rwp - attempt

rwp@1Corinthians:2:14 @{Now the natural man} (\psuchikos de anthrpos\). Note absence of article here, "A natural man" (an unregenerate man). Paul does not employ modern psychological terms and he exercises variety in his use of all the terms here present as \pneuma\ and \pneumatikos, psuch\ and \psuchikos, sarx\ and \sarkinos\ and \sarkikos\. A helpful discussion of the various uses of these words in the New Testament is given by Burton in his _New Testament Word Studies_, pp. 62-68, and in his {Spirit, Soul, and Flesh}. The papyri furnish so many examples of \sarx, pneuma\, and \psuch\...and Milligan make no attempt at...\Psuchikos\ is a qualitative adjective from \psuch\ (breath of life like \anima\, life, soul). Here the Vulgate renders it by _animalis_ and the German by _sinnlich_, the original sense of animal life as in strkjv@Jude:1:19; strkjv@James:3:15|. In strkjv@1Corinthians:15:44,46| there is the same contrast between \psuchikos\ and \pneumatikos\ as here. The \psuchikos\ man is the unregenerate man while the \pneumatikos\ man is the renewed man, born again of the Spirit of God. {Receiveth not} (\ou dechetai\). Does not accept, rejects, refuses to accept. In strkjv@Romans:8:7| Paul definitely states the inability (\oude gar dunatai\) of the mind of the flesh to receive the things of the Spirit untouched by the Holy Spirit. Certainly the initiative comes from God whose Holy Spirit makes it possible for us to accept the things of the Spirit of God. They are no longer "foolishness" (\mria\) to us as was once the case (1:23|). Today one notes certain of the _intelligentsia_ who sneer at Christ and Christianity in their own blinded ignorance. {He cannot know them} (\ou dunatai gnnai\). He is not able to get a knowledge (ingressive second aorist active infinitive of \ginsk\). His helpless condition calls for pity in place of impatience on our part, though such an one usually poses as a paragon of wisdom and commiserates the deluded followers of Christ. {They are spiritually judged} (\pneumatiks anakrinetai\). Paul and Luke are fond of this verb, though nowhere else in the N.T. Paul uses it only in I Corinthians. The word means a sifting process to get at the truth by investigation as of a judge. In strkjv@Acts:17:11| the Beroeans scrutinized the Scriptures. These \psuchikoi\ men are incapable of rendering a decision for they are unable to recognize the facts. They judge by the \psuch\ (mere animal nature) rather than by the \pneuma\ (the renewed spirit).

rwp@1Corinthians:2:16 @{For who hath known the mind of the Lord} (\Tis gar egn noun Kuriou;\). Quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:40:13|. {That he should instruct him} (\hos sunbibasei auton\). This use of \hos\ (relative {who}) is almost consecutive (result). The \pneumatikos\...superior to others who attempt even...¯Acts:9:22; strkjv@16:10| for \sunbibaz\, to make go together. {But we have the mind of Christ} (\hmeis de noun Christou echomen\). As he has already shown (verses 6-13|). Thus with the mind (\nous\. Cf. strkjv@Phillipians:2:5; strkjv@Romans:8:9,27|). Hence Paul and all \pneumatikoi\ men are superior to those who try to shake their faith in Christ, the mystery of God. Paul can say, "I know him whom I have believed." "I believe; therefore I have spoken."

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:4 @{He that opposeth and exalteth himself} (\ho antikeimenos kai huperairomenos\). Like John's Antichrist this one opposes (\anti-\) Christ and exalts himself (direct middle of \huperair\, old verb to lift oneself up {above} others, only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:12:7| in N.T.), but not Satan, but an agent of Satan. This participial clause is in apposition with the two preceding phrases, the man of sin, the son of perdition. Note strkjv@1Corinthians:8:5| about one called God and strkjv@Acts:17:23| for \sebasma\ (from \sebazomai\), object of worship, late word, in N.T. only in these two passages. {Songs:that he sitteth in the temple of God} (\hste auton eis ton naon tou theou kathisai\). Another example of the infinitive with \hste\...had made a desperate attempt to...{Setting himself forth as God} (\apodeiknunta heauton hoti estin theos\). Present active participle (\mi\ form) of \apodeiknumi\, agreeing in case with \auton\, {showing himself that he is God}. Caligula claimed to be God. Moffatt doubts if Paul is identifying this deception with the imperial cultus at this stage. Lightfoot thinks that the deification of the Roman emperor supplied Paul's language here. Wetstein notes a coin of Julius with \theos\ on one side and \Thessaloniken\ on the other. In strkjv@1John:2:18| we are told of "many antichrists" some of whom had already come. Hence it is not clear that Paul has in mind only one individual or even individuals at all rather than evil principles, for in verse 6| he speaks of \to katechon\ (that which restraineth) while in verse 7| it is \ho katechn\ (the one that restraineth). Frame argues for a combination of Belial and Antichrist as the explanation of Paul's language. But the whole subject is left by Paul in such a vague form that we can hardly hope to clear it up. It is possible that his own preaching while with them gave his readers a clue that we do not possess.

rwp@Acts:24:7 @This whole verse with some words at the end of verse 6| and the beginning of verse 8| in the Textus Receptus ("And would have judged according to our law. But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come unto thee") is absent from Aleph A B H L P 61 (many other cursives) Sahidic Bohairic. It is beyond doubt a later addition to the incomplete report of the speech of Tertullus. As the Revised Version stands, verse 8| connects with verse 6|. The motive of the added words is clearly to prejudice Felix against Lysias and they contradict the record in strkjv@Acts:21|. Furneaux holds them to be genuine and omitted because contradictory to strkjv@Acts:21|...they are a clumsy attempt to...

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ Objections on internal grounds are made on the lines laid down by Baur and followed by Renan. They are chiefly four. The "most decisive" as argued by McGiffert (_History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age_, p. 402) is that "the Christianity of the Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul." He means as we know Paul in the other Epistles. But this charge is untrue. It is true that Paul here lists faith with the virtues, but he does that in strkjv@Galatians:5:22|. Nowhere does Paul give a loftier word about faith than in strkjv@1Timothy:1:12-17|. Another objection urged is that the ecclesiastical organization seen in the Pastoral Epistles belongs to the second century, not to the time of Paul's life. Now we have the Epistles of Ignatius in the early part of the second century in which "bishop" is placed over "elders" of which there is no trace in the New Testament (Lightfoot). A forger in the second century would certainly have reproduced the ecclesiastical organization of that century instead of the first as we have it in the Pastoral Epistles. There is only here the normal development of bishop (=elder) and deacon. A third objection is made on the ground that there is no room in Paul's life as we know it in the Acts and the other Pauline Epistles for the events alluded to in the Pastoral Epistles and it is also argued on late and inconclusive testimony that Paul was put to death A.D. 64 and had only one Roman imprisonment. If Paul was executed A.D. 64, this objection has force in it, though Bartlet (_The Apostolic Age_)...Duncan makes the same attempt for...68 for the events referred to in the Pastoral Epistles and the writing of the letters (his going east to Ephesus, Macedonia, to Crete, to Troas, to Corinth, to Miletus, to Nicopolis, to Rome), including the visit to Spain before Crete once planned for (Romans:15:24,28|) and mentioned by Clement of Rome as a fact ("the limit of the west"). The fourth objection is that of the language in the Pastoral Epistles. Probably more men are influenced by this argument than by any other. The ablest presentation of this difficulty is made by P. N. Harrison in _The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles_. Besides the arguments Dr. Harrison has printed the Greek text in a fashion to help the eye see the facts. Words not in the other Pauline Epistles are in red, Pauline phrases (from the other ten) are underlined, _hapax legomena_ are marked by an asterisk. At a superficial glance one can see that the words here not in the other Pauline Epistles and the common Pauline phrases are about equal. The data as to mere words are broadly as follows according to Harrison: Words in the Pastorals, not elsewhere in the N.T. (Pastoral _hapax legomena_) 175 (168 according to Rutherford); words in the other ten Pauline Epistles not elsewhere in the N.T. 470 (627 according to Rutherford). Variations in MSS. will account for some of the difficulty of counting. Clearly there is a larger proportion of new words in the Pastorals (about twice as many) than in the other Pauline Epistles. But Harrison's tables show remarkable differences in the other Epistles also. The average of such words per page in Romans is 4, but 5.6 in II Corinthians, 6.2 in Philippians, and only 4 in Philemon. Parry (_Comm._, p. CXVIII) notes that of the 845 words in the Pastorals as compared with each other 278 occur only in I Tim., 96 only in Titus, 185 only in II Tim. "If vocabulary alone is taken, this would point to separate authorship of each epistle." And yet the same style clearly runs through all three. After all vocabulary is not wholly a personal problem. It varies with age in the same person and with the subject matter also. Precisely such differences exist in the writings of Shakespeare and Milton as critics have long ago observed. The only problem that remains is whether the differences are so great in the Pastoral Epistles as to prohibit the Pauline authorship when "Paul the aged" writes on the problem of pastoral leadership to two of the young ministers trained by him who have to meet the same incipient Gnostic heresy already faced in Colossians and Ephesians. My judgment is that, all things considered, the contents and style of the Pastoral Epistles are genuinely Pauline, mellowed by age and wisdom and perhaps written in his own hand or at least by the same amanuensis in all three instances. Lock suggests Luke as the amanuensis for the Pastorals.

rwp@Galatians:1:7 @{Which is not another} (\ho ouk estin allo\). It is no "gospel" (good news) at all, but a yoke of bondage to the law and the abolition of grace. There is but one gospel and that is of grace, not works. The relative \ho\ (which) refers to \heteron euaggelion\ (a different gospel) "taken as a single term and designating the erroneous teachings of the Judaizers" (Burton). {Only} (\ei m\)...that it is an attempt to...(Lightfoot). {Who disturb you} (\hoi tarassontes\). The disturbers. This very verb \tarass\ is used in strkjv@Acts:17:8| of the Jews in Thessalonica who "disturbed" the politarchs and the people about Paul. {Would pervert} (\thelontes metastrepsai\). "Wish to turn about," change completely as in strkjv@Acts:2:20; strkjv@James:4:9|. The very existence of the gospel of Christ was at stake.

rwp@Hebrews:6:3 @{If God permit} (\eanper epitrepi ho theos\). Condition of the third class with \eanper\ (note \per\ indeed). See strkjv@1Corinthians:16:7| (\ean ho kurios epitrepsi\) and strkjv@Acts:18:21| (\tou theou thelontos\)...the argument and not attempt to...(the elements). Moffatt takes him to mean that he will teach them the elements at a later time (13:23|) if the way opens, a less probable interpretation.

rwp@John:5:1 @{After these things} (\meta tauta\). John is fond of this vague phrase (3:22; strkjv@6:1|)...Gospels and does not attempt a...5 after chapter 6 because in chapter 6 Jesus is in Galilee as at the end of chapter 4. But surely it is not incongruous to think of Jesus making a visit to Jerusalem before the events in chapter 6 which undoubtedly come within a year of the end (6:4|). {A feast of the Jews} (\heort tn Ioudain\). Some manuscripts have the article (\h\) "the feast" which would naturally mean the passover. As a matter of fact there is no way of telling what feast it was which Jesus here attended. Even if it was not the passover, there may well be another passover not mentioned besides the three named by John (2:13,23; strkjv@6:4: strkjv@12:1|). {Went up} (\aneb\). Second aorist active indicative of \anabain\. It was up towards Jerusalem from every direction save from Hebron.

rwp@John:10:33 @{For a good work we stone thee not} (\peri kalou ergou ou lithazomen\)...led them to this attempt... (8:59|) in spite of the facts. {But for blasphemy} (\alla peri blasphmias\). See strkjv@Acts:26:7| where \peri\ with the genitive is also used with \egkaloumai\ for the charge against Paul. This is the only example in John of the word \blasphmia\ (cf. strkjv@Matthew:12:31|). {And because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God} (\kai hoti su anthrpos n poieis seauton theon\). In strkjv@5:18| they stated the charge more accurately: "He called God his own Father, making himself equal with God." That is, he made himself the Son of God. This he did beyond a doubt. But was it blasphemy? Only if he was not the Son of God. The penalty for blasphemy was death by stoning (Leviticus:24:16; strkjv@1Kings:21:10,13|).

rwp@John:18:26 @{Did not I see thee in the garden with him?} (\ouk eg se eidon en ti kpi met' autou;\). This staggering and sudden thrust expects an affirmative answer by the use of \ouk\, not \m\ as in verses 17,25|, but Peter's previous denials with the knowledge that he was observed by a kinsman of Malchus whom he had tried to kill (verse 10|) drove him to the third flat denial that he knew Jesus, this time with cursing and swearing (Mark:14:71; strkjv@Matthew:26:73|)...of arrest himself for attempt to...{Straightway} (\euthes\). As in strkjv@Matthew:26:74| while Luke has \parachrma\ (Luke:22:60|). Mark (Mark:14:68,72|) speaks of two crowings as often happens when one cock crows. See strkjv@Matthew:26:34| for \alektr\ (cock). That was usually the close of the third watch of the night (Mark:13:35|), about 3 A.M. Luke (Luke:22:61|) notes that Jesus turned and looked on Peter probably as he passed from the rooms of Annas to the trial before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin (the ecclesiastical court). See Mrs. Browning's beautiful sonnets on "The Look".

rwp@Luke:3:1 @{Now in the fifteenth year} (\en etei de pentekaidekati\). Tiberius Caesar was ruler in the provinces two years before Augustus Caesar died. Luke makes a six-fold attempt here to indicate the time when John the Baptist began his ministry. John revived the function of the prophet (\Ecce Homo\, p. 2|) and it was a momentous event after centuries of prophetic silence. Luke begins with the Roman Emperor, then mentions Pontius Pilate Procurator of Judea, Herod Antipas Tetrarch of Galilee (and Perea), Philip, Tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis, Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abilene (all with the genitive absolute construction) and concludes with the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas (son-in-law and successor of Annas). The ancients did not have our modern system of chronology, the names of rulers as here being the common way. Objection has been made to the mention of Lysanias here because Josephus (_Ant_. XXVII. I) tells of a Lysanias who was King of Abila up to B.C. 36 as the one referred to by Luke with the wrong date. But an inscription has been found on the site of Abilene with mention of "Lysanias the tetrarch" and at the time to which Luke refers (see my _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, pp. 167f.). Songs:Luke is vindicated again by the rocks.

rwp@Luke:12:33 @{Sell that ye have} (\Plsate ta huparchonta humn\)...as inherently sinful. "The attempt to...(Acts:2:44,45|) had disastrous effects on the church of Jerusalem, which speedily became a church of paupers, constantly in need of alms (Romans:15:25,26; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:3; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:4; strkjv@9:1|)" (Plummer). {Purses which wax not old} (\ballantia m palaioumena\). Songs:already \ballantion\ in strkjv@Luke:10:4|. Late verb \palaio\ from \palaios\, old, to make old, declare old as in strkjv@Hebrews:8:13|, is passive to become old as here and strkjv@Hebrews:1:11|. {That faileth not} (\anekleipton\). Verbal from \a\ privative and \ekleip\, to fail. Late word in Diodorus and Plutarch. Only here in the N.T. or LXX, but in papyri. "I prefer to believe that even Luke sees in the words not a mechanical rule, but a law for the spirit" (Bruce). {Draweth near} (\eggizei\). Instead of strkjv@Matthew:6:19| "dig through and steal." {Destroyeth} (\diaphtheirei\). Instead of "doth consume" in strkjv@Matthew:6:19|.

rwp@Luke:14:16 @{Made} (\epoiei\). Imperfect active, was on the point of making (inchoative). {Great supper} (\deipnon\). Or dinner, a formal feast. Jesus takes up the conventional remark of the guest and by this parable shows that such an attitude was no guarantee of godliness (Bruce). This parable of the marriage of the King's son (Luke:14:15-24|) has many points of likeness to the parable of the wedding garment (Matthew:22:1-14|)...grows out of the attempt to...{And he bade many} (\kai ekalesen pollous\). Aorist active, a distinct and definite act following the imperfect \epoiei\.

rwp@Matthew:2:15 @{Until the death of Herod} (\hes ts teleuts Hridou\). The Magi had been warned in a dream not to report to Herod and now Joseph was warned in a dream to take Mary and the child along (\mellei ztein tou apolesai\ gives a vivid picture of the purpose of Herod in these three verbs). In Egypt Joseph was to keep Mary and Jesus till the death of Herod the monster. Matthew quotes strkjv@Hosea:11:1| to show that this was in fulfilment of God's purpose to call his Son out of Egypt. He may have quoted again from a collection of _testimonia_ rather than from the Septuagint. There is a Jewish tradition in the Talmud that Jesus "brought with him magic arts out of Egypt in an incision on his body" (_Shabb_. 104b). "This attempt to ascribe the Lord's miracles to Satanic agency seems to be independent of Matthew, and may have been known to him, so that one object of his account may have been to combat it" (McNeile).

rwp@Philippians:2:12 @{Not as in my presence only} (\m hs en ti parousii monon\). B and a few other MSS. omit \hs\. The negative \m\ goes with the imperative \katergazesthe\ (work out), not with \hupkousate\ (obeyed) which would call for \ouch\. {Much more} (\polli mallon\). They are not to render eye-service only when Paul is there, but much more when he is away. {Work out} (\katergazesthe\). Perfective use of \kata\ (down) in composition, work on to the finish. This exhortation assumes human free agency in the carrying on the work of one's salvation. {With fear and trembling} (\meta phobou kai tromou\). "Not slavish terror, but wholesome, serious caution" (Vincent). "A nervous and trembling anxiety to do right" (Lightfoot)...attitudes. Paul makes no attempt to...

rwp@Romans:13:9 @{For this} (\to gar\). For the article (\to\) pointing to a sentence see strkjv@8:26|, here to the quotation. The order of the commandments here is like that in strkjv@Luke:18:20; strkjv@James:2:11| and in B for strkjv@Deuteronomy:5|, but different from that of the Hebrew in strkjv@Exodus:20; strkjv@Deuteronomy:5|. The use of \ou\ with the volitive future in prohibitions in place of \m\ and the imperative or subjunctive is a regular Greek idiom. {And if there be any other} (\kai ei tis hetera\). Paul does not attempt to give them all. {It is summed up} (\anakephalaioutai\). Present passive indicative of \anakephalaio\, late literary word or "rhetorical term" (\ana, kephalaion\, head or chief as in strkjv@Hebrews:8:1|). Not in the papyri, but \kephalaion\, quite common for sum or summary. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Ephesians:1:10|. {Namely} (\en ti\). See \to gar\ at the beginning of the verse, though omitted by B F. The quotation is from strkjv@Leviticus:19:18|. Quoted in strkjv@Matthew:5:43; strkjv@22:39; strkjv@Mark:12:31; strkjv@Luke:10:27; strkjv@Galatians:5:14; strkjv@James:2:8| it is called \basilikos nomos\ (royal law). {Thy neighbour} (\ton plsion sou\). \Plsion\ is an adverb and with the article it means "the one near thee." See on ¯Matthew:5:43|.

CONCORD attempt