... a need of the past. They were defining the future by the past. Jesus, as always, was the revolutionary. He appointed seventy disciples to go to all people — Samaritans and Gentiles included. His kingdom — God's kingdom — was to be inclusive, not exclusive; universal, not provincial. "The fields are white unto the harvest," he said to the seventy. If they asked where, he replied to look beyond their own fields, beyond their own backyard, beyond their own past definitions of reality. And that is what ...
... 's role is primarily that of a support to her husband and children, is a relatively recent phenomenon," says Anita Shreve in her book Remaking Motherhood (p. 14). Shreve goes on to point out that it wasn't until the mid-nineteenth century that a woman's exclusive job became that of caring for men and children in the home. However, 20% of American women did work outside the home at the turn of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, a woman was to be the wife, mother, and homemaker. Man: More than that, she was ...
... which these early Christians could draw. For example, they could have patterned their church life after the Temple. They loved the Temple. It was the place of worship. But they did not pattern themselves after the Temple, because the Temple was exclusive. It was clergy dominated . . . Or they could have patterned themselves after the Synagogue. Synagogues were led by laity. They were informal places where people gathered to read, hear and discuss the Scriptures. But they did not model their corporate life ...
... from God. Satan’s first temptation was for Christ to turn stone into bread in order to feed his physical hunger. His second temptation was the very human hunger for power and splendor. Jesus only need bow down to Satan rather than to direct his worship exclusively to God. Satan’s third temptation was for Jesus to take an easier way to accomplish his mission and thus avoid the cross. Satan took Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here ...
... that at his coronation he had been acclaimed “the Lord’s anointed” (i.e., “messiah”). Understandably, with its use of such terms as “his anointed,” “my king,” and “my son,” the psalm had come to be understood of the eschatological Messiah (though not exclusively so), at least by the middle of the first century B.C. (see disc. on 13:23; cf. Psalms of Solomon 17:24ff.; 4QFlor. 1.10–13). In applying it to Jesus, therefore, the Christians were drawing on an established tradition. But for ...
... ). These verses express the familiar contrast between the human rejection of Jesus and his divine vindication (cf. 2:23f.; 3:14f.; 4:10), here rendered the more striking by the reference to Jesus’ being hanged on a tree. The expression is characteristically (though not exclusively) Petrine (cf. 10:39; 1 Pet. 2:24; but see Acts 13:29) and is perhaps deliberately aimed at associating the crucifixion with the curse of Deuteronomy 21:22f. (which, however, spoke of the hanging of an already dead body on a tree ...
... Luke: “to preach the Good News,” which is found only once in the other Gospels but ten times in Luke and fifteen times in Acts—a truly missionary word—and “to go through” (NIV wherever they went), which Luke uses constantly (though not exclusively) of missionary journeys. With the advantage of hindsight, he saw that the scattering of the believers did constitute a series of missionary journeys, though of course at the time they were not thought of as this. 8:5–8 The general statement of verse ...
... initiation. Nor was it unusual for a period of time to elapse between baptism and the reception (experience) of the Spirit (cf. 9:17f.; 10:44; 1 Cor. 12:13). Nor have we any reason to think that the gift of the Spirit was administered exclusively by the apostles—or anyone else, for that matter. In fact, a careful examination of Acts shows that the pattern of conversion and initiation varies in every case for which we have details, the only common element being the presence of faith in Jesus marked ...
... participation in the kingdom of God, but most regarded them as beyond hope and destined for hell. Against this background we see how startling Jesus’ teaching must have been that reversed the popular expectation to include the Gentiles in the kingdom to the exclusion of the (unbelieving) Jews (cf. Matt. 8:11f.; Luke 13:29). As with much of his teaching, his followers were slow to accept it. 10:36–38 The grammatical looseness of the speech reaches its apogee in these verses. Literally, 36 runs: “The ...
... the home of a Gentile. This was a serious breach of church polity, and something of the bitterness of their feelings comes out in the phrase uncircumcised men (v. 3). This description was the greatest reproach that Jews had of Gentiles, for it emphasized their exclusion from the covenant. 11:4–17 Peter’s defense was simply to explain everything to them precisely as it had happened (v. 4). Probably all that the church had heard was the outcome and nothing of what had led up to his preaching to Cornelius ...
... all who were appointed for eternal life believed (v. 48). The idea of appointment in this verse is not meant in a restrictive sense. The thought is not of God limiting salvation to the few, but of extending it to the many, in contrast to the exclusiveness of the Jews. And of course this divine choice did not obviate the need for personal faith. Indeed, some take the verb to be in the middle voice, not the passive, and render, “as many as had set themselves [by their response to the Spirit’s prompting ...
... the title the Most High God (cf. Luke 4:34, 41, where the same verb “to shout” is employed; and esp. 8:28; see disc. on 19:15). The title was commonly used among the Jews of the Diaspora and by Gentiles in reference to the Jewish God (though not exclusively so; see BC, vol. 5, pp. 94f.), and the girl may have picked it up in this way. But Luke himself had no doubt that she was possessed by a demon (cf. v. 18) and that she spoke with demoniacal insight. 16:18 The day came, however, when Paul became ...
... , for the method, see disc. on 17:2). 18:5 A change in this pattern of ministry appears to be indicated in this verse. It is not completely clear from the Greek whether Silas and Timothy, on their arrival from Macedonia, found Paul devoting himself exclusively to preaching, or whether this was something he was able to do only after they had rejoined him. If the latter—and this seems the more likely, taking the imperfect tense to be inceptive: “he began to devote his whole time …”—it may mean that ...
... he had been helped by Priscilla and Aquila. But there is no need to look for this kind of connection between them and Apollos. Indeed, Luke’s words allow that they did not come to Ephesus until after Apollos had left for Corinth. 19:10 Two years, exclusive of the three months of verse 8: In 20:31 Paul speaks of three years’ residence in Ephesus, expressing in the usual manner of the ancients an intermediate period by the superior round number. 19:14–16 Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest: The ...
... authorities to deal with capital offenses, see note on 7:60. For lesser offenses, not only the Sanhedrin, but the synagogues functioning as local courts, had the power to sentence and execute punishment. An offender might suffer excommunication ranging from a week’s exclusion to permanent expulsion (cf. Luke 6:22; John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2). More commonly, breaches of the law for which specific penalties were not laid down in Scripture were punished by lashes (cf. Matt. 10:17; 23:34), the greatest number ...
... in all his troubles; his comfort, in turn, overflows to the Corinthians (cf. vv. 5–6). The comfort that Paul receives belongs fundamentally to his apostolic ministry. What does it mean that God “comforts” Paul in all his troubles? The word trouble (thlipsis) is used in Paul almost exclusively in the sense of the “oppression” or “tribulation” that is caused by outward circumstances or events (e.g., Rom. 2:9; 5:3; 8:35; 12:12; 1 Cor. 7:28; 2 Cor. 1:8; 4:17; 6:4; 7:4–5; 8:2; Phil. 4:14; 1 ...
... ” in the latter section of the letter (12:20; cf. 10:2). We do not know what form the punishment may have taken, but 1 Corinthians 5:1–13 indicates handing an immoral man over to Satan “for the destruction of the flesh” (v. 5) and exclusion of the individual from the fellowship. Are we to assume in our passage that Titus brought Paul word that the offender had repented of his misdeed, or that Paul absolved him unilaterally? Did the Corinthians appeal to Paul on behalf of the man? These questions are ...
... , 1986), pp. 75–90 (here pp. 85–87). 11:25 On the Roman citizenship of Paul, see Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, pp. 6–15. Hengel argues that Paul deliberately allowed such beatings in order to participate in the sufferings of Christ. Stoning was not an exclusively Jewish form of execution (cf. Acts 14:5). As a spontaneous expression of rage by a mob, stoning was a very widespread form of lynch justice. The pre-Roman Corinthians are said to have practiced stoning (cf. Pausanias 2.3.6; see also Plutarch ...
... that his focus is on pleasing God. In some instances Paul says that pleasing other people is appropriate (1 Cor. 10:33), but concerning the integrity of his gospel Paul sees things in either/or terms. To be a servant of Christ is mutually exclusive of pleasing people. In the opening of his letter (1:1–10) Paul has emphasized the divine origin of his apostleship (1:1), signalled his disapproval of the current faith of his converts (1:2b), expressed his bewilderment at their actions (1:6–7), denounced ...
... this fact is that they are then not under law. The subtext is Paul’s assertion that they do not need to accept the rival evangelists’ offer of law in order to live well. The plain sense is that there are two contrasting and mutually exclusive ways of approaching the ethical choices in life: through the guidance of the Spirit or through the guidance of the law. Additional Notes 5:13 In the Greek the term translated sinful nature is “flesh” (sarx). “Flesh” is not always a term laden with negative ...
... of this fact is that they are then not under law. The subtext is Paul’s assertion that they do not need to accept the rival evangelists’ offer of law in order to live well. The plain sense is that there are two contrasting and mutually exclusive ways of approaching the ethical choices in life: through the guidance of the Spirit or through the guidance of the law. 5:19 So as to concretize the contrast between the flesh (sinful nature) and the Spirit, Paul says that the flesh results in certain acts ...
... even death on a cross for the sake of others (cf. Phil. 2:4–11). If the phrase “law of Christ” is not one that Paul took over from his opponents, the rhetorical effect of bringing together two terms that until this point have been mutually exclusive—law and Christ—would have been dramatic, thereby redefining the meaning of law in light of Christ. Law now is that which is fulfilled through love. 6:3–10 Even as believers bear each other’s burdens each one should carry his own load. The way ...
... be: The Greek word is eulogētos, which carries the meaning of speaking (legō) well or kindly (eu) of someone. In this context, the phrase could be expressed as “thanks be,” “blessed be,” as well as praise be to God. In the NT, the word is used exclusively for God, since he alone is worthy to be blessed; he is blessed because he is the author of all the blessings that he bestows upon the believer in Christ. Since such forms of blessings were common among the Jews, this passage may have a Jewish ...
... message. The truthfulness and power of the gospel have practical dimensions as well. First of all, the gospel is universal in scope, that is, growing throughout the entire Roman Empire. The gospel of Christ is for everyone (inclusive) and not for a select few (exclusive) as the heretics are teaching (2:8–15). Second, the gospel is bringing blessings (lit., bearing fruit) to the whole world, even as it is to the Christians in Colossae. The true word of God is something that reproduces and grows (cf. the ...
... teaching in Colossae was that it gave undue prominence to those supernatural powers that filled the universe by regarding them as intermediaries between God and the world. Paul corrects this by affirming that the full nature of God dwells in Christ exclusively. The second issue centers around the subject of pleased. The Greek literally reads “because in him (Christ) was pleased all the fullness to dwell.” At least three possibilities have been suggested: (a) to make Christ the subject, thus giving the ...