... the New Testament, by such expressions as “living in Christ” or “Christ living in me” (see, e.g., Rom. 6:4–8; 8:2–11; 2 Cor. 5:17; Col. 2:12–14). Life in Christ is not an identification of Christ and the believer to the exclusion of the individuality of either. It is, however, the acknowledgment of the source of life: Christ the living Lord. This is at once the reason for and the guarantee of the believer’s moral lifestyle. With the reality that “I no longer live, but Christ lives in ...
... selection: “because God chose you as firstfruits to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth” (2:13b). Calling them “firstfruits” alludes to the first portion of a harvest or the firstborn of animals, which were consecrated exclusively to God (Exod. 23:19; Num. 15:17–21; Deut. 12:6, 17). The election of God is that they might be saved instead of experiencing the divine wrath (1 Thess. 5:9) and perishing (2 Thess. 2:10, 12). God accomplishes his salvation ...
... who say they are Jews” and yet “are not” foreshadows the final parting of ways between Judaism and Christianity in the second century. Instead of offering immediate relief, Christ actually warns them that their situation will worsen. Many early Christians experienced exclusion from the trade guilds, property loss, and poverty. Some will be thrown into prison, while others will suffer a martyr’s death (2:10). The apostolic father Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was executed in this city by fire and sword ...
... enough to come inside these walls. One little girl said her favorite hymn was, “Just as I am without one flea . . . .” We need to get the word out that we take people, “fleas” and all. We dare not have the world see us as an exclusive community reserved only for saints. The very word “religion” means “to bind together.” We are outside the will of God when we allow our faith to erect a wall to others. Christian faith does not erect walls, but bridges. In the early days of Christianity, many ...
... a relationship. The second is waiting with arms open until the other responds and comes willingly into your embrace. The third is to close your arms, enfolding the other. The fourth is to again open your arms to allow the other to continue to be a separate person (Exclusion and Embrace [Nashville: Abingdon, 1996], pp. 140-145). That means we must be willing to respect the other's right to choose a life other than the one we believe is best for him or her. You will remember that is a part of what happened in ...
... those sins are buried at the bottom of the deepest sea never to surface again. They are gone forever. If you believe that Christ has atoned for your sins, you cannot believe that God is using some adverse circumstance to punish you. The two are mutually exclusive. There is a story about actor Henry Fonda that can help us here. Fonda’s father disagreed with his son’s decision to become an actor. Only grudgingly did he attend his son’s debut performance with the rest of the family. After the performance ...
... has been widely discussed. It should be noted that though baptism was an important rite at Qumran, it differed in several respects from the baptism practiced by John (e.g., it was repeated frequently, had to do with ceremonial uncleanness, and involved entry into an exclusive sect that demanded unswerving obedience to the law). John’s basic message was a call to repentance. Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near. To repent (metanoeō) does not mean simply to be sorry but to change one’s way of life ...
... tell you the truth, I don’t know you. This phrase is said to be a formula used by rabbis to prevent certain disciples from approaching (Green, p. 205). The failure of the foolish to prepare for the bridegroom’s arrival led to their total exclusion from the marriage festivities. The conclusion that Jesus draws is, Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour. In context, keep watch means to be thoroughly prepared and ready for the Parousia. The remaining verses in the chapter suggest ...
... priests, he attempted to return the thirty silver coins, but they would have none of it. That he had betrayed innocent blood (v. 4) was of no concern to them. Judas hurled (rhiptō is a strong verb) the money into the temple (naos need not refer exclusively to the inner sanctuary, Josephus, War, 6.293; cf. BAGD, p. 533, 1.a), and went away and hanged himself. Schweizer suggests that throwing money into the temple may have been a Jewish custom for canceling an agreement (p. 505). Acts 1:18 records that Judas ...
... yet that was the hinge on which the whole process turned, and you know as well as I do what happened as a result. Somehow, with God's help, that little became enough! What had seemed so impossible to the disciples as they looked exclusively at the problem, became a possibility through the decisive action of Jesus. He was not immobilized by the seeming disproportion of the need and the resources at hand. After all, beginnings, by their very nature, are always insignificant, and even the longest journey has ...
... misplaced, for I find a significant truth in both of these approaches; yet neither one of them is adequate by itself or apart from the other. There are actually several factors involved in authentic moral decision-making, and to absolutize one aspect to the exclusion of the other always upsets the balance of truth and leads to distortion. In my judgment, this is what both of the extreme positions I have described have done. To focus on principles and the past alone without an equal concern for persons and ...
... of the law of Moses to all of life, and function here and elsewhere in Mark as representatives of the Jewish religious leadership who find fault with what they regard as the dangerous and improper conduct and teaching of Jesus. They see themselves as defending the exclusive honor of God in this incident against the suggestion that a mere man could forgive sins. At first glance, they appear to be in the right, for God is the true judge of all conduct and it does seem strange for a human being to grant ...
... Exod. 21:17 (parallel in Lev. 20:9). Jesus takes the commands to include the idea that the grown child should be responsible for the needs of the parents. 7:11 Corban is the Hebrew term that was used to describe objects or even people as dedicated to God exclusively. To make the statement that something is Corban was to take a vow regarding the object(s) in question, a vow that could not easily be canceled (see next note). For the OT commands about vows, see, e.g., Deut. 23:21–23; Num. 30:1–16. The oath ...
... for Israel like Moses or David, as there is in 6:34, 40 (see comments and notes on these verses). Also, though 6:34 emphasizes that Jesus’ compassion leads him to teach the crowds, in 8:2 his concern for the crowd has to do with their hunger exclusively. That is, this account is much more concerned with Jesus providing a miraculous supply for the people. We note again, as in 6:32, 35, the description of the area as a remote or uninhabited place (8:4, see note). This is surely an allusion to the OT ...
... adultery against her. This idea is apparently totally unparalleled in ancient Judaism, where adultery was understood only as an offense committed against another man, either by seducing a man’s daughter and depriving him of a marriageable girl, or by violating a husband’s exclusive sexual rights with his wife. The emphasis that it is God who joins together husband and wife (v. 9) refers to the creation plan of God that every marriage is obligated to follow, and it means that, like OT prophets (e.g., Mal ...
... that Israelites were secure with God by virtue of their heritage (John 8:33), and that their heritage would compensate for any want of conformity to the law’s moral demands. In 2:1ff. Paul goes nose-to-nose with this attitude of exemption and exclusion. Although he does not specifically call it a lie, his contrasting of specious moral judgments with God’s judgment in truth associates it with the lie of Gentiles in 1:25. Moral and religious humanity are also locked in battle against the truth! The future ...
... Paul speaks of peace between humanity and God it is God who effects it. This is exactly his point in verse 10 where “God’s enemies … were reconciled to him through the death of his Son.” Peace, like justification, comes exclusively from God. Both conditions depend on God’s action; neither is something humanity can bring on itself. There are important practical implications of this truth. Nearly all Christians confess that Christ’s death effects salvation, but not infrequently they try (perhaps ...
... for we have been released, another “divine passive,” means “to abolish or wipe out” and testifies that something decisive has been done for us by God. Dying to what once bound us repeats the theme of verse 4: we “died to the law.” Paul again contrasts the exclusive alternatives of sin and law to Christ and the Spirit. To drive the nail home he leaves the analogy of marriage and returns to that of slavery, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code ...
... the argument in three stages. Chapter 9 vindicates God’s freedom and mercy in the face of Israel’s stubbornness. Chapter 10 demonstrates that even though Israel is chosen by God, Israel is free to reject God’s overtures—and is responsible for its exclusion from salvation when it does. In chapter 11 Paul argues that Israel’s rejection does not frustrate God’s sovereign purpose, but that God uses it for the inclusion of the Gentiles—and ultimately of Israel itself!—in salvation. Paul was a Jew ...
... that Paul is addressing either men or women, not both; but when the original language assumes that the remarks are pertinent to all believers, male and female, the translation and interpretation should not introduce gender-specific or gender-exclusive designations. Paul has been accused of addressing the males in a congregation and rendering the females passive observers. That criticism is unfounded, but unfortunately some translations reinforce that misperception. 3:14–15 Paul makes a pair of statements ...
... Paul’s remarks are as much concerned with apologetics as with correcting and directing the Corinthians in their life together. While there is much to commend this interpretation of the letter, one may still read the comments here as primarily if not exclusively didactic. Indeed, in the context of the church today, one is hard pressed to relate the apparent apologetic dimensions of the text to a reaction to Paul as “unimpressive.” Paul’s problem with readers today is that they fault him for having ...
... : Rom. 14:17; 1 Cor. 4:20; Col. 4:11; 2 Thess. 1:5. In both cases Paul is using a traditional phrase from apocalyptic-eschatological Jewish thought, and he seems to indicate by these phrases the time, place, and experience of God’s supreme, exclusive rule. Certain elements of Paul’s list of wicked persons and behaviors have caught the attention of much of the church in late twentieth-century discussions of church life. The pertinent materials merit careful attention. As we have seen, in 1 Cor. 6:9–11 ...
... that the Corinthian Christians are to be concerned with and involved with only God. There is no room for other affiliations, and the Corinthians are to avoid all possible compromises of their relationship to God. 10:21 In turn, Paul forcefully declares the exclusive nature of Christian life in general images from the Lord’s Supper. These images were introduced in verses 16–17 in Paul’s argument concerning the union of the believers with Christ and with one another in Christ, but here Paul puts the ...
... so,” indicates the conclusion to be drawn from the now established possibility of freedom of action. (p. 179) 10:32 Paul’s triad, Jew/Greek/church of God, is remarkable; for it couples two ethnic designations that were oftentimes considered exclusive and comprehensive with yet a third category that is not ethnic in origin or nature, church of God. Paul does not develop the combination of these designations, although his delineation and juxtaposition of categories are intriguing. 10:33 Paul completes ...
... made by Paul in his defense of the reality of the resurrection of the dead. The language used of “the second man” (v. 47) echoes the discussion of “heavenly bodies” in verses 40–41. Remarkably, in that previous reflection, Paul talked almost exclusively of “glory” as the character of heavenly things. 15:49 This verse is also a beautifully balanced rhetorical construction. Paul refers to the likeness of both the earthly man and the heavenly man. The word likeness is eikōn in Gk., the ...