English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

people to embrace his kingdom proclamation but it is unclear from the biblical texts that his agenda was anti-imperial. In proclaiming the kingdom of God, he was saying that only God is king and not Caesar, Herod, or any other kingly claims. But the surprising fact is that he simply ignores Caesar according to the evidence we have. The only text that even mentions Caesar is Mark 12:13–17 and it is so ambiguous that it is open to multiple interpretations. When Paul endorses legitimate authority (Rom 13:1– 7) he surrounds the text with Jesus’ word to love your enemies (Rom 12:20–21) and your neighbor as yourself (Rom 13:8–10), and warns that the time is near (Rom 13:11– 14). These texts are not considered. S. puts a great deal of stress on Luke–Acts as a source for his thesis. Yet the trials before the governors Felix and Festus and King Agrippa (Acts 26–28) reveal no crimes against Caesar and Paul even appeals to Caesar. When in Rome under a benevolent house arrest Paul, for two full years and without hindrance, “proclaimed the kingdom of God and taught about the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 28:31). The appeal to “hidden transcripts” is difficult to adjudicate since Luke’s focus is on openly proclaiming the good news of the kingdom that transcends temporal powers, Rome included, and relativizes them in the hope of God’s final eschatological action. There is no question that the kingdom has to do with the transformation of this world but, as S. also affirms, through the power of nonviolent love. S. claims that his book represents “a paradigm shift” on the Lord’s Supper (286). He thinks that many scholars ignore the sociopolitical context, but might it not rather be that the biblical authors in effect ignore Rome? The book has many good qualities and I recommend it. The bibliography is extensive, including opposing or different views, and the text is well organized with frequent summaries that keep focus on the theme. The reader has to decide whether he or she agrees with the basic exegetical approach. With that said, I do think the theme has relevance to the practice of contemporary liturgies. Celebrations of the Lord’s Supper are often predictable and unimaginative without any reference to social and political realities.

Book Review: Saint Augustine on the Resurrection of Christ: Teaching, Rhetoric, and Reception. By Gerald O’Collins, SJ