... of Jesus does not necessarily call into question the trinitarian formula of Matt. 28:19. It only means that as the church was called to be Christ’s, so in mentioning the rite by which its members gained entrance his name was especially prominent. It was belief in him as the Christ that constituted the ground of their admission (cf. Matt. 16:16). You will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit: The demands and promises of this verse may be implied, even when not expressed, in all the preaching of Acts. This ...
... rite by which people had pledged themselves to amendment of life in anticipation of the coming Messiah in (lit. “into”) whom they should believe (see disc. on 10:43). But the Messiah had now come, offering forgiveness where there was repentance, and blessing where there was belief. No doubt Paul set this out for them in full with proofs from Scripture, but Luke has summed it all up in the two words at the end of verse 4. All that John and the prophets had looked forward to had been accomplished in Jesus ...
... a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian? We have taken this as a rather superficial comment made to hide the king’s embarrassment. Others have found in the words a gentle irony, as if Agrippa would answer Paul’s appeal to his belief in the prophets by pointing out that it was not so simple a matter to become a Christian even if one did believe the prophets. Others again regard Agrippa as expressing cold disdain, adopting the tone, not of Roman indifference, but of Jewish orthodoxy in response ...
... . 28:20 For this reason, namely, that they were his people, he had asked to see the Roman Jews to tell them what had happened. What was really at stake was “the hope of Israel” in the Messiah and the kingdom (see disc. on 26:6f.) and his belief that both the kingdom and the Messiah had come. In short, he was wearing a Roman chain, not for any disloyalty to his people, but for his loyalty to the hope that they all shared. 28:21 The Jewish leaders responded that they had heard nothing from Judea about ...
... from his keeping of the law. For the Jews the two are of a piece. Abraham is faithful and so he is righteous, being circumcised and keeping the law. Paul appears to be the first Jew to separate Abraham’s faith from circumcision; his belief in God from law observance. One of the most helpful contributions of recent Pauline scholars has been a new perspective on the Judaism out of which Paul came. The shorthand for this new perspective is “covenantal nomism.” This term signifies that the Jews understood ...
... demands of justice in their new law-free religious context, Paul may consider it prudent to frame a response in which he addresses this concern. Second, his statement gains the upper hand over the troublemakers’ claim to be the ones to have correctly contextualized belief in Christ. The rival evangelists considered that believers in Christ had to become law-observant Jews. Paul’s conviction is that to be a believer in Christ is to be a recipient of the promises given by God to the Jewish people but now ...
... there are numerous mythological conceptions of the universe as a body that is governed by a “head.” Here, the cosmos is filled by the deity and consequently viewed as the body of the deity over which there is “Wisdom” or “Logos” as its head. The common belief was that, just as a person’s physical body needs direction and guidance from the head, so the body of the cosmos needs a head such as Logos or Wisdom as a unifying principle. What the Greeks attributed to Wisdom or Logos for headship, the ...
... interpret. First, Paul uses slogans and phrases that were employed by the false teachers. Though these would have been familiar to the Colossians, they are difficult for the modern reader to understand. Second, in spite of such specific references to the beliefs and practices of the false teachers, it is impossible to identify the heresy with any precision. Some of the things that Paul says look Jewish; others appear more pagan and Hellenistic. A third alternative, and one that attracts the most attention ...
... The thought expressed in hagiasmos is primarily of believers being set apart for God, made “saints,” hagioi, in the NT sense of that word, rather of their being sanctified in the ethical sense, made worthy of their status (see disc. on 1 Thess. 4:3, 4, 7). Belief in the truth is in the truth of the gospel (see disc. on 1 Thess. 1:8), as in verses 10 and 12, and in direct contrast with the people described in those verses who do not believe. This verse summarizes the process by which we become Christians ...
... so that they may believe that the LORD (Yahweh), the God of their fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has appeared to you. This verse is at the center of the section, reminding us of the issue of the elders’ belief. God corroborated his appearance and message to Moses with visual signs. Moses had heard and he had also seen—so would the elders. This was not, however, just any local god. It was the God of their fathers who they knew as the Creator, the God who sojourns ...
... last step but the simple words Moses did this in the sight of the elders play down the outcome. The point of the narrative is less the miracle of water, than it is the Lord’s strategy for resolving the quarrel and its deeper issues of belief and witness. The elders, who the text has not mentioned since the selection of the Passover lamb, begin to play an increasingly important role (18:12; 19:7; 24:1, 9, 14). They support Moses by standing with him before the people. Consolidating his base of support ...
... the circumstances of Moses’ reunion with his father-in-law Jethro, his wife Zipporah, and his sons. The conversation and action, however, focus on Jethro. Moses’ witness to the Lord’s deliverance is followed by a description of Jethro’s belief and celebration meal with the elders of Israel. The second half of Exodus 18 describes Jethro’s detailed advice to Moses concerning his legal administration. Brueggemann aptly notes that the combination of these two parts is more than incidental (Brueggemann ...
... whether Ruth’s loyalty to Chemosh continues in Judah. A. Steinsaltz, however, follows Tg. Ruth to argue that Ruth converts to Yahwism (On Being Free [Northvale, N.J.: Aronson, 1995], p. 123). 1:17 Where you die I will die: On the Israelite belief in a connection between land and afterlife, see H. Brichto, “Kin, Cult, Land and Afterlife—A Biblical Complex,” HUCA 44 (1973), pp. 1–54. On the relationship between the ’elohim and the teraphim, see K. van der Toorn, “The Nature of the Biblical ...
... theology of this passage, which I would attribute in its entirety to the prophet. The point is that the Israelites believe that their lavish cultic ritual allows them to meet and enter into communion with God, enjoying God’s favor and fellowship. Amos contradicts that belief by labeling their worship “rebellion” (pešaʿ) against God and by recounting all of those times in Israel’s past when the Lord has tried to get Israel to return in spirit and in truth, but when Israel has refused to do so. The ...
... the wars fought by Israel’s tribal federation during the time of the Judges and of the early monarchy. In those wars, called “holy wars” by scholars because they were fought according to fixed cultic rules, it was believed that Yahweh fought for Israel with cosmic weapons. The popular belief therefore arose in Israel that Yahweh would finally bring in a time or day when all of Israel’s enemies would be defeated and Israel would be exalted among the nations. Most of the prophets denied that popular ...
... similarity, says the Gospel writer, ends there. Why was such an explanation thought necessary? The most likely reason is that the writer knew of individuals or groups who actually believed that John, and not Jesus, was the light, that is, the decisive revealer of God. Such beliefs are known to have existed by the third century A.D. (see note on 1:8) and John’s Gospel gives evidence of countering them here and elsewhere (cf. 1:20–21; 3:27–30). But though John the Baptist’s role was simply to witness ...
... for “believe” or “trust” (Gr.: pisteuein), the narrator remarks that even though these people “trusted” in Jesus, he did not trust himself to them. He did not accept their faith as genuine. What is not clear is the ground for his suspicion. Did he disclaim their belief because it rested on a mere fascination with the miraculous for its own sake (cf. 4:48)? Or was it because he knew that out of fear they would fail to confess him publicly and put their faith into action (cf. 12:42)? Did he know ...
... again it appears that the Gospel writer is looking back at Jesus’ teaching from a later vantage point, as if the issue of belief and unbelief were already settled. He writes in anticipation of a later verdict on those who “loved praise from men more than ... is likely that the same group is in view in both instances, that is, the so-called believers of 2:23–25 and 12:42. True belief is understood in verses 20–21 as coming into the light. The light that has entered the world is Jesus (cf. 1:5–10), and ...
... sight” or “outward appearance” and choosing “to do God’s will” so as to know whether or not his teaching is from God (v. 17). 7:27 No one will know where he is from. In the context of the chapter, this belief about the Messiah seems to contradict the belief referred to in v. 40 (i.e., that he will come from Bethlehem). The narrator wants to underscore the confusing diversity of Jewish messianic expectations, while at the same time affirming that Jesus (in his own way) fulfills all these varied ...
... of God, as if he himself were “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” (cf. Exod. 3:6). The use of the “I am” form in relation to Abraham recalls Jesus’ dispute with the Sadducees in the synoptic Gospels, where he defended the belief in a future resurrection (Mark 12:18–27 and parallels). Jesus’ argument on that occasion was that God had said to Moses, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob,” and that God was “not the God of the dead, but of ...
... that for three days after death “the soul hovers over the body, intending to reenter it, but as soon as it sees its appearance change, it departs” (Midrash Leviticus Rabbah 18,1 [Midrash Rabbah (London: Soncino Press, 1961), vol. 4, p. 226]). Such a belief is not widely attested, but it was true that in the oral law, if a body was to be identified, it had to be identified within three days after death (on the theory that beyond that interval the physical changes produced by decay would be too extensive ...
... Before it happens, so that … you will believe: Before what happens? The only answer possible from the context is Jesus’ departure, i.e., all the events associated with his Passion. When did they believe? One possible answer is 20:28–29; another (assuming that the specific belief was that Jesus had gone to the Father) is 20:8, where the beloved disciple “saw and believed” simply on the basis of the empty tomb. 14:30 He has no hold on me: lit., “in me he has nothing.” It may be that even though ...
... plausible answer to the first question is that he believed Jesus had returned to the Father, just as he said he would (cf. 14:29: “I have told you now before it happens, so that when it does happen, you will believe”). The basis of his belief was the simple fact that Jesus’ body had disappeared. The presence of the wrappings and the headcloth served to rule out the possibility that someone had stolen the body, for what thief would carefully unwrap a corpse before carrying it off? They ruled out even a ...
... last days in a series, so that eight days would be the equivalent of a week. The meaning is that the appearance took place on the next Sunday after Easter (cf. v. 19). 20:29 Because you have seen me, you have believed. There is no question either about Thomas’ belief or about the basis of it. Jesus does not say that Thomas touched him, and there is no evidence in the text that his skepticism went so far as actually to accept the challenge laid down in v. 27. He believed because he saw, just as the rest of ...
... which Paul implies (and so, somehow, to attain …) is no uncertain hope for him, but one that is sure and well-founded. If his language implies any uncertainty—“if only I may finally arrive at the resurrection from the dead” (NEB)—it may lie in Paul’s belief that, even at this late stage in his career, he might not pass through death after all but still be alive at the coming of Christ. But all the signs pointed to his having to undergo death, and a violent death in all probability. His assurance ...