|

Bible - NT - Acts: Who crucified Jesus?

[Print] | [Email]

It has become common among NT scholars to insist that Jesus was crucified by the Romans. This is certainly true in the sense that crucifixion was a Roman form of execution, and also highlights the important political dimension of Jesus’ death. It is also true, as the hymn expresses it, “I crucified Thee.”

But the apostles were not squeamish about blaming the Jews, specifically the Jewish leaders, for Jesus’ death:

posted by Peter J. Leithart on Friday, April 14, 2006 at 3:27 pm

Bible - NT - Acts: Acts 2:23

[Print] | [Email]

Acts 2:23 is often cited as a central text in understanding the doctrine of foreordination; it is seen as demonstrating in a particularly explicit way the compatibility of foreordination and human responsibility. God predetermined the cross, and yet those who put Jesus to death are “wicked.” A marginal note in my NASB suggests an alternative understanding. The “godless men” at the end of the verse refers not to the Jews’ godlessness but to “men without the law” (the Greek is ANOMON); that is, Gentiles. Thus, the passage says that Jesus was delivered up by the predetermination of God, and the Jews nailed Him to the cross through the hands of Law-less (read “Torah-challenged”) Romans. The predetermination in view would seem to be the same predetermination as is found in Romans 9-11: God’s predetermination that Israel would fall.

This doesn’t eliminate the force of the verse for the doctrine of predestination. We can still say that the Jews sinned when they sent Jesus to the cross, and that this sin was predetermined. But the verse does not explicitly describe the Jews as “godless” or “wicked,” and the only thing that the verse explicitly says about the Gentiles who nailed Jesus to the cross is that they are “lawless” in the sense that they are not Jews.

posted by Peter J. Leithart on Tuesday, August 3, 2004 at 5:40 pm

Bible - NT - Acts: Acts 20:20

[Print] | [Email]

Jerome Neyrey has an interesting article on Acts 20:20 in the current issue of JSNT. He examines the cultural background to Paul’s use of the phrase “in public and from house to house” by examining various expressions in Greek and Latin writers that correspond to modern “public” and “private.” These, in turn, are gendered spaces; women are covered and inside (and their sexual organs are “private) while men engage in activities in the agora, the fields, and in public (and their sexual organs are also “outside”). The binary “shame/honor” cuts across these divisions as well: It is shameful for a woman to be uncovered or out in public and it would likewise be shameful for a man to be “indoors” when all his fellows are outside (cf. Paris at the beginning of the Iliad, whisked away from the battlefield to the bedroom with Helen). Paul’s statement that he has proclaimed the gospel in public and in houses refers to his open (”political”) proclamation before kings and in public spaces, and to his “private” ministry in synagogues (considered as private spaces) and in house churches. In Gentile public spaces, Paul is allowed to preach without restriction, while in both public (temple) and private (synagogue) spaces the Jews restrict his speech. Neyrey claims that for Luke, as for other ancient writers, certain cities and spaces were considered honorable, and thus Paul’s claim that he preached in public is a claim to honor. This is an intriguing contribution to recent efforts to recover a fully “political” Paul.

posted by Peter J. Leithart on Wednesday, November 5, 2003 at 2:28 pm

|

Permission is given to use material on this site, provided the source is cited, blog entries are republished in full, and the author is notified in advance.