| 877 Smith, John (1999), 335, connecting more explicit appearances with 18:16. If this connection held, Lazarus, Barnabas, or John Mark " s mother " s family might prove better candidates for supplying a well-to-do, priestly Jerusalem disciple (cf. Acts 4:36–37; 12:12–13; Col 4:10). 879 On the prophecy not arising after the event, see, e.g., Jeremias, Theology, 243–44; Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 147; Keener, Matthew, 485–86. 881 E.g., Culpepper, John, 31. The objection based on John " s opposition to the Samaritans (Luke 9:54; ibid.) falls into the same category, especially in view of the explicit testimony of Acts 8:14–15 (which should be doubted no more than Lukés claim in Luke 9:54–55). 882 Carson, John, 74. Peter " s character changes even between Luke and Acts! John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 1 attributes the Gospel directly to the «son of thunder.» 883 Fishermen were usually relatively high on the socioeconomic scale (see sources in Keener, Matthew, 151–52; Stanton, Gospels, 186; Whitacre, John, 20), but Galilee was a long way from Jerusalem (Smith, John 335). The high priest " s household could import fish from the Lake of Galilee, but probably through agents (though fishermen could make more income if they sold directly to the rich rather than through middlemen; Alciphron Fishermen 9 [Aegialeus to Struthion], 1.9). Blomberg, Reliability, 35, argues that Zebedeés wife had priestly relatives ( Mark 15:40 ; Matt 27:56; John 19:25 ; Luke 1:36, 39). 884 E.g., Thucydides 1.1.1; 2.103.2; 5.26.1; Xenophon Anab. 2.5.41; 3.1.4–6 and passim. Polybius uses first-person claims when he was an observer (e.g., 29.21.8) but prefers third-person when he is an active participant in the narrative (31.23.1–31.24.12; 38.19.1; 38.21.1; 38.22.3; cf. 39.2.2). A narrator might distance himself from his role as participant in this way to meet expectations for objectivity (see esp. Jackson, «Conventions»). 885 E.g., Dunn, «John,» 293–94. He commendably recognizes that the stages are now difficult to reconstruct; but one then wonders how it is possible to know they existed. |
| Morris, Judgment Morris, Leon. The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960. Morris, Lectionaries Morris, Leon. The New Testament and the Jewish Lectionaries. London: Tyndale, 1964. Morris, Luke Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to St. Luke. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974. Morris, Romans Morris, Leon. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Morris, Studies Morris, Leon. Studies in the Fourth Gospe1. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969. Morris, Thessalonians Morris, Leon. The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959. Morton and MacGregor, Structure Morton, A. Q., and G. H. C. MacGregor. The Structure of Luke and Acts. New York: Harper & Row, 1964. Moses, Transfiguration Story Moses, A. D. A. Matthew " s Transfiguration Story and Jewish-Christian Controversy. ISNTSup 122. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996. Mosley, «Reporting» Mosley, A. W. «Historical Reporting in the Ancient World.» NTS 12 (1965–1966): 10–26. Moss, «Lamp» Moss, L. W. «A Menorah Lamp from Atripalda.» IEJ 25 (1975): 156. Most, «Luke» Most, William G. «Did St. Luke Imitate the Septuagint?» JSNT 15 (1982): 30–41. Motyer, «Anti-Semitic» Motyer, Stephen. «Is lohn " s Gospel Anti-Semitic?» Themelios 23 (1998): 1–4. Motyer, Father the Devil Motyer, Stephen. Your Father the Devil? A New Approach to John and " The Jews.» Carlisle: Paternoster, 1997. Motyer, «Method» Motyer, Stephen. «Method in Fourth Gospel Studies: A Way out of the Impasse?» JSNT 66 (1997): 27–44. Motyer, «New Start» Motyer, Stephen. «The Fourth Gospel and the Salvation of Israel: An Appea-for a New Start.» Pages 92–110 in Anti-Judaism and the Fourth Gospel: Papers of the Leuven Colloquium, 2000. Edited by R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, and F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001. Moulder, «Background» Moulder, W. J. «The Old Testament Background and the Interpretation of Mark X.45 .» NTS 24 (1977–1978): 120–27. |
| Was Jesus Christ religious? He was circumcised a Jew (Luke 2:21) and received a Jewish religious education (Luke 2:46). He taught at the synagogues (Matthew 13:54) and attended the religious holidays in Jerusalem(John 2:23). He upheld the Mosaic law and prophetic teachings, and He instructed others to also keep the commandments of God (Matthew 5:17-20, 7:12). He encouraged those He healed to offer the Mosaic ritual sacrifice (Matthew 8:4). He affirmed that people must obey their religious leaders (Matthew 23:3) and pay the temple tax (Luke 20:25; 21:1-4). He was tried as a Jew (John 18:12-14, 19-24) and was buried according to Jewish religious tradition (John 19:38-42). Jesus also instituted with His followers new religious practices like Baptism (Matthew 3:13-17) and the Eucharist (Matthew 26:26-29). There should be no question that Jesus was religious. Spiritual A typical dictionary definition of “spiritual” is: being concerned with the spirit—the metaphysical, incorporeal, immaterial, ultimate, ideal, etc . You can be spiritual without believing in a deity; instead, you can believe in ghosts, witchcraft, ESP, reincarnation, universal love, etc. Also “concerned” in the above definition is merely an intellectual interest or awareness to something. You can acknowledge the truth of a spiritual principle but not necessarily strive to make it an ongoing rule in your life. Therefore, you do not have to follow any particular system of behavior when being spiritual; there are seemingly no set moral constraints. You may try to develop a particular lifestyle in accordance with your spiritual beliefs, but you’re accountable to no one except yourself. Consequently, there is a lot of freedom to being spiritual—believe and act in whatever way you deem is right. The antonym for being spiritual is “materialism:” involvement with the gathering of wealth, sensual experiences, and physical comfort. Was Jesus Christ spiritual? He went beyond just keeping religious laws and taught that your attitude and character are just as important as your behavior (e.g., “You heard it said. |
| Malina, Windows Malina, Bruce J. Windows on the World of Jesus: Time Travel to Ancient Judea. Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993. Malina, World Malina, Bruce J. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. Atlanta: John Knox, 1981. Malina and Neyrey, «Honor and Shame» Malina, Bruce J., and Jerome H. Neyrey. «Honor and Shame in Luke-Acts: Pivotal Values of the Mediterranean World.» Pages 25–65 in The Social World of Luke-Acts: Models for Interpretation. Edited by Jerome H. Neyrey. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1991. Malina and Rohrbaugh, Commentary Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1992. Malina and Rohrbaugh, John Malina, Bruce J., and Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Malinowski, «Tendencies» Malinowski, Francis X. «Torah Tendencies in Galilean Judaism according to Flavius Josephus with Gospel Comparisons.» Biblical Theology Bulletin 10 (1980): 30–36. Mailer, «Hanukkah» Mailer, Allen S. «Hanukkah: Evolution of a Miracle.» Living Light 25 (1988): 54–58. Maloney, «Authorship» Maloney, Elliott C. «Biblical Authorship and the Pastoral Letters.» The Bible Today 24 (1986): 119–23. Maly, «Women» Maly, Eugene H. «Women and the Gospel of Luke.» Biblical Theology Bulletin 10 (1980): 99–104. Malzoni, «La résurrection» Malzoni, Claudio V. « " Moi, je suis la résurrection»: Jean 11,25 dans la tradition syriaque ancienne.» RB 106, no. 3 (1999): 421–40. Mancini, Discoveries Mancini, Ignazio. Archaeological Discoveries Relative to the Judaeo-Christians: Historical Survey. Translated by G. Bushel1. Publications of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio minor 10. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing Press, 1970. Mandell, «Tax» Mandell, Sara. «The Jewish Christians and the Temple Tax: hy " bd kwkbym and hkwty in Mishnah Seqalim 1:5.» Second Century 7 (1989–1990): 76–84. Manns, «Altercation» Manns, Frederic. «Une altercation doctrinale entre les rabbins et les judéo-chrétiens au début du troisième siècle: Sifre Dr 32,1 (§306).» Vetera Christianorum 26 (1989): 49–58. |
| 9701 Matt 26:3, 57 and Luke 3mention Caiaphas; Luke 3briefly mentions Annas; neither name appears in Mark. John may mention both because the Synoptics attest two inquiries (Barrett, John, 529), but this is less probable given John " s independence on the inquiries themselves. 9702 losephus Ant. 18.26. Ananus is a variant Greek rendering of Annas; one may survey the frequent names, both masculine and feminine, cognate to Annas in antiquity (e.g., CIJ1:62, §88; 1:228, §290; 1:244, §310; 1:314–15, §411; 2:127, §907; 2:155, §967; 2:186, §§1013, 1014; 2:195, §1066; CPJ 1:165–66, §24; Acts 9:10; see more fully CPJ 3:169). 9709 Wiles, Gospel, 9, citing Theodore of Mopsuestia 233.23; John Chrysostom Hom. Jo. 83.2; Cyril of Alexandria 3.29.26–27 on John 18:15 . Interestingly, Chrysostom (2.1) nevertheless thought that John must have been very poor or his father would not have allowed him to leave fishing to follow Jesus (Wiles, Gospel, 10). Fishermen could make more income if they sold directly to the rich rather than through middlemen (Alciphron Fishermen 9 [Aegialeus to Struthion], 1.9). 9711 Dodd, Tradition, 86–87. Dodd (p. 88) thus suggests that the Fourth Gospel provides information from a Judean disciplés source comparatively neglected by the Synoptics (though they also, he believes, show some Judean supporters of Jesus). 9712 For this disciplés favorable comparison with Peter here, see also Haenchen, John, 2:168; see comment on 13:23–24. 9713 Vicent Cernuda, «Desvaido,» suggests Lazarus, which could be plausible if 12is fictitious, but again, why not name him this late if John knows his identity? 9714 See also Charlesworth, Disciple, 336–59, but his proposal that the disciple was Judas (pp. 342–59) seems unlikely though Judas was probably from Judea and handled Jesus» money (343). John would probably name Judas if he implied him, though it is possible (as ibid., 359) that Judas played this role in John " s tradition but John wished not to name him. 9715 E.g., Ovid Amores 1.6.1–2; Plutarch Cicero 15.1; 36.3; Seneca Ep. Luci1. 19.11; implied in Seneca Controv. 10.4.22. Householders who had porters had no reason to answer the door themselves (Theophrastus Char. 4.9 considers it ignorant behavior); a household member sneaking to answer the door might be suspected of mischief (Tibullus 1.2.7, 15–24, 41, 55–56). Undoubtedly porters screened unwelcome guests, provided safety, and moved the sometimes heavy doors. |
| 3666 Cf. Dionysius of Halicarnassus RA. 3.1.3 (μονογενς). Bernard, John, 1:23, Hoskyns, Gospel 149, and Roberts, «Only Begotten, " » 8, cite, e.g., Judg 11:34 ; Ps 35:17 ; Jer 6:26 ; Amos 8(cf. similarly Tob 3:15; 6:10, 14; 8:17; Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; cf. Plato Tim. 31); technical exceptions include Heb 11:17; Josephus Ant. 20.19–22. They also cite non-Jewish examples in Plautus Captives 1.147,150; Aegeon Comedy of Errors 5.1.329; cf. similarly Du Plessis, ««Only Begotten,»» 30 n. 5 (on Plautus). 3667 Bernard, John, 1:23–24, and Roberts, «Only Begotten, " » 8, cite examples in Psalms (22:21; 25:16; 35:17). 3669 Sir 36:12 (πρωτγονος); Pss. So1. 18:4; 4 Ezra 6(also «only begotten,» OTP 1:536); cf. Jub. 19:29. Israel was beloved to God like an only child (Simeon ben Yohai in Exod. Rab. 52:5; Lev. Rab. 2:5; later rabbis, Song Rab. 5:16, §3; Israel as an only daughter, Song Rab. 2:14, §2; 3:11, §2). «Son» usually represents Israel in rabbinic parables (Johnston, Parables, 587). 3670 Bar 3:36–37 (γαπημνω); Pss. So1. 9(λας, öv γπησας); Jub. 31:15, 20; 4 Ezra 5:27; Rom 11:28 ; " Abot R. Nat. 43, §121 B; Sipre Deut. 344.1.1; 344.3.1; 344.5.1; Song Rab. 2:1, §1; 2:1, §3; Tg. Isa. 1:4. Sipre Deut. 97.2 interprets Deut 14as declaring that «every individual Israelite is more beloved before [God] than all the nations of the world» (trans. Neusner, 1:255). Different rabbis applied the title «most beloved [of all things]» variously to Torah, the sanctuary, or Israel (Sipre Deut. 37.1.3); for some rabbis, God " s love for Israel was the heart of Torah (Goshen Gottstein, «Love»). 3671 E.g., R. Ishmael (3 En. 1:8); Esdram (Gk. Apoc. Ezra 1[ed. Wahl, 25] ); articular if the article for «holy prophet» includes this, the κα being epexegetical); Sedrach (Apoc. Sedr. 3[ed. Wahl, 39]). Early Christian texts naturally transfer the title to Jesus ( Mark 1:11; 9:7 ; Matt 3:17: 17:5; Luke 3:22; Eph 1:6 ; Acts Paul 3:11Paul and Thecla 1; Gk. Apoc. Ezra 4[ed. Wahl, 30]). Ancients regarded being the «beloved of the gods» (θεοφιλς) a special privilege (Plutarch Lycurgus 5.3, LCL 1:216–17). |
| 4284 The contorted argument of Hanhart, «Structure,» 24–26, that he was Matthew depends on fanciful linkages. 4285 The Law and the Prophets together constitute Scripture, e.g., 2Macc 15:9; 4 Macc 18:10–18; Matt 5:17; 7:12; Q (Matt 11=Luke 16:16); Rom 3:21 ; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 1:484, cite also t. B. Mesi c a 11:23. Cf. also the threefold division in Luke 24(more popular among the sages–Sir pro1.; " Abot R. Nat. 14A; b. c Abod. Zar. 19b; B. Bat. 13b, bar.; B. Qam. 92b; Mak. 10b; Sanh. 90b, Gamaliel II; 106a; p. Meg. 1:5, §3; Ned. 3:9, §3; Šeqa1. 3:2; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 12:13; Gen. Rab. 76:5; cf. Philo Contemp1. Life 25). First-century Jews attributed the Pentateuch to Moses (Josephus Ag. Ap. 1.39). 4286 See Whitacre, Polemic, 51. 4287 For an example of the question demeaning one, cf. perhaps the later p. Pesah. 6(involving Hillel, and where he is vindicated). 4288 «Nazareth» thus emphasizes Jesus» «humble origin and his humanity» as in 1(Smith, John 75). 4289 Meyers and Strange, Archaeology, 56, suggest 1600–2000 inhabitants, based on the tombs; cf. p. 27. More recent estimates suggest below 500 (Stanton, Gospel Truth, 112; Horsley, Galilee, 193); perhaps those who lived in the nearby countryside would count themselves inhabitants in a more general way. Although some opined that coming from a famous city was necessary for happiness (Plutarch Demosthenes 1.1), Plutarch thinks life in a famous city necessary only if one needed exposure (Demosthenes 2.1; cf. John 7:3–4 ). 4290 Cf. Finkelstein, Pharisees, 1:41. See Harvey, History, 3, for a summary of the initial archaeological discoveries concerning early Roman Nazareth (for an early defense of Jesus» Nazarene connection " s authenticity, see Moore, «Nazarene»; more speculatively on earlier excavations of Joseph " s legendary home, cf. de Nazareth, «Maison»). 4291 Horsley, Galilee, 193. Cf. the more concrete data in Egyptian tax records in Lewis, Life, 67–68. 4292 E.g., Goodman, State, 27; Stambaugh and Balch, Environment, 89. |
| 9738 For somewhat evasive answers, cf. also Luke 22:67–68. Jesus talks more in John than in Mark, but cf. the variant Socratic tradition in which Socrates remained silent instead of answering his accusers (Maximus of Tyre Or. 3.4, 7; cf. Xenophon Mem. 4.8.4). 9739 Diogenes Laertius 3.63; 8.1.15; Aulus Gellius 13.5.5–12; even some rhetorical teachings were inappropriate for the general public or novices (Dionysius of Halicarnassus Lit. Comp. 25). Unwritten teachings provided «insiders» a superior status (see Botha, «Voice»). 9740 E.g., lQpHab 7.4–5, 13–14; 1QH 2.13–14; 9:23–24; 11:9–10, 16–17; 12:11–13; 1QS 8.1–2, 12; 9:13,17–19; cf. 1QS 5.11–12; 11.3–5; 1QM 3:9; 17.9; 4 Ezra 14:45–47. 9741 E.g., b. Pesah. 119a; Pesiq. Rab. 22:2; especially regarding the throne-chariot (t. Hag. 2:1; b. Hag. 13a, bar; 14b, bar; Sabb. 80b; p. Hag. 2:1, §§3–4; cf. 4Qsl40) and creation mysticism (m. Hag. 2:1; t. Hag. 2:1, 7; Nat. 39A; b. Hag. 15a, bar.; p. Hag. 2:1, §15; Gen. Rab. 1:5, 10; 2:4; Pesiq. Rab Kah. 21:5; 2 En. 24:3). 9742 Sandmel, Judaism, 476 n. 48, suggests a polemic against Gnosticism here, but this is improbable; see our introduction, pp. 168–69. More persuasive would be the possibility of apologetic against the charges of political subversion, as in Acts 26(see Malherbe, «Corner,» 203). 9743 See our introduction; in other periods Romans also expressed concern over associations (e.g., Livy 39.15.11; Dig. 47.22.1; Judge, Pattern, 47–48), and even some earlier Greeks mistrusted the morality of some cult associations (Foucart, Associations religieuses, 153–77). Stauffer, Jesus, 122, reads distrust of secret associations into the high priest " s interrogation. 9746 Cf. the alleged danger of contamination from even excess exposure to minuth a few decades after John (see, e.g., Herford, Christianity, 137–45,388; Moore, Judaism, 2:250; Dalman, Jesus, 36–37). 9747 «Hour» and «darkness» in Luke 22would have fit John " s usage but perhaps not his Christology (with Jesus controlling the passion). In some cases, «Why did you not take me then?» could suggest a rhetorical appeal to a statute of limitations (Hermogenes Issues 44.10–12) but here refers simply to their secretive behavior. |
| The disciples have reason to be fearful of «the Jews» within the story world. These authorities (see introduction, pp. 214–28) engineered the execution of their teacher, and the authorities» Roman allies normally sought to stamp out followers of leaders regarded as treasonous. 10669 But their fears do not take into account Jesus» promise to return to them (which they do not at this point believe); they act like the secret believers John has so often condemned for acting «on account of fear of the «Jews»» (7:13; 19:38; cf. 12:42). But whereas some secret believers became more public with their faith under persecution (19:38), those who had been faithful to Jesus in happier times now have abandoned and denied him (16:31–32; 18:25, 27). If the first disciples had reasons to fear, John " s audience probably has similar reasons to fear the successors of the Judean authorities in their own day and therefore will learn from the model of assurance Jesus provides in this passage. Although John informs his audience only that the doors were «shut,» this itself is sufficient, given the circumstances for which they were shut (20:19), to imply that they were secured shut, that is, locked or bolted (cf., e.g., Matt 25:10). Normal residences had doors with bolts and locks, 10670 which one might especially secure if expecting hostility (T. Job 5:3). Those familiar with the passion tradition might envision a spacious room in well-to-do upper-city Jerusalem ( Mark 14:15 ; Luke 22:12; Acts 1:13), where such features would also be likely to be assumed. John may record that the doors were locked for two reasons. First, he may wish to underline the nature of the resurrection body 10671 –corporeal (20:20) but capable of acting as if incorporeal (20:19), 10672 though presumably not like the «phantoms» of Greek thought that could pass through the thong of a bolt in a door 10673 (which would contradict the image of 20:20). Some have argued that Jesus» body was not yet glorified, on the basis of 20(some cite also Luke 24:39–43); they suggest that John merely neglects to mention that the disciples opened the doors for him. But the repetition of the closed doors in 20:26, again as the context of Jesus» sudden appearance among them, is emphatic; John wishes to underline that Jesus appeared despite closed doors and to the disciples» astonishment. 10674 As Witherington notes, «The one who could pass through the grave clothes and leave a neat pile behind would not find locked doors any obstacle.» 10675 Second, through the locked doors, John underlines the fear of the disciples before Jesus» coming, a deliberate contrast to the boldness implied for their mission to the world after he has imparted his presence to them(20:21–23). 10676 |
| The Synaxis of the Seventy Apostles was established by the Orthodox Church to indicate the equal honor of each of the Seventy. They were sent two by two by the Lord Jesus Christ to go before Him into the cities He would visit (Luke 10:1). Besides the celebration of the Synaxis of the Holy Disciples, the Church celebrates the memory of each of them during the course of the year: St. James the Brother of the Lord (October 23); Mark the Evangelist (April 25); Luke the Evangelist (October 18); Cleopas (October 30), brother of St. Joseph the Betrothed , and Simeon his son (April 27); Barnabas (June 11); Joses, or Joseph, named Barsabas or Justus (October 30); Thaddeus (August 21); Ananias (October 1); Protomartyr Stephen the Archdeacon (December 27); Philip the Deacon (October 11); Prochorus the Deacon (28 July); Nicanor the Deacon (July 28 and December 28); Timon the Deacon (July 28 and December 30); Parmenas the Deacon (July 28); Timothy (January 22); Titus (August 25); Philemon (November 22 and February 19); Onesimus (February 15); Epaphras and Archippus (November 22 and February 19); Silas, Silvanus, Crescens or Criscus (July 30); Crispus and Epaenetos (July 30); Andronicus (May 17 and July 30); Stachys, Amplias, Urban, Narcissus, Apelles (October 31); Aristobulus (October 31 and March 16); Herodion or Rodion (April 8 and November 10); Agabus, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon (April 8); Hermas (November 5, November 30 and May 31); Patrobas (November 5); Hermes (April 8); Linus, Gaius, Philologus (November 5); Lucius (September 10); Jason (April 28); Sosipater (April 28 and November 10); Olympas or Olympanus (November 10 ); Tertius (October 30 and November 10); Erastos (November 30), Quartus (November 10); Euodius (September 7); Onesiphorus (September 7 and December 8); Clement (November 25); Sosthenes (December 8); Apollos (March 30 and December 8); Tychicus, Epaphroditus (December 8); Carpus (May 26); Quadratus (September 21); Mark (September 27), called John, Zeno (September 27); Aristarchus (April 15 and September 27); Pudens and Trophimus (April 15); Mark nephew of Barnabas, Artemas (October 30); Aquila (July 14); Fortunatus (June 15) and Achaicus (January 4). |
|
|
