Benjamin Marx

Nuestros pensamientos y nuestro discurso sobre la persona central de nuestra fe —Jesús, el Cristo— forma nuestra identidad cristiana y desafía nuestra praxis (individual y comunalmente). ¿Cómo contribuiría una Cristología que incorpore a Jesús como el verdadero benefactor (Lucas 22:27; Hechos 4:9; 10:38) a las teologías de la liberación dentro de las iglesias locales? Este artículo asiste a una Cristología liberadora, viendo a Cristo como el benefactor por excelencia en el contexto grecorromano. Necesitamos una Cristología más robusta para el siglo XXI. Además, estudios sobre el don (χάρις) en el pensamiento paulino nos ayudan ver la dimensión social de la salvación. Vemos que Cristo como benefactor por excelencia se da a sí mismo y que esta gracia tiene un poder transformador. Esta gracia con su poder transformador nos invita participar en la vida y la dinámica de la generosidad divina. Todo eso tiene el potencial de no solo cambiar la vida de la iglesia en particular, sino también la del contexto social en que vivimos.

Our thoughts and discourse on the central person of our faith—Jesus, the Christ—shapes our identity and challenges our praxis (individually and communally). How would a Christology that incorporates Jesus as the true benefactor (Luke 22:27; Acts 4:9; 10:38) contribute to liberation theologies within our local churches? This article proposes a liberating Christology, seeing Christ as the benefactor par excellence in the Greco-Roman context. We need a more robust Christology for the 21st century. In addition, studies on the gift (χάρις) in Pauline thought help us see the social dimension of salvation. We see that Christ as benefactor par excellence gives himself and that this grace has transforming power. This grace with its transforming power invites us to participate in the life and dynamics of divine generosity. All this has the potential to change not only the life of the church in particular, but also the social context in which we live.

In 1987 Leo O’Reilly observed that ‘signs and wonders’ and its function in the overall narrative of Acts is a neglected topic. Only a few scholars have taken up the challenge and contributed to this topic. In this article, the author will strengthen O’Reilly’s arguments and further demonstrate that Luke uses the collocation of signs and wonders to argue for a strong parallel of Jesus and Moses and the ‘prophet to come’. Luke additionally demonstrates the continuity of Jesus’ prophetic ministry through his followers. In Acts the progress of early Christian mission is also associated with signs and wonders. Luke employs a chiasm – created throughout his use of signs and wonders – to argue for the church as the divinely commissioned continuation of salvation history.

Este artículo investiga la misión de la iglesia (missio ecclesiae) en su relación a la misión de Dios (missio Dei) en Hechos 16:25–34. Lo que vemos en Hechos es que la actividad divina (a través de las curaciones, los signos y los milagros) provoca un movimiento centrípeto (atracción de los que están alrededor) en la narración de Lucas, que luego lleva a la proclamación de la palabra (movimiento centrífugo). En Hechos
16:25–34 se lo ve así: La sacudida de la tierra por parte de Dios crea una situación de desesperación y confusión para el carcelero. El carcelero se precipita entonces hacia los mensajeros de Dios. Esto constituye la dimensión centrípeta de la misión. El carcelero pregunta qué hay que hacer para ser salvado y los mensajeros le responden que la fe en el Señor Jesús es el único camino de salvación. Además, le hablan de la palabra del Señor a él y a los que están con él (el movimiento centrífugo). El resultado de este encuentro es que el carcelero y los que están con él creen y son bautizados.

This article investigates the imagery of clothing and exchange of garments through the entire Christian canon (in nine books from Genesis to Revelation) to identify the redemptive analogies drawn by the biblical writers. From the beginning, God takes the initiative to clothe his people and thus restore our dignity, worth and relationship to him.

Editor: "Benjamín Marx, en su artículo, arguye que el Padre Nuestro no es simplemente una oración más, sino que debe ser como una cartilla de misión para los cristianos, como una herramienta para discipular  sistemáticamente a los creyentes. De esta manera, el Padre Nuestro es una respuesta ante la problemática de falta de conocimiento de las doctrinas que muchos creyentes enfrentan. "

In this study I examine the Corpus Paulinum and Plutarch’s Moralia in regards to female submission. I am researching both corpora in terms of what is being said about a wife’s submission in the marriage relationship. I will especially scrutinize these texts in order to see what implications such submission had for the daily life of the wife in the first century CE. There are considerable similarities as well as stark differences between the two corpora. Plutarch and (deutero-)Paul could be described as having a similar outlook on wives’ submission in general. But when one looks at the specifics, one finds that Plutarch demands that more accommodations be made by the wife than (deutero-)Paul does.  Stark contrasts can be seen in areas such as sexual ethics, reclusiveness and silence of wives, education, religion, and emotions. 
No such study has been done, and scholarship in general and New Testament studies in particular will benefit from looking at the socio-historical context of New Testament writings to better understand admonishments concerning female submission given in the Corpus Paulinum. This study will not attempt to solve current issues in the debate on women in ministry, but my hope is that it will be of help in understanding early Christian paraklesis in this regard.

The topic of Paul and the Law is a tremendously significant study as it shows the relationship of the New Testament (NT) believer to Torah. In this work we will pay specific attention to ethical admonitions in order to see the relationship of Paul and the Law in a non-soteriological pericope—i.e., Romans 13:8-10.
It is of special interest to observe both positive and negative statements which the apostle to the Gentiles makes in regard to the Law and how we are to understand these statements in relation to his ethical construction. That is, why can Paul claim on the one hand that we are not “under the Law” (or that we have been set free from the Law) and yet exhort the NT believer to behave a certain way “because the Law says so”? As my focal point is Rom 13:8-10, specific attention will be paid to the role and meaning of the Law in Romans (e.g. its salvation-historical significance) and its importance in Paul’s moral reasoning. My purpose is to investigate Rom 13:8-10 to show Paul’s view of Torah and its continuing validity for the NT believer. Further, I will clarify Paul’s “contradictory” statements about the Law and solve the question: “Why does Paul use Torah in his paraklesis if he tells the believer that she is free from the Law?” This can be answered in two ways. One, Paul sees that “love fulfills the law” and a second, he does so, because he sees a continuing validity of Torah in the believer’s life—not as law (or regulation) but as instruction.