This article examines the background of the concept of Sabbath rest (σαββατισμός) in Heb 4.1–11. Special attention is given to the relation between God's rest and God's activity, which seemingly are in tension with each other: on the one hand, the author's argument is based on the assumption that God entered his rest at the seventh day of creation and stopped working forever (4.10); on the other hand, there is a clear reference to God's works after creation (3.9–10). A comparison with Philo's explanations of the seventh day of creation, however, reveals that for a Jewish Middle Platonist this tension does not appear to be a problem because rest and activity in God are two sides of the same coin. It is argued that this background helps to explain Hebrews’ concept of Sabbath rest. A concluding outlook shows that the suggested Middle Platonic understanding of Hebrews 4 fits well the context of the epistle as a whole, as the same coexistence of rest and activity can also be found in Hebrews 7 in relation to Jesus’ intercession in the heavenly tabernacle.

A response to the article by Christina Hoegen-Rohls.

The parable of the scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven Most commentators who have attempted to analyse the structure of Matthew xiii have argued that in this chapter the evangelist has deliberately brought together seven parables,1 seven being one of his favourite numbers. This view, however, deserves to be questioned, since, although it has often not been recognized as such, the saying about the scribe trained for the kingdom of heaven in υ. 52 was probably intended by Matthew to be regarded as a parable. He thus has eight parables, not seven.2

Chapter 9 is the pivot of Luke's gospel containing, as it does, the transfiguration as well as marking the transition from the Galilee ministry to the journey to Jerusalem. Not only is it rich in incident, it is also rich in the range of titles given to Jesus. It includes the first recognition, outside the infancy narrative, of Jesus' messianic role (9. 20), the first passion prediction of the Son of Man (9. 22) as well as the first mention of the future Son of Man (9. 26). Furthermore, the chapter contains two titles peculiar to Luke, Master (έπιστάτες, 9. 33, 49) and Chosen One (έκλελγμένος, 9. 35). Luke presents this wealth of christological material in answer to the question posed by Herod, ‘Who is this about whom I hear such things?’ (9. 9). The complexity of the christology in Luke 9 stems not only from the variety of the explicit titles but also from Luke's direct mention of, or allusions to, OT prophets who are used as antetypes for the prophetic role of Jesus. The prophetic ideas in the Lucan writings have been set out by Tiede but the importance of the prophetic element in Luke 9 seems to have been somewhat overlooked in the more detailed studies of this chapter. Ellis, in his essay on the sources of the christology of Luke 9, has noted the Moses typology and possible allusions to Isaiah's servant, although it is doubtful whether the use of κλελεγμέ in 9. 35 (cf κλεκτόζ, Isa 42. 1) and the prediction of Jesus' suffering and rejection are sufficient to make the presence of the servant idea here more than speculative.

What is the meaning of the apocalyptic events related in the Gospel of Matthew after the death of Jesus? The issue is treated in two stages, beginning with a short review of current interpretations (historical, causal, and semiologic). In a second step, the spatial and temporal disruptions that cross the story are explored. The hypothesis is made, with consideration of the figures’ sequence, that they are the figurative expression of a childbirth. Time and place of death are thus those of a birth, Jesus is literally ‘the firstborn from the dead’. It is finally suggested that the reader's actualisation of this peculiar figures’ chain corresponds to the birth of a believing subject.

The article presents evidence for a direct, both formal and contentual, dependence of Jesus’ triple accusation in Luke 23.2 upon Socrates’ triple accusation in Plato's Apol. 24b–c.

The present article first presents and explains the theses that emerge from Régis Burnet's monograph ‘Exegesis and History of Reception’ (Tübingen 2021) and from his SNTS Main Paper published in NTS 2023, ‘Why “Reception History” Is Not Just Another Exegetical Method: The Case of Mark's Ending’ (Leuven 2022). It then develops questions and perspectives that result from the dialogue between Burnet's approach and my own approach and continue this productive, unfinished discussion. It should be postulated that the history of interpretation and the reception history belong to the field of theological encyclopaedia and have the potential to lead to an ‘aesthetic theology’.

In several studies of Galatians, J. Louis Martyn has argued that in the allegory of Hagar and Sarah (4.1–5.1), the ‘two covenants’ of 4.24b, traditionally identified with Judaism and Christianity respectively, refer, on the one hand, to a Christian Jewish Law-observant Gentile mission, Teachers from whom are disturbing Paul's Galatian converts, and to the Law-free Gentile mission promulgated by Paul, on the other. In the light, particularly, of Paul's overall usage of ‘covenant’, Martyn's interpretation is not sustainable – though this need not imply a return to an anti-Jewish interpretation of the text.

The Gospel of Thomas provides an important component in many recent portraits of Jesus as a non-eschatological sage. Various material is cited from Thomas, yet careful analysis of individual sayings and redactional layers is rare. This is particularly true of sayings without Synoptic attestation. Is it possible that Thomas contains authentic sayings not found in the NT? What methodological steps would be necessary to isolate such material? How would such sayings affect portraits of the historical Jesus? These issues are explored though analysis of Saying 82 of the Gospel of Thomas.

The infrequent use of the Jesus-tradition in Acts is seldom noted, but it has implications for the use of the Jesus-tradition in early Christianity. It is widely assumed that the Jesus-tradition served to justify and to legitimate changing Christian belief and practice. However, the church in Acts does not normally seek justification for its practices or beliefs from the teaching or example of Jesus. The assumptions of gospel criticism about the function of the Jesus-tradition need to be tested against the observable phenomena of the one writer whose interest spanned the life of Jesus and the life of the church.

The prophetic concept of a new covenant appears to be the key to the question of how the Gospel of Matthew depicts the life of believers in obedience to the commandments of God. This is made possible by the fact that God forgives all sins and puts his Spirit in the hearts of people, so that they are enabled to fulfil his will. Even though the new covenant is hardly mentioned in Matthew's Gospel, that is because it is written to a community of baptized believers in which the new covenant is presupposed as the foundation of their Christian life.  The essential obligation also to forgive others is stressed in 6.14–15 and in the parable of the unforgiving servant (18.23–35), and the necessity of heart-transformation can be seen besides in the Matthean use of the metaphor of the heart.

Wer die Bildworte der Bibel liebt, hat sicher schon die Schwierigkeiten empfunden, die aus dem Zitat Ps 118.22 im NT (Mk 12.10f. par; Eph 2.20; 1 Petr 2.6) erwachsen: Christus sei der ‘Eckstein’ (κεϕαλη γωνιας oder griechischer: λιθος ακρογωνιαιος) jenes Baues, den die Kirche darstellt. Die landessprachlichen Übersetzungen und die kirchliche Lehrtradition wollen gern einen ‘Grundstein’ daraus machen; denn darauf soll ja der ganze Bau – wie man meint – ruhen.

Twice (John 4.29, 39), the Samaritan woman is said to have reported to her townspeople that a man had told her ‘everything’ she did. One may surmise that those whom she told knew rather well precisely what the things were that she had done, for they followed her urging to see this remarkably perceptive stranger. Precisely what did Jesus tell her that so moved her and others, and how did he go about it?

The Graeco–Roman bios depicts its characters through elements of narrative construction. In order to show that it is worth noting those elements within the Gospel of Luke we use an episode in the infancy narrative (Lk 1.39–45) in which the main character at first sight seems to be absent. The semantic and narratological analysis of the figurative elements opens access to the normative ‘presence’ of Jesus, thereby furnishing fresh insights into the narrative mode of Lukan christology.

L'attention de la majorité des commentateurs qui se sont penchés sur l'étude de Jn 3.29 a été focalisée par le contenu de l'expression ο ϕιλος του νυμϕιου, expression souvent rapprochée du “garçon d’honneur” de la tradition juive, et la signification théologique profonde du verset s’en est souvent trouvée occultée. Le présent article se propose de montrer – notamment à travers un examen des prédéterminations et du schéma eschatologiques de ce verset – que la joie accomplie du Baptiste apparaît ici comme étant le résultat du salut effectif, opéré par la révélation plénière et définitive apportée par Jésus. En ce sens, il constitue l'une des expressions de l'eschatologie inaugurée du quatrième Évangile.

In studies of Pauline reception, most scholars limit themselves to works in the second or early third century (often ending with Irenaeus or the Acts of Paul) and to material from the Latin West and Greek East. Although later Syriac sources are rarely engaged, those who do work on this material have long recognised the importance of Paul's letters for that material. The present argument aims to help broaden the dominant discourse on Pauline reception by attending to early Syriac sources, principally the work of Aphrahat the Persian Sage. I focus in particular on his discussion of baptism and marriage in Dem. 7.18–20, which has confounded scholars over the years. This passage displays a kind of Pauline ‘logic’ indebted to 1 Cor 7.20, which can be discerned among other early Christian applications of that passage in similar contexts, in both East and West.

The meaning of χλωρός in Rev 6.8 has been given a variety of interpretations (green, yellow, pale, vigorous etc.) due to its polysemic character; that is, it possesses a chromatic as well as an achromatic meaning and, in addition, if it denotes colour, can express a wide spectrum of hues. From this arises the need for a methodology that offers not merely a gloss, but rather a ‘meaning’. This methodology is based on: an analysis of the text; the use of the term; the concept of colour that existed in antiquity and the entity in which the colour was embodied; and the use of various lexicographical tools provided by the field of cognitive linguistics.

This article analyzes the widely misunderstood concept of ‘payback’ or ‘repayment’ (ἀντιμισθία) that, according to the so-called Second Letter of Clement, believers owe to Christ. Much of the secondary literature is laden with theological polemics (e.g. the author perverts Paul's gospel of grace), rather than an attempt to understand this concept relative to social relationships in antiquity. I argue that Second Clement presents Christ as salvific benefactor and patron. Christ offers salvation to those who accept the terms of his patronage, terms that include the obligation to render ‘payback’—for example, in the form of praise, witness, loyalty, and almsgiving. A failure to accept these terms would jeopardize the relationship between Christ and his earthly clients and thus call their salvation into question. As a corollary, I propose that a likely purpose for Second Clement was to convince a Christian audience that the benefits of salvation come with recurring obligations to Christ, their salvific patron.

Generally speaking, J. Louis Martyn is rather dubious regarding recent attempts to interpret Paul's Galatian letter in terms of ancient rhetorical canons. He does, however, express considerable interest in the rhetorical strategies employed in Galatians. Of particular concern in the present study is Martyn's understanding of Paul's rhetorical use of ‘we’ (ημεις) in Gal 2.15–17.