Hot answers tagged

7

Grammatical gender (in this case feminine) is not (usually) related to human gender. Most words have a single gender that is used in all sentences regardless of whether it belongs to a man or woman. The possessive pronoun in the English of I Corinthians 11:4 does not come from the word for head itself, but rather is "added" to make the English ...


5

Grammatically, 1 Corinthians 13:9 is ambiguous enough that Paul could be referring to the parts of the body of Christ ("individually"). However, the context makes it clear that this is not the case and that he has the more common meaning of "partially" in mind. Paul's argument In chapter 12 of 1 Corinthians, Paul first lists a number of possible spiritual ...


4

Paul does make various allusions to the Book of Exodus, so it is also possible in this case. However, the context of Exodus 34:15 is different to that of 1 Corinthians 10:27 and the message is different. Any allusion to Exodus would have been for the purpose of correcting or redefining the restrictions imposed by the earlier text. In Exodus, Moses is warned ...


4

No, there is no contradiction here. Even without tearing into the details of what each concept means, a plain reading of the text introduces no contradiction. First of all, your characterization of the first passage as Jesus "abdicating" isn't quite accurate as that word would imply he completely removed himself from the position of authority. That's not ...


4

It's unlikely Paul is saying the Temple in Jerusalem is replaced with human beings: Paul doesn't use "true Temple" terminology, as if to say the Temple of God in Jerusalem is no longer God's house. There's no textual requirement to read his words this way. Paul took part in the Temple service (Acts 21) and sought to be in Jerusalem during the Biblical ...


3

I think the problem with suggesting 'ἐκ μέρους' is implying a part of a specific 'body' as referenced in 1 Corinthians 12:27 is firstly that there is no such mention of any 'body' in the context of the sentence: ἐκ μέρους γὰρ γινώσκομεν καὶ ἐκ μέρους προφητεύομεν· ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ τὸ τέλειον, τὸ ἐκ μέρους καταργηθήσεται. It is the latter half of this ...


3

I cannot see any. I'd also like to know why translators thought 'baffle' could be appropriate here. In a loose dynamic translation it's tempting to let it slide. But the same Greek word is used twice in that sentence the only difference being the active vs passive conjugation. ἀνακρίνει verses ἀνακρίνεται (1Co 2:15 BGT) I would translate it in the ...


2

Do both of these quotes say one should prefer celibacy to marriage? The short answer is: no Notice in Matt 19:11-12 Jesus begins by saying "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given" and he concludes "The one who can accept this should accept it." clearly then he is speaking about a particular class of people. Paul is ...


2

The word Paul uses here, is αναξιως, a compound word consisting of αν + αξιως. So, it means "not" + "appropriately" or "inappropriately". In 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, Paul records how Jesus instituted the memorial service. He: gave thanks for the bread broke the bread and invited the disciples to eat it in order to recall his body that was about to be ...


2

GRK: δυσφημούμενοι παρακαλοῦμεν ὡς περικαθάρματα NAS: when we are slandered, we try to conciliate; we have become KJV: Being defamed, we intreat: we are made INT: slandered we entreat as [the] refuse Although the Greek word is used elsewhere in this form, traditionally meaning to exhort or urge, conciliation seems to make th most sense here. After a ...


2

The One God is the Father. The One Lord is Jesus Christ. This language is being used to differentiate between the two. Paul was a monotheist, moreover the expectation of explicit trinitarian terminology would be an anachronism in the New Testament. This is however a controversial passage even among scholars. James Dunn writes in "Did the First Christians ...


2

Analysis of the Greek Text According to Joseph Henry Thayer, on the word πᾶς,1 III. with negatives; οὐ πᾶς, not every one. πᾶς οὐ (where οὐ belongs to the verb), no one, none, see οὐ, 2 p. 460; πᾶς μή (so that μή must be joined to the verb), no one, none, in final sentences, Jn. 3:15 sq.; 6:39; 12:46; 1 Co. 1:29; w. an impv. Eph. 4:29 (1 Macc. ...


2

Although Paul is known to use sarcasm, it is better to understand this as a straightforward statement. First, the term used through the letter for the divisions for which he is rebuking them is σχίσμα (schisma), which means to tear and is where we get our term schism. In verse 19, however, Paul uses the term αἵρεσις (heresies) which is where we get our term ...


1

In chapter 10, Paul provides some allegories around the story of Moses. Although not in the Bible, Rabbinic legend decided that a rock, from which a spring of fresh water poured, followed the Israelites wherever they went, and it is to this spring that Paul refers in 1 Corinthians 10:4. Psalm 42:9 refers to "God my rock" but here Paul says the rock is Christ....


1

From the Greek it's pretty difficult to tell whether Paul was using metaphor or was literally referring to a fight with beasts. But from cultural and historical contexts we might glean some understanding. Below are my notes from when I had this same question during my comprehensive exams, in no particular order. I may revise this later for readability. See ...


1

Some scholars, such at Dominick Crossan and Marcus Borg suggest that 1 Cor. 14:33-36 is a later insertion, for if you remove this passage, the subject of prophecy in 14:26-33 picks up naturally at 14:37-40. Furthermore, the insertion is given as a separate paragraph in all Greek manuscripts. The silencing of women in church contradicts the general attitude ...


1

A literal translation of 1 Cor 14:1 would be "pursue love", as there is nothing that corresponds to the English "way" in the Greek, which would be οδος. Although there does not appear to be any textual justification for translating τὴν ἀγάπην as "the way of love", there might be some contextual justification. The statement "pursue love", divorced from ...


1

You may first wish to begin by consulting a parallel Bible or a more modern translation. It is important to update the grammar of the Bible periodically lest important meaning be lost in words that fall out of the collective English vocabulary or (and perhaps worse) meaning appear where there was none as meanings and language evolves and changes. ...


1

Yes, the question is rhetorical, expecting the negative response, but no, this does not suggest Paul thinks that God is unconcerned about animals or that this Old Testament passage was originally about Apostles. Paul was attempting to draw the reader's attention to an Old Testament passage which clearly teaches the same principle Paul was trying to teach ...


1

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites 1 Corinthians 6:9 (NRSV) fornicators, sodomites, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to the sound teaching 1 Timothy 1:10 (NRSV) A common assumption by ...


1

First, in this passage Jesus is using a metaphor to teach a lesson. The point is that Jesus didn't just give himself in an emotional or spiritual way for us, He gave himself physically. He put his own skin in the game so to speak. Second: The passage does not say, this is my "bones" which are broken for you, it says this is my "body." The body can be ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible