Whether this final section comes in reply to reports (15:12) or tentative questions that are just beginning to be asked (15:35), its principal purpose is clear. Paul writes to defend, to clarify, and to broaden his teaching concerning the resurrection (15:1–11). From the content of the statement attributed to some of the Christians at Corinth (15:12), it seems that their attitude was being shaped by a skeptical aversion similar to that of the Athenians whose attentiveness to ...
... Paul’s ministry, the uniqueness of his calling, with its lack of objective proofs, provided ammunition for those who disagreed with his positions (see, e.g., 1 Corinthians 5; 9; 2 Corinthians 10–13). Here in the opening words of the letter, Paul defends the source of his apostolic calling (1:1). The key factor for him was viewing his apostleship as divinely appointed and not a product of human decision (“sent not with a human commission nor by human authority” [TNIV]). Paul appears to be referring ...
... “after fourteen years” [Gal. 2:1] as referring to a time period subsequent to the “three years” of 1:18), then Paul has the task of explaining why he went to Jerusalem at all if he did not need to appear for the purpose of defending his ministry before those who had the power to direct it. Paul’s explanation emphasizes a few points concerning his encounter with Jerusalem on that occasion. He begins, not coincidentally, with the impression that his arrival had the air of one who was the leader ...
... 1:8–9. (See Mark 9:43, where Jesus uses similar terminology in reference to something that is a skandalon.) 5:13–15 · Proof of one’s grounding:Paul has now thoroughly analyzed the opponents’ position and has found it wanting. Paul has defended his position as an apostle and his rejection of the additional requirements of Jewish conversion for Gentiles who want to come into the covenantal relationship with God through faith in Christ. Yet one might ask, “What’s left? If you take away law ...
... from God as a result of that suffering. Here Paul begins to offer himself as an example to the Philippians, an example that he will fully delineate in 3:1–21. Paul’s life and word proclaim the gospel, even from behind bars, as he continues “defending and confirming the gospel” (1:7). Paul is fighting for the sake of the gospel when he is on trial; but regardless of what he is doing, the Philippians have been there for him, and he holds them in his heart no matter the physical distance between ...
... is tempted to prefer cannot make anyone perfect, and God will not grant repentance to apostates. This striking and grim definition of apostasy is a reminder of how differently the same thing may appear to a human and to God. What the apostate defends as a calculated step to serve his or her best interests, God regards as contempt for his beloved Son, as disdain for the terrible suffering and death he endured, and as an outrage against the Holy Spirit, impeaching his testimony to Christ’s lordship ...
... characteristic emphasis in James is mentioned in verse 27 for the first time: concern for the poor and needy. “Orphans and widows” became in the Old Testament a stock description of the helpless in the world. God himself is “a father to the fatherless, a defender of widows” (Ps. 68:5), and his people are to show the same concern (cf. Isa. 1:10–17). Finally, and lest obedience to God’s word seem entirely a matter of external behavior, James stresses the need for an inner attitude and value system ...
... shootings before in high schools, movie theaters, and houses of worship. What grabbed the nation's heart in a new and deeper way than in any previous mass killing incident was that most of the fatalities were first-grade children. What would you do to defend your child from that kind of cruel death? Would you not respond that you would do whatever would be necessary, including sacrificing your own life? God is different. God not only allowed his Son to be cruelly and brutally killed, he sent his only Son ...
... the church will be well on its way with being pleased with itself. Sure, there is only so much you can accomplish without the aid of the Spirit, but at least you look good. At least you are in control. For 132 years America’s Cup was kept and defended by the United States, but in 1983 Australia threatened to take the cup away from America. They were tied with three wins each. On the day of the final race, the whole world was watching. Australia was going crazy. Scores of people came to watch the race and ...
... arts community will work together to build "Angel Wings" to block Westboro Baptist Church members protesting the funerals of the Orlando shooting victims. When finished, they will look like this (photo). Sometimes being a Christian means shining the light of justice and defending the weak and vulnerable. Here in one of my favorite pictures that has come out of this mess (photo of a black hand holding a white hand). All races have come together this week. If there is one thing this tragedy has reminded ...
... called to live in Christian community. For us there is something more important than being right or wrong, and that something is keeping the family together. The problem is not the brother or sister who sins against us. The real problem is our own fierce determination to defend ourselves against them regardless of the cost. There is another way to deal with conflict according to Jesus. We can go to the person and tell them what we think is wrong. We can even admit we might be wrong. (That's a great way to ...
... who is a danger to a republic, but the noisy chauvinist. For many years a leading newspaper in this country had on its editorial masthead: "My country, right or wrong." Many patriotic Americans accepted that as their philosophy too and felt called to defend whatever policy the government might have on a particular issue. They may have done better to accept the whole statement as Carl Schurz stated it in an address before Congress in 1872: "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right. When ...
... make such ideas worth considering in the minds of some. Further, in Mark’s account of the temple-cleansing controversy between Jesus and the priestly authorities (11:27–33), we are told that Jesus demanded an evaluation of John’s ministry as a condition for defending his own deeds, implying perhaps that the two ministries were to be seen as connected in some way. John the Baptist is also referred to by Josephus,* the Jewish historian who wrote in the latter part of the first century A.D. His reference ...
... and application 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 ...
... that is in dispute. If the widely held scholarly opinion is correct that the Gospel authors wrote their accounts with a view to the needs and activities of the churches for whom they wrote, then these controversy stories were intended to show Jesus defending not only his own authority and message (as in 2:1–17; 3:1–6) but also the “lifestyle” or religious practices of his disciples, with whom the readers would naturally identify themselves. So, in the present and following incidents, the first ...
... before Pilate, Jesus renews his silence, and this time it is not broken (15:3–5), except for the rather noncommittal reply in verse 2 (as you say). This theme of Jesus’ silence seems to serve two purposes. First, it gives the readers a good example of refusing to defend oneself in a religious trial, in keeping with the directions given in 13:11 not to try to plan a defense but to rely on the Holy Spirit to give a good testimony to the gospel (cf. also 1 Tim. 6:13). Second, the silence of Jesus seems to ...
... for the account (i.e., “from the top”). Theophilus: Because of his Gentile name and because he is addressed most excellent, some commentators have suggested that Theophilus was a Roman official to whom Luke addressed his Gospel in an effort to defend Christianity against misinformation and slander. Although it is true that Luke takes pains to show, especially in Acts, that the first Christians were law-abiding citizens, it is much more likely that Theophilus was a new convert, and perhaps an influential ...
... that his authority superseded the rules of ritual purity. Jesus demonstrates in this section that he has authority over the Sabbath. This is seen in the first episode where Jesus’ disciples picked and ate grain on the Sabbath (6:1–2), an action that Jesus defended against the charge that such activity amounted to “work” on the Sabbath (6:3–5). It reappears in the second episode when Jesus heals the man wit the withered (or paralyzed) hand and is accused of breaking the Sabbath (6:6–11). 6:1–5 ...
... humanity, although he doubtlessly had them in mind since 2:1ff. If Jews could still maintain their confidence after 2:1ff., all illusion is now dispelled as Paul calls them from their seats in the courtroom, nay, from the jury itself, and summons them to the defendant’s chair. The diatribe style is again resumed (vv. 17–20), but even in verses 21ff. the style continues to be accusatory. The argument of verses 17–29 is essentially the same as that of 2:1–3, but what Paul argued on the grounds of ...
... no rescue from it. It is diagnosis, not cure. The statement that through the law we become conscious of sin is not a moralism, i.e., that we should learn from our mistakes. Paul means that in the law we hear our own condemnation! Only when the defendant gives up all hope of defense, all thought of parading his or her own case (= “boasting,” 2:17, 23), only then can that person hear the verdict of the judge. And a surprising verdict it is! The sentence is not justice—getting what one deserves; it is ...
... . In faith, adversity may be a sign of life, just as exercise brings sore muscles in a person who has been bedridden. In chapter 3 we spoke of the forensic or legal connotations of righteousness, whereby a judge, who may not know a defendant or ever see that person again, declares the sinner righteous. Paul now moves beyond that official metaphor. If justification produces release for the prisoner, peace is the life of freedom. If justification results from the crack of a gavel, peace results from the ...
We noted in section 14 that chapters 6–7 are something of a theological entrenchment on Paul’s part designed to defend his gospel against three objections. In 6:1–14 he contended against a misunderstanding of 5:20 (“where sin increased, grace increased all the more”), which would argue that if grace increases with sin, why not sin all the more? In 6:15–7:6 he answered a second objection ...
... in various contexts in the NT. The same word played an important role in Greek philosophy and ethics as one of the four cardinal virtues, promoting moderation and self-control (see Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, 1117b.13). Paul may employ the word here to defend against ecstatic or charismatic tendencies, but more probably to admonish Jews and Gentiles in Rome to be understanding and to act in moderation toward one another. 12:4–5 Dunn’s discussion of the body of Christ brings many essential points to ...
... even because they are chosen by us, but because they are given to us by God with a need which we can meet. Indeed, Christ himself meets us in that need (Matt. 25:40, 45). Whereas in the foregoing section Paul anchored love to civic responsibility, here he defends against conceiving of love as a euphoric high. Love is not a world apart, but the transformation of this world. It is not above the law but it fulfills the law (v. 8), and keeping the commandments is an expression of agapē. In verse 9 Paul quotes ...
... of the Church,” Crux 19 [1983], pp. 17–23) finds a larger following with the understanding that Paul is concerned that the women practicing ministry in Corinth give honor to their sex and not attempt to be pseudomen; thus, Paul was not a radical feminist, nor was he bound to defending conventional hierarchy.