Volume 115, Issue 1

The brief account of an inheritance dispute between brothers in Luke 12,13–15 marks a turning point in the broader discourse of Luke 12,1–34 and also serves as an introduction to the subsequent parable of the rich fool (12,16–21). The purpose of this study is threefold. First, a careful analysis of the scene shows how Luke employs the legal institution of the arbitratum to shape the episode. Second, nine petitions from Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt concerning inheritance disputes between siblings are selected in order to help imagine a similar social context in which familial greed could often degenerate into physical violence or other forms of abuse. Finally, the often neglected consequences of the problem of inheritance are explored in relation to the following parable, which curiously centers on a question from God about the future destination of goods (12,20b).

The aim of this article is to question whether the parable of the minas (Lk. 19,11–27) is a reflection by Luke on the delay of the parousia. After a review of research showing that the delay-oriented interpretation of the parable has been prevalent for some time, there are four parts to the argument. First, in agreement with the delay hypothesis, it is argued (against a recent social-scientific interpretation) that the parable has allegorical features when compared with the portrait of Jesus in Luke-Acts (the “Lukan” setting). Secondly, examination of the parable and its frame in Luke 19,11 shows that Luke cannot straightforwardly be understood as applying the parable to a particular, contemporaneous eschatological concern (the “rhetorical” setting). Thirdly, the expeditions of royal claimants to Rome do not supply evidence for the “delay” reading of the parable because these journeys were not sufficiently cumbersome or protracted to imply delay in the parable (the “Roman” setting). Fourthly and finally, the article engages in exegesis of Luke 19,11–27 itself to show that the details of the parable do not point to a concern about delay on Luke’s part.

Zusammenfassung In der neueren Diskussion um Röm 2,28–29 wird eine unveröffentlichte philologische Studie zitiert, die zu weitreichenden Schlussfolgerungen Anlass gibt. Das dadurch aufgezeigte Desiderat einer detaillierten philologischen Untersuchung dieser Passage unter Anführung möglicher syntaktischer Vergleichsstrukturen wird durch die vorliegende Untersuchung erfüllt. In diesem Zusammenhang legt es sich nahe, die grammatikalische Möglichkeit aufzuzeigen, dass gegen die herrschende Meinung in Röm 2,17–20 kein Anakoluth vorliegt. Hierdurch eröffnen sich bisher wenig beachtete Perspektiven für das Verständnis dieser Passage im Kontext der paulinischen Verkündigung.

This article argues that the different aspects at play in Rom 4 come together to depict Abraham as a paradigm, mirrored in both the Isaac story and in Ps 31 LXX. Abraham is not only an example of faith but also of how God justifies sinners. Abraham was ungodly, a trait that Paul develops in line with Rom 1,18–3,20 on universal sinfulness. The birth story of Isaac, his physical σπέρμα, illustrates how God makes the impossible possible and how the ungodly are reckoned righteous. Abraham trusts God, who calls into being what does not exist; in so doing, he mirrors the sinner in Ps 31, cited in Rom 4,7–8, who trusts and puts his hope in God.

According to the traditional perspective, the early Christians refused to continue with the temple sacrifice. Christ on the cross had already atoned for all sins. Recently, other scholars, especially those belonging to the Radical New Perspective on Paul (or “Paul within Judaism” research), have argued instead that Paul carried on with temple worship, considered it efficacious, and expected Christ-following Jews to continue with the sacrifice. In this research we will investigate the positions of the different perspectives on Paul’s attitude toward Jewish sacrifices and evaluate the arguments at stake. Our research leads us to the conclusion that Paul did not consider the temple sacrifices a problem, but neither did he give them any salvific relevance for the recipients of his letters.

This note refutes a recent proposal that κόσμος in the phrase τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (“the elemental constituents/principles/spirits of the world”) in Gal 4:3 is a reference to the foreskin.