκοπό είχε να πείσει τους Εβραίους να μεταβούν στην Παλαιστίνη και να συστήσουν εκεί τη νέα αυτοκρατορία, ο αρχιεπίσκοπος πήγε, κατά την εορτή των Θεοφανείων στον μητροπολιτικό ναό Πειραιώς και χοροστάτησε στη λειτουργία μαζί του. Όταν η εκκλησιαστική πολιτική είναι ισορροπίες και δοσοληψίες, ας μην περιμένει κανείς μια σαφή και σταθερή στάση απέναντι στον Σεραφείμ και σε ό,τι αυτός εκφράζει.

Παρόμοια και οι υπόλοιποι ιεράρχες δεν βγάζουν μιλιά, γιατί υπάρχει μια ιδιότυπη επισκοπική ομερτά και γιατί φοβούνται μην τους περιλάβουν τα φονταμενταλιστικά έντυπα και μπλογκς και αρχίζουν να τους βρίζουν και να τους συκοφαντούν. Πρυτανεύει δηλαδή η αρχή «ας μην μπλέκουμε». Η Δ.Ι.Σ. έστελνε στο αρχείο την υπόθεση του Αττικής Παντελεήμονος και δεν τον παρέπεμπε σε δίκη, παρά τις εις βάρος του αποφάσεις της ποινικής δικαιοσύνης, και θα καλέσει τώρα σε απολογία τον Σεραφείμ; Φαίνεται πιθανό;

Την ίδια και χειρότερη στάση τηρούν και οι πολιτικοί, ιδίως όσοι εκλέγονται στον Πειραιά, με πρώτο και καλύτερο ανάμεσά τους τον Κ. Αρβανιτόπουλο, βουλευτή της Νέας Δημοκρατίας, ο οποίος εκτός από βουλευτής, είναι επίσης και αναπληρωτής υπουργός Παιδείας και Θρησκευμάτων και καθηγητής στο Πάντειο Πανεπιστήμιο. Φέτος, κατά την εορτή των Τριών Ιεραρχών, σε εκδήλωση που πραγματοποίησε η Μητρόπολη Πειραιώς σε αίθουσα του Πανεπιστημίου Πειραιώς, όχι μόνο ήταν παρών και άκουγε σαν μαθητούδι την ομιλία του Σεραφείμ, αλλά τον συνεχάρη κιόλας δημόσια για τις άοκνες προσπάθειες που καταβάλλει για την παιδεία. Μπορεί τάχα να φανταστεί κανείς άνθρωπο με τις ίδιες ιδιότητες (υπουργός Παιδείας και καθηγητής πανεπιστημίου), σε μια χώρα της Δυτικής Ευρώπης, που να πηγαίνει να ακούει και να συγχαίρει έναν αντίστοιχο εκεί Σεραφείμ (αν υποτεθεί ότι θα έβρισκε έναν παρόμοιο); Κάνει βέβαια λάθος εκτίμηση ο κ. Αρβανιτόπουλος, αν νομίζει ότι ο Σεραφείμ ρίχνει νερό στον δικό του μύλο. Ο Σεραφείμ ρίχνει νερό στο μύλο της ακροδεξιάς. Οι οπαδοί της ξέρουν καλά να αναγνωρίζουν τους δικούς τους – αλλιώς δεν θα του ζητούσε συνέντευξη το υπερακροδεξιό περιοδικό Patria (τχ. 31, Ιαν-Φεβρ. 2012, σ. 26-29). Τώρα που έχει διαμορφωθεί ένας αστερισμός ακροδεξιών κομμάτων, τρία εκ των οποίων, όπως όλα δείχνουν, θα μπουν στη Βουλή, ο Σεραφείμ μπορεί να γίνει ο εκκλησιαστικός εκφραστής τους.

Αν από τον αρχιεπίσκοπο και τους επισκόπους δεν περιμένω τίποτε, εξακολουθώ να περιμένω μια αντίδραση εκ μέρους κάποιων ιερέων για τις μισαλλόδοξες, φανατικές και βαθιά αντιχριστιανικές δηλώσεις του Σεραφείμ (και άλλων τινών). Περιμένω μια κάποια συλλογική αντίδραση, εκ μέρους λίγων έστω ιερέων, απέναντι σε έναν εκκλησιαστικό λόγο που τους εκθέτει ενώπιον Θεού και ανθρώπων. Την περιμένω χρόνια, μα δεν την έχω δει ακόμη. Η σιωπή δεν είναι πάντοτε αρετή, τις περισσότερες φορές είναι δειλία. Γιατί να ακούγεται συλλογικά μόνο η φωνή των φονταμενταλιστών ιερέων; Ώς πότε θα τους αφήνουν όλο το χώρο;

Μπορεί όσοι, ιερείς και θεολόγοι, δεν αντιδρούν στον φονταμενταλισμό να το κάνουν επειδή κρίνουν πως δεν αξίζει τον κόπο, μιας και οι εκφραστές του είναι κατά κανόνα φαιδρά πρόσωπα. Ας μου επιτραπεί να πω ότι έχουν άδικο. Και ο Μουσολίνι γελοίος ήταν. Και ο Καρατζαφέρης ένας φαιδρός κωλοτούμπας είναι. Νομιμοποιώντας τον όμως ως ισόκυρο συνομιλητή και εταίρο στη συγκυβέρνηση εθνικής σωτηρίας, νομιμοποιήσαμε τις ιδέες του και βλέπουμε σήμερα, αφενός, την ανάπτυξη αυτού του ακροδεξιού τόξου που ανέφερα παραπάνω αλλά και τη διάχυση, αφετέρου, των ακροδεξιών ιδεών και σε κόμματα που βρίσκονται στα αριστερά του ακροδεξιού τόξου. Ανάλογα ισχύουν και για τον Ορθόδοξο φονταμενταλισμό. Είναι επικίνδυνος, ακόμη και όταν οι εκφραστές του είναι γελοία πρόσωπα.

---

[1] Η πρώτη κριτική έκδοση του κειμένου έγινε από τον Jean Gouillard, “Le Synodikon de l'Orthodoxie, édition et commentaire”, στο Travaux et Mémoires, τόμ. 2, του Centre de recherche d’histoire et civilization byzantines, Παρίσι 1967, σ. 1-316. Βλ. μετάφραση του κειμένου, κατά την έκδοση Gouillard, από τον Η. Γ. Πετρόπουλο, στο βιβλίο Κυριακή της Ορθοδοξίας, Αρμός, Αθήνα 2006. Το κείμενο του Συνοδικού, σε συντομότερες εκδοχές, περιέχεται και στα λειτουργικά βιβλία και κυρίως στο Τριώδιο (σήμερα μάλιστα αποκλειστικά στο Τριώδιο).

[2] Πώς γίνεται και ο ίδιος άνθρωπος, ο Σεραφείμ, συνυπέγραψε, λίγο αργότερα, ως μέλος της Δ.Ι. Συνόδου, την απόφασή της που αναγνώριζε την καθαίρεση του Αρτεμίου (εγκύκλιος 2913/6.4.2011) ανήκει στην αρμοδιότητα άλλων επιστημόνων.


* Athens Review of Books,
"Νέα αναθέματα, παλαιά ερωτήματα" *,
τεύχ. 28, 29 Μαρτίου 2012

"A time, and times, and half a time", interpreted by Theodoret /«Καιρός, καιροί και μισός καιρός», κατά την ερμηνεία του Θεοδώρητου

καὶ ῥήματα εἰς τὸν ὕψιστον λαλήσει καὶ τοὺς ἁγίους τοῦ ὑψίστου κατατρίψει καὶ προσδέξεται ἀλλοιῶσαι καιροὺς καὶ νόμον, καὶ παραδοθήσεται πάντα εἰς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτοῦ
ἕως καιροῦ καὶ καιρῶν καὶ ἕως ἡμίσους [θ', καὶ ἥμισυ] καιροῦ

 —Δανιήλ / Daniel 7:25

 

«εἰς καιρὸν, καὶ καιροὺς, καὶ ἥμισυ καιροῦ»
σημαίνει δὲ τρία καὶ ἥμισυ ἔτη.

—Θεοδώρητος ο Κύρου / Theodoret of Cyrus,
Υπόμνημα εις τας Οράσεις του προφήτου Δανιήλ /
Interpretatio in Danielem .

* Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on Daniel,
Robert C. Hill (transl.),
Society of Biblical Literature/Brill, 2006,
pp./σσ. 196, 197, 320, 321.

vatican.va TANGO DOWN

* Herald Sun,
"Anonymous hackers take down Vatican website",
March 08, 2012.

Church and State: The historical experience /Εκκλησία και Κράτος: Η ιστορική εμπειρία

Doug Bandow, 

Beyond good intentions: A Biblical view of Politics

[Πέρα από τις καλές προθέσεις: Η Βιβλική άποψη για την Πολιτική],

Crossway Books, 1988,
pp./σσ. 121-125.

The Gospel of John: The gospel of the Word /Το Ευαγγέλιο του Ιωάννη: Ευαγγέλιο του Λόγου

The Gospel of the Word

To very many people the Fourth Gospel is the high-water mark of the NT. "Chiefest of the Gospels," Luther called it, "unique, tender and true." Very early in the history of the Church the four living creatures of the Revelation (4:7) were used as the symbols of the Gospels. The allocation of them varies, but according to Augustine the man stands for Mark, who gives us the most human picture of Jesus; the lion stands for Matthew, who shows us Jesus as the Messiah, the lion of Judah; the ox stands for Luke, for the ox is the animal of sacrifice, and Luke shows us Jesus as the sacrifice and the Saviour for the sins of the world; and the eagle stands for John, "because John took a higher flight, and soared in his preaching much more sublimely than the other three" (Homilies on John, 36). It is said that only the eagle of all living creatures can look straight into the sun; so John looks more directly into the blaze of divine truth than any other of the Gospel writers. Certain things have to be noted about John.

1. John did not write until almost AD 100. His Gospel is, therefore, the product of long thought and of long living with Jesus and of long experience of the Spirit. W. M. Macgregor has a sermon entitled What Jesus becomes to a man who has known him long, and that is an excellent description of John's Gospel. John was more concerned with the meaning of the facts of Jesus' life than with the facts themselves. It is in John that we get the highest teaching of the Spirit. "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16. 12, 13). For John that promise had come true; he saw things that only years in the Spirit could teach; and his Gospel may well be called the Gospel of the Sprit.

2. All tradition has it that John did not write alone. The account of the writing of the Fourth Gospel in the Muratorian Canon, the earliest list of the books of the NT, cannot be factually correct, but it is certainly true in principle: "When his fellow-disciples and bishops urged John (to write)", he said: "Fast together with me for three days, and let us tell to each other what shall be revealed to each one of us." On the same night it was revealed to Andrew, one of the apostles, that, with all of them reviewing it, John should describe all things in his own name. "The picture is that of a group sitting in the Spirit and remembering and saying to each other: "You remember what Jesus said. . . and now we know that this is what he meant." In John we have the product of what happens when two or three are gathered together in the name of Jesus (Matthew 18.20).

3. John was confronted with a different problem from that of the other Gospel writers. They had been Jews writing in Jewish terms largely for Jews, or for those brought up in the Jewish tradition; but John was in Ephesus and he had to find some way of expressing the truth of the Gospel in a way that a Greek could understand. To call Jesus Son of David or even Messiah would be to a Greek quite unintelligible. John found his new way in the conception of Jesus as the Logos, the Word. This conception has three advantages.

(a) It has a universal background. In any circumstances a word is two things. First, a word is the expression of a thought. We think and then we express the thought in words. So then to call Jesus the Word is to call him the expression of the thought of God. Second, a word is a means of communication. Therefore, to call Jesus the Word is to say that he is the person and the means whereby God communicates with men.

(b) It has a Jewish background. To a Jew a word was not simply a sound in the air. A word was a thing which did things; it was an effective unit of energy. A word did not only say things; it did things. If that is true of a human word, how much more it must be true of the divine word. The word of God does not return void and ineffective; it does what God designed it to do (Isaiah 55:11) The word of God is like a hammer that breaks the rocks in pieces (Jeremiah 23.29). By the word of God the heavens were made (Psalm 33:6-9). Every act of creation begins, "And God said . . ." (Genesis 1:3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26). So then to say that Jesus is the word of God is to say that he is the dynamic, creative power of God in action.

Here we have to insert into the pattern another basic fact. Logos does not only mean word; it also means reason. There is in fact no English term which covers both these meanings, and that is why Moffatt in his translation does not attempt to translate it, but simply says: "The Logos became flesh." Now in Judaism another idea became increasingly common, the place of Wisdom, Sophia, in the work and design of God. In Proverbs 8:22-31 Wisdom is there from the beginning, and before the beginning, the master workman who was God's agent in the creation of the world. This is still further developed in the inter-testamental Wisdom literature. Wisdom was present at creation and was the instrument of God's creating work (Wisdom 9:1, 2, 9). Wisdom is nothing else than the breath of the power of God, and the clear effluence of the glory of the Almighty (Wisdom 7:25). Here again we have the idea of Reason, Wisdom, Logos, Sophia as the creative power and energy of God, existing before the world began.

(c) It has a Greek background. In Greek thought the Logos had a very special function. The Greek thinkers were impressed by the diversity of the universe, and by the principle of change and alteration which obviously operates within it. But they were also deeply impressed by the dependability of the universe, by the fact that this is a reliable universe with a pattern and a plan in it, in which all things follow in their appointed order and in which a cause always produces the same effect. So they asked, what keeps the stars in their courses, what makes the sun rise and set, what brings back the seasons in their appointed order, what is it that puts mind into man? Their answer was that this is the work of the Logos, the mind of God operating in the world. So then to call Jesus the Logos is to say that he is the mind of God, become a flesh and blood human creature. It is as if John said: "For centuries you have been speaking and thinking about the Logos, the mind of God, and you have been tracing the Logos in the structure of the universe. If you want to see the mind of God full displayed, look at Jesus."

(d) One final piece has to be fitted into the pattern. Almost at the same time as Jesus and Paul there lived in Alexandria a great Jewish thinker called Philo; he knew Jewish thought and he knew Greek thought as no one else has ever known both. He was the bridge between them. In his voluminous works there are no fewer than six hundred references to the Logos, and basically they all have the same essential thought. God is high and lifted up, utterly transcendent. He cannot himself communicate directly with sinful man. His means of communication, his liaison with the world is the Logos. "The Father, who has begotten all things, granted as his choicest privilege to the chief messenger and most august Logos that he should stand in the midst between the created and the Creator." So to say that Jesus is the Logos is to say that he is God's supreme means of communication with men.

So then all these lines converge on the one thought that the Logos, with its double meaning of word and reason, is the expression of the mind of God, and the power of God in action. In Jesus we see in human action the mind of God.

Let us now turn to the Prologue, the first 18 verses of the Fourth Gospel to see what John has to say about Jesus as the Logos. We find that he has five things to say.

1. He tells us what Jesus personally was. He begins with a brief statement which provides the translator with a problem not far from insoluble in the English language. "The Word", say both the AV and the RSV, "was God" (John 1:1). Moffatt is one of the few modern translators who dare to depart from that rendering. "The Logos", he translates, "was divine." In a matter like this we cannot do other than go to the Greek, which is theos en ho logos. Theos is the Greek for God, en for was, ho for the, logos for word. Now normally, except for special reasons, Greek nouns always have the definite article in front of them, and we can see at once here that theos the noun for God has not got the definite article in front of it. When a Greek noun has not got the article in front of it, it becomes rather a description than an identification, and has the character of an adjective rather than of a noun. We can see exactly the same in English. If I say: "James is the man", then I identify James with some definite man whom I have in mind; but, if I say: "James is man", then I am simply describing James as human, and the word man has become a description and not an identification. If John had said ho theos en ho logos, using a definite article in front of both nouns, then he would definitely have identified the logos with God, but because he has no definite article in front of theos it becomes a description, and more of an adjective than a noun. The translation then becomes, to put it rather clumsily, "The Word was in the same class as God, belonged to the same order of being as God". The only modern translator who fairly and squarely faced this problem is Kenneth Wuest, who has: "The Word was as to his essence essential deity." But it is here that the NEB has brilliantly solved the problem with the absolutely accurate rendering: "What God was the Word was."

John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God. What he does say is that no human description of Jesus can be adequate, and that Jesus, however you are going to define it, must be described in terms of God. "I know men," said Napoleon, "and Jesus Christ is more than a man."

But no sooner has John presented us with a problem in translation than he presents us with a problem in theology. "In the beginning", he says, "was the Word." "He was in the beginning with God" (John 1:1, 2). Here we come upon the doctrine which is known as the doctrine of the preexistence of the Word, or the pre-existence of the Son. There is no more difficult doctrine to understand in all theological thinking. It quite clearly cannot mean that this flesh and blood man Jesus existed before the creation of the world. What then does it mean?

We do not say that in what follows there is anything like a full account of the meaning of the pre-existence of the Son or of the Word, but, whatever else that doctrine may or may not mean, it does mean this. Let us remind ourselves what John basically means when he called Jesus the Word; he meant that in Jesus we see perfectly displayed in human form the mind of God. To put it at its very simplest, he meant that God is like Jesus. This means that, when we see Jesus feeding the hungry and healing the sick and being the friend of outcasts and sinners, when we see Jesus dying on the Cross, we can say: "God is like that." Now, if we go on to speak of the pre-existence of the Logos, one thing at least that we must mean is that God was always like that. The mind of God, the attitude of God towards men, was always from all eternity to all eternity that which we see in Jesus.

To grasp this is of the most crucial importance. There are certain ways of speaking about Jesus which imply, or even come near to stating, that Jesus did something to change the attitude of God to men, that somehow Jesus changed God's wrath into love, that somehow Jesus persuaded God to hold his hand and to pacify his anger to withhold his judgment of condemnation, that, to put it very crudely, Jesus by his sufferings and his death bought off God. It is perfectly possible to speak in such a way as to leave an impression of an opposition and a contrast between Jesus and God. Jesus is presented as forgiving love; God is presented as awful holiness; and Jesus is depicted as winning forgiveness for men from God.

But, if we insist that the Logos was in the beginning and before the beginning, it means very simply that God was always like Jesus and always will be, and that Jesus did not come to change the attitude of God to men, but to show quite unmistakably what that attitude is and always was.

2. John goes on to tell us what Jesus did. "All things were made by him, and without him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:3). The Word, the Son, Jesus is thus connected with the creation of the world, which for a modern mind has always been a difficult idea, and yet an idea integral to NT thought. "By him", says Paul, "all things were created, that are in heaven and that are in earth, visible and invisible" (Colossians 1:16). The writer to the Hebrews speaks of the Son by whom God made the worlds (Hebrews 1:2). Paul speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things (I Corinthians 8:6).

The connection of the Word, the Son, with creation was an idea which arose to combat a certain heresy which we shall meet again as we study other NT books. In the Graeco- Roman world there was a type of thought which goes by the general name of Gnosticism. Gnosticism sought to explain the evil in the world by means of a thorough-going dualism. It said that from all eternity there has been in the world two realities, Spirit, which is God, and matter. Spirit and matter are co-eternal. Matter is the stuff, the raw material, out of which the world is made, and from the beginning matter is essentially flawed and imperfect. This is to say that the world is made out of bad stuff. Since matter is bad the God who is pure spirit cannot touch it. He therefore put out a series of aeons or emanations, each one a little more distant from himself, stretching like a kind of ladder between himself and matter. The further the series descended, the further the emanation was from God, the more ignorant of God it was. As the series still further descended, to ignorance there was added hostility; and so at the end of the series there is an aeon, the Demiurge, the World-fashioner, who is utterly ignorant of, and totally hostile to, the true God who is spirit, and by that power the world was created. Creation is essentially evil because it was carried out by an ignorant, hostile, inferior deity working with flawed and imperfect material. Given the premises, it is a perfectly logical explanation of the presence of evil in the world.

The Christian answer is No; creation is not the work of a hostile, bungling, ignorant power; it is the work of the Logos, the Word, the Son. Now let us see what this practically means.

Let us again remind ourselves who the Logos is–the Logos is the perfect expression of the mind of God. In the kindness and the graciousness and the love of Jesus we see God in action. If then the Logos is the agent of creation it means that the principle which is in the created world is the same principle as is in Jesus Christ. It means that the God of creation and the God of redemption are one and the same; it means that the love which is in redemption is in creation also.

There are times when only the clinging to that principle prevents the complete collapse of faith. There are times when life seems our enemy. Pain may agonize the body and sorrow may bring anguish to the mind; wave upon wave of disaster may engulf life. But, if we believe that the principle of creation and the principle of redemption are the same, then we can be absolutely sure that life is out to make us and not to break us, that "it means intensely and means good", and we too can say: "God, thou art love, I build my faith on that." The idea of the Christ of creation is not merely a cosmological speculation: it is also many a time the stay and the refuge of the broken heart.

3. Jesus goes on to tell us what Jesus became. "The Word became flesh" (John 1:14). To John's readers this must have seemed the most startling statement in the whole Gospel. Augustine, who was a very great classical scholar, said in his Confessions (6:9) that he had found in the great classical thinkers some kind of parallel for everything in the Gospels except this one statement, "The Word became flesh."

For a Gnostic the body is clearly essentially evil, for the body is matter. But apart from Gnosticism there was in Graeco-Roman thought a profound belief that the one thing to be desired was to be rid of the body. Soma sema ran the Orphic jingle, "The body is a tomb". The body, said Philolaus, is a house of detention in which the soul is imprisoned to expiate its sin. Philosophy, said Plato, is the study of dying; to have a body is to be contaminated with evil; the body is a prison-house and death the only release (Phaeda 64-67). Epictetus described himself as a poor soul shackled to a corpse (Fragment 23). Seneca spoke of the detestable habitation of the body (Letters 92:110). That God could in any sense take upon himself a body was to the Greek incredible. We shall later, when we are studying John's letters, see how this conception drifted into the Church and threatened disastrous consequences to the Christian faith. At the moment it is enough to say this, no Christian can ever despise the body, for God himself took this human flesh upon him.

4. John goes on to say what Jesus gives. As John sees it, Jesus gives three things.

(a) Jesus gives life. This is the statement which is the beginning the middle and the end of the Fourth Gospel. The Gospel begins: "In him was life" (1:4). In the middle Jesus claims that he came to give life and life more abundant (10:10). The Gospel ends with the statement that it was written to enable men to believe in Jesus Christ and to have life through his name (20:31).

This life is eternal life. The word for eternal is aionios, which means far more than life which lasts indefinitely, for quite clearly mere prolongation of life might be the supreme punishment and curse. Aionios in Greek is a word of mystery; there is only one person to whom it may properly be applied and that one person is God. Eternal life is nothing other than the life of God. The gift of Jesus Christ here and now is a foretaste of the life divine.

(b) Jesus gives light. He is the true light (1:9). The word for true is here alethinos, which means real or genuine, as opposed to that which is substitute and counterfeit. Jesus is the real light. Other lights flicker and die, mislead and seduce; he alone is the light which is real and which leads to reality.

(c) Jesus gives the new birth (1:12, 13). The change he works is so radical that it cannot be called anything less than a new birth. In him life begins again, and in him the coward becomes the hero, the sinner becomes the saint, and the man of the world becomes the man of God.

5. Lastly, John tells us what Jesus suffered. He came to his own world and the world did not know him; he came to his own home and his people refused to receive him (1:10, 11). Here is the tragedy of the glory offered, and the glory refused.

To John the supreme fact about Jesus is that Jesus is the perfect expression of the mind of God. We can be quite certain that God cares and God shares. Of whom, then, shall we be afraid?

* William Barclay, *

Many Witnesses, One Lord,

Westminster John Knox Press, 2001/¹1963,

pp./σσ. 12-21 (Chapter 3: John).