... life …? Lachs (pp. 199–200) notes that the rabbis permitted healing on the Sabbath only if life is in danger (see m. Yoma 8.6). In the case of the man with the withered hand, Jesus could have—and from the Pharisaic point of view should have—waited until the next day. 6:11 they were furious: The word translated “furious” connotes “mindless rage” and probably contributes to the theme of the hardened heart that stubbornly refuses to believe. Mark 3:6 reads, “how to destroy him,” but Luke ...
... s servant and Elijah’s provision of food for the widow and her son in 1 Kings 17:7–16. He suggests that a major common element concerns the power of the spoken word. (That Luke may have had this OT passage in mind is quite possible in view of the earlier allusion to it in Luke 4:25–26 and the numerous parallels between the Elijah/Elisha narratives and the pericope that follows.) Elsewhere in Luke–Acts the story parallels the account of Cornelius in Acts 10 (Leaney, p. 141; Fitzmyer, p. 650; Tiede, p ...
... receiving new life from God’s prophet (as Jesus is called in Luke 7:39). 7:37 a woman who had lived a sinful life: Lit. “a woman who was a sinner.” It is likely this woman had been a prostitute, although adultery could be in view. Matthew Black (An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3rd ed. [Oxford: Clarendon, 1967], pp. 181–83), however, has suggested that the Greek has misunderstood the original Aramaic which had described the woman as a “debtor.” If he is correct, then the Parable of ...
... the Feeding Stories in the Gospel of Mark, SBLDS 54 (Chico: Scholars, 1981)] has argued that the feeding of the 4,000 was the original story.) At least four reasons argue that Mark’s two feeding stories are actually two accounts of the same episode. First, in view of the first feeding (Mark 6:30–44) the question of the disciples just prior to the second feeding (Mark 8:1–10) seems quite odd: “But where in this remote place can anyone get enough bread to feed them?” (8:4). That the disciples could ...
... unable to aid a fellow human being in great need for fear of becoming ceremonially “unclean.” Because of their religious duties there was no room left for the duty that every person, especially a priest, has as neighbor to another. The Samaritan, however, was viewed as “unclean,” as one with no concern for the oral laws and traditions (indeed, as one not worthy himself of receiving assistance from a Jew; see b. Sanhedrin 57a; Talbert, p. 123), and yet he is the one who fulfills the law, as expressed ...
... condition probably involving a fusion of the bones in her back (Marshall, p. 557). It is not necessary to assume that some form of demonic possession is implied. The Greek reads literally: “a woman having a spirit of sickness.…” What is probably in view is not a case of possession itself, but one of affliction ultimately sourced in Satanic influence (as illness was often understood), as indicated in v. 16 (whom Satan has kept bound). When Jesus saw her, he pronounced her cured and placed his hands on ...
... of his master. The Hebrew equivalent translates literally “a son of the house” (see Gen. 15:3). It is not clear in the parable that the manager was necessarily a slave; but slave or free, his mishandling of his master’s property would have been viewed as a serious breach of loyalty. In light of his dismissal, the dishonest manager’s chances of securing new employment would be very slight (as implied in v. 3). Evans (p. 48) sees a possible parallel to Deut. 23:15–16, where instructions regarding ...
... understood and appreciated. Jesus portrays the different circumstances of the rich man and Lazarus in the most graphic terms. The rich man was dressed in purple (see note below) and lived in luxury (i.e., feasted and partied) every day. From a worldly point of view the rich man had every creature-comfort that life had to offer. In stark contrast was the beggar named Lazarus, who was covered with sores (see note below) and who longed to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. The picture of Lazarus ...
... special reward for being obedient. Jesus does not mean to rule out heavenly reward for faithful service, but he means only to instruct his disciples as to how they should think. The point of the saying is concerned with attitude. An arrogant attitude views God as fortunate for having people like us in his service (perhaps this was a Pharisaic attitude). The proper attitude, however, is thankfulness for having the privilege and opportunity to serve God. What reward we have for serving God is not earned, but ...
... to have been a uniform, organised system.” Most matters of dispute were brought before the elders of the local synagogue, but a dishonest judge who had no respect for God hardly fits this picture. Thus, it is likely that a Gentile judge is in view, which would heighten the contrast made in v. 7 between the judge and God. who neither feared God nor cared about men: Fitzmyer (p. 1178) and Tiede (p. 305) cite Josephus’ description of King Jehoiakim as “unjust and wicked by nature, neither reverent toward ...
... (p. 682) suggests that “the background to the story appears to be the practice of bringing children to the elders for a prayer of blessing upon them on the evening of the Day of Atonement.” The disciples, however, rebuked the parents, no doubt because they viewed it as trivial and as a waste of Jesus’ time. But Jesus called the children to him. (Here Luke omits Jesus’ indignation directed at the disciples found in Mark 10:14.) Jesus’ saying in v. 16 would indicate that the sincerity and eagerness ...
... is prefaced by a phrase from Isa. 62:11): “See, your king comes to you, righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” The normal understanding of Zech. 9:9 is that only one animal is in view, that is, the king is mounted upon a donkey, even (or “that is”) upon its colt. Matthew has taken what usually is translated “even” in the sense of “and” and so includes a second animal. Has the Matthean evangelist misunderstood the grammar of Zech. 9:9 ...
... been understood as a sign of divine displeasure. Fitzmyer (p. 1519) thinks that the tearing of the curtain is a sign of the reign of evil during the time of Jesus’ passion (Luke 22:53). I suspect that there is some truth in both of the latter views. Slavonic Josephus (War 5.5.4 [5.207–214, LCL]) repeats the tradition of the torn curtain: “[The temple curtain] had, you should know, been suddenly rent from the top to the ground, when they delivered over to death through bribery the doer of good, the man ...
... : “If Israel repent, they will be redeemed; if not, they will not be redeemed” (b. Sanhedrin 97b; trans. from H. Freedman, The Babylonian Talmud: Sanhedrin [London: Soncino, 1935], p. 660). See also T. Judah 23:15; Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 43. This is obviously the view of the Lucan Peter in Acts 3:19–21. It was further believed that when Israel repented, messianic blessings would first be felt in Jerusalem (Lachs, p. 444; see Pesiqta Rabbati 41.1 where Isa. 2:3 is interpreted). This is likely what lies ...
... :31; 12:19; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8; 1 Thess. 2:5, 10. Like Jesus, Paul came from a people who knew how to pray. At no point did Jews differ more drastically from Gentiles than in the matter of prayer. The late Hellenistic world-view was characterized by grave uncertainty and anxiety. The proliferation of mystery religions and the thousands of magical papyri with their countless names and epithets bear clear if sorry testimony to the loss of confidence in prayer in the Greco-Roman world. Jews, on the contrary ...
... different attitude towards it. Studies of primitive and ancient societies reveal that fully two-thirds of them affirmed homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle (see Additional Notes on 1:26–27). The Greco-Roman world belonged to this number, sometimes viewing homosexuality and pederasty as a higher form of sexuality (see Plato’s Symposium). In his teaching on homosexuality Paul was swimming against the moral current of much of his audience. This undercuts the claim that his teaching on this subject ...
... , p. 114). But in this they failed. What if some did not have faith? asks Paul (v. 3). Does Paul understand their failure to be “disbelief” in Christ as Messiah, or “faithlessness” to the Mosaic covenant? The Greek word apistein can mean either. The former view is favored by the fact that six out of seven occurrences of apistein in the NT mean “disbelief.” Moreover, some (v. 3) may suggest Jews who did not believe in Christ as opposed to the remnant which did. But context favors the latter. The ...
... and others have alluded. Ellul’s ideas are presented cogently in two small books, The Presence of the Kingdom, trans. O. Wyon (New York: Seabury, 1967), and The Betrayal of the West, trans. M. O’Connell (New York: Seabury, 1978). For the rabbinic view of sin, see Str-B, vol. 3, pp. 155–57. 3:10–18 On the universal sinfulness of humanity, hear Barth’s words: “The whole course of history pronounces this indictment against Itself.… If all the great outstanding figures in history, whose judgements ...
... another chapter which can equal this triumphant text,” said Luther (Epistle to the Romans, p. 72). It is like a mountain pass from which one revels in scenery after having labored through the inclines and switchbacks of argumentation in the earlier chapters. The view cannot be fully appreciated without the effort it took to get there. Commentators are divided whether the passage is the conclusion of Paul’s argument so far or the beginning of a new section. On the one hand, the passage concludes much of ...
... . When a minister unites a couple in Christian marriage he or she enjoins them to make their vows actual, to become what they are. This is Paul’s appeal to the Romans. Christians are dead to sin, so let them henceforth live to God! Sin is viewed as an armed tyrant who exacts obedience. But Christ has stopped sin’s despotic drive in its tracks. Because of Christ’s resurrection and assurance that God is for them, believers are now free. They are not to return abjectly to their gangster lord. Paul calls ...
... sin was not even reckoned as sin (5:13), but now the law actually incites and triggers it (7:5). This crescendo of indictments severely qualified the role of the Jewish law in the Christian scheme of things. Although it is not clear exactly how Paul viewed the law prior to his conversion, it is certainly true that even though he may not have attributed his salvation to Torah observance, the latter was at the very least a “matching contribution,” so to speak, on his part to God’s prior inclusion of him ...
... were bad dreams, but that is only a bad wish. Not answering the telephone does not make the call from the emergency room go away. Paul concedes that suffering is numbingly, painfully real, but in comparison with glory it looks different than when viewed alone, for it is dwarfed by the grandeur of glory awaiting believers. Moreover, it is only “for a season.” The Greek word for present, kairos, means a momentary, limited duration of time. Suffering is limited to this life and pales in comparison to ...
... concludes with a lengthy list of personal greetings. The purpose throughout is to show that grace is not an abstraction, but a gift of God which shapes and structures Christian life both corporately and personally. 12:1–2 Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices (v. 1). So begins the most aesthetic formulation of Christian ethics in Scripture. Earlier buds of ethics (6:12–23; 8:12–13) now come to full flower. The issue concerns not religious ...
... overlooked. He counsels submission on the basis of possible punishment and conscience. Franz Leenhardt draws an important conclusion from this: It is significant that Paul has brought out in this connection the positive character of obedience, because such a point of view at the same time implies the limits of obedience. If obedience is a matter of conscience, then it is no longer servile; when conscience is introduced as the motive of obedience, the latter can no longer be counted on! It becomes possible ...
... be burned. In returning to the personal ethics of agapē in verses 8–10 Paul recalls that good citizenship (13:1–7) is neither the sum of nor a substitute for true Christianity. Beneath civic duties and good causes, even beneath personal world-views and life-styles, lies the essential and indispensable characteristic of Christian faith, love for others. 13:8–10 Verse 8 begins with an emphatic double-negative in Greek, which might be rendered, “Owe nothing to anyone,” except the continuing debt to ...