Although Jesus' Last Supper probably took place on the night before Passover (as in John) rather than on the first night of Passover itself (as in the Synoptics), it contained elements strongly marked by the Jewish institution of the Passover seder (fixed order of service) and haggadah (ritual retelling of the exodus events). These elements were not, as some scholars of Judaism have recently argued, post-70 CE developments. Rather, evidence from Jubilees, Philo, and the NT itself indicates that seder and haggadah already existed in some form in the pre-70 period.

Since 1950, studies of Luke–Acts have been influenced by a downgrading of eschatology (at least of the expectation that the goal of history would be near). Conzelmann's slogan ‘Die Mitte der Zeit’ (the earthly mission of Jesus as the ‘centre of history’) suggested a long ‘time of the Church’ with the gift(s) of the Holy Spirit as a substitute (and not a foretaste) of the kingdom of God. The present study challenges this influential view of Luke's theology and its impact on definitions of the genre of Acts.

In Acts 1–7, the Holy Spirit functions as the restored temple presence of the Lord that will restore the kingdom to Israel via the Ekklesia. The Holy Spirit acts through the Ekklesia as one would expect the Lord's temple presence to act. When Barnabas, Ananias, and Sapphira bring their offerings to the temple, they place them at the feet of the leadership of the new religio-fiscal center of restored Israel. As proof that the Lord's presence has indwelled this eschatological temple community, an improper act can, and does in this case, result in immediate death.

Paul's language in 1 Cor 11.19 suggests that the Corinthians elected rotating officers to serve as administrative leaders with control over food distribution at the Lord's Supper. Interpreters overlook this verse's technical terminology despite the fact that doing so results in unusual and confusing translations. In addition to making sense out of the otherwise obscure sentence of v. 19, the existence of a ‘flat hierarchy’ of temporary and rotating officers in the Corinthian group helps to explain several aspects involved in the Corinthians' banquet problems.

According to a growing number of scholars, when Paul makes use of the phrase ‘peace and security’ in 1 Thess 5.3, he is alluding to a well-known slogan in Roman propaganda that summed up the benefits of the Pax Romana. While there can be no doubt that ‘peace’ played an important role in Rome's imperial ideology, it is less clear that this was the case for ‘security’, and a review of the evidence presented by the proponents of this view calls into question their conclusion that ‘peace and security’ had the character of a slogan.

According to Seneca, a cardinal rule of benefaction is that the donor of a gift ought never to call attention to the fact that a gift has been given; it humiliates the donee and shames the donor. In reminding Philemon that he ‘owes’ Paul for the latter's mediation of the gift of salvation (Phlm 19), Paul breaks Seneca's rule. Both Seneca's ‘virtuous’ advice and Paul's ‘shameful’ breach of etiquette, however, are explicable as strategies calculated to maximize their access to valued goods and services—whether honor or the services of a wealthier man's slave—inflected by vastly different economic situations.

In 1 Clement 32–33, Romans 5–6 is alluded to in a summary statement concerning justification by faith (32.4), followed by two rhetorical questions that stress the ethical implications of this confession (33.1). These allusions to Romans are punctuated by an appeal for readers to imitate the pattern of good works established by God during creation (33.2-8). This article contends that the difference between Romans 5–6 and one of the earliest Christian readings of these chapters is not accidental, for the ethical appeal in 1 Clement 33 reflects the author's distinct cosmological perspective and rhetorical aims.

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.

This article identifies a structural and conceptual chiasm within the description of Jesus' death and resurrection in Acts 2.23b-24, which helps to account for the distinctive elements of the passage.