2ο προεπηγγειλατο δια των προφητων αυτου εν γραφαις αγιαις
3περι του υιου αυτου του γενομενου εκ σπερματος δαυιδ κατα σαρκα
4του ορισθεντος υιου θεου εν δυναμει κατα πνευμα αγιωσυνης εξ αναστασεως νεκρων ιησου χριστου του κυριου ημων
І.Дали δουλος трябва да бъде "роб" или "слуга" или "служител"? Думата "раб" изглежда архаична, макар да има предимството, че означава точно "онзи, който служи на Бог".
По какъв начин Павел "служи" на Иисус Христос? Както роб се подчинява безусловно на господаря си (но може би понякога с нежелание и само по необходимост)? Или като временно подчинил се и на заплащане, но пък положението му е презряно ("слуга")? Или като свободно нает, но винаги готов да напусне позицията си, ако му предложат по-добра ("служител")?
Дали δουλος в класическия полисен старогръцки, а после в койне-то и отделно в Септуагинтата и Новия завет звучи по-различно, отколкото днес ни звучи думата роб (слуга)?
ІІ. Дали κλητος значи, че Павел заема по-особено положение сред апостолите? Може би Петър, Андрей, Йоан не се наричат никъде κλητοι и така Павел обозначава различието си от тях?
ІІІ. По какъв начин е "определен" - αφωρισμενος? Откога? И пак - с негово съгласие ли или независимо от волята му (по "съдба", с решение отвисоко). В Гал. 1:15 се казва, че Бог го е определил от утробата на майка му (и след това го е призовал, за да бъде κλητος)- ο αφορισας με εκ κοιλιας μητρος μου και καλεσας δια της χαριτος αυτου
ІV. 1:4 изглежда много труден.
1. Как Иисус Христос, нашият Господ е "определен" (ορισθεις) като Син Божи? Щом това е станало във връзка с и дори "в резултат от" (εξ) възкресението, Той трябва само да е бил "явен" като такъв, да стане вече известно, че е такъв. Той не може да е "станал" Син във връзка с възкресението Си, тъй като е бил такъв вечно. εν δυναμει трябва да е "в чудо, чрез чудо".
2. Имаше спор около κατα πνευμα αγιωσυνης. Дали е а) синтактично и смислово съответствие на κατα σαρκα, и тогава цялото ще значи "по (според) плът - от семето (поколението) Давидово, а пък по (според, в съгласие) дух (а) на светостта (Му!)- определен (явен) за (като) Син Божи"? Или б), както засега си мисля, "според (устроеното от, съгласно промисъла на) Светия Дух"? за б) трудността е в странния израз πνευμα αγιωσυνης. Според а) обаче ще излезе, че Христос е имал някаква "заслуга" (светостта на духа Му) пред Отец и затова е бил явен-определен като Син. И, освен това, защо няма δε, с което да се покаже недвусмислено, че κατα σαρκα и κατα πνευμα са в съответствие?
5 коментара:
Чудесно е, че качвате обобщения на срещите. В следващ коментар мога и аз да кача някои от мислите и бележките си по текста.
1:1
→ "роб на Христос Исус" – грабнат, безправен; посочва пълният авторитет (покорство) на Исус (?идентичност спрямо Исус);
→ "призован за апостол" – повикан, избран; посочва избора на Бога (?идентичност спрямо църквата, ср. Еф 4:11-16);
→ "отделен да провъзгласявам благовестието от Бога" – букв. отделен за благовестието – откъснат от всичко друго; посочва целта на живота му (?идентичност спрямо непознаващите Христос);
→ избор от Бога + даване на авторитет от хората (ДА13:2) и избор от Бога (Гал 1:15)
→ "предопределен за апостол и отделен за благовестието" (Владо)
1:3-4
κατα σαρκα (1:3)…κατα πνευμα αγιωσυνης (1:4) – Връзката между двата израза е свързваща или противопоставяща?
В останалите места в НЗ κατα σαρκα… κατα πνευμα (8:4,5; Гал 4:29) ясно се противопоставят "влиянието на греховната склонност на телесното" и "влияние на Светия Дух".
В разглеждания текст обаче κατα σαρκα НЕ носи конкретно негативен характер и изглежда НЕ се противопоставя на κατα πνευμα αγιωσυνης. Ако сравним останалите места на употреба на израза "дух на…", оставаме със впечатление, че идеята е за: 1) състояние (Исая 29:10; Рим. 11:8); статут (Рим. 8:15); 2) способност, качество (Изх. 28:3; Ефес. 1:17; II Тим. 1:7); склонност (Числа 5:30; Исая 19:14); 3) действие (Исая 4:4; Зах. 12:10; II Кор. 4:13); 4) способност и действие (за Месия - Исая 11:2). Като изключим пророческият текст за Месия (Исая 11:2), където може да се има предвид и Светия Дух, на останалите места НЕ се говори за дух в конкретен смисъл, а за проява на някакво състояние, способност; за нещо присъщо за човека и/или поведението му.
→ Следователно в Рим 1:4 изразът πνευμα αγιωσυνης трябва да бъде по-скоро отнасян до качествата и дейността на Исус, отколкото до СД.
ето как (засега) разбирам текста и както ставя ясно съм променил убежденията си след дискусията :)
"1:3 А благовестието е за Неговия Син, нашият Господ Исус Христос, и разкрива, че по отношение на телесното в Него, Той е потомък на цар Давид, 4 а по отношение на проявената от Него святост, със чудо беше потвърден като Божия Син при възкресяването Му от мъртвите!"
Много благодаря!
До четвъртък ще прегледам коментарите към 1-4 в някои Отци и ще напиша какво мислят - колкото успея.
doulos in Kittel's Theol. Dictionary (по напомняне на В. Стойков)
{p. 183}
A. The Word Group among the Greeks.
1. Greeks have a strong sense of freedom. Personal dignity consists of freedom. There is thus a violent aversion to bondage. Service may be rendered to the state, but by free choice. Slavery is scorned and rejected. This explains the fierceness with which the Greeks fought for political independence. The only slavery Plato will allow is to the laws. The laws, however, represent the goal of humanity, so that slavery to law is in no way derogatory. Aristotle shows a similar scorn for slavery; for him slaves have no part in the state or true service to it. The Stoics have a broader view of service. Zeus himself summons us to it, so that, while free in relation to all people, we are unconditionally bound to all. Yet the Stoic would never call himself the doulos theou; he moves through the world as basileus and despotes, the very opposite of the doulos. This is the characteristic of the wise. Those who are not wise are slaves, no matter what the form of their bondage (cf. Epictetus, Plutarch, and Philo).
2. This survey shows that the group has no religious significance for the Greeks. It acquires this as Near Eastern religions win new adherents and in so doing change the Greek view of God and our relationship to him. The only apparent exceptions are in Euripides, but these are special instances, e.g., the need to yield to Dionysus, or Orestes’ evasion of responsibility by claiming that he is enslaved to the gods. In Greek religion the relationship to the gods is in general a family relationship in which Zeus is father of both gods and humans. Kneeling is no part of religious ceremonial for the Greeks except before chthonic deities, and here only for the sake of proximity. The worshipper is philos rather than doulos, so that it makes no sense to describe service of the gods, or life under the eyes of the gods, as douleia.
B. The Word Group on Jewish Soil. In the Greek Bible, however, the group very largely crowds out the various parallels. The reason lies in its use for the root ‘bd.
1. The relation to this root shows that doulos emphatically denotes the slave and the status of slavery. Thus pais is used for this root when the normal relationship of a slave is at issue, but doulos when the thought is that of the illegality and unreason of the service. The group then denotes Israel’s bondage in Egypt (Ex. 13:3; 14:5; Lev. 26:45, etc.). Jacob accepts the state of a doulos with Laban (Gen. 29:18). When one people falls subject to another, douleuein is the proper word to describe it (Judg. 3:8; 1 Sam. 17:9). In contrast, pais is the proper word in Is. 53 (The Servant of the Lord), since this service is rendered on the basis of an essential relation in the household.
2. Since the group denotes restrictive service, it is the proper term for the relation of ruler and subjects, for it expresses both the power demanded on the one side and the subjection and bondage experienced on the other. Saul’s courtiers are his douéloi in 1 Sam. 18:5, Joab is David’s douélos in 2 Sam. 14:9-10, and the whole people douleuei the king in 1 Kgs. 12:7 (where Rehoboam himself is advised to be a doulos to the people in order the more surely to win their douleia). An interesting point is that while subordinates use the terms about themselves, rulers do not describe the relationship by the group. An element of decision, whether voluntary or compulsory, is thus assumed.
3. The climax of development is reached when the group comes to be used for the relationship to God. This also involves the sharpest antithesis to Greek and Hellenistic thought. douleuéein in the LXX is the most common term for the service of God, not just in isolated acts, but in total commitment. The group may also be used for service of Baalim or other gods (Judg. 10:6, 13), but the only right thing for the elect people is exclusive service of the Lord (Judg. 10:16; Ps. 2:11, etc.). For this reason douloi
{p. 184}
is a title of honor when conferred on such outstanding figures as Moses (Josh. 14:7), Joshua (Judg, 2:8), Abraham (Ps. 105:42), David (Ps. 89:3), and Jacob (representing Israel, Is. 48:20). The opposite of douleuéein is disobedience.
4. The Jewish world shares this view of divine service with other Near Eastern peoples, among all of whom the concept of God is one of absolute majesty and supremacy. The uniqueness of Israel is that its whole history is a revelation of God’s total claim on the people and on each of its members in virtue of a special status. If the mystery religions also have a concept of slavery to the gods, this is entered into only by the appropriate rituals. Philo adopts the OT view except that for him the use is figurative, the self-sufficiency of God is stressed, and exaltation through the service of God becomes an important factor; the opposite of this service is dependence on creation and a corresponding lack of any spiritual relationship.
C. The Word Group in the NT.
1. Secular Usage.
a. Apart from some instances in the parables, in which the use is hardly a strict one, the word occurs in the ordinary sense only when the position of slaves is at issue, e.g., in Col. 3:22ff.; Eph. 6:8-9. The usage here falls wholly within the contemporary social framework. In the parables this is also true, but the total commitment of douloi and the total claim of the kyrios serve here to illustrate the unconditional lordship of God and the unconditional responsibility of believers to him. Thus if slaves have two masters, as might happen, they cannot show the same commitment to both. Similarly, one cannot be a true douélos of God without throwing off mammon (Mt. 6:24).
b. While the NT offers the typical picture of the doulos, it does not hint at scorn or disparagement. It differs in this regard not only from the Greek world but also from Judaism, which tends to accept the lower social, cultic, and ethical status of slaves, to put slaves wholly under the control of their masters, and to regard the term “slave” as a deadly insult.
c. Slaves, then, are fully integrated into the community. If they have the chance of freedom, they are to take it (1 Cor. 7:21). But in any case they come with all believers under the common law of love which in the long run, if applied, necessarily means the end of slavery among Christians. If there is no campaign to abolish slavery, this is not due to otherworldiness, of a situation of eschatological tension, but rather to the fact that redemption, like sin, takes place within existing social structures, so that the first priority is not to change the structures but to achieve a life which is conformable to that of Jesus. Such a life will in due time break down the structures, because the fellowship of a common participation in Christ relativizes social distinctions. Thus Paul points out that Philemon and Onesimus are now brothers (v. 16). He also stresses that the relation to God takes precedence over the mutual relations of slaves and masters (Eph. 6:5ff.; Col. 3:22ff.; 1 Tim. 6:1; Tit. 2:9). Christians lie under this obligation even when their masters (or slaves) are not believers. The overriding freedom of faith that this expresses bears a superficial resemblance to the Stoic’s independence of external circumstances, but differs from it in three ways: a. there is no sense of superiority; b. it rests on an act which makes slave and master brothers; and c. this act is the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ for both.
2. Christians as douloi of God and Christ.
a. The formula doulos theou is rare in the NT; Christians are mostly called the douloi of Christ. Where used, as in Lk. 1:38 (douéleœ); Acts 2:18; Revelation (cf. 10:7; 15:3), it usually has an OT basis. This applies in Acts 16:17 and probably also in
{p. 185}
1 Pet. 2:16, since Christians are thought of here as the Israel of God. Jms. 1:1 and Tit. 1:1 are perhaps adopting a prophetic designation rather than describing absolute commitment to God, since in the usage of Judaism the phrase normally covers only outstanding figures (apart from the whole people), doulos theou becomes more popular in the early church with the development of the idea that the church is the true Israel and a desire to distinguish between Christ as Son and believers as servants, but ideas of merit tend to arise as the phrase comes to denote specially dedicated people.
b. More common is the belief that Christians are the douloi of Christ; Paul in particular represents this conviction. They are already douloi of a sort prior to conversion, i.e., douéloi to sin etc. (Rom. 6:6ff., 19; Gal. 4:3, 8, 9), and even to the law (Rom. 7:1ff.). The meaning is that they have totally lost their freedom and are dominated by these forces. Jesus by his saving work rescues them from this douleia in a work of liberation (Gal. 3:13; 4:4-5). They thus achieve the freedom of sonship (Gal. 4:5ff.; Rom. 8:15, 23). But sonship does not mean autonomy; it means a new relationship with God. The result is a new service. With his work of redemption Christ has made believers his own possession and now gives them the goals that shape their lives. This new commitment, which is a commitment to righteousness (Rom. 6:19), holiness (1 Th. 3:13), and newness of life (Rom. 6:4), finds expression in the description of Christians as Christ’s douloi (1 Cor. 7:22; Eph. 6:6). This entails confession of what Christ has done and acceptance of its practical consequences. It is also a recognition of the freedom which can come only with commitment to Christ, so that there is no contradiction when John speaks of the freedom which the Son brings (Jn. 8:34ff.), or when he has Jesus say that he calls his disciples, not douloi, but friends, for these are friends who do what he commands them (Jn. 15:14-15).
c. The phrase doulos Christou has a special position when used as a designation, e.g., in the salutations of Paul, James, Jude, and Peter, and also in relation to Epaphras in Col. 4:12. The basis, of course, is the common commitment to Christ, so that the writers, being integrated into the community in subordination to the claim of Christ, cannot seek to dominate it. Yet in this context the term also suggests a specific office (cf. Jms. 1:1; Gal. 1:10) which carries with it the authority of the master himself. In Paul’s case (and cf. 2 Pet. 1:1), doulos Iesou Christou runs parallel to apostolos Iesou Christou; the latter describes the outward relation, the former the inner relation which underlies it.
3. Jesus Christ as doulos.
a. When Jesus washes his disciples’ feet, he shows that it is his office, too, to serve, not to seek power or glory, for washing the feet is a servile duty (Jn. 13:1ff.). He also shows, of course, what will be the point of the disciples’ own lives as his apostles, for a doulos is not greater than his kyrios, nor an apostolos than the one who sends him (Jn. 13:16). Paul gives this lesson a more general application when he tells the Galatians that, just because they are called to freedom, they are to serve (douleuein) one another in love (Gal. 5:13).
b. In Phil. 2:7 Jesus is said to take the form of a douélos. The phrase stands in contrast to the form of God in v. 6 and the title kyrios in v. 11. It thus shows what the incarnation means for Christ in relation to his inherent glory. It represents the low point on his way of kenosis (cf. Jn. 13:1ff.). There is no necessary allusion to Is. 53 (where paiís theou would be the accepted rendering of the Hebrew). Nor do the terms humility (v. 3) and obedience (v. 8) fully encompass what is involved, for being a doulos involves a new situation (not just an attitude) which is inconceivably different from the prior situation and which carries with it subjection to the death of the cross
{p. 186}
(v. 8). Paul’s exhortation in vv. 1-5 is thus given a kerygmatic basis in vv. 6ff. This servant form is, of course, the scandal of the gospel, but in God’s wisdom it is also its glory (vv. 9-11).
douloo, katadouloo. These terms are common from Herodotus and occur in the LXX in the sense “to enslave” both literally and figuratively. Except in Acts 7:6 (quoting Gen. 15:13), the NT use is always figurative. Not “bound” in marriage is the point in 1 Cor. 7:15. A definition of slavery is offered in 2 Pet. 2:19: What overcomes us, enslaves us. Though free, Paul has voluntarily forgone his rights for his work’s sake in 1 Cor. 9:9. Commitment to God (or his opponents) is at issue in Rom. 6:18 and Gal. 4:3. Judaizers are trying to enslave believers to their legalistic code in 2 Cor. 11:20. In contrast to being enslaved, Christians are freed by Christ to be responsible douloi of God.
Публикуване на коментар