... types of Christian understanding of the Eucharist benefit from an examination of the NT passages strictly within their own historical context and apart from the later practices of the various Christian denominations. Though this is more difficult to do than it is to advocate, it is the aim in what follows. In the original situation of Jesus with the Twelve, reference to the bread and the cup as my body … my blood (vv. 22–24) would have been recognized immediately as symbolic. The use of symbolism was ...
... Jesus before the Roman court the Jewish authorities accused him of sedition, for this is what claiming to be king meant. Mark 15:3–4 simply refers to many things without specifying the charges, but Luke 23:2 is more specific, listing charges that Jesus advocated the withholding of taxes due to Rome and that he claimed to be the Messiah, the king of the Jews. Certainly there is every reason to believe that at least the latter charge was made, for there is not only the tradition found in the Gospels ...
... metaphorical language and declares that he has not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (v. 32). Luke adds “to repentance” (or “reform”), emphasizing Jesus’ summons to a change of life. By associating with the unrighteous, Jesus is not advocating a lowering of proper biblical standards of righteousness. On the contrary, the purpose of his ministry is to make it possible for the fallen to be lifted up to God’s standards of righteousness. Additional Notes 5:27 Although there is ...
... essentially the same thing. 4:9–10 Thus, (1) Abraham was justified by faith, and (2) his faith was itself not a work. There remains yet one objection which could be raised against the thesis that Abraham—and with him the whole OT—advocates justification by faith. The objection is found in verses 9–10. Paul’s kinsfolk would naturally have understood Psalm 32 and the forgiveness of sins therein to apply exclusively to Israel. The text itself almost shouts out a rejoinder, “Of course Abraham was ...
... and effective work. The present tense of the Greek verb translated helps (itself a syn-compound that denotes the Spirit’s identification and solidarity with weak humanity) conveys an abiding, ongoing succor in our weakness. God is not an absentee slumlord, but our active advocate through the Spirit; and nowhere is God more present than in human weakness. The reference to prayer in the Greek of verse 26 is more pronounced than in the NIV. It might be translated, “For we do not know how we ought to pray ...
... grace in Jesus Christ, but it neither merits nor maintains grace. With regard to election God remains totally free, not to employ arbitrary (or worse, malevolent) designs, but to express mercy. It is, then, God’s freedom and mercy which Paul advocates in these verses. God’s superior power, his ability to execute what he desires, is, of course, everywhere acknowledged. Our fear, however, is that God will use his power arbitrarily and without regard to his subjects, or even against them. Everyone agrees ...
... and his fellow Jews. He is no longer testifying to “my brothers” and “my own race” (9:3), but testifying about them in the third person. This is more evident in Greek than in the NIV. Nevertheless, through prayer Paul takes the place of an advocate, and not a prosecutor, of Israel. His prayer and advocacy are sure evidence that he did not consider the Jews foreordained to damnation or beyond being reconciled to Christ. Israel’s rejection of the gospel was more than a puzzling quirk of history; it ...
... the first seven names in the list belong to women, one of whom lays good claim to being an apostle. Of the 29 names in the total list, fully one-third are women’s. Suffice it to say that Paul is not the despiser of women, nor the advocate of a male-dominated ministry, that he is often portrayed as being. 16:5–16 There now follows a rapid-fire review of names, about which much spadework has produced, for the most part, only modest gains. But what commentators have lacked in hard evidence they have made ...
... reality of eternal destruction that indicates a denial of universalism reads more into the text than out of it. Paul’s rhetorical contrast is designed to register that it is what God does, not what humans know, that achieves salvation. Paul is concerned neither to advocate nor to deny universalism in this verse; more relevant to this topic are Rom. 9–11, 1 Cor. 15, and Phil. 2:5–11, although even in these passages Paul is not directly concerned with the theme of universalism. 1:19 The phrase for it ...
... Lord seriously, but he never lapses into a new legalism in Jesus’ name. Unfortunately, this remarkable combination of faithfulness and flexibility is often difficult to comprehend and emulate. Additional Notes 7:10 Scholars sometimes suggest that extremists in Corinth were advocating the absolution of marriage or the practice of so-called spiritual marriage that was without sexual relations. The earlier portion of ch. 7 does relate to some such practices among the Corinthians, but it is not clear that the ...
... , and so we know; God loves, and so we love.” To be known by God is to be loved, and to be loved by God enables the one who is loved to love God, not merely to pursue and to possess knowledge. Although he does not advocate any action explicitly, that “love builds up” indicates that the believers’ love for God evinces itself in the constructive doing of God’s work in the world. 8:4 Again, Paul’s rhetoric indicates that he is referring to, perhaps quoting from, the Corinthians’ own thinking. The ...
... the life of the church, be allegorized or pressed beyond reasonable limits. In the context of this letter, Paul’s images and instructions form a pointed polemic. In brief, Paul takes up a set of athletic images as metaphors, explaining and advocating discipline. The problem elements of the Corinthian congregation assumed they “had arrived” and that they were correct in their thinking, but to these people Paul writes using athletic images to tell them to “run” (or, “fight”—see below) and to ...
... to city government. 12:31a In this concluding admonition Paul says, “But you be zealous for the more important gifts [of grace]!” In turn, v. 31b leads into the poetic meditation on “love” that follows in ch. 13. Prior to ch. 13, where he will advocate the supreme way of love, Paul’s remarks on gifts have been essentially restrictive. In fact, by consulting the canons of ancient rhetoric, J. F. M. Smit (“Two Puzzles: 1 Corinthians 12.31 and 13.3: A Rhetorical Solution,” NTS 39 [1993], pp. 246 ...
... could be that Paul wrote these lines as they are and that these verses are meant to be taken at face value. Indeed, the shift of focus from men and women to husbands and wives may provide a key, indicating that Paul is advocating the preservation of traditional Jewish patterns of family relations, although this understanding is problematic since Paul writes to Corinth, which is not a Semitic social context. Thus they would be expressing a timeless principle correctly applied to all women in all churches ...
... of the position taken by some of the Corinthians. The problem was that some of the Corinthians said there is no resurrection of the dead. The statement as Paul reports it could mean that they said there is no resurrection at all, or they advocated “immortality” (survival of the spirit) rather than “resurrection” (new creation), or they denied a future resurrection and claimed a fully realized this-worldly resurrection (as in 2 Thess. 2:1–2; 2 Tim. 2:17–18). Option one makes the plainest sense of ...
... is unclear and remains contested. In 2:6 and 2:14–15, mention is made of the congregation’s association with the Nicolaitans, followers of Nicolas of Antioch, according to primitive tradition. The language and its context seem to suggest that the Nicolaitans advocated too much accommodation with the surrounding social and religious order. John’s use of the Balaam typology (Num. 25:1–2; cf. Jude 11) in 2:14 (cf. 2:2) would seem to suggest that Nicolaitan practices did not distinguish keenly enough ...
... a fallen world (cf. Heb. 11). John sounds a realistic, perhaps even an ominous note in the final stanza. While the heavens (and the eschatological community!) are now rid of their satanic accuser and can rejoice because he has been replaced there by the exalted advocate, it is cause for woe to the earth and the sea, because the devil has gone down to you. This woe is not the “third woe,” mentioned earlier in Revelation 11:14. While the “third woe” refers implicitly to the suffering of believers, its ...
... wishes had to be subordinated to the national good. Ish-Bosheth, as head of Saul’s family, gave orders that Michal should be returned to David. Ish-Bosheth’s role in this indicates that Abner was not simply deserting Ish-Bosheth but rather advocating that the nation, including Ish-Bosheth, become reunited. In this scenario Ish-Bosheth would become a tribal leader under David’s kingship. Although Ish-Bosheth may have had no choice, he did not oppose the course of action that Abner had taken. By ...
... text), and the following friend as “thoughts” (see Pope, Job, pp. 122, 125), the resulting phrase “interpreters of my thoughts to God” would make sense in light of verse 19, where there are two terms for mediator (NIV “witness” and “advocate”). While this does not completely settle the question of the intercessor’s identity, it would shift the emphasis away from God to another antecedent—possibly Job’s “cry” (v. 18) that ascends to heaven to interpret his thoughts directly in ...
... the wicked and the oppressed, not a “criminal case” between Yahweh and the sinner. This is not a situation where God prosecutes sinners on the basis of his absolute righteousness (where God measures the heart), but a case where the speaker, as the advocate for the oppressed, prosecutes the wicked on the basis of relative social justice (where actions are measured). Yahweh is he who avenges blood and thus acts in response to the cry of the afflicted. Closing off this section of praise is the command ...
... vindicate—lit. “judge”—me). Thus, while the first set of imperatives in the psalm (vv. 1–3) puts God in the role of warrior, this second set (vv. 22–24) puts him in the role of judge. Supporting the appeal that Yahweh become the advocate for “my defense” is the twofold reference to my God. The petitions of verses 25–27 are wishes (jussives), which focus on consequences. Those “who rejoice (NIV ‘gloat’) over my distress” are to be put to shame (cf. v. 4), but “those who delight ...
... who enter the kingdom will experience. It is unclear, however, if this is the meaning that Luke has intended in his abbreviated and modified form of the saying. If the picture is negative, the Lucan form may have in mind militant messianic figures who advocate bringing the kingdom through violence; two such characters are mentioned in Acts 5:36–37. But the picture may also be positive, that is, all who enter the kingdom are being urged or pressed into entering (recall 14:23; see Fitzmyer, p. 1117; Tiede ...
... :11–17. 22:38 The NIV translation, That is enough, is misleading in that it could convey the sense that Jesus felt that the two swords showed to him by the disciples were examples of what he had actually been talking about. Had Jesus actually advocated armed combat two swords could scarcely have been “enough” (although one will be enough in 22:49–50!). Moreover, had Jesus’ remark been one of approval, then we might have expected his reply to be in the plural, “They are enough.” On the contrary ...
... wishes had to be subordinated to the national good. Ish-Bosheth, as head of Saul’s family, gave orders that Michal should be returned to David. Ish-Bosheth’s role in this indicates that Abner was not simply deserting Ish-Bosheth but rather advocating that the nation, including Ish-Bosheth, become reunited. In this scenario Ish-Bosheth would become a tribal leader under David’s kingship. Although Ish-Bosheth may have had no choice, he did not oppose the course of action that Abner had taken. By ...
... wishes had to be subordinated to the national good. Ish-Bosheth, as head of Saul’s family, gave orders that Michal should be returned to David. Ish-Bosheth’s role in this indicates that Abner was not simply deserting Ish-Bosheth but rather advocating that the nation, including Ish-Bosheth, become reunited. In this scenario Ish-Bosheth would become a tribal leader under David’s kingship. Although Ish-Bosheth may have had no choice, he did not oppose the course of action that Abner had taken. By ...