The Use of the Old Testament in the New

"¿Quién subió al cielo, y descendió? ¿Quién encerró los vientos en sus puños? ¿Quién ató las aguas en un paño? ¿Quién afirmó todos los términos de la tierra? ¿Cuál es su nombre, y el nombre de su HIJO, si sabes?" (Proverbios 30:4) Rpta.: Cristo Jesús.

This Informative Book: Prophet Muhammad: The Last Messenger in The Bible by Kais Al Kalby opens the minds of Muslims and non-Muslims to many astonishing facts found in the Bible and the Quran regarding Allah's plan in revealing the truth throughout the Ages. God; as a compassionate creator; gave choices to man to guide him towards a way of life in which he can become successful in his life.

This book delves into the scriptures with precision and wisdom to bring forth lost pearls and prophecies that have been overlooked for centuries. There is no denying the truth once it is visible and this book brings visibility to the truth that Prophet Muhammad, peace upon him, was to come as the last Prophet of God as stated by earlier prophets, including but not limited to Jesus and Elijah, peace be upon them both. Even shows Prophet Muhammad's coming in the buddhist and Hindu texts as well as the Zoroastrians and other religious texts. Easy and fascinating, too, by showing word-for-word translations side-by-side with several languages. Transliterations and the actual script of the languages for your comparison and further investigation. Kalby hides nothing! This gives a refreshing understanding of the depth of the original meanings and the poetry of the times.

MESSAGE TO THE GOSPEL READER:

Dear young man, what good will it do you if all the people are saved and you are doomed? If everyone on earth became Muslim because of learning about what you have found in the Gospel, and they entered Paradise and were saved from Hell, but you did not benefit from that, and you continued to adhere to distorted Christianity until you died following it – God forbid – then, by your Lord, what benefit could you hope for then? What is in store for you is something else.

Forget about the Muslims and the Christians, and think: what are you waiting for, now that you have seen the truth and you learned about the Prophethood of the Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in your own scripture?
Do you not know that the messages of Allah to His slaves, and His guidance to the people of earth, were not completed, and the blessing was not perfected, until Allah sent His Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) to complete what his fellow Prophets (such as Abraham, Jesus, Moses) had brought before him of the call to the Lord of the Worlds?

Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):
“This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion” [Quran 5:3].

It was narrated from Jaabir ibn ‘Abdullah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “My likeness and that of the Prophets is that of a man who built a house and completed and perfected it, except for the space of one brick. The people started to enter it and admire it, saying: Were it not for the space of this brick.” The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “I am that brick; I have come to complete (the mission of) the Prophets.” Agreed upon.

Do you not know that Allah took a covenant from the Prophets and from the believers who followed them, that they would believe in the final Prophet of Allah, Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), if they lived to see his message and news of his Prophethood reached them, and they came to know of his religion and his book?

Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And (remember) when Allah took the Covenant of the Prophets, saying: ‘Take whatever I gave you from the Book and Hikmah (understanding of the Laws of Allah, etc.), and afterwards there will come to you a Messenger (Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)) confirming what is with you; you must, then, believe in him and help him.’ Allah said: ‘Do you agree (to it) and will you take up My Covenant (which I conclude with you)?’ They said: ‘We agree.’ He said: "Then bear witness; and I am with you among the witnesses (for this)’” [Quran 3:81].

There are many of your fellow Christians who were guided, who hastened to follow the truth that they found in their scripture, and no threat scared them and no temptation deterred them – men and women, Arabs and non-Arabs, leaders and common folk; let them be a beacon on your path.

Do you not know that if you believed in your former religion, then the truth became clear to you and you believed in the religion of Islam, and followed its Messenger, the last of the Prophets and Messengers, you would have a double reward? Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Those to whom We gave the Scripture (i.e. the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.) before it, - they believe in it (the Quran).

And when it is recited to them, they say: ‘We believe in it. Verily, it is the truth from our Lord. Indeed even before it we have been from those who submit themselves to Allah in Islam as Muslims’ (like Abdullah bin Salam and Salman Al-Farisee, etc.).

These will be given their reward twice over, because they are patient, and repel evil with good, and spend (in charity) out of what We have provided them.

And when they hear AlLaghw (dirty, false, evil vain talk), they withdraw from it and say: ‘To us our deeds, and to you your deeds. Peace be to you. We seek not the ignorant’”
[Quran 28:52-55].

It was narrated from Abu Moosa al-Ash‘ari (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “There are three who will be given a double reward: a man from among the people of the Book who believed in his Prophet, then lived to see the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and followed him and believed in him– he will have a double reward; and a slave who fulfils his duty towards Allah and towards his master – he will have a double reward; and a man who had a slave woman whom he fed and fed her well, and taught her and taught her well, then he set her free and married her – he will have a double reward.”.

Narrated by al-Bukhaari (3011) and Muslim (154).
Finally, the Lord, may He be glorified and exalted, said in the Last Testament, i.e., the Qur’an (interpretation of the meaning):

“O mankind! Verily, there has come to you the Messenger (Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)) with the truth from your Lord, so believe in him, it is better for you. But if you disbelieve, then certainly to Allah belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. And Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.

O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah aught but the truth. The Messiah ‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, (‘Be!’ - and he was) which He bestowed on Maryam (Mary) and a spirit (Rooh) created by Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: ‘Three (trinity)!’ Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One Ilah (God), Glory be to Him (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs.

The Messiah will never be proud to reject to be a slave to Allah, nor the angels who are near (to Allah). And whosoever rejects His worship and is proud, then He will gather them all together unto Himself.

So, as for those who believed (in the Oneness of Allah - Islamic Monotheism) and did deeds of righteousness, He will give their (due) rewards, and more out of His Bounty. But as for those who refuse His worship and were proud, He will punish them with a painful torment. And they will not find for themselves besides Allah any protector or helper.

O mankind! Verily, there has come to you a convincing proof (Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)) from your Lord, and We sent down to you a manifest light (this Quran).

So, as for those who believed in Allah and held fast to Him, He will admit them to His Mercy and Grace (i.e. Paradise), and guide them to Himself by a Straight Path”
[Quran’ 4:170-175].

We ask Allah to guide you to that which is best in this world and the hereafter, and to open your heart to guidance and the religion of truth.

Paul has been regarded as being uncritical of the Roman Empire for a long time, not least because of his apparent call to obey the state in Rom 13:1-7. However, recent scholarship has questioned this assumption by pointing to "hidden criticism" in the letters of the apostle. But how can we decide, in a methodologically sound way, whether such a counter-imperial message lies beneath the surface of the text? On the basis of insights from the philosophy of science, Christoph Heilig suggests several analytical steps for examining this paradigm. He concludes that the hypothesis that we can identify critical "echoes" of the Roman Empire in Paul's letters needs to be modified for it to be maintained. In particular, concern over the danger of overt criticism and subsequent persecution do not sufficiently justify this interpretative hypothesis. Nevertheless, Heilig concludes that the search for a counter-imperial subtext in Paul could turn out to be heuristically fruitful so long as the limitations of the approach are heeded. Hence, a re-evaluation of Pauline passages in light of Paul's engagement with ideas from his Roman environment is encouraged.

This essay attempts to propose an interpretation of the early Christian notion of heresy as genetic, original and not just adventitious. It is only by returning the notion of Christian heresy as an initial and metamorphic set, which emerged in the Hebrew context and only then into the Greek / Hellenistic one, that we can recognize its dynamic , controversial and relative nature, not static and not absolute, hence its historical theological dimension and not the theological-dogmatic one.

This book explores how first- and second-century Christians read the Old Testament in order to differentiate the one God as multiple persons. The earliest Christians felt they could metaphorically “overhear” divine conversations between the Father, Son, and Spirit when reading the Old Testament. When these snatches of dialogue are connected and joined, they form a narrative about the unfolding interior divine life as understood by the nascent church. What emerges is not a static portrait of the triune God, but a developing story of divine persons enacting mutual esteem, voiced praise, collaborative strategy, and self-sacrificial love. This conversational divine story is explored as it ebbs and flows across the cosmos and through time. The result is a Trinitarian biblical and early Christian theology. While tracing this story, it is simultaneously argued that a new historical model is required for the New Testament and other early sources to explain how the doctrine of the Trinity first emerged—a model rooted in a little-known person-based ancient reading technique called prosopological exegesis. It is shown that prosopological exegesis is present throughout the earliest strata of Christian literature. This calls into question proposals that suggest Christology developed over time in the earliest church from low—Jesus as merely a messianic claimant—to high—Jesus as the preexistent Son of God. To the contrary, in agreement with Richard Bauckham’s Christology of Divine Identity (but simultaneously taking a different approach), it is argued that the earliest Christology was the highest.  Keywords:  Trinity, Christology, Christology of Divine Identity, prosopological exegesis, person, dialogue, Son of God, New Testament, Old Testament, early Christian

There is so much more to the story of Garden of Eden than what is typically revealed in a Sunday School Class. And while many will never see beyond this veiled view those who do often approach the subject from beyond the contextual framework and from a modern bias. When stripped of such obstacles one will begin to see that the symbolism within the story, and the context, brings with it the possibility of truly beginning to understand who God is, what He intended (and intends) mankind’s relationship with Him to be, and how one may develop a sound theological perspective of this relationship.

The purpose of this paper is to argue the case that the reason for John's use of ("the Word") in the prologue to his gospel as a title for the pre-existent Jesus Christ is to make the highest possible claim to his deity by identifying him as YHWH, the Old Testament God of Israel, who has now come in the flesh. This identification is based on the practice of the Aramaic targumists in often rendering the Tetragrammaton (the four letters, Hebrew ‫,יהוה‬ traditionally rendered "LORD") by "the Word of the LORD." Some connection between the Logos title and the use of Memra ("the word") in the Aramaic Targums has been proposed as well as opposed for some time, and others argue for another connection between the Old Testament and the Logos title, namely, from the prominence of the spoken word in creation, judgment, and redemption, in the course of which it is sometimes personified. 2 Most argue for an exclusive background in either Greek or Hellenistic Jewish philosophy with little or no Old Testament connection. 3 I will argue here that when John says "the Word became flesh" (1:14), he means for us to understand that YHWH became flesh, and that much of John's Gospel is taken up with showing us in the words and deeds of Jesus Christ, the words and deeds of YHWH in the Old Testament, who now accomplishes these words and deeds as a man.

A survey of English translations of Zechariah 14:21 will yield two diverse interpretive conclusions of the text.  This difference is founded on how the Hebrew word כְּנַעֲנִי is to be understood within the context.  Some opt for the meaning of one who is “a merchant” while others maintain that the word is to be understood as referring to a “Canaanite.”  The issue is not merely a lexical one but a theological one.  The implications of the interpretive choice effect both the interpretation of the text itself and the theological emphasis of the book as a whole.  This thesis will defend the view that “Canaanite” is Zechariah’s intended meaning.  This view will be defended by a six-fold accumulative investigation of the text.  The six investigative perspectives will be expositional, lexical, structural, chronological, typological, and Biblical Theology.  The work will be divided into seven parts with the full Bibliography attached to the last section.

In Rom 4:18, Paul cites the “promise” to Abraham in LXX Gen 15:5, “so shall your seed be” (οὕτως ἔσται τὸ σπέρμα σου) in relation to what it means to “become the father of many nations” from Gen 17:5. Modern scholars have traditionally understood the relationship Paul sees between these two texts quantitatively, as promising a multitude of descendants made up of Jews and Gentiles. Conversely, some early Jewish interpreters of Gen 15:5 (and related texts such as Gen 22:17; 26:4) such as Philo, Sirach, and the author(s) of the Apocalypse of Abraham understood the promise qualitatively, as speaking not only of multiplication but of transformation into the likeness of the stars and assumption of their power. Reading Paul’s use of Gen 15:5 in light of this qualitative interpretation places him within the context of already well-established deification or angelomorphic traditions in early Judaism that see the destiny of Abraham’s seed as replacing the stars as the divine or angelic inheritors of the nations. This tradition may provide a more fitting explanation of the relationship Paul sees between Gen 17:5 and 15:5 in the wider context of the argument of Rom 4. This reading could illuminate the relationship between a complex nexus of ideas that Paul sees implicit in the one promise to Abraham in Gen 15:5. The promise of becoming as the stars of heaven would encompass the inheritance of the cosmos, becoming a father of many nations, and the resurrection from the dead.

Which biblical promises are for Christians? God's promises play a vital role in helping believers grow in sanctification and suffer with hope, but should we claim all OT promises as our own, seeing as God gave them to a different people and under a different covenant? This article considers why and how every promise is "Yes" in Christ and seeks to empower believers to faithfully appropriate OT promises without abusing them. In the process it supplies five foundational principles that clarify the Christian's relationship to OT promises, and then it gives three guidelines for hoping in OT promises through Christ.

This is an abridged version of my "Counting Stars with Abraham and the Prophets" (JETS 2015). Paul’s application of the “seed” designation to both Jews and Gentiles in Christ marks a redemptive-historical shift from an age of promise to an age of fulfillment. Both the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants initially restricted “seed” language to physical descent and marked covenant membership by physical birth. Nevertheless, they also pointed ahead to a day when covenantal, spiritual adoption would replace ethnicity and biology as the foundational mark of the patriarch’s “fatherhood.” The OT’s promised royal deliver would initiate this eschatological and ecclesiological development, which by its nature supports a progressive covenantal flavor of Baptistic new covenant ecclesiology.

The doctrine of justification by faith alone, being the great material principle of the Reformation, has often been seen as the main argument of Paul’s letter to Galatians. However, the issue that prompts Paul to write this epistle to the Galatian churches is Christian living. The overemphasis on Paul’s teaching on justification in the letter has unfortunately led to a neglect of an equally important of matter of the life in the Spirit, which is in the focus of the majority of the epistle. The study below delineates Paul’s paradigm for Cristian living, which is based on the foundational truth that the Holy Spirit works the same way in sanctification as in justification, that is by grace through faith in Christ, and that His work needs not to be supplemented by obedience to the law or any other human works.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Francis I., and David Noel Freedman. Amos, Anchor Bible Series, volume 24A. New York: Doubleday, 1989.
Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Averbeck, Richard E. “Šelem.” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, VanGemeren,Willem, ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997.
Brown, Francis, Driver, Samuel Rolles, and Charles Augustus Briggs. Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.
Brown, Walter E. “Amos 5:26: A Challenge To Reading And Interpretation.” The Theological Educator 52 (1995): 69-78.
Chisholm Jr., Robert B. Handbook on the Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Minor Prophets. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Driver, S. R, and H. C. O Lanchester. The Books of Joel And Amos. Cambridge [England]: University Press, 1915.
du Preez, Jannie. “‘Let Justice Roll Like....’: Some Explanatory Notes On Amos 5:24.” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 109 (March 2001): 95-98.
Elwell, Walter A., and Philip Wesley Comfort. Tyndale Bible Dictionary. Tyndale Reference Library. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishers, 2001.
Finley, Thomas J. Joel, Amos, Obadiah. Chicago: Moody, 1990.
Garrett, Duane A. Amos. Waco: Baylor University Press, 2008.
Gevirtz, Stanley. “A New Look At An Old Crux: Amos 5:26.” Journal of Biblical Literature 87, no. 3 (1968): 267-76.
Gitay, Yehoshua. “A Study of Amos’s Art of Speech: A Rhetorical Analysis of Amos 3:1–15.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980): 293-309.
Harper, William Rainey. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary On Amos And Hosea. New York: C. Scribner's Sons, 1905.
Hiers, Richard H. “Day of the Lord,” Ed. David Noel Freedman, The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Hoffmann, Yair. “The Day of the Lord as a concept and a term in the prophetic literature.” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 93/1 (1981): 37-50.
House, Paul R. Old Testament Theology. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 1998.
Hyman, Ronald T. “Amos 5:24 Prophetic, Chastising, Surprising, Poetic.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 30 (2002) 227-34.
Jenni, Ernst and Claus Westermann. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.
Kaiser Jr., Walter C. The Promise-Plan of God: A Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008.
Keil, Carl Friedrich and Franz Delitzsch. Commentary on the Old Testament. Vol. 10. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996.
Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1999.
Lafferty, Theresa V. “The Prophetic Critique of The Priority Of The Cult: A Study Of Amos 5:21-24 and Isaiah 1:10-17.” Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of America, Washington D.C., 2010.
Mayhue, Richard L. “The Bible's Watchword: Day of the Lord.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 22/1 (Spring 2011): 65-88.
McComiskey, Thomas E. “Amos.” In The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Daniel and the Minor Prophets Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein 7:269-334. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.
Mulzac, Kenneth D. “Amos 5:18-20 in its Exegetical and Theological Context.” Asia Journal of Theology 16/2 (2002): 286-300.
Niehaus, Jeffrey J. “Amos.” In The Minor Prophets, Edited by Thomas Edward McComiskey, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009.
O’Connell, Robert H. “Nēbel,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis, Edited by Willem VanGemeren, 3:13-14. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997.
Ogilvie, Lloyd J. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. Vol. 22. The Preacher’s Commentary Series. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1990.
Paul, Shalom M. Amos: A Commentary on the Book of Amos. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.
Rector, Larry J. “Israel's Rejected Worship: An Exegesis of Amos 5.” Restoration Quarterly, 1978, 21(3), 161-175.
Ryken, Leland, and James C. Wilhoit. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000.
Schmidt, Nathaniel. “On the Text and Interpretation of Amos v. 25-27.” Journal of Biblical Literature 13, no. 1 (1894): 1-15.
Smith, Billy K., and Franklin S. Page. Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. Vol. 19B. The New American Commentary. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1995.
Sweeney, Marvin Alan. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000.
Smith, Gary V. Amos: A Commentary. The Library of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989.
__________. The Prophets as Preachers: An Introduction to the Hebrew Prophets. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994.
Stuart, Douglas. Hosea–Jonah, vol. 31, Word Biblical Commentary. Dallas: Word, 2002.
Taylor, J. Glen. “Hosea,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, vol. 5, Edited by John H. Walton, 5:2-41. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.
Torrey, Charles C. “On The Text Of Amos V. 26; Vi. I, 2; Vii. 2.” Journal of Biblical Literature 13, no. 1 (1894): 61-63.
Youngblood, Ronald F., F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison, eds. Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995.
Van de Sandt, Huub. “Why Is Amos 5, 25—27 Quoted In Acts 7,42 F.?” Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft und die Kunde der Älteren Kirche 82, no. 1-2 (1991): 68-87.
Weber, Carl Philip. “485 הוֹי,” In Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, 212. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.
Zuck, Roy B. A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

In many biblical theophanies, the deity appears in an anthropomorphic shape. Scholars often argue that such anthropomorphic symbolism comes to its most forceful expression in the Israelite priestly ideology, known to us as the Priestly source, wherein God is depicted in “the most tangible corporeal similitudes.

La folla in vesti bianche e il sangue dell'Agnello che lava (Ap 7,17): FRANCESCO GIOSUÉ VOLTAGGIO TEOLOGIA Il percorso bonhoefferiano della theologia crucis: analisi e sviluppo MASSIMO CRISTIANO PARISI, CP DIALOGO INTERRELIGIOSO Noi cristiani e lo Stato di Israele. Il dialogo ebraico-cristiano nel cinquantesimo della dichiarazione Nostra aetate. ADOLFO LIPPI, CP CULTURA Alcune considerazioni sull'amore del prossimo nel pensiero greco-latino GIOVANNI DI GIANNATALE SPIRITUALITÀ I chiodi che crocifiggono con Gesù. La vita consacrata passionista tra memoria e profezia. TITO PAOLO ZECCA, CP LA SAPIENZA CROCE della Rivista quadrimestrale di cultura e spiritualità della Passione a cura dei Passionisti italiani e della Cattedra Gloria Crucis della Pontificia Università Lateranense

The goal of this study is not to do an exhaustive analysis of what has been written on this topic, for the amount and diversity of what has been said is immense. The goal of this study is to address and illustrate the concept of intertextuality in biblical studies and to demonstrate that it can be a helpful tool for understanding how the New Testament authors used the Old Testament contextually, that is in accordance with its literal, grammatical, and historical context.
The concept of biblical intertextuality will be illustrated by the analysis of Paul’s use of Psalm 68:18 (68:19 MT; 67:19 LXX) in Ephesians 4:8. This particular text is chosen because, on the one hand, the citation of the Old Testament is obvious, yet, on the other, it leaves many interpreters puzzled.

Note: This is my M.A. thesis from my time at the University of Georgia.

During the formative years of Christian thought, little is known concerning what people believed due to a lack of information concerning what the church definitively taught. Because of this, there exist divergent views concerning what views were held from the beginning and how they evolved. My thesis hopes to contribute to this discussion with respect to Jesus' inclusion within the divine identity by focusing on three authors in particular,​ Paul, Mark, and John, with the hope of showing that substantial continuity exists in their basic portrayal of Jesus' relation to the one God of Israel. This will be accomplished by showing that there is continuity between all three in their use of Scripture, specifically their use of Scriptural allusions, particularly those to Isaiah and the Shema. I also examine the subordination language in these texts to show that there is a consensus view of Jesus in the New Testament.

“Jesus and Scripture: Scripture and the Self-Understanding of Jesus,” in: All That the Prophets Have Declared: The Appropriation of Scripture in the Emergence of Christianity (ed. Matthew R. Malcolm; Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2015), 39–70, 225–234 (notes).

This work examines Christology in the letter of James. It specifically deals with whether James has a divine Christology or not. The primary evidence for this study is the letter of James. Also examined is early Jewish literature and Jewish Scriptures that have historical or literary relevance to James. Secondary literature that relates to the topic is also considered.

The thesis begins with a survey of recent scholarship on James’s Christology to situate the current debate on whether or not he has a divine Christology. It then proceeds to survey recent scholarship on the issue of ancient Jewish monotheism to provide categories for understanding whether or not James relates to “Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas. 1:1; 2:1) in ways analogous to how Jewish people related to their covenant God. Then the thesis briefly surveys how James talks about “God” in his letter. After that, it proceeds to enter into James’s Christology by examining a critical text: James 5:1-11. It then analyzes James’s Christology as a whole in relational categories.

The thesis of this paper is that the content and shape of James’s Christology, construed as a relation between the believer and the risen Lord, is analogous only to how Jewish monotheists related to their covenant deity, YHWH. As such, James’s Christology is divine.

These notes are covering the main lines of scholarship regarding the character Jahaziel the Levite who prophesies in 2 Chronicles 20:14-17. The mainly come from  the book The Chronicler’s Prophet and the Temple Restoration , lulu.com by the same author: The outline of the book is as follows:
Contents
Abstract 10
Abbreviations 15
Bible Books Abbreviations 19
Transliteration: 21
Time Lines 22
Timeline 1: Rulers Dates BCE 22
Timeline 2: Jubilee Years 25
Timeline 3: Cult dates 26
1.0.0 Introduction 29
1.1 Jahaziel, and Date, Authorship and Audience 38
Conclusion Pillar 1: 68
1.2 Jahaziel and the Unity of Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah 69
Conclusion Pillar 2 70
1.3 Jahaziel and the Jubilee factor 70
Conclusion Pillar 3 75
2.0.0 Jahaziel Among the Scholars 76
A Jahaziel No Temple Prophet 76
2.1.0 Wellhausen, Naaman, Stavrakopolou: Jahaziel Imaginary Creation of the Chronicler 76
2.2.0 Von Rad: Jahaziel the Levitical Preacher 88
2.3.0 Rendtorff: Jahaziel A Type not Connected to the Temple 88
B Jahaziel a Real Prophet? 90
2.4.0 Japhet: Jahaziel a Literary Figure with An Artificial Name 90
2.5.0 Nasuti, Miller, Throntveit: Literary Jahaziel a Witness 91
2.6.0 Schniedewind: Jahaziel The Literary Post Exilic Inspired Interpreter 92
2.7.0 Beentjes: Jahaziel A Literary Personage Imitating God’s Decision 98
2.8.0 Amzallag: Jahaziel Ex Choir Member and Not a Genuine Prophet 100
2.9.0 Levin: Jahaziel Not a Professional Prophet 105
2.10.0 Tournay: 108
Jahaziel Prophet of Zion The New Sinai 108
Prophets Like Jahaziel In the Fixed Order of The Cult 112
2.11.0 Hooke and Haldar and Johnson, Jahaziel Intercessor and Spokesman 112
2.12.0 Petersen: Jahaziel As Prophet in Sociological Perspective 113
2.13.0 Hilber: Jahaziel Cultic Prophet or Imitator of Prophetic Style 116
2.14.0 Mowinckel: Jahaziel A Prophetically Gifted Cult Psalmist 116
2.15.0 Jonker: Jahaziel The Voice of Yahweh 120
Conclusion Pillar 4 121
2.16.0 The Necessity of the Investigation 121
Method 125
3.0.0 The Context of Jahaziel 127
Table:Genealogy from Abraham the Prophet 128
3.1.0 Jahaziel as the Turning point 133
3.2.0 Jahaziel’s Place in Cultic Approach to Yahweh 135
3.2.1 Jehoshaphat’s Order of Service (2 Chr 20) 136
3.2.2 The Aim of the Chronicler in Relating the Episode 140
3.2.3 David's First Lesson about the Levites: They Must Bear the Ark and Minister to Yahweh 141
3.2.4 The Disaster of Ignoring the Mishpat Regarding the Levites 141
3.2.5 David Corrects His Mistake According to the Mishpat of the Levites: They Minister to Yahweh forever 142
3.2.6 The Rise of the House of Asaph Under the House of David: Levites Must Play the Music 142
3.2.7 Jehoshaphat Like David Seeks Yahweh According to Mishpat 143
3.2.8 Five Main Covenantal Authorities in Determining Mishpat: Yahweh, Levi, Moses, David, Solomon 143
3.2.9 Jehoshaphat: Abraham as Friendאהב of Yahweh 144
3.2.10 Jehoshaphat and Asaph 147
3.2.11 David a Servant, Solomon a Son of Yahweh 148
3.2.12 David's Covenant of Grace from Yahweh for his Son 149
3.2.13 Asaph, David and the Psalter 151
3.2.14 Asaph and the Psalms 151
3.2.15 Jahaziel a "Professional Prophet" I 152
3.2.16  Conclusion Pillar 5 159
3.2.17 Jahaziel and the Psalmists 167
3.2.18 Jahaziel Standing Before Yahweh 168
3.2.19 Houses with Specific Jobs: The House of Levi and the House of David 176
3.2.20 The Chronicler's Prophets 183
3.2.21 The Origin of the Sons of the Prophets 195
3.3.0 Jahaziel a Son of Asaph 201
3.4.0 Jahaziel and the Formal Schools in ANE Mesopotamia 203
3.5.0 Jahaziel’s  Informal Prophetic Education in Judah 204
3.6.0 Jahaziel in the Davidic Calendar Based on Heads of the Father’s Houses 212
3.7.0 Jahaziel: The Spirit of Yahweh was on Him in the Midst of the Qahal 218
3.8.0 Hebrew Text of 2 Chronicles 20:15-17 223
3.8.1הַקְשִׁ֤יבוּ 229
3.8.2 כָל־יְהוּדָה֙ 230
3.8.3 ְיֹשְׁבֵ֣י יְרוּשָׁלִַ֔ם 231
3.8.4 וְהַמֶּ֖לֶך 234
3.8.5 יְהוֹשָׁפָ֑ט 235
3.8.5a כֹּֽה־אָמַ֙ר יְהוָ֜ה 235
3.8.6 לָכֶ֗ם אַ֠תֶּם 237
3.8.7 אַל־תִּֽירְא֤וּ 239
3.8.8 וְאַל־תֵּחַ֙תּוּ 240
3.8.9 מִפְּנֵ֙י 241
3.8.10  הֶהָמ֤וֹן הָרָב֙ 241
3.8.10 a כִּ֣י לֹ֥א לָכֶ֛ם הַמִּלְחָמָ֖ה 242
3.8.11 מָחָר֙ 243
3.8.12 רְד֣וּ 244
3.8.13 עֲלֵיהֶ֔ם 249
3.8.14 הִנָּ֥ם עֹלִ֖ים 249
3.8.15 בְּמַעֲלֵ֣ה 249
3.8.16 הַצִּ֑יץ 250
3.8.17 וּמְצָאתֶ֤ם אֹתָם֙ 250
3.8.18 בְּס֣וֹף 251
3.8.19 הַנַּ֔חַל 251
3.8.20 פְּנֵ֖י מִדְבַּ֥ר 253
3.8.21 יְרוּאֵֽל 253
3.8.22 לֹ֥א לָכֶ֖ם לְהִלָּחֵ֣ם 253
3.8.23 בָּזֹ֑את 254
3.8.24 הִתְיַצְּב֣וּ 255
3.8.25 עִמְד֡וּ 256
3.2.26 וּרְא֣וּ 258
3.2.27 Other Words 258
3.9.0 The Language of Jahaziel 260
3.10.0 Sources in Chronicles 261
3.11.0 The Message of Jahaziel 267
3.10.1 Sources Behind Jahaziel 272
3.12.0 Jahaziel in Relation to Others 277
Table: Yahweh’s Metaphorical Body Parts 280
3.13.0 Jahaziel in Covenantal Perspective 289
3.14.0 The Navi’ and the Covenant of David 299
3.15.0 Jahaziel in the Structure of Chronicles 303
3.16.0  Jahaziel and  Abrahamic Covenant and the Inheritiance 311
3.17.0 Jahaziel and Mosaic Authority in the Covenant of Yahweh 323
3.18.0 Jahaziel and David’s Brit Olam: Prophet’s Organiser 325
3.19.0 Jahaziel and the Ways of a Father’s house 339
3.19.1  Jahaziel and the Size of a Father’s House 340
3.20.0 Jahaziel ben Asaph on Mount Zion? 344
3.21.0 Jahaziel among the Prophets of the Chronicler 346
3.21.1 Synonyms for Prophets 352
3.21.2 Prophets as Writers 353
3.21.3 Jobs of a Prophet 360
3.21.4 Psalmists Transformed to Prophets 361
3.21.5 Prophesying Families 364
3.21.6 The Sons of the Prophets 366
Conclusion 373
ביבליוגרפיה 375

My correction of Thiele's at first perfected but by afterthought marred biblical chronology builds upon its foundational part I, correcting the chronology of Sennacherib's first five years, which revealed 702 BC as the true date of Sennacherib's invasion of Judah, enabling correction of Dr. Edwin Thiele's error in his widely accepted chronology of the Hebrew kings. Part I proved that Sennacherib's third campaign, biblically recorded in king Hezekiah of Judah's 14th regnal year, did not take place in 701 BC as Thiele had trusted for the cornerstone of his chronology, but rather in 702 BC, vindicating and perfecting his work. The lion's share of credit for my having discovered the ultimate biblical chronology belongs to Thiele (1943) as given improvement and correction by his indirectly participating colleagues Valerius Coucke (1928), Leslie McFall (1991), and Rodger C. Young (2003) who advanced Thiele's work without essentially modifying its chronological structure (CTMY). CTMY made possible my solution (solved in 2005, perfected and first published in 2015). My results validate not only their work, but the Masoretic Text (MT) as confirmed by its majority Dead Sea Scrolls representation, on which this chronology is exclusively based, and into which this chronology was imperceptibly (indeed mystifyingly according to over 2 millennia of effort since the 3rd century BC LXX futile effort to make sense of it) woven into the MT as a watermark or hologram of its authenticity.

By his Assyrian cornerstone thus out of place, no other Assyrian synchronism would fit Thiele's at first perfect internal biblical chronology, "IBC", (my solution has 8). So he emended it in Jotham's reign (2 Kgs. 15:30-33), adding 4 years to Jotham to shift Ahab's disastrous 853 Battle of Qarqar (Shalmaneser III's 6th year) immediately before Ahab's 1 Kgs. 22 fatal battle against his Qarqar ally Benhadad. Thus Shalmaneser's 18th year receipt of Jehu's tribute in 841, 12 (= 18 - 6) years after Qarqar by IBC, harmonized Jehu's 841 accession with his 14th year of Hezekiah set in 701! But Thiele failed to notice that annihilation of Ahab's powerful military at Qarqar per Shalmaneser's 6th year annals, made impossible his 1 Kgs. 22 participation in his fatal war with Benhadad. Likewise Shalmaneser's 18th year annals report of Hazael's total incapacitation for his 2 Kgs. 9:15-16 wounding of Israel's Joram in battle, discredited Jehu's having killed both Joram and his sickbed visitor Judah's king Ahaziah in 841 (Appx. H, chart 2/19), stripping Thiele of all Assyrian synchronisms.

The Chronology Comparison Chart Fig. 3 exposing the difference between my and Thiele's chronologies, shows my two simple structural corrections: First Thiele's 701 BC synchronism with Hezekiah's year 14 is corrected to 702 BC. Second, Thiele's 4 fabricated years by which he (I believe honestly) found a self-deceptive pretext to lengthen Jotham's reign in order to contrive a specious but futile 853 BC Battle of Qarqar synchronism in Ahab's year of death in battle against his Qarqar ally Benhadad, are removed: Jotham's 2 Kgs. 15:30 actuarial 20th year (4 years after Jotham's death) used to synchronize Pekah's death in his official chronicle, in my chronology properly observes Jotham's official 2 Kgs. 15:33 16th regnal year of death.

One of the earliest and ultimately most fruitful clues in not only exposing Thiele's error, but confirming my entire resulting Bible chronology, was the common but hitherto unproven observation that the two fallow years in succession of 2 Kings 19:29 in Hezekiah's 14th year (Sabbatical years 7 & 1 in Fig. 3) suggested the Lev. 25:2-13 49th year of a jubilee cycle (fallow), followed in the next year by its figurative 49 + 1 = “50th” in the post-Sabbatical 7 + 1 = “8th” per Lev. 25:20-22, namely Hezekiah's 15th calendrical year (also fallow), observed on its Tishri 10 by celebration of the 49-year jubilee cycle just completed in the first year of its next sabbatical cycle, whose purpose was to establish and regulate perpetual and inalienable land ownership in ancient Israel on a jubilee cyclical ceremonial basis. This exposed the purpose of the Ezra 7:7 mission from Babylon to Jerusalem on the same 49 year cycle as that of 2 Kgs. 19:29 (arguably prophesied in Daniel 9:25 dating the start of its 70 Lev. 25 Sabbatical weeks of years, namely 10 Jubilee cycles), and likewise that of the first 2 years of Bar-Kokhba's revolt against Hadrian (introducing Appx. A), thus triply confirming Moses' jubilee cycle in synchronism with Benedict Zuckermann's sabbatical cycles.

Appendix C shows the 4 structural charts for my chronology. Appendix D offers scholarly confirmation of Thiele's biblical chronological method. Appendix E examines Sennacherib's 702 BC 3rd campaign synchronism with Hezekiah' 14th year. Appendix F discovers my 21 April 1443 Exodus date shown in Fig. 7 in proper synchronism with Amenhotep II's short and final military campaign begun on 11 November 1444 (the “Amenophis” of Mantheo, clearly the Exodus pharaoh as preserved in Josephus' “Contra Apion”). Appendix G concisely details all 25 of my extrabiblical synchronisms validating the breakthrough nature of my discovery. And Appendix H presents the complete set of my 19 key chronology charts, where my correction of Thiele in a span of 40 years is illustrated in my Chronology Comparison Chart “CCC,” shown as Fig. 11/19, also shown as Fig. [fig:Chronology-Comparison-Chart].

Appendix [sec:25-Extrabiblical-Synchronisms], “Synchronisms for Thiele's & my chronologies” lists and locates expositions of its 2 Egyptian, 8 Assyrian, 6 Babylonian, 1 Tyrian, 3 Persian, 1 Sabbatical, and two pairs = 4 of Jubilee synchronisms (49th & 50th year Jubilee pairs, extrabiblically anchored to Bar Kokhba's spring-summer of 132 AD 49th Jubilee cycle year launching his revolt against Hadrian) totalling 25. These include synchronism of the Exodus with Amenhotep II's year 10, a Tyrian and Sabbatical year synchronism with Solomon's accession, Assyrian and Jubilee synchronisms in Hezekiah's 14th and 15th years, and Persian and Jubilee synchronisms of Ezra 7:7; exposing 3 historical Jubilee years in synchronism with Benedict Zuckermann's 1857 Sabbatical cycle.

One important feature of the text that sets it apart from other
early Jewish visionary accounts is that the recipient of the revelation and subsequent
metamorphosis is a female seer—Aseneth, who is depicted in the pseudepigraphon
as a daughter of an Egyptian priest who becomes the wife of the
Jewish patriarch Joseph. In this expansion on the terse biblical story,3 Aseneth
undergoes a conversion and metamorphosis that turns her from a former idolater
into a being who will be fed on the heavenly bread of life.

Despite John's distinctive and theological character, however, it still renders an independent memory of Jesus of Nazareth deserving full consideration in any effectively critical quest for the historical Jesus. The question is how do to so adequately, given the unique origin and development of the Johannine tradition. If John represents a self-standing Jesus tradition with its own points to make, however, differences with Mark and the Synoptics might contribute to a sense of history rather than diminishing it.

This short overview of the Greek language of the New Testament focuses on those topics that are of greatest importance for the average reader, that is, those with important implications for translating the New Testament into English. It begins with space and time context of New Testament Greek, continues with some difficult syntactical issues (word order, system of prepositions) and concludes with the controversial field of verbal aspect

James Dunn's "New Perspective on Paul" has been a breath of fresh air in Pauline studies, but did not provide a sufficient understanding of what Paul meant by "the curse of the law." Paul specifically quoted Deut. 27-30 in Galatians, and that Deut. 28 specifies that there would be two exiles of two distinct characters: The first to one land (Babylon) and the second to the whole world. Paul's point was not to say that following a specific set of commandments (e.g., circumcision, the Sabbaths and feasts, or kosher) would cause one to become cursed, but rather that to be "under law"--which Paul defines as being under the Sinaic covenant in Gal. 4:21-32--meant joining Israel in its time of punishment as defined in the law itself. When we join the fact that the curse was initiated some 700 years before the Messiah was born with Michael Heiser's "Divine Council" theology, it becomes plain why Paul considered being "under the law" to equal being under the stoicheia, the elemental spirits that rule over the nations; i.e., Israel serves the nations who serve their gods, therefore, Israel serves (indirectly) the "gods of wood and stone." In conclusion, we show that Deu. 30:7 provides a mediating position between preterism, historicism, and futurism, in that it states that the same curse/punishments that fell on Israel would likewise fall on her enemies.

Outlines of Matthew's Gospel tend to focus either on a distinction between discourse and narrative (Bacon's 'five books', or subsequent chiastic proposals), or on a narrative plot outline, often attributed to Mark's Gospel. Both have significant weaknesses, but a way out of the stalemate may be found in rhetorical analysis of the Old Testament citations which are clearly important in Matthew. When one considers just the words quoted from the prophet Isaiah, it is possible to discern ten distinct citations, sometimes admixed with the words of a related minor prophet, spaced evenly throughout the Gospel. The number ten corresponds to an intriguing Rabbinic tradition of which Matthew was arguably aware, and the use of the citations as a string of structural 'kernels' around which assorted traditions were clustered corresponds closely to the pesher technique identified in recent analysis of the Damascus Document from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The article concludes with an exposition of the ten pesher units of the Gospel defined by these citations, focusing on how every other Old Testament quotation in each unit reinforces Matthew's interpretation of the wider passage in Isaiah from which the citation was selected.

Might the blessing of Abraham in Genesis 12:1-3 be a direct answer to the curses of Genesis 3:14-19? The curses of Genesis 3 introduce conflict between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman, conflict between the man and the woman, with difficulty in childbearing, and conflict between the man and the ground, which is cursed for man's sin. God promises land, seed, and blessing to Abraham. The nations will be blessed through the seed of the woman, seed of Ab-raham, who crushes the serpent's head. The birth of this seed means that the conflict between the man and his wife is not final, nor will the difficulty in childbearing be fatal. And God promises land to Abraham and his seed, land that hints of a return to Eden. 'For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote about me.' –Jesus of Nazareth (John 5:46)

This bibliographical review provides an analysis of the most relevant handbooks of Pentateuch and Old Testament historical books
from the last 25th years. First, it reviews the main published works. Then, the approach of these works is synthesized in its most widespread
developments. Finally, some reflections on the current situation are offered in order to illuminate how could be projected a today Handbook of Pentateuch and Old Testament historical books.
Esta nota bibliográfica ofrece una noticia razonada de los manuales más relevantes de Pentateuco y libros históricos del Antiguo Testamento de los últimos 25 años. Primero, se pasa revista a los principales títulos publicados. A continuación, se sintetizan las tendencias más difundidas en el planteamiento de esas obras, y, por último, se ofrecen unas reflexiones personales acerca de la situación actual y sobre cómo podría enfocarse hoy un manual de Pentateuco y libros históricos del Antiguo Testamento destinado a la docencia y a la formación teológica.

This study provides a biblical-theological foundation for a Christ-centered hermeneutic. It overviews both Old and New Testament texts that identify how the primary audience that would receive blessing and not condemnation from OT instruction would be Christians enjoying the benefits of Christ’s eschatological, redemptive work. Jesus himself provides both the light for enabling us to see and savor what is in the OT and the necessary lens that influences and guides our reading by filling out the meaning—at times by supplying unknown interpretation and other times by clarifying, expanding, and deepening the human authors’ implications. For us to grasp the full meaning of the OT’s history, laws, poems, and prophecies, we must read them through the light and lens of Christ.

This essay argues that the background of the temple, and particular priestly and levitical activities, explain the logic of Eph. 5.18-21. After setting this text in context and addressing various proposed backgrounds, the proposal of this essay is initially examined in relation to the imperative to be filled ἐν πνεύματι in 5.18, which I argue is a dative of content. After seeing how this fits within the temple themes of the letter, the immediate context is explored to show how similar motifs continue to emerge. In particular, the prohibition of drunkenness is seen in relation to the desire for priests to abstain from alcohol while serving in the temple. The worship that ensues in the first four participles (5.19-20) that are dependent on the imperative to be "filled" (5.18) are similarly seen to be inspired by priestly and levitical actions, since singing was primarily relegated to the temple setting and to a particular levitical office within the cult. This is then finally situated in relation to the subsequent Haustafel, which is also grammatically subordinated to the imperative in 5.18. The Haustafel contributes to this scene by highlighting how, in the domestic context of early Christian house churches, the gathering was believed to be sacred space in which the church was a temple made of priests who were filled with the Spirit and praised God. In such corporate settings of worship, drunkenness is not to be permitted.

Introduction to Messianic Judaism provides a description of what the Messianic Jewish community looks like today at its center and on its margins. The first section of the book traces the ecclesial contours of the community, providing a socio-historical and theological snapshot of the community's origins, where it is presently and where it is heading. Alongside these chapters, the book also includes a number of essays on biblical and theological issues central to the identity of Messianic Judaism. The twelve contributors to the first part of the book are recognized leaders in the Messianic Jewish community. They work with various organizations, including the Union of Messianic Jewish Congregations, the Messianic Jewish Alliance of America, the International Alliance of Messianic Congregations and Synagogues, the Messianic Jewish Rabbinical Council, Tikkun International, Chosen People Ministries, Messianic Jewish Theological Institute, Israel College of the Bible and the New School for Jewish Studies. Fourteen scholars from a wide spectrum of Christian backgrounds have written essays for the second part of the book. Their participation signals a growing academic and ecclesial interest in Messianic Judaism. Since the 1970s, a sea change has taken place in New Testament studies that has far-reaching implications for how the church evaluates Messianic Judaism. A broad reassessment of the New Testament writers’ view of Judaism has occurred since the publication of E. P. Sanders’s seminal work Paul and Palestinian Judaism (1977), and this reevaluation continues unabated. The contributors to the second part of Introduction to Messianic Judaism draw from this recent scholarship and demonstrate how post-supersessionist interpretation of the New Testament results in readings of the biblical text that are consistent with Messianic Judaism. The final section of the book is written by Joel Willitts who provides a summary and synthesis of the essays, explaining how they shed light on the ecclesial context and biblical foundations of Messianic Judaism.

This essay is a foreword to the third edition of Peder Borgen's classic monograph: Bread from Heaven (NovTSup 10, 1965, 1981), published as Vol. 4 in the Johannine Monograph Series edited by Alan Culpepper and Myself (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2017) i-xxvi.

This study examines the title “Christ” as applied to Jesus in Acts 4:25-27. “Christ” or “Anointed One” here is directly connected to Psalm 2:1-2, and ultimately derives from the royal anointing ceremony of Israel and the ancient Near East. That ceremony symbolizes a commitment by God to the monarch which is made most specific in the Davidic covenant. The Gospel of Luke uses the title “Christ” to connect these Davidic themes to Jesus. In Acts 4:25-27, “Christ” continues to signify Israel’s king backed by the Davidic covenant. The apostles’ reading of Psalm 2 provides a foundation for understanding their own recent persecution and for their hope that the opponents of the King they represent—like those in Psalm 2—will not prevail.

This paper is about Paul applying the Memorial, the name of God, Yahuwah/IAO to Jesus Christ in the phrases Kurios Iesous Christos or the phrase Kurios Iesous. We will answer the question; “Is there clear evidence in Pauline literature and especially in the Christ hymn of Philippians 2:6-11 showing that Paul and thus the early Church intended to apply Yahuwah's Memorial, that is the name Yahuwah/IAO to Jesus Christ in Confession? Scholarship including Baudissin, Waddel, Kittel, Balz, Metzger, Piertesma, Smith, M., Howards, G., Detroyer, K., Bruce, F. Grelot, and others have conducted research that speaks to this issue.  The contention of this paper is that the evidence indicates that Paul does intend to apply the name Yahuwah, the Tetragrammaton to Jesus Christ. Textually we find it is possible, linguistically we find it is probable if not certain, and contextually we find it is likely. The memorial would have been used during a calling on the name of the Lord at baptism and during the saints singing to one another in Psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs making melody in their heart to the Lord and in eschatological expectations regarding the Day of the Lord (1 Cor 5:5- P46).

In this chapter I have critically examined the hypothesis of Wright, Elliott, and others that there is a counter-imperial subtext in the Pauline letters. The results are ambivalent with regard to the proposed methodology on the one hand and with regard to the conclusions of these scholars on the other hand.
In light of Bayes’s theorem, it does not seem advisable to base the search for criticism of the Roman Empire in Paul on Hays’s criteria since they are prone to subjective influences. Accordingly, I have argued that a more systematic approach, which follows nested necessary conditions, offers an advantage of objectivity. This argumentative structure will also make it easier to locate and discuss potential objections to the steps suggested in this article (e.g., by adding new necessary conditions or by arguing against the fulfillment of one of the proposed conditions).
With regard to the subtext-hypothesis itself, I hope that I was able to show – in an admittedly brief discussion of these steps – that the background plausibility of the assumption of imperial echoes in the letters of Paul is not as low as sometimes stated, e.g., by Barclay. Nevertheless, this investigation has also shown that in light of the concrete nature of the public transcript in the early Principate and taking into account Paul’s personality this is only true if we allow for the modification or specification of (a) the object of criticism, (b) the kind/degree of criticism, and (c) the motivation for choosing the subtext as the level of communication of this criticism. This preliminary result should encourage scholars to re-examine carefully specific Pauline texts with regard to their likelihood in the framework of a creative and subversive use of phrases evoking and challenging claims of Roman ideology.

This article is one of ten responses to three feature essays by Daniel I. Block (Wheaton College), Elliott E. Johnson (Dallas Theological Seminary), and Vern Poythress (Westminster Theological Seminary) on Preaching Christ from the Old Testament. Each used Genesis 15:1–6 as a case study. My own contribution first evaluates the guiding hermeneutical principles of each author and then engages the various discussions of Genesis 15:1–6.

[See also the more recent and more comprehensive "Inspiring Ethics" article from 2021, also here on my academia website.] The potential relevance of biblical ethics for today is a contested issue. What is the significance of individual ethical texts of the Bible, and how – if at all – can they be dialogue partners for the ethical discourses of the 21st century? This article suggests and discusses a number of interpretative steps on the way towards a fruitful dialogue between the biblical text and contemporary concerns of religious-ethical life. After some introductory remarks on the use of the Bible in a Christian context, the article submits six different parameters of practical hermeneutics in two sections (1. Text and culture, and 2. Text and canon). From the perspective of the parameter of canonical centrality, for example, it is argued that the biblical narrative of love as it culminates in the gospel of Jesus Christ stands out as a primus inter pares reference point for the dialogue between biblical ethics and ethics today. In the course of a nuanced discussion of these hermeneutical parameters the article also provides a critical review of a number of alternative proposals on the relationship of the Bible and ethics.