Somehow, this Sunday is about the Christian scandal of Protestantism. 

 

Protestantism calls attention to the scandalous lack of love within Christianity, at least on the part of Roman Catholics.  God is present in Catholics and Protestants, both.  This means that Catholics and Protestants can learn from one another.  At best, such learning takes a long time.  Personal Notes takes a Catholic point of view.  Personal Notes also tries to incorporate Protestant spirituality.

 

Personal Notes is taken with the idea of friendship with God.  Holiness consists in maintaining that friendship.  That friendship is why to stress the mercy of God, rather than the justice of God, at least in the United States of America.  In the United States, the Faithful need mercy more than they need justice, because, relatively, the Faithful have what is theirs.  Because of less material prosperity in the developing world, there, a cry for justice is more appropriate.  Justice is that virtue by which everyone has that to which they are entitled.

 

The prayer for this Sunday is to learn from The Lord is kind and merciful, to be kind and merciful ourselves.  “Always pondering spiritual things,” from the prayer after the Gloria, is appropriate for maintaining friendship with God.  With Baptists, this Sunday, Catholics can remember to bless and not curse.  With the United States Congress having scheduled unemployment benefits to expire three days after Christmas, this February 23rd may be a right time to reexamine that schedule.  Prayer at the time of writing (January 7) is that, by this time (February 23), unemployment benefits will have been extended.

 

 

Readings

First Reading                     Leviticus 19:1-2, 17-18

Responsorial Psalm:          Psalm 103:1-2, 3-4, 8, 10, 12-13 (8a)

Second Reading:               1 Corinthians 3:16-23

Alleluia:                             John 2:5

Gospel:                             Matthew 5:38-48

 

Annotated Bibliography

Musings above the solid line draw from material below.  Those uninterested in scholarly and tangential details should stop reading here.  If they do, however, they may miss some interesting details.

 

Leviticus 19:1-2, 17-18

Personal Notes cites members of the Protestant Revolt in the spirit of Gerald O’Collins, S.J., writing,[1]

 

In fact, by allowing the liturgy to be celebrated in the vernacular, by stressing “the table of God’s word” along with the importance of the homily (no. 52), and by granting to the laity—although restricted to certain circumstances—communion “under both kinds” (no. 55), Vatican II conceded the demands of Martin Luther and other 16th-century Protestant reformers, albeit in the 20th-century.  In short, while SC [Sacrosanctum concilium [sic]] did not use explicitly the language of “reform” or “reformation,” what it enacted can and should be described in those terms.

 

Leviticus 19:1

Menno Simons (c. 1496-1561), “Reply to a Publication of Gellius Faber”[2]

The Protestant revolutionary, Simons, quotes Leviticus to write, “The Lord says, `you shall be holy, for I, the Lord your God am holy.’”  Holiness, then, is a sign of church membership.  The Lectionary has, The LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the whole Israelite community and tell them:  Be holy, for I, the LORD, your God, am holy.”

 

For context, Martin Luther lived 1483-1546, the year after the Council of Trent (1545-1563) began.

 

Leviticus 19:16

John Mayer (1583-1664), “Commentary Upon All the Prophets”[3]

The Protestant revolutionary, Mayer, lived a century after Luther (1483-1546).  Listing the sins of Israel, Mayer writes, “Eating on the mountains and carrying tales to shed blood (Ezek 22:9); of eating on the mountains enough has been spoken before (Ezek 18) and of tale bearing (Lev 19:16).”  The Lectionary omits verse 16.  You shall not go about spreading slander among your people; nor shall you stand by idly when your neighbor’s life is at stake.  I am the LORD.

 

Leviticus 19:18

Johannes Bugenhagen (1485-1558), “Annotations 1:4”[4]

The Protestant revolutionary, Bugenhagen alludes to Leviticus 19:18, You shall love your neighbor, when he writes, “In fact, in the Scriptures it is a duty to love your neighbors.”

 

Leviticus 19:18

Frank J. Matera, The Sermon on the Mount:  The Perfect Measure of the Christian Life[5]

Matera explains,

 

The portion of the Law that Jesus quotes here [Matthew 5:43-48] comes from the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17—26).  But whereas Lev 19:18 reads “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself:  I am the LORD,” Jesus quotes the Law as saying, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.”  Thus Jesus includes a phrase that is not found in the text of Leviticus or in the rest of the Old Testament.

 

 . . . 

 

By adding the words “and hate your enemies,” then, Jesus indicates how the commandment to love one’s neighbor was to be practiced in everyday life.  . . .By teaching his disciples to love their enemies as well as their neighbors, Jesus reveals the deeper meaning of the Law and he challenges his disciples to practice a more abundant righteousness.

 

The Lectionary has you shall love your neighbor as yourself.  I am the LORD.

 


 

Lev 19:18

Daniel J. Harrington, S.J., review of Bruce Chilton, The Way of Jesus:  To Repair and Renew the World[6]

Harrington reports,

 

Chilton defines the “Soul” as “the seat of our intentional actions, the place from which we move out to meet the world” (p. 32) and the “Spirit” as “the force of God that gives human action its creative and ethical impetus” (p. 67).  In the pivotal essay on the kingdom, he sketches the continuities between the Psalms and Jesus in understanding the kingdom of God, notes elements of surrealism in Jesus’ parables, and concludes that the kingdom of God was Jesus the prophet’s name for the connection between what God desires and what people must do.  He regards Jesus’ synthesis of the two biblical imperatives, to love God (Deut 6:4-5) and to love the neighbor (Lev 19:18), into a single principle as his major contribution to our religious inheritance.  He also highlights Jesus’ linkage of healing to forgiveness, and his insistence that God’s active care and concern (mercy) be taken up by his children. . . . I find this book to be an interesting and challenging personal approach to biblical theology . . . 

 

Lev 19:18

Scott D. Mackie, “The Two Tables of the Law and Paul’s Ethical Methodology in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 and 10:23—11:1”[7]

Mackie argues,

 

The second activity to pass through Paul’s two paradigmatic ethical filters involves the consumption of food offered to idols.  Unlike the previous case, fornication with prostitutes, which is prohibited in its entirely, Paul’s handling of this issue is more flexible and nuanced.  Nevertheless, it is just as closely connected to the two tables—in this case, the second:  “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”  . . . The community is therefore prioritized in 1 Corinthians 10:23—11:1, as the freedom to “do all things” is conditioned by the need to benefit and “build up” its members in all circumstances.

 

See Edward Collins Vacek, S.J., “Discernment Within a Mutual Love Relationship with God:  A New Theological Foundation”[8] as described last Sunday, 076A, 6th Sunday in Ordinary Time, February 16, 2014.

 

Leviticus 19:18

Michael G. Lawler and Todd A. Salzman, “Virtue Ethics:  Natural and Christian”[9]

Lawler and Salzman argue,

 

And what did the two clerics [associated with the Good Samaritan] feel before they acted?  They perhaps felt distrust toward a man who might compromise their purity and therefore also [sic] their religious obligations, perhaps fearing that his lying on the road might be a ruse that would place them in danger.  It was the right occasion, we would surely say, to act out of the love command in Leviticus, though they might have wondered did this man qualify as a “neighbor” (Lev 19:18).  In their own minds, though not in Jesus’, they might have acted for the right reason.  No matter.  The point is not to know the reasons for which the three agents acted.  The point is to understand that emotions are morally significant, sometimes as morally significant as the virtues with which they are associated.

 

Psalm 103:1-2, 3-4, 8, 10, 12-13 (8a)

Psalm 103:3

Elizabeth E. Shively, review of Michael Tait, Jesus, the Divine Bridegroom, in Mark 2:18-22:  Mark’s Christology Upgraded[10]

Shively reports that Tait demonstrates that “Jesus makes a christological claim by assuming an OT image for Yhwh, such as “forgiver” (Mark 1:1-12; cf. Exod 34:7; Ps 103:3 [used here], He pardons all your iniquities, heals all your ills.) and “healer” . . . 

 

Psalm 103:8

Frank J. Matera, The Sermon on the Mount:  The Perfect Measure of the Christian Life[11]

Matera posits,

 

Mercy is one of the distinguishing qualities of God. . . . The Psalmist repeatedly echoes this description of God . . . In pronouncing this beatitude Jesus has in view God’s own mercy, which his disciples have already experienced in his proclamation of the kingdom.  Those who are merciful are those who know that God is merciful, and so they are merciful to others.

 

The Lectionary:  Merciful and gracious is the LORD, slow to anger and abounding in kindness (Psalm 103:8).

 

Psalm 103:13

Federico Giuntoli, review of Fabrizio Ficco, “Mio figlio sei tu” (Sal 2,7):  La relazione padre-figlio e il Salterio[12]

Giuntoli reports that Ficco argues “the metaphor of `fatherhood’ in Psalm 103 illustrates God’s mercy toward the people by employing an anthropological image of a son’s transgression and the consequent punishment of the repentant son by the father.”  As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him (Psalm 103:13).

 

Psalm 103:13

Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560), “Notes on Paul’s Letter to the Colossians 3:9-10”[13]

The Protestant revolutionary, Melanchthon, was fourteen years younger than Luther (1483-1546) and lived fourteen years longer.  Melanchthon alludes to Psalm 103:13, when he writes, “ . . . that God truly knows, for Christ’s sake, those who repent.”  The Lectionary has, the LORD has compassion on those who fear him.

 

1 Corinthians 3:16-23


 

1 Cor 3:5-17

John K. Goodrich, “`Standard of Faith’ or `Measure of a Trusteeship’?  A Study in Romans 12:3”[14]

Goodrich argues,

 

The notion of believers being held accountable for their faithful or unfaithful completion of the responsibilities God has allocated to them is of course not original to Romans 12.  In several places Paul himself makes clear that God has placed at least certain believers in positions of service in which they must prove faithful—for example 1 Cor 3:1-17 [Do you not know that you are the temple of God . . . If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person] 4:1-5.  According to these texts, loyalty will be met with great reward, but negligence, with great penalty.  Although Paul’s emphasis on judgment according to deeds is normally thought to account only for ethical obedience (see Rom 2:6-10; 14:10-12), his portrayal of charisms as trusteeships suggests that the faithful execution of ministry is also a matter for which all believers will be called to account at the final judgment.

 

1 Cor 3:12-17

F. Gerald Downing, “Justification as Acquittal?  A Critical Examination of Judicial Verdicts in Paul’s Literary and Actual Contexts”[15]

Downing offers background.

 

Procedure in jury trials is relevant as part of the context of our inquiry; however, the only “trial” that concerns Paul involves no jury, but God as sole judge (e.g. 1 Cor 4:1-5).  Here, in fact, what Paul is looking for is being “justified” by God in being rewarded with praise (epainoV; v. 5), rather than suffering the sort of loss outlined in 3:12-17 [used here].  For that [sic] the only relevant contemporary model would be the tribunal of the emperor or of one of his appointed governors or some Herodian ruler.  In imperial courts, even with advisory, there is no preliminary vote, and we meet simply with the sentence of punishment or of dismissal, either of the case or of the one charged.

 


 

1 Corinthians 3:17

John David Ramsey, A Precarious Faith:  The Tri-Une [sic] Dynamic of the Christian Life[16]

Father John David, my Pastor at Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church, in Newport News, Virginia, offers a beautiful Eucharistic explanation based on work by the artist Andrei Rublev (1360-1430).  This explanation is a continuation of what is quoted for Second Sunday in Ordinary Time, Reading 64A, January 19, 2014.[17]

 

If the gathered community is joined together in veneration of the icon of the Trinity, then both the icon itself and Paul’s words disallow any possibility that such veneration is sheerly [only] a matter of gazing.  This veneration is, necessarily, active and full participation in the life of God through Christ.  Christ is the icon, through whom the Father is revealed and the church enabled to participate in the life of God; Christ is the unique means making possible the dynamism of address and response between God and his people.  But as we have seen, the uniquely incarnational nature of the Christian life demands that such participation and dynamism be real, concrete, embodied.  With this in mind, Paul’s question takes on a peculiar sort of weight:  “Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar?”  The altar in the icon beckons the church to participate in the meal through which it is made whole, the body of Christ, Christ in it and it in Christ.  The altar of the icon becomes the actual altar around which the church gathers in fugal array to feast on the one who reveals, who is the way of God, a way in which the church participates by being transformed into what it consumes, becoming the body of Christ.  “For God’s temple is holy, and you are that temple.”

 


 

1 Cor 3:18-23

Scott D. Mackie, “The Two Tables of the Law and Paul’s Ethical Methodology in 1 Corinthians 6:12-20 and 10:23—11:1”[18]

Mackie argues,

 

There is a near consensus that “panta moi estin  [all things are permitted for me]” “represents a quotation used as a maxim by some or many at Corinth.”  It is certainly emblematic of the larger issues that Paul believes threated the integrity of the Corinthian community, chief of which are divisions within the church . . .  According to Paul’s assessment, prideful, hierarchical assertions of spirituality and wisdom are at the core of these divisions . . .   One might reasonably infer  . . . that some of the Corinthians believed a wise, spiritual person had the “authority” to act with complete autonomy, dualistically disparaging embodied, communal existence in light of their knowledge and spiritual attainment.

 

Mackie goes on to develop meaning for the Greek phrase relative to the Corinthian Church community.

 

1 Corinthians 3:18

Daniel B. Wallace, With Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes: Greek Grammar:  Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament[19]

Let no one deceive himself is the text in question.  To paraphrase Wallace, in English this looks as if the author is saying, “Do not allow anyone to deceive himself.”  But the Greek is stronger; it is as if Paul is saying, I command that no one deceive himself.”  There is a permissive imperative, but its semantics are quite different from this.

 

1 Cor 3:18

Edward Collins Vacek, S.J., “Discernment Within a Mutual Love Relationship with God:  A New Theological Foundation”[20]

Vacek writes about,

 

the ethical conundrum that God’s will seems contrary to the moral values that guide our earthly decisions.  The wisdom of the world is foolishness in God’s sight (1 Cor 3:18 [used here]).  God’s utter sovereignty means that for no apparent reason, God can reject Cain’s offering and accept Abel’s (Gen 4:3-5), God commands the murder of innocent women and children . . . which the church considers intrinsically evil, that is, never permitted.

 

 . . . 

 

Is God only a support, but not a guide?  Or is the kind of support we receive from God itself a guide?  To this question I will argue yes.

 

In other words, the Faithful have to think for themselves.

 

1 Cor 3:18

Robert C. Tannehill, review of Vernon K. Robbins, The Invention of Christian Discourse, Vol. 1[21]

Tannehill reports that Robbins apparently made up a word, “rhetorolects” that are rhetorical dialects, which are also “`belief systems’ . . .  reflecting social situations that gave birth to early Christian discourse:  wisdom, prophetic, apocalyptic, precreation, priestly, and miracle.

 

 . . . 

 

This analysis of 1 Corinthians 3 is largely convincing and opens perspectives that may prove valuable.  Of course, questions remain.  R. notes that the confrontational tone of 1 Cor 3:18 [Let no one deceive himself.] is characteristic of prophetic rhetorolect, but thinks that Paul immediately shifts back to wisdom rhetorolect (p. 204).  But is a declaration that the wisdom of the world is foolishness still wisdom rhetorolect?

 

1 Cor 3:22

William O. Walker, Jr., “Apollos and Timothy as the Unnamed `Brothers’ in 2 Corinthians 8:18-24”[22]

Walker argues about “geographical latitude.”

 

To be sure, as noted above, the  historical reliability of acts is suspect, but Paul’s references to Apollos in 1 Corinthians associate him with both Ephesus and Corinth (1 Cor 1:12; 3:4-8, 22 [used here, Paul or Apollos or Cephas]; 4:6 16:12 (cf. v. 8).  Thus, Apollos would have been known both in Asia and Achaia, and, for Paul dia paswn twn ekklhsiwn  might well have been shorthand for such geographical latitude.  In short, Paul apparently recognizes that Apollos is widely known and presumably widely praised for his preaching, and this is consistent with his characterization of the unnamed “brother” of 2 Cor 8:18-19 as one for whom there is praise throughout all the churches for his proclamation of the good news.”  Moreover, we know of no other associate of Paul who fits this characterization.

 

John 2:5

 

Matthew 5:38-48

Matt 5:39b-40

Erin Vearncombe, “Cloaks, Conflict, and Mark 51-52”[23]

Vearncombe specifies your tunic, hand over your cloak as well.

 

Both the tunic and the cloak were rectangular pieces of cloth “made to fit” very generally the body on the loom; clothing in the ancient Mediterranean was not “made to measure,” but came off the loom “ready to wear,” fit proportionally to a body, but only in terms of the size of the rectangle.  A piece of clothing of any textile (wool, linen, silk, etc.) was therefore “finished” as it left the loom in rectangular form.  Close-fitting clothing was not popular until later in the fourth century C.E., and the wearing of “tight” clothing such as trousers (bracae) was considered a characteristic of “barbarian” identity.  The tunic, either one piece of fabric pinned (with brooches or fibulae), belted or sewn along the sides to create a seam and armholes, or two pieces of fabric fastened together in similar fashion, was worn next to the body, possibly over an undergarment but often next to the skin, with the cloak as the outer garment, which was wrapped or draped around the body, sometimes quite elaborately; this pair of garments is seen, for example in Q 6:29 (Matt 5:39b-40 [used here]; Luke 6:29) . . . 

 

Matthew 5:44

Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary:  Commentary on the variant readings of the ancient New Testament manuscripts and how they relate to the major English translations[24]

Comfort explains,

 

Jesus did say that we should bless those who curse us and do good to those who hate us, but these were not his words as recorded by Matthew.  These were the words recorded by Luke.  Apparently, Jesus gave several similar sermons using similar and dissimilar language at will; therefore, the “Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew is not a verbatim copy of Luke’s “Sermon on the Plain.”  Various scribes, however, thought it their duty to make one gospel harmonize with the other passages that they perceived were covering the same event.  TR [Textus Receptus [Erasmus]] incorporates most of these harmonizations [sic] , which were then translated into KIV [the King James Version] and NKIV [New King James Version].  Most modern versions [including the Lectionary] do not include the harmonization here [involving a much longer reading, drawn from Luke].

 

Matt 5:44

David L. Balch, review of Luke Timothy Johnson, Among the Gentiles:  Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity[25]

Balch reports,

 

 . . . Udo Schnelle (Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 2009)) is sometimes both more descriptive and more insightful than J.; Schnelle presents Jesus as the founder of Christianity whose basic value is God’s demand for love, even of enemies, grounded in creation (Matt 5:44-45 [used here]; Luke 6:27, 35).  The command to love (Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18) is the center of Jesus’ ethic, not an abstract value, but one that crosses ethnic (e.g., the Samaritans) and class (the poor, people with leprosy) boundaries.  . . . J. focuses on power, but the Jewish Jesus, Paul, and Matthew, as well as the gentile Luke, are more adequately described theologically and socially in terms of love that crosses social/political/religious boundaries, a value that rarely appears in J.’s book.  In sociological terms, such ethnic inclusiveness is selective Romanization, a contrast to Athens and Jerusalem.  . . . 

 

Matt 5:48

William F. Murphy Jr., “Revisiting Contraception:  An Integrated Approach in Light of the Renewal of Thomistic Virtue Ethics”[26]

Rather than encounter the reasons why certain forms of contraception may be rational, Murphy goes on as follows.  I have been unable to find either whether Murphy is married or his sexual orientation.

 

A broader discussion of the biblical teachings important to my argument would include the greater righteousness of the kingdom, which is central to the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount (Mt. 5—7), according to which the believer is called to “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Mt 5:48).  . . . I will argue that our transformation in Christ, culminating in the heroic virtue that answers the universal call to holiness, requires that one perform—not avoid—a good action that is both appropriate . . . and helps us gain virtuous mastery over our various powers; this requirement, obviously, will include those acts of periodic abstinence that help build virtuous mastery over fertility and the pleasure intrinsic to conjugal acts. 

 

Appetite for food is the parallel appetite for sex.  Murphy avoids considering negative consequences of misjudging what is appropriate for either appetite.  Murphy seems to admit, “that we are not morally required to do what cannot be done.”  He engages Todd A. Salzman and Michael G. Lawler, The Sexual Person:  Toward A Renewed Sexual Anthropology, only in footnotes.

 

Murphy mentions prudence once, to write,

 

Rather, therefore, than following sexual urges in ways that are unchaste (and if so, they are also imprudent, unjust, and uncharitable), the sexual inclination can be integrated into a life governed by right practical reason (i.e., prudence as recta ratio agibilium), which is chaste, just, and perfected in virtuous self-giving (acts informed by charity and ordered to the true good of the other) of spouses at the service of human life.

 

To that convoluted sentence in the main text, Murphy adds an even more convoluted twelve line defensive, explanatory footnote.

 

Matthew 5:48

Andrew Willet (1562-1621), “Commentary on Genesis 6:10”[27]

The Protestant revolutionary, Willet, waxes on,

 

Nor is anyone said to be perfect because they can keep the commandments and even do more than commanded by observing the counsels of the gospel (as Pererius and other popish writers say).  . . . our savior bids us be perfect, “as our heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt 5:48), that is, that we should more and more labor for perfection. . . .

 

Willet was born in 1562, as the Council of Trent (1545-1563) ended.

 

Matthew 4:38-48

Frank J. Matera, The Sermon on the Mount:  The Perfect Measure of the Christian Life[28]

Matera observes,  “Jesus concludes . . . with a statement that provides a profound reason for the disciples to love their enemies:  `Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect’ (Matt 5:48).”  The Lectionary has, So [sic] be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.  The difference is the Lectionary adds so and just.

 

For more on sources see the Appendix file.  A complete set of Personal Notes, dating from the Fifteenth Sunday in Ordinary Time, July 14, 2002 to the present, is on the web site at www.western-civilization.com/CBQ/Personal%20Notes. 

 

 

The Responsorial Antiphon for this Sunday is The Lord is kind and merciful (Psalm 103:8a).[29]

 

In the gobbledygook prayer at Sunday Mass immediately following the Gloria, the Faithful hearing the 2011 Roman Missal can listen for “always pondering spiritual things”[30]

 

This is a call for grace that some Black Baptists bring to mind with Out of the same mouth proceedeth blessing and cursing.  My brethren, these things ought not so to be (James 3:10).[31] 



[1] Theological Studies, Vol. 73, No. 4 (December 2012) 772.

 

[2] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  New Testament XI:  Philippians, Colossians, Graham Tomlin (ed.) in collaboration with Gregory B. Graybill, general editor, Timothy George, associate General editor, Scott M. Manetsch, (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic:  An imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2013) 62.

 

[3] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  Old Testament XII: Ezekiel, Daniel, (ed.) Carl L. Beckwith (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2012) 123.

 

[4] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  New Testament XI:  Philippians, Colossians, Graham Tomlin (ed.) in collaboration with Gregory B. Graybill, general editor, Timothy George, associate General editor, Scott M. Manetsch, (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic:  An imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2013) 134.

 

[5] Collegeville, Minnesota:  Liturgical Press, 2013, 62, 63.

 

[6] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 2 (April 2011) 375.

 

[7] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 2 (April 2013) 326 (source of the quote), 331-333.

[8] Theological Studies, Vol. 74, No. 3 (September 2013) 705, 707.

 

[9] Theological Studies, Vol. 74, No. 2 (June 2013) 456.

 

[10] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 4 (October 2012) 833.

 

[11] Collegeville, Minnesota:  Liturgical Press, 2013, 39.

 

[12] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 2 (April 2013) 340.

 

[13] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  New Testament XI:  Philippians, Colossians, Graham Tomlin (ed.) in collaboration with Gregory B. Graybill, general editor, Timothy George, associate General editor, Scott M. Manetsch, (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic:  An imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2013) 220.

 

[14] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 4 (October 2012) 772.

 

[15] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 2 (April 2012) 315.

 

[16] Ph.D. Dissertation, Duke University, 2002, 377-378.

 

[17] Cf. page 5/10.

 

[18] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 2 (April 2013) 316.

 

[19] Grand Rapids: Michigan: Zondervan, 1996, 486, 487 (source of the paraphrase), 525, 605.

 

[20] Theological Studies, Vol. 74, No. 3 (September 2013) 685.

 

[21] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 1 (January 2011) 172.

 

[22] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 2 (April 2011) 326, 327.

 

[23] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 4 (October 2013) 685.

 

[24] Carol Stream, Illinois:  Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 2008,

 

 

[25] the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 73, No. 2 (April 2011) 390-391.

 

[26] Theological Studies, Vol. 72, No. 4 (December 2011), 816, fn. 12, 829, 830.

 

[27] in Reformation Commentary on Scripture:  Old Testament I: Genesis I—II, (ed.) John L. Thompson (Downers Grove, Illinois:  IVP Academic, An Imprint of InterVarsity Press, 2012) 244.

 

[28] Collegeville, Minnesota:  Liturgical Press, 2013, viii, 6, 13, 19, 50, 62, 64 (source of the quote), 76, 86, 118.

 

[29] National Conference of Catholic Bishops, The Roman Missal Restored by Decree of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican and Promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI: Lectionary for Mass:  For Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America:  Second Typical Edition:  Volume I:  Sundays, Solemnities, Feasts of the Lord and the Saints (Collegeville, Minnesota:  The Liturgical Press, 1988) 579.  Personal Notes refers to this book as the Lectionary.

 

[30] n.a., The Roman Missal:  Renewed by Decree of the Most Holy Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, Promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI and Revised at the Direction of Pope John Paul II:  English Translation According to the Third Typical Edition:  For Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America:  Approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Confirmed by the Apostolic See (Washington, DC, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011) 467.  Personal Notes refers to this book as the Missal.

 

[31] UMI Annual Sunday School Lesson Commentary:  Precepts for Living ®: 2013-2014:  International Sunday School Lessons:  Volume 165:  UMI (Urban Ministries, Inc.), a. Okechuku Ogbonnaya, Ph.D., (ed.) (Chicago, IL  60643: UMI (Urban Ministries, Inc.), 2013) 283-284.