R. ALan Streett on the Phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" (εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν) in Matthew 26:28

  

In the Matthaean version of Luke 22:20, the words are added, “for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt 26:28). Carter notes this is not a reference to forgiving personal or individual sins. The term ἄφεσιν (“forgiveness” or “release”) is the same word as used in Leviticus 25 (LXX) where it is translated fourteen times as “a Jubilee” and “year of Jubilee,” and refers to a “massive social and economic restructuring (return of land; freeing of slaves . . . remission of debt, etc.).” Seen from this perspective, Jesus’ impending death establishes a new covenant in which those under sin (i.e., under a world ruled by the oppressors) will be set free in a restructured world where God, not the elites, will rule. (R. Alan Streett, Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord’s Supper Under Roman Domination During the First Century [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2013], 190)

 

R. Alan Streett on the Sacrifical Connotatoins of δίδωμι in Luke 22:19

  

The Body

 

Jesus follows standard Passover procedure by blessing, breaking, and distributing the unleavened bread, which is called the “bread of affliction” in Deut 16:3. Jesus next departs from tradition by connecting the bread with his person: “This is my body.” That he speaks metaphorically is evident, since his actual body is reclining on the couch. In this sense the verb “is” indicates representation, not identification. Does Jesus see himself as taking the affliction which is meted out by the forces of tyranny? In executing God’s eschatological spokesperson, Roman and Jewish authorities stand opposed to God’s kingdom agenda.

 

Then Jesus adds the explicatory words, “which is given for you.” Luke uses the term “given” (δίδωμι) elsewhere to connote a sacrificial offering (Luke 2:24) and other writers use it similarly (see Mark 10:45; John 6:51; 2 Cor 8:5; Gal 1:4). The phrase “for you” (ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν) likely means for your sake or on your behalf, and likely has vicarious implications. Since this was not the ordinary meaning assigned to unleavened bread at Passover, the new explanation must have caught the apostles off guard. Although confused they may have associated it with the messianic woes. Whatever the case, Jesus’ affliction would somehow work out to their benefit. (R. Alan Streett, Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord’s Supper Under Roman Domination During the First Century [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2013], 184, emphasis in bold added)

 

R. Alan Streett on the Significance of the Dove at Christ's Baptism

  

The Flight of the Dove

 

For Luke’s readers, the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus “in bodily form” at his baptism would be seen as an avian sign that God had chosen him to be Israel’s king, just as the gods used the flight of birds to confirm their choice of the Roman emperor. As such, this text should be viewed as a hidden transcript, containing a veiled message directed to those within the Jesus movement.

 

This question remains: “In what way was the baptism of Jesus antiimperial or antithetical to Roman inauguration? The answer lies in the kind of bird that accompanied the baptism. Jewish, Christian, and Greco- Roman literature extant in the first-century CE identifies the dove as antithetical to the eagle. In the Hebrew Scriptures the dove is associated with tranquility and tenderness (Gen 8:8–12; Cant 2:14; 5:2; 6:9; Nahum 2:7). Homer portrays the dove as powerless, serving as prey for other birds, particularly the eagle. Plutarch saw the dove as a gentle domesticated creature that loves and nurtures its own and refuses to harm other living things, unlike an eagle that devours and destroys even its own. Greeks and Romans associated the dove to the goddess of love, rather than the powerful Zeus/Jupiter. Philo, a Hellenistic Jew, describes the dove (περιστερά, same word used in gospels) as “the gentlest of those whose nature is tame and gregarious.” Likewise, the Roman author and equestrian, Pliny the Elder also contrasted the aggressive actions of the eagle with the gentle behavior of the dove. Jesus admonished his disciples to be “as wise as serpents and harmless as doves” (Matt 10:16).

 

Why would Luke want his audience to know that God publicly confirmed Jesus to be king through the flight of a dove, when the normative avian sign was the flight of an eagle? The dove narrative likely functioned in the same manner as the account of Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. Each depicts Jesus’ kingship in contradistinction to imperial expectations. The flight of the dove is a confirming sign that Jesus is God’s king, whose rule stands contrary to the Roman notion of power as confirmed by an eagle. Throughout his gospel, Luke consistently portrays God’s kingdom as the antithesis of the Roman Empire (Luke 6:20; 13:29– 30; 18:16; 22:25–27). Jesus is a different kind of king than Caesar. He is a king who brings peace not at the expense and suffering of others but through his own service and suffering. This is symbolized by the descent of a dove rather than an eagle, the national emblem of Rome.

 

This anti-imperial understanding of Jesus’ baptism based on the dove is strengthened when the accompanying voice also quotes from Isa 42:1, “Behold my servant whom I uphold; my chosen one in whom my soul delights. I have put my Spirit upon him, and he will bring justice to the nations.” By combining Ps 2:7 and Isa 42:1, the heavenly voice creates an oxymoron—a king who serves. Kings do not serve, they rule. Others serve them. Thus, Jesus is inaugurated to be a king of a different stripe—a humble king. (R. Alan Streett, Subversive Meals: An Analysis of the Lord’s Supper Under Roman Domination During the First Century [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick Publications, 2013], 119-20)

 

Ralbag Beur HaMilot (c. 1326-1340) on Deuteronomy 17:17

As background, “Beur HaMilot ('Lexical Definitions') is one of three sections of Ralbag's commentary on the Torah.” (source) 

Ralbag Beur HaMilot on Torah, Deuteronomy 17:17:1

 

ולא ירבה לו נשים ולא יסור לבבו. מגיד שאם ירבה לו נשים יסור לבבו מהשם יתעלה ומתורתו לרוב נטות מחשבתו על הנשים מצד רבויים הלא תראה כי שלמה שלא קם כמהו במלכים ושרתה עליו רוח הקודש הטו נשים לבבו והנה המספר המותר למלך לקחת מהנשים ואינו רבוי ביחס אל המלך י"ח שהרי מצאנו בדוד שהיו לו שש נשים ואמר לו השם יתעלה ואם מעט ואוסיפה לך כהנה וכהנה ולא התיר לעצמו לקחת יותר ממה ששלח לו הש"י עם הפלגשי' ושלקח ולזה כאשר הוצרך אל אבישג השונמית לחממו לא לקחה לאשה ולא ידעה ולזה היה שואל אותה אדוניה בן חגית להיות לו לאשה כי לא לקחה דוד לו לאשה: (source)

 

 

And he shall not multiply wives for himself, nor shall his heart turn aside. It explains: if he multiplies wives for himself, his heart will turn away from the Lord — may He be exalted — and from His Torah, for his thoughts will be increasingly inclined toward the women because of their number. Do you not see that Solomon — who had no equal among kings and upon whom the Holy Spirit rested — had his heart turned by women? And behold, the number permitted for a king to take of wives is not an undue excess in relation to the king (י״ח). For we find regarding David that he had six wives, and the Lord, may He be exalted, said to him, ‘If that is too few, I will add to you such-and-such,’ and he did not permit himself to take more than what the LORD allotted him along with the concubines he took. Therefore, when he needed Abishag the Shunammite to warm him, she was not taken as a wife and he did not ‘know’ her; and for that reason Adonijah son of Haggith asked to make her his wife, because David had not taken her as a wife.

 

 

Rabbi Bachya ben Asher (1255–1340) on Deuteronomy 17:17

  

Rabbeinu Bahya, Devarim 17:17:1

 

ולא ירבה לו נשים, “and he shall not have too many wives.” Our sages (Sanhedrin 21) put the number of wives a king may have at 18. They base this on the number of wives David had, six of whom were mentioned by name (Samuel II 3,2-5). It says there: “if this is insufficient, I will add for you כהנה וכהנה “twice more the same number,” i.e. another 12 (Samuel II 12,8). The reason the Torah gives for this limitation is: ולא יסור לבבו, “so his heart will not go astray.” It is assumed that a woman may seduce a man to turn from being G’d-fearing, seeing that the original woman Chavah had done exactly that when she seduced Adam into eating from the tree of knowledge (Genesis 3,6). (source)

 

Scarso Teresa (2021) on the Phrase "Man of God" (איש האלהים) in the Old Testament

  

The title איש האלהים “man of God” is frequently used in the Hebrew Bible, as Moses, Samuel, David, Elijah, Elisha, Shemaiah, and some anonymous people are labelled with this epithet. Among scholars there are conflicting opinions about the meaning of the expression איש האלהים “man of God”.

 

. . .

 

However, the role of the איש האלהים “man of God” is interchangeable with the prophet (nābî) in 1 Samuel 9:6-10, as well as in 1 Kings 13 in which the anonymous personage, while on the one hand named man of God and working miracles (vv. 4, 6), and the other hand has a prophetic role announcing the word of God (vv. 1-3). In the same story, the prophet of Bethel will define the man of God as a prophet like him (v. 18).

 

. . .

 

In 1 Kings, Elijah is in Zarephath of Sidon, where he works wonders with a widow who has no more flour and oil (1 Kgs 17:16). He then brings her son back to life (1 Kgs 17:22) and the widow recognizes Elijah as איש האלהים “man of God” (1 Kgs 17:24)

 

In 2 Kings, Elijah is the foremost prophet because he announces that the king will die because he has consulted the god of Ekron (2 Kgs 1:6). Then, when the messengers of the king return to him, Elijah is directly called איש האלהים “man of God” (2 Kgs 1:9). In this context, Elijah איש האלהים “man of God” brings down fire form heaven against the messengers of Aḥaziah (2 Kgs 1:11-14). In these events Elijah איש האלהים “man of God” appears as a charismatic man endowed with supernatural forces and is also able to dispense happiness and prosperity as well as curses. Furthermore, when Elijah performs wonders in the name of God, he acts as a prophet (nābî) and for that reason the roles seem confused. In the tale of 1 Kings 13:11-32, the איש האלהים “man of God” and the prophet are put in parallel. IT seems to show us the differences between them, because the איש האלהים “man of God” is a man who announces prosperity, has supernatural force and accomplishes magic rituals. Instead, the prophet appears as a passive man learning to announce the word of God. In the case of Elijah, in the event with the prophets of Baal, as the Lord made fire descend from heaven to consume the burnt offerings (1 Kgs 18:38), in the same way Elijah brought down fire from heaven against Aḥaziah (2 Kgs 1:11-4). Elijah acts as איש האלהים “man of God”, but he also keeps the features of the prophet because he announces the will of the Lord.

 

. . .

 

Even though there are many connections between Elijah and Elisha, scholars have contrasting opinions about them but I believe that Elijah really acts as איש האלהים “man of God” more than Elisha. Elijah has a particular relationship with God, he makes wonders only in the name of God and he also assumes a prophetic role and acts like a messenger. In short, the epithet איש האלהים “man of God” is not very clear. Surely the איש האלהים “man of God” is in intense communion with the divinity, inheriting His supernatural characteristics. These could define a prophet (nābî) because the title sometimes is applied to the same person (1 Sam 3:20; 9:6-8), or a messenger that is also able to predict the future and to foretell calamities. However, the epithet איש האלהים “man of God” shows some particular characteristics that define it in a specific way. (Scarso Teresa, “The Relationship Between Moses and Elijah in Ancient Judaism” [PhD Dissertation; University of Lausanne, 2021], 49, 50, 51)

 

Joseph A. Fitzmyer on 1 Corinthians 6:3

  

3. Do you not realize that we are to judge angels—not to mention affairs of everyday life? Lit. “everyday life-matters,” i.e., matters of life in the present world. This rhetorical question shifts to the 1st pers. plur., as Paul repeats his question of v. 2 in a new form. The angeloi have to be understood comprehensively of good and bad angels, because Paul means not only human beings, but any higher order of God’s creatures (EDNT, 1:14). So august is his sense of the calling of God’s dedicated people. See 1 Cor 4:9; 11:10; 13:1 for other references to angels; also 2 Pet 2:4; Jude 6 (sinful angels); in 2 Cor 12:7 Paul knows of an angel of Satan. It is not easy to say where Paul has derived this idea of Christians judging angels. The closest one comes to it is found in 1 Enoch 13–16, where Enoch is sent to judge the Watchers and other evil spirits (4QEnoch^c 1 vi 14–15); or 91.15, where the judgment of the Watchers is mentioned (4QEnoch^g 1 iv 22–23). Whatever the meaning may be, Paul is using the judgment of angels only as an illustrative example to contrast the eschatological destiny of Christians with their preoccupation with petty legal matters, such as biōtika, “things needed for ordinary human life.” (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AYB 32; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008], 252)