Abstract The focus of this study is on the exploration of theological affinities between the Fourth Gospel and Revelation. While I personally hold to the apostolic authorship of both writings by John, the son of Zebedee — admittedly a minority view in contemporary Johannine scholarship—the specific identity of the author will not be of primary concern here. Rather, my focus will be on the plausibility (or lack thereof) of common authorship, whether by the apostle or another writer. If it can be shown that the differences in outlook between the Fourth Gospel and Revelation may be accounted for by different subject matter, genres, and circumstances addressed, an important objection against the common authorship of the two documents will be removed.
{"title":"Theological Affinities Between the Fourth Gospel and the Book of Revelation","authors":"Andreas J. Köstenberger","doi":"10.2478/perc-2024-0015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2024-0015","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The focus of this study is on the exploration of theological affinities between the Fourth Gospel and Revelation. While I personally hold to the apostolic authorship of both writings by John, the son of Zebedee — admittedly a minority view in contemporary Johannine scholarship—the specific identity of the author will not be of primary concern here. Rather, my focus will be on the plausibility (or lack thereof) of common authorship, whether by the apostle or another writer. If it can be shown that the differences in outlook between the Fourth Gospel and Revelation may be accounted for by different subject matter, genres, and circumstances addressed, an important objection against the common authorship of the two documents will be removed.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141403103","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This study will examine the different formulae used in the Fourth Gospel to see if they are the key indicator to whether a character being described has adequate or inadequate belief in Jesus. First, the Greek verb for believe in connection to prepositions will be examined. The two main categories are believing in Jesus and believing the correct content about Jesus. Verb tenses and moods in connection to the Greek verb for believe will also be studied. All of this examination concludes that the most important factor is the portrayal of the character in the narrative context. It is not the nuance of the Greek that is most important, but how characters are actually portrayed by the author of the Fourth Gospel. Johannine belief will be defined and two examples of application to characters in the Fourth Gospel will be given.
{"title":"Analyzing Professions of Faith in the Fourth Gospel: is Everyone Who Believes Saved?","authors":"David A. Croteau","doi":"10.2478/perc-2024-0014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2024-0014","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This study will examine the different formulae used in the Fourth Gospel to see if they are the key indicator to whether a character being described has adequate or inadequate belief in Jesus. First, the Greek verb for believe in connection to prepositions will be examined. The two main categories are believing in Jesus and believing the correct content about Jesus. Verb tenses and moods in connection to the Greek verb for believe will also be studied. All of this examination concludes that the most important factor is the portrayal of the character in the narrative context. It is not the nuance of the Greek that is most important, but how characters are actually portrayed by the author of the Fourth Gospel. Johannine belief will be defined and two examples of application to characters in the Fourth Gospel will be given.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141399591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The relationship of John’s Gospel to the Synoptics Gospels is difficult to explain. That is the reason why there have been many proposals, even from the beginning of the church. Not even today, scholars have reached consensus. Rather, there are many competing explanations. Yet, they can be grouped into three categories, according to what John knew and what he used in writing his gospel: (1) John did not know the Synoptics; (2) John knew the Synoptics and used them as literary sources; and (3) John knew the Synoptics but did not use them. Of these three categories, the third one best explains the similarities and the differences between John and the Synoptics. But beyond stating that John knew the Synoptics but did not use them as literary sources, one is on a rather uncertain territory. Therefore, it is historically and literarily plausible to see John as being aware of the Synoptics and even having read them, but whether he chose to harmonize them, adapt them, supplement them, or reinterpret them, is less clear. In the end, it is clear that John wrote a different Gospel, yet it should be read alongside and not instead of the Synoptics.
{"title":"John and the Synoptic Gospels. What John Knew and What John Used","authors":"Corin Mihăilă","doi":"10.2478/perc-2024-0018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2024-0018","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The relationship of John’s Gospel to the Synoptics Gospels is difficult to explain. That is the reason why there have been many proposals, even from the beginning of the church. Not even today, scholars have reached consensus. Rather, there are many competing explanations. Yet, they can be grouped into three categories, according to what John knew and what he used in writing his gospel: (1) John did not know the Synoptics; (2) John knew the Synoptics and used them as literary sources; and (3) John knew the Synoptics but did not use them. Of these three categories, the third one best explains the similarities and the differences between John and the Synoptics. But beyond stating that John knew the Synoptics but did not use them as literary sources, one is on a rather uncertain territory. Therefore, it is historically and literarily plausible to see John as being aware of the Synoptics and even having read them, but whether he chose to harmonize them, adapt them, supplement them, or reinterpret them, is less clear. In the end, it is clear that John wrote a different Gospel, yet it should be read alongside and not instead of the Synoptics.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141403210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract The book of Revelation is resoundingly theocentric and intensively monotheistic from first to last. The presence and person of God the Father permeates and punctuates the vision at every turn as the central character orchestrating all things according to his purposes. This theocentric character of the Apocalypse, however, is often overshadowed by its extremely pronounced Christology. One possible reason is because John does not consign Christology to a separate category of theology. But from the very outset God is unambiguously identified as the ultimate sovereign ruler of the universe. Revelation attributes a functional distinction between Father and Son, but they equally receive worship and are ascribed as worthy of worship.
{"title":"God in John’s Apocalypse","authors":"Alan Bandy","doi":"10.2478/perc-2024-0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2024-0013","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The book of Revelation is resoundingly theocentric and intensively monotheistic from first to last. The presence and person of God the Father permeates and punctuates the vision at every turn as the central character orchestrating all things according to his purposes. This theocentric character of the Apocalypse, however, is often overshadowed by its extremely pronounced Christology. One possible reason is because John does not consign Christology to a separate category of theology. But from the very outset God is unambiguously identified as the ultimate sovereign ruler of the universe. Revelation attributes a functional distinction between Father and Son, but they equally receive worship and are ascribed as worthy of worship.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141409357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract At Rev 3:10 the risen Lord makes a promise to the Church at Philadelphia. While it is a rather straightforward pledge, it has far-ranging implications depending on how one understands the details of the verse. Understandably, it has become somewhat of a crux interpretum for many. Many of those in the dispensational tradition understand that this verse refers to the secret rapture of the church. Those in the historic premillennial and amillennial tradition often see this as a reference to the saints being preserved through the tribulation period. In the treatment below I will interpret Rev 3:10 in somewhat of a different trajectory. I will suggest that the promise given by the Lord must be understood to directly include the Philadelphian believers as well as subsequent followers. I will also suggest that the promise is an assurance of spiritual safety through (at least) the preliminary judgments represented by opening the first four seals of the opisthograph described at 5:1–6:8.
{"title":"Rev 3:10: Rapture or Preservation?","authors":"Scott Kellum","doi":"10.2478/perc-2024-0017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2024-0017","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract At Rev 3:10 the risen Lord makes a promise to the Church at Philadelphia. While it is a rather straightforward pledge, it has far-ranging implications depending on how one understands the details of the verse. Understandably, it has become somewhat of a crux interpretum for many. Many of those in the dispensational tradition understand that this verse refers to the secret rapture of the church. Those in the historic premillennial and amillennial tradition often see this as a reference to the saints being preserved through the tribulation period. In the treatment below I will interpret Rev 3:10 in somewhat of a different trajectory. I will suggest that the promise given by the Lord must be understood to directly include the Philadelphian believers as well as subsequent followers. I will also suggest that the promise is an assurance of spiritual safety through (at least) the preliminary judgments represented by opening the first four seals of the opisthograph described at 5:1–6:8.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141395056","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Early in 1 John, the author portrays authentic Christian living as involving honest and ongoing acknowledgment of one’s sins, God’s forgiveness of the same, and the cleansing from all unrighteousness (1:8-9). However, later in the same letter, while seeking to distinguish his opponents from those who were the true children of God, he says: ‘No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him’ (3:6); and ‘those who have been born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God.’ (3:9). These latter statements stand in tension with his earlier statement which says that anyone claiming to be without sin is a liar. In one place he rejects sinless perfection, in the other he appears to assume it. In this article these apparently contradictory statements are examined and a possible resolution of the tension existing between them is suggested.
{"title":"Sin and Perfection in 1 John","authors":"Colin G. Kruse","doi":"10.2478/perc-2024-0016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2024-0016","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Early in 1 John, the author portrays authentic Christian living as involving honest and ongoing acknowledgment of one’s sins, God’s forgiveness of the same, and the cleansing from all unrighteousness (1:8-9). However, later in the same letter, while seeking to distinguish his opponents from those who were the true children of God, he says: ‘No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him’ (3:6); and ‘those who have been born of God do not sin, because God’s seed abides in them; they cannot sin, because they have been born of God.’ (3:9). These latter statements stand in tension with his earlier statement which says that anyone claiming to be without sin is a liar. In one place he rejects sinless perfection, in the other he appears to assume it. In this article these apparently contradictory statements are examined and a possible resolution of the tension existing between them is suggested.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141402351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Engaging recent scholarship on Bavinck’s revitalization of the vestigia trinitatis and its connection to the organic motif, this essay identifies and examines two aspects of Bavinck’s account that remain underdeveloped with scholarship on this topic. First, it explores the lingering importance triads within Bavinck’s account of the vestigia. Bavinck may have developed a primarily non-numerical account of the vestigia, but he still acknowledges the place of triadic analogies, especially in humanity. Second, it contextualizes Bavinck’s appropriation of the vestigia within his understanding of creation as relative, divine, self-communication in order to illuminate how creation can bear the imprint of the Trinity even as the Trinity remains unlike anything in creation. Much work has been done on Bavinck’s triniform account of creation and his organic cosmology, but these accounts can often miss or gloss over the doctrines that Bavinck utilizes to carefully guards against a direct correlation between God and creation.
{"title":"Trinity and Creation: Bavinck on the Vestigia Trinitatis","authors":"Gayle Doornbos","doi":"10.2478/perc-2024-0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2024-0003","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Engaging recent scholarship on Bavinck’s revitalization of the vestigia trinitatis and its connection to the organic motif, this essay identifies and examines two aspects of Bavinck’s account that remain underdeveloped with scholarship on this topic. First, it explores the lingering importance triads within Bavinck’s account of the vestigia. Bavinck may have developed a primarily non-numerical account of the vestigia, but he still acknowledges the place of triadic analogies, especially in humanity. Second, it contextualizes Bavinck’s appropriation of the vestigia within his understanding of creation as relative, divine, self-communication in order to illuminate how creation can bear the imprint of the Trinity even as the Trinity remains unlike anything in creation. Much work has been done on Bavinck’s triniform account of creation and his organic cosmology, but these accounts can often miss or gloss over the doctrines that Bavinck utilizes to carefully guards against a direct correlation between God and creation.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140275654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This essay seeks to examine the distinctive way that Herman Bavinck employs the imitation of Christ within Reformed Ethics. The distinctive way in which Bavinck understands and applies the imitation of Christ in his exposition of the commandments is helpfully clarified in conversation with his contemporary, Wilhelm Geesink. Both Bavinck and Geesink penned a Reformed Ethic – one remained unpublished and the other posthumously published – in which they share methodological commitments to scripture, the law, and the Reformed tradition’s understanding of the normativity of the law for the Christian life. An analysis of the two thinkers on the first commandment shows, however, that amidst these striking similarities, Bavinck and Geesink differ in their appeal to the imitation of Christ as a guide for the Christian life. Through an examination of Bavinck’s ethical method and both Bavinck and Geesink’s exposition of the first commandment, this essay will highlight the centrality of the imitation of Christ in Bavinck’s ethics as an ethical norm, differentiating his application of the duties of the commandment for the Christian life from his contemporaries.
{"title":"Imitating Christ: Bavinck’s Application of an Ethical Norm in the First Commandment","authors":"Jessica Joustra","doi":"10.2478/perc-2024-0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2024-0002","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This essay seeks to examine the distinctive way that Herman Bavinck employs the imitation of Christ within Reformed Ethics. The distinctive way in which Bavinck understands and applies the imitation of Christ in his exposition of the commandments is helpfully clarified in conversation with his contemporary, Wilhelm Geesink. Both Bavinck and Geesink penned a Reformed Ethic – one remained unpublished and the other posthumously published – in which they share methodological commitments to scripture, the law, and the Reformed tradition’s understanding of the normativity of the law for the Christian life. An analysis of the two thinkers on the first commandment shows, however, that amidst these striking similarities, Bavinck and Geesink differ in their appeal to the imitation of Christ as a guide for the Christian life. Through an examination of Bavinck’s ethical method and both Bavinck and Geesink’s exposition of the first commandment, this essay will highlight the centrality of the imitation of Christ in Bavinck’s ethics as an ethical norm, differentiating his application of the duties of the commandment for the Christian life from his contemporaries.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140269924","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article introduces the theology of a neglected figure in the Dutch Reformed (Gereformeerde) tradition of the nineteenth century: Jan Bavinck (1826-1909), the father of Herman Bavinck (1854-1921). The approach to his theology is done by describing his definition of piety (vroomheid or godzaligheid), a fundamental subject within the Reformed tradition. The relevance of piety is briefly described in the theology of John Calvin (1509-64) and the Nadere Reformatie in order to argue for the necessity of exploring Jan Bavinck’s description of the nature and application of godliness. After analysing some primary sources, I argue that Jan Bavinck’s theology of piety can be described as experiential and holistic. In this way, it may be considered, in general terms, as a bridge between the praxis pietatis of old Calvinism – characterised by Calvin and the Nadere Reformatie theologians – and neo-Calvinism, represented by Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) and Jan’s son Herman Bavinck.
{"title":"Jan Bavinck’s (1826-1909) Reformed Piety: Experiential and Holistic","authors":"Israel José Guerrero Leiva","doi":"10.2478/perc-2024-0004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2024-0004","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article introduces the theology of a neglected figure in the Dutch Reformed (Gereformeerde) tradition of the nineteenth century: Jan Bavinck (1826-1909), the father of Herman Bavinck (1854-1921). The approach to his theology is done by describing his definition of piety (vroomheid or godzaligheid), a fundamental subject within the Reformed tradition. The relevance of piety is briefly described in the theology of John Calvin (1509-64) and the Nadere Reformatie in order to argue for the necessity of exploring Jan Bavinck’s description of the nature and application of godliness. After analysing some primary sources, I argue that Jan Bavinck’s theology of piety can be described as experiential and holistic. In this way, it may be considered, in general terms, as a bridge between the praxis pietatis of old Calvinism – characterised by Calvin and the Nadere Reformatie theologians – and neo-Calvinism, represented by Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920) and Jan’s son Herman Bavinck.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140090610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper examines the criticisms of Protestantism articulated by Romanian Eastern Orthodox theologian Dumitru Staniloae, highlighting over-generalizations in his assessments. Staniloae contends that Protestantism embodies dualism, anthropological pessimism, denigration of the sacraments, and indifference to sin, among other issues. This paper argues that some of these assertions reveal a lack of serious engagement and perhaps comprehension of the diverse range of the Protestant tradition. By scrutinizing Staniloae’s contentions through conversing with neo-Calvinist theologian Herman Bavinck, this paper attempts to demonstrate possible misinterpretations in Staniloae’s evaluations related to Protestant soteriology. In the reverse, the paper also evaluates some of Bavinck’s claims related to Palamist thought. Ultimately, this examination confirms that many of Staniloae’s criticisms of Protestantism are misinformed, just as Bavinck’s criticisms of Palamist thought lack both nuance and depth. By engaging in theological dialogue between these two theologians, this paper hopes to promote a greater appreciation for both traditions and the potential for further dialogue.
{"title":"Mutual Misunderstandings: Herman Bavinck and Dumitru Staniloae in Dialogue","authors":"Robert Simpson","doi":"10.2478/perc-2024-0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2478/perc-2024-0006","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper examines the criticisms of Protestantism articulated by Romanian Eastern Orthodox theologian Dumitru Staniloae, highlighting over-generalizations in his assessments. Staniloae contends that Protestantism embodies dualism, anthropological pessimism, denigration of the sacraments, and indifference to sin, among other issues. This paper argues that some of these assertions reveal a lack of serious engagement and perhaps comprehension of the diverse range of the Protestant tradition. By scrutinizing Staniloae’s contentions through conversing with neo-Calvinist theologian Herman Bavinck, this paper attempts to demonstrate possible misinterpretations in Staniloae’s evaluations related to Protestant soteriology. In the reverse, the paper also evaluates some of Bavinck’s claims related to Palamist thought. Ultimately, this examination confirms that many of Staniloae’s criticisms of Protestantism are misinformed, just as Bavinck’s criticisms of Palamist thought lack both nuance and depth. By engaging in theological dialogue between these two theologians, this paper hopes to promote a greater appreciation for both traditions and the potential for further dialogue.","PeriodicalId":40786,"journal":{"name":"Perichoresis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140277327","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：