... that Peter exercised in this way the power and authority given to the apostles by Jesus. In any case, there are a number of dissimilarities between the two stories, such as Dorcas’ gradual restoration (v. 40; cf. Luke 8:54) and Peter’s care not to touch her (for fear of becoming unclean? cf. Num. 19:11) until she was fully restored (v. 41; cf. Luke 8:54). When Dorcas was on her feet, he called the believers (“the saints,” see disc. on v. 13), including the widows—those most nearly affected by ...
The importance that Luke ascribed to the story of Peter and Cornelius can be measured by the space that he gave to it. The story is told in detail in chapter 10, retold in chapter 11, and touched on again in chapter 15. The issue it raised was a critical one. To date the gospel had been well established in Jerusalem and was extending throughout the Jewish territory (9:31). It was only a matter of time, therefore, before the limits of that territory would be reached (both ...
... and his friends), namely, to what had happened throughout Judea, where Judea is used in the broadest sense to include the whole Jewish homeland (cf. Luke 1:5; 7:17; 23:5). This note of the geographical extension of Jesus’ ministry may well be a Lukan touch, so too the care with which his ministry is separated from that of John the Baptist (by comparison with Mark). This ensures that Jesus should not be thought of as John’s successor. But broadly speaking, Peter’s outline of “the great event” is as ...
... Jewish synagogues (v. 5). Nothing is said of any response or of how long they remained in Salamis before they traveled through the whole island … to Paphos (v. 6). There is no reason to think that they extended their ministry beyond those in touch with the synagogues. 13:6–12 In this sketchiest of accounts, something may be gleaned from the expression “they traveled through” (v. 6), which Luke constantly uses of missionary journeys (see disc. on 8:4). Thus, in crossing the island (about ninety miles ...
... for him.” Plato had used it of vague guesses at the truth. In a similar, though more concrete, sense, it occurs several times in the LXX of groping about in the dark (Deut. 28:29; Job 5:14; 12:25; Isa. 59:10). But the word itself simply means “to touch,” as in Luke 24:39 and 1 John 1:1, and this may have been Paul’s sense, that is, of some palpable assurance of God’s presence that is everywhere and always possible in a world that he has made (cf. Rom. 1:20). It is God’s purpose ...
... a rare fixed point for Pauline chronology). All who knew Gallio spoke of him in the highest terms (Seneca, Epistles 104.1; Pliny, Natural History 21.33; Tacitus, Annals 15.73; Dio Cassius, Roman History 61.35). Perhaps the Jews expected this man to be a “soft touch,” or they may have been banking on his inexperience. Gallio had come to Achaia having only been a praetor and not yet a consul, the senior Roman magistracy, and in any case, he may have only recently arrived and would for that reason be the ...
... to be secret, and asked what it was that he had to tell. The word used of the boy (the diminutive of young man, v. 17) suggests that he was only a youth. Probably in our terms a young “teenager,” since the commander led him by the hand (an eyewitness touch). The phrase Paul, the prisoner, used here for the first time in Acts, is employed by Paul five times of himself in his epistles (Eph. 3:1; 4:1; Phil. 1:13; Philem. 1, 9). 23:20–21 Paul’s nephew repeated his story, and we now learn that the ...
... so be able to come closer in shore. 27:39 When at last there was sufficient light to look about them, still the sailors did not recognize where they were, but what mattered immediately was that they did see a bay with a sandy beach. They may often have touched at Malta (cf. 28:1), but Saint Paul’s Bay is remote from the main harbor and not distinguished by any particular features. The imperfect tense gives the sense “they tried to recognize … but could not.” In 28:1 we have the same verb, but in the ...
... what was of greatest interest to Luke, namely, Paul’s proclamation of the gospel in Rome. The pattern of Paul’s ministry, which Luke has faithfully traced elsewhere, is repeated for the last time. As soon as the apostle was settled, he was in touch with the Jewish leaders, both to explain his own position and to tell them of Christ. As usual, a few were interested; some may even have believed, but the majority remained unconvinced. Paul declared, therefore, that the message would henceforth go to the ...
... mystic (cf. Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 1.24; On Drunkenness 146–147) or to insanity (cf. Mark 3:21). Hence, picking up a theme related to his previous discussion of being at home in the body or with the Lord, Paul touches here on another accusation with regard to his encounter with the merkabah: In what sense was it an “out-of-mind” experience? Paul’s opponents apparently allege that he is crazy, whereas Paul claims to have had a genuine revelatory experience. The crucial question ...
... 2:25; 4:10–20). Already in 1 Corinthians 9:14, Paul defended his right as an apostle to receive support from the churches, even as he also explained why he voluntarily relinquished that right (1 Cor. 9:15–17). Earlier in 2 Corinthians, Paul has touched on the subject of peddling the word of God (cf. 2 Cor. 2:17), and he returns to this contentious issue in the subsequent context (cf. 12:13–18). Since Paul has divine authority for his apostleship, he is not concerned with demonstrating his authority by ...
... often presume that Jews in general considered following the food laws and eating separately from Gentiles as the same thing. However, there is no law requiring Jews to eat only with other Jews. Moreover, those traditions regulating what to do with food touched by Gentiles, for instance in Avodah Zarah, give evidence that Jews might eat in close proximity to Gentiles while keeping their dietary laws. The Mishnah’s prescriptions about how to maintain the law when in contact with Gentiles and/or Gentile food ...
... Colossians 2:8–23, which likewise mentions the abolition of rules and regulations, expands the list beyond Jewish ceremonial law because it is dealing with a number of man-made proscriptions that the false teachers had added (“Do not handle … taste … touch!”). There the emphasis is on the believers in Colossae not becoming enslaved to such legalism, because in Christ they have been freed from these powers. In Ephesians, the point is that the abolition of the law unites two previously alienated and ...
... , the proclamation is given “so that we may present everyone perfect in Christ” (1:28); in Ephesians, it is oriented specifically toward the revelation of the “mystery” (“to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery”). Ephesians does not touch upon the aspect of Christian maturity until 4:13. But the main difference centers upon the nature of this “mystery” that Paul has been called to preach. The brief mention of this in Colossians 1:27 almost goes unnoticed and hardly ...
... middle form, which carries the idea “why do you subject yourselves to dogmas …?” why … do you submit to its rules? 2:21 The first characteristic of such rules and regulations is that they are enslaving (“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”). Such prohibitions can make people paranoid and paralyze them in their conduct for fear of sinning. Apparently this heresy had a long list of foods that were religiously unacceptable, that is, unclean (cf. 1 Cor. 8:1; 1 Tim. 4:3). There does not ...
... just now come to us from you and has brought good news. Evidently this letter was written soon after his arrival. In the NT, euangelizō especially refers to preaching the gospel, but here it describes good news in a more general sense (cf. Luke 1:19). It touches on three things: their faith, again in the sense of their trust in God (see disc. on 3:2); their love, the outworking of that faith which had been evident in them from the outset (cf. 1:3; Gal. 5:6); and their pleasant memories of the missionaries ...
... ). Holoklēron qualifies the three nouns, spirit, soul and body. Paul’s use of these three nouns should not be pressed as a basis of his anthropology. The piling up of the nouns functions only to emphasize the completeness of the sanctification—it is to touch every aspect of their lives. One would be hard pressed indeed to draw a distinction between spirit and soul; and, while it may be easier to distinguish between spirit and body, the biblical notion of the wholeness of our being must be kept in view ...
Paul returns to the theme of idleness touched on in the earlier letter (see disc. on 1 Thess. 4:11f. and 5:14). Obviously, the problem persisted. Judging by the more peremptory tone of the warning, it appears to have worsened. The amount of space allotted to the matter measures how seriously Paul regarded it. But still his ...
... s grace lavished freely on him and God’s unconditionally accepting him despite his sin. It should also be noted that he says I am, not “I was.” Even one like Hanson who believes the letter to be a forgery admits that this is a “truly Pauline touch.” But it is so, not because of Paul’s abiding sense of sinfulness (as Bernard and others), but because he recognized himself as always having the status of “sinner redeemed.” With the addition of that last word, of whom I am the worst, Paul is now ...
... with the truth; the conduct of the false teachers has been an abandonment of the truth (cf. 6:5; 2 Tim. 2:18; 3:8; 4:4). Thus it is extremely important that Timothy not only stop the false teachers (1:3–11) but get people back in touch with the truth. To emphasize this point, Paul mixes some metaphors in a way similar to Ephesians 2:19–22. He begins with conduct (behavior) in God’s household. This metaphor for “family,” already hinted at in 3:4–5, flows naturally from the recognition of God as ...
... Above all else, Timothy himself is to guard this trust, by not being attracted to so-called knowledge and by doing his best to stop its pervasive influence in the church. As we have seen throughout, everything in the letter in some way touches this concern. Additional Notes Because of the words antitheseis (opposing ideas) and gnōsis (knowledge), it was argued in an earlier time (Baur, Harnack) that this final charge was an anti-Marcionite interpolation (since Marcion [ca. 150] was called a Gnostic and his ...
Another Appeal to Loyalty and Endurance With this paragraph, which focuses on its single imperative in verse 14 (continue in what you have learned), Paul renews the appeal with which the letter began. (Note how many themes from 1:3–2:13 are touched on: Timothy’s long relationship to Paul [vv. 10–11, 14; cf. 1:4, 6, 13]; Paul himself as the model of loyalty [vv. 10–11; cf. 1:8, 11–12, 13; 2:9–10]; the call to suffering [vv. 11–12; cf. 1:8, 16; 2:3–6, 11– ...
... had not reached Timothy? Or is that the wrong question, and should we look from Paul’s perspective alone, who was making sure Timothy knew about Trophimus in the nearby city? In any case, he had to leave him sick in Miletus—one of those rare personal touches we get quite in passing as to the tenuousness of this early ministry. How little we really know of the day-in, day-out affairs of these people’s lives (cf. 2 Cor. 11:23–27)! 4:21 The slight excursion about Erastus and Trophimus appears to ...
... . The opposite of this is that, contrary to the stance of the false teachers, to those who are [morally] corrupted and do not believe, nothing is [ritually] pure. At this point Paul is picking up the common Jewish motif that whatever a defiled person touches is by that fact likewise defiled (cf. Hag. 2:10–14; Philo, On the Special Laws 3.208–9). But his devastating punch is that, instead of becoming or keeping themselves pure by eating only pure things, the very fact that they consider anything impure ...
... relationship of Paul’s language to the four cardinal virtues, see especially S. C. Mott (“Greek Ethics and Christian Conversion”). 2:13 There is a considerable literature on this verse. The most recent and up-to-date discussion, which will also put one in touch with this literature, is by M. J. Harris, The position espoused in the present commentary was first suggested by F. J. A. Hort, The Epistle of St. James (London: Macmillan, 1909), pp. 47, 103–4. 2:14 It should be noted that this concern for ...