rwp - flesh

rwp@1Corinthians:1:11 @{For it hath been signified unto me} (\edlth gar moi\). First aorist passive indicative of \dlo\ and difficult to render into English. Literally, It was signified to me. {By them of Chloe} (\hupo tn Chlos\). Ablative case of the masculine plural article \tn\, by the (folks) of Chloe (genitive case). The words "which are of the household" are not in the Greek, though they correctly interpret the Greek, "those of Chloe." Whether the children, the kinspeople, or the servants of Chloe we do not know. It is uncertain also whether Chloe lived in Corinth or Ephesus, probably Ephesus because to name her if in Corinth might get her into trouble (Heinrici). Already Christianity was working a social revolution in the position of women and slaves. The name {Chloe} means tender verdure and was one of the epithets of Demeter the goddess of agriculture and for that reason Lightfoot thinks that she was a member of the freedman class like Phoebe (Romans:16:1|), Hermes (Romans:16:14|), Nereus (Romans:16:15|). It is even possible that Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus (1Corinthians:16:17|) may have been those who brought Chloe the news of the schisms in Corinth. {Contentions} (\erides\). Unseemly wranglings (as opposed to discussing, \dialegomai\) that were leading to the {schisms}...in works of the flesh... (Galatians:5:19f.|) and the catalogues of vices (2Corinthians:12:20; strkjv@Romans:1:19f.; strkjv@1Timothy:6:4|).

rwp@1Corinthians:1:26 @{Behold} (\blepete\). Same form for imperative present active plural and indicative. Either makes sense as in strkjv@John:5:39| \eraunate\ and strkjv@14:1| \pisteuete\. {Calling} (\klsin\). The act of calling by God, based not on the external condition of those called (\kltoi\, verse 2|), but on God's sovereign love. It is a clinching illustration of Paul's argument, an _argumentum ad hominen_. {How that} (\hoti\). Explanatory apposition to \klsin\. {After the flesh} (\kata sarka\)...the standards of the flesh and...\sophoi\ (wise, philosophers), but also \dunatoi\ (men of dignity and power), \eugeneis\ (noble, high birth), the three claims to aristocracy (culture, power, birth). {Are called}. Not in the Greek, but probably to be supplied from the idea in \klsin\.

rwp@1Corinthians:1:29 @{That no flesh should glory before God} (\hops m kauchstai psa sarx enpion tou theou\). This is the further purpose expressed by \hops\ for variety and appeals to God's ultimate choice in all three instances. The first aorist middle of the old verb \kauchaomai\, to boast, brings out sharply that not a single boast is to be made. The papyri give numerous examples of \enpion\ as a preposition in the vernacular, from adjective \en-pios\, in the eye of God. One should turn to strkjv@2Corinthians:4:7| for Paul's further statement about our having this treasure in earthen vessels that the excellency of the power may be of God and not of us.

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\ that Moulton and Milligan make no attempt at an exhaustive treatment, but give a few miscellaneous examples to illustrate the varied uses that parallel the New Testament. \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\)...the mind of the flesh to...(\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:3:1 @{But as unto carnal} (\all' hs sarkinois\). Latin _carneus_. "As men o' flesh," Braid Scots; "as worldlings," Moffatt. This form in \-inos\ like \lithinos\ in strkjv@2Corinthians:3:3|...of stone, but on fleshen tablets...7:16|. But in strkjv@Romans:7:14|...Paul says, "I am fleshen... (\sarkinos\) sold under sin," as if \sarkinos\ represented the extreme power of the \sarx\. Which does Paul mean here? He wanted to speak the wisdom of God among the adults (1Corinthians:2:6|), the spiritual (\hoi pneumatikoi\, strkjv@2:15|), but he was unable to treat them as \pneumatikoi\ in reality because of their seditions and immoralities. It is not wrong to be \sarkinos\...all live in the flesh... (\en sarki\, strkjv@Galatians:2:20|)...live according to the flesh... (\kata sarka\, strkjv@Romans:8:12|). It is not culpable to a babe in Christ (\npios\, strkjv@1Corinthians:13:11|), unless unduly prolonged (1Corinthians:14:20; strkjv@Hebrews:5:13f.|). It is one of the tragedies of the minister's life that he has to keep on speaking to the church members "as unto babes in Christ" (\hs npiois en Christi\), who actually glory in their long babyhood whereas they ought to be teachers of the gospel instead of belonging to the cradle roll. Paul's goal was for all the babes to become adults (Colossians:1:28|).

rwp@1Corinthians:3:3 @{For ye are yet carnal} (\eti gar sarkikoi este\). \Sarkikos\, unlike \sarkinos\, like \ikos\...to, fitted for the flesh... (\sarx\)...lives according to the flesh... (\kata sarka\). Paul by \psuchikos\ describes the unregenerate man, by \pneumatikos\ the regenerate man. Both classes are \sarkinoi\ made in flesh, and both may be \sarkikoi\ though the \pneumatikoi\ should not be. The \pneumatikoi\ who continue to be \sarkinoi\ are still babes (\npioi\), not adults (\teleioi\), while those who are still \sarkikoi\ (carnal)...given way to the flesh as...\psuchikoi\ (unregenerate). It is a bold and cutting figure, not without sarcasm, but necessary to reveal the Corinthians to themselves. {Jealousy and strife} (\zlos kai eris\). Zeal (\zlos\ from \ze\, to boil) is not necessarily evil, but good if under control. It may be not according to knowledge (Romans:10:2|) and easily becomes jealousy (same root through the French _jaloux_) as zeal. Ardour may be like the jealousy of God (2Corinthians:11:2|) or the envy of men (Acts:5:17|). \Eris\ is an old word, but used only by Paul in N.T. (see on ¯1Corinthians:1:11|). Wrangling follows jealousy. These two voices of the spirit are to Paul proof that the Corinthians are still \sarkikoi\ and walking according to men, not according to the Spirit of Christ.

rwp@1Corinthians:3:4 @{For when one saith} (\hotan gar legi tis\). Indefinite temporal clause with the present subjunctive of repetition (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 972). Each instance is a case in point and proof abundant of the strife. {Of Paul} (\Paulou\). Predicate genitive, belong to Paul, on Paul's side. {Of Apollos} (\Apoll\). Same genitive, but the form is the so-called Attic second declension. See the nominative \Apolls\ in verse 5|. {Men} (\anthrpoi\). Just mere human creatures (\anthrpoi\, generic term for mankind), in the flesh (\sarkinoi\), acting like the flesh (\sarkikoi\), not \pneumatikoi\, as if still \psuchikoi\. It was a home-thrust. Paul would not even defend his own partisans.

rwp@1Corinthians:8:1 @{Now concerning things sacrificed to idols} (\peri de tn eidlothutn\). Plainly the Corinthians had asked also about this problem in their letter to Paul (7:1|). This compound adjective (\eidlon\, idol, \thutos\, verbal adjective from \thu\, to sacrifice) is still found only in the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, not so far in the papyri. We have seen this problem mentioned in the decision of the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:29; strkjv@21:25|). The connection between idolatry and impurity was very close, especially in Corinth. See both topics connected in strkjv@Revelation:2:14,20|. By \eidlothuta\...the portion of the flesh left...\hierothuton\ (1Corinthians:10:28|). This leftover part "was either eaten sacrificially, or taken home for private meals, or sold in the markets" (Robertson and Plummer). What were Christians to do about eating such portions either buying in the market or eating in the home of another or at the feast to the idol? Three questions are thus involved and Paul discusses them all. There was evidently difference of opinion on the subject among the Corinthian Christians. Aspects of the matter come forward not touched on in the Jerusalem Conference to which Paul does not here allude, though he does treat it in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10|. There was the more enlightened group who acted on the basis of their superior knowledge about the non-existence of the gods represented by the idols. {Ye know that we all have knowledge} (\oidamen hoti pantes gnsin echomen\). This may be a quotation from the letter (Moffatt, _Lit. of N.T._, p. 112). Since their conversion to Christ, they know the emptiness of idol-worship. Paul admits that all Christians have this knowledge (personal experience, \gnsis\), but this problem cannot be solved by knowledge.

rwp@1Corinthians:8:13 @{Meat} (\brma\)...it should be, not flesh... (\krea\). {Maketh my brother to stumble} (\skandalizei ton adelphon mou\). Late verb (LXX and N.T.) to set a trap-stick (Matthew:5:29|) or stumbling-block like \proskomma\ in verse 9| (cf. strkjv@Romans:14:13,21|). Small boys sometimes set snares for other boys, not merely for animals to see them caught. {I will eat no flesh for evermore} (\ou m phag krea eis ton aina\). The strong double negative \ou m\ with the second aorist subjunctive. Here Paul has {flesh} (\krea\)...direct reference to the flesh offered...14:21|. This is Paul's principle of love (verse 2|) applied to the matter of eating meats offered to idols. Paul had rather be a vegetarian than to lead his weak brother to do what he considered sin. There are many questions of casuistry today that can only be handled wisely by Paul's ideal of love.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:39 @{The same flesh} (\h aut sarx\)...after the body of flesh is...{Of beasts} (\ktnn\). Old word, from \ktaomai\, to possess, and so property. See strkjv@Luke:10:34|. {Of birds} (\ptnn\). Old word from \petomai\, to fly, winged, flying. Only here in N.T.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:42 @{Songs:is the resurrection of the dead} (\houts kai h anastasis tn nekrn\). Paul now applies his illustrations to his argument to prove the kind of body we shall have after the resurrection. He does it by a series of marvellous contrasts that gather all his points. The earthly and the risen beings differ in duration, value, power (Wendt). {It is sown} (\speiretai\). In death, like the seed (37|). {In incorruption} (\en aphtharsii\). Late word from \a\ privative and \phtheir\, to corrupt. In LXX, Plutarch, Philo, late papyrus of a Gnostic gospel, and quotation from Epicurus. Vulgate _incorruptio_...with the body of flesh like...

rwp@1John:1:3 @{That which we have seen} (\ho herakamen\). Third use of this form (verses 1,2,3|), this time resumption after the parenthesis in verse 2|. {And heard} (\kai akkoamen\). Second (verse 1| for first) use of this form, a third in verse 5|. Emphasis by repetition is a thoroughly Johannine trait. {Declare we} (\apaggellomen\). Second use of this word (verse 2| for first), but \aggelia\ (message) and \anaggellomen\ (announce) in verse 5|. {That ye also may have} (\hina kai humeis echte\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and present active subjunctive of \ech\ (may keep on having)...seen Jesus in the flesh as...\kai humin\ (to you also) just before. {Fellowship with us} (\koinnian meth' hmn\). Common word in this Epistle, from \koinnos\, partner (Luke:5:10|), and \koinne\, to share, in (1Peter:4:13|), with \meta\ emphasising mutual relationship (Acts:2:42|). This Epistle often uses \ech\ with a substantive rather than a verb. {Yea, and our fellowship} (\kai h koinnia de h hmetera\). Careful explanation of his meaning in the word "fellowship" (partnership), involving fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ and only possible in Christ.

rwp@1John:4:2 @{Hereby know ye} (\en touti ginskete\). Either present active indicative or imperative. The test of "the Spirit of God" (\to pneuma tou theou\) here alone in this Epistle, save verse 13|. With the clamour of voices then and now this is important. The test (\en touti\, as in strkjv@3:19|) follows. {...is come in the flesh...} (\Isoun Christon en sarki elluthota\). The correct text (perfect active participle predicate accusative), not the infinitive (\elluthenai\, B Vg). The predicate participle (see strkjv@John:9:22| for predicate accusative with \homologe\)...already come in the flesh... (his actual humanity, not a phantom body as the Docetic Gnostics held). See this same idiom in strkjv@2John:1:7| with \erchomenon\ (coming). A like test is proposed by Paul for confessing the deity of Jesus Christ in strkjv@1Corinthians:12:3| and for the Incarnation and Resurrection of Jesus in strkjv@Romans:10:6-10|.

rwp@1Peter:2:11 @{As sojourners and pilgrims} (\hs paroikous kai parepidmous\). This combination from the LXX (Genesis:33:4; strkjv@Psalms:39:13|). See strkjv@1:1| for \parepidmos\ and strkjv@1:17| for \paroikia\ and strkjv@Ephesians:2:19| for \paroikos\ (only there and here in N.T., Christians whose fatherland is heaven). {To abstain from} (\apechesthai\). Present middle (direct) infinitive of \apech\, old verb, to hold back from (1Thessalonians:4:3|). In indirect command (to keep on abstaining from) after \parakal\ (I beseech). With the ablative case \tn sarkikn epithumin\...grosser sins of the flesh... (for \sarkikos\ see strkjv@1Corinthians:3:3|) like the list in strkjv@4:3|. {Which} (\haitines\). "Which very ones." Like Latin _quippe qui_. {War against the soul} (\strateuontai kata ts psuchs\). Present middle indicative of \strateu\, to carry on a campaign (James:4:1|)...this struggle between the flesh and...5:16-24|.

rwp@1Peter:3:18 @{Because Christ also died} (\hoti kai Christos apethanen\). Songs:the best MSS.; later ones \epathen\ (suffered). The example of Christ should stir us to patient endurance. {For sins} (\peri hamartin\). "Concerning sins" (not his, but ours, strkjv@1:18|). \Peri\ (around, concerning) with \hamartias\ in the regular phrase for the sin offering (Leviticus:5:7; strkjv@6:30|), though \huper hamartias\ does occur (Ezekiel:43:25|). Songs:in the N.T. we find both \peri hamartin\ (Hebrews:5:3|) and \huper hamartin\ (Hebrews:5:1|). {Once} (\hapax\). Once for all (Hebrews:9:28|), not once upon a time (\pote\). {The righteous for the unrighteous} (\dikaios huper adikn\). Literally, "just for unjust" (no articles). See strkjv@1Peter:2:19| for the sinlessness of Christ as the one perfect offering for sin. This is what gives Christ's blood value. He has no sin himself. Some men today fail to perceive this point. {That he might bring us to God} (\hina hms prosagagi ti thei\). Purpose clause with \hina\, with second aorist active subjunctive of \prosag\ and the dative case \ti thei\. The MSS. vary between \hms\ (us) and \hums\ (you). The verb \prosag\ means to lead or bring to (Matthew:18:24|), to approach God (cf. \prosaggn\ in strkjv@Ephesians:2:18|), to present us to God on the basis of his atoning death for us, which has opened the way (Romans:3:25; strkjv@Hebrews:10:19f|.) {...to death in the flesh...} (\thanattheis men sarki\). First aorist passive participle of \thanato\, old verb (from \thanatos\ death), to put to death. \Sarki\ is locative case of \sarx\. {But quickened in the spirit} (\zopoitheis de pneumati\). First aorist passive participle of \zopoie\ rare (Aristotle) verb (from \zopoios\ making alive), to make alive. The participles are not antecedent to \apethanen\...not die when his flesh did,...(Thayer). See strkjv@1Corinthians:15:22| for the use of the verb for the resurrection of the body. But the use of the word \pneumati\ (locative case) in contrast with \sarki\ starts Peter's mind off in a long comparison by way of illustration that runs from verses 19-22|. The following verses have caused more controversy than anything in the Epistle.

rwp@1Peter:3:21 @{Which also} (\ho kai\). Water just mentioned. {After a true likeness} (\antitupon\). Water in baptism now as an anti-type of Noah's deliverance by water. For \baptisma\ see on ¯Matthew:3:7|. For \antitupon\ see on ¯Hebrews:9:24| (only other N.T. example) where the word is used of the earthly tabernacle corresponding (\antitupa\) to the heavenly, which is the pattern (\tupon\ strkjv@Hebrews:8:5|) for the earthly. Songs:here baptism is presented as corresponding to (prefigured by) the deliverance of Noah's family by water. It is only a vague parallel, but not over-fanciful. {Doth now save you} (\humas nun szei\). Simplex verb (\sz\, not the compound \diasz\). The saving by baptism which Peter here mentions is only symbolic (a metaphor or picture as in strkjv@Romans:6:2-6|), not actual as Peter hastens to explain. {...the filth of the flesh...} (\ou sarkos apothesis rupou\). \Apothesis\ is old word from \apotithmi\ (2:1|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Peter:1:14|. \Rupou\ (genitive of \rupos\) is old word (cf. \ruparos\, filthy, in strkjv@James:2:2; strkjv@Revelation:22:11|), here only in N.T. (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:3:3; strkjv@4:4|)...the filth of the flesh either...(Hebrews:9:13f.|). Peter here expressly denies baptismal remission of sin. {But the interrogation of a good conscience toward God} (\alla suneidses agaths epertma eis theon\). Old word from \eperta\ (to question as in strkjv@Mark:9:32; strkjv@Matthew:16:1|), here only in N.T. In ancient Greek it never means answer, but only inquiry. The inscriptions of the age of the Antonines use it of the Senate's approval after inquiry. That may be the sense here, that is, avowal of consecration to God after inquiry, having repented and turned to God and now making this public proclamation of that fact by means of baptism (the symbol of the previous inward change of heart). Thus taken, it matters little whether \eis theon\ (toward God) be taken with \epertma\ or \suneidses\. {Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ} (\di' anastases Isou Christou\). For baptism is a symbolic picture of the resurrection of Christ as well as of our own spiritual renewal (Romans:6:2-6|). See strkjv@1:3| for regeneration made possible by the resurrection of Jesus.

rwp@2Corinthians:5:16 @{Henceforth} (\apo tou nun\). From the time that we gained this view of Christ's death for us. {After the flesh} (\kata sarka\)...to the flesh, the fleshy way...(\en ti sarki\), but Paul is not speaking of that. Worldly standards and distinctions of race, class, cut no figure now with Paul (Galatians:3:28|) as he looks at men from the standpoint of the Cross of Christ. {...known Christ after the flesh...} (\ei kai egnkamen kata sarka Christon\). Concessive clause (\ei kai\, if even or also) with perfect active indicative. Paul admits that he had once looked at Christ \kata sarka\, but now no longer does it. Obviously he uses \kata sarka\ in precisely the same sense that he did in verse 15| about men. He had before his conversion known Christ \kata sarka\, according to the standards of the men of his time, the Sanhedrin and other Jewish leaders. He had led the persecution against Jesus till Jesus challenged and stopped him (Acts:9:4|). That event turned Paul clean round and he no longer knows Christ in the old way \kata sarka\...seen Jesus in the flesh before...

rwp@2Corinthians:7:1 @{These promises} (\tautas tas epaggelias\). Songs:many and so precious (2Peter:2:4| \epaggelmata\; strkjv@Hebrews:11:39f.|). {Let us cleanse ourselves} (\katharismen heautous\). Old Greek used \kathair\ (in N.T. only in strkjv@John:15:2|, to prune). In _Koin_ \kathariz\ occurs in inscriptions for ceremonial cleansing (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 216f.). Paul includes himself in this volitive aorist subjunctive. {From all defilement} (\apo pantos molusmou\). Ablative alone would have done, but with \apo\ it is plainer as in strkjv@Hebrews:9:14|. \Molusmos\ is a late word from \molun\, to stain (see on ¯1Corinthians:8:7|)...moral, mental, ceremonial, "of flesh and...{Perfecting holiness} (\epitelountes hagiosunn\). Not merely negative goodness (cleansing), but aggressive and progressive (present tense of \epitele\) holiness, not a sudden attainment of complete holiness, but a continuous process (1Thessalonians:3:13; strkjv@Romans:1:4; strkjv@1:6|).

rwp@2Corinthians:10:3 @{In the flesh} (\en sarki\). But that is a very different thing from walking \kata sarka\...the standards of the flesh as...{We war} (\strateuometha\). Literary plural again after \logizomai\ in verse 2|. Old word to lead an army (\stratos\). In N.T. only in the middle as here. Paul admits that he fights, but only the devil and his agents even if wearing the livery of heaven. Paul knew the Roman army well. He knows how to use the military metaphor.

rwp@2Corinthians:10:10 @{They say} (\phasin\). Reading of B old Latin Vulgate, but Westcott and Hort prefer \phsin\ (says one, the leader). This charge Paul quotes directly. {Weighty and strong} (\bareiai kai ischurai\). These adjectives can be uncomplimentary and mean "severe and violent" instead of "impressive and vigorous." The adjectives bear either sense. {His bodily presence} (\h parousia tou smatos\). This certainly is uncomplimentary. "The presence of his body." It seems clear that Paul did not have a commanding appearance like that of Barnabas (Acts:14:12|). He had some physical defect of the eyes (Galatians:4:14|)...a thorn in the flesh... (2Corinthians:12:7|). In the second century _Acts of Paul and Thecla_ he is pictured as small, short, bow-legged, with eye-brows knit together, and an aquiline nose. A forgery of the fourth century in the name of Lucian describes Paul as "the bald-headed, hook-nosed Galilean." However that may be, his accusers sneered at his personal appearance as "weak" (\asthens\). {His speech of no account} (\ho logos exouthenmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \exouthene\, to treat as nothing (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:1:28|). The Corinthians (some of them) cared more for the brilliant eloquence of Apollos and did not find Paul a trained rhetorician (1Corinthians:1:17; strkjv@2:1,4; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:6|). He made different impressions on different people. "Seldom has any one been at once so ardently hated and so passionately loved as St. Paul" (Deissmann, _St. Paul_, p. 70). "At one time he seemed like a man, and at another he seemed like an angel" (_Acts of Paul and Thecla_). He spoke like a god at Lystra (Acts:14:8-12|), but Eutychus went to sleep on him (Acts:20:9|). Evidently Paul winced under this biting criticism of his looks and speech.

rwp@2Corinthians:12:9 @{He hath said} (\eirken\)...the thorn in his flesh and...{Is sufficient} (\arkei\). Old word of rich meaning, perhaps kin to Latin _arceo_, to ward off against danger. Christ's grace suffices and abides. {Is perfected} (\teleitai\). Present passive indicative of \tele\, to finish. It is linear in idea. Power is continually increased as the weakness grows. See strkjv@Phillipians:4:13| for this same noble conception. The human weakness opens the way for more of Christ's power and grace. {Most gladly rather} (\hdista mallon\). Two adverbs, one superlative (\hdista\), one comparative (\mallon\). "Rather" than ask any more (thrice already) for the removal of the thorn or splinter "most gladly will I glory in my weaknesses." Slowly Paul had learned this supreme lesson, but it will never leave him (Romans:5:2; strkjv@2Timothy:4:6-8|). {May rest upon me} (\episknsi ep' eme\). Late and rare verb in first aorist active subjunctive with \hina\ (final clause), to fix a tent upon, here upon Paul himself by a bold metaphor, as if the Shechinah of the Lord was overshadowing him (cf. strkjv@Luke:9:34|), the power (\dunamis\) of the Lord Jesus.

rwp@Acts:12:23 @{Smote him} (\epataxen auton\). Effective aorist active indicative of \patass\, old verb, used already in verse 7| of gentle smiting of the angel of the Lord, here of a severe stroke of affliction. Like Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel:4:30|) pride went before a fall. He was struck down in the very zenith of his glory. {Because} (\anth' hn\). \Anti\ with the genitive of the relative pronoun, "in return for which things." He accepted the impious flattery (Hackett) instead of giving God the glory. He was a nominal Jew. {He was eaten of worms} (\genomenos sklkobrtos\). Ingressive aorist middle participle, "becoming worm-eaten." The compound verbal adjective (\sklx\, worm, \brtos\, eaten, from \bibrsk\) is a late word (II Macc. strkjv@9:9) of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, used also of a tree (Theophrastus), here only in the N.T. The word \sklx\ was used of intestinal worms and Herodotus (IV. 205)...worms which ate her flesh while...(_Ant_. XIX. 8, 2)...the rotting of his flesh produced...{Gave up the ghost} (\exepsuxen\). Effective aorist active of \ekpsuch\, to breathe out, late verb, medical term in Hippocrates, in the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:5:5,10; strkjv@12:23|. Herod was carried out of the theatre a dying man and lingered only five days.

rwp@Acts:13:14 @{Passing through} (\dielthontes\). It is not clear why Paul and Barnabas left Perga so soon nor why they went to Antioch in Pisidia. Ramsay suggests malaria that spurred them on to the hills after the desertion of John Mark. They preached at Perga on the return (14:25|) and apparently hurried away now. Farrar thinks that the hot weather had driven the population to the hills. At any rate it is not difficult to imagine the perils of this climb over the rough mountain way from Perga to Pisidian Antioch to which Paul apparently refers in strkjv@2Corinthians:11:26|. {Sat down} (\ekathisan\). Ingressive aorist active indicative, took their seats as visiting Jews, possibly in the seats of the rabbis (J. Lightfoot). Whether they expected to be called on or not, they were given the opportunity as prominent visitors. The Pisidian Antioch was really in Phrygia, but towards Pisidia to distinguish it from Antioch on the Maeander (Ramsay, _Church in the Roman Empire_, p. 25). It was a colony like Philippi and so a free city. If Paul is referring to South Galatia and not North Galatia in strkjv@Galatians:4:13|...a temptation in his flesh to...(Galatians:4:14f.|)...this stake in the flesh... (2Corinthians:12:7|). But Paul was able to preach with power whatever his actual physical condition was.

rwp@Acts:13:23 @{Of this man's seed} (\toutou apo tou spermatos\). Emphatic position of \toutou\. Of this one from the (his) seed. {According to promise} (\kat' epaggelian\). This phrase in strkjv@Galatians:3:29; strkjv@2Timothy:1:1|. See the promise in strkjv@2Samuel:7:2; strkjv@Psalms:132:11; strkjv@Isaiah:11:1,10; strkjv@Jeremiah:23:5f.; strkjv@Zechariah:3:8|. In strkjv@Zechariah:3:8| the verb \ag\ is used of the sending of the Messiah as here. {A Saviour Jesus} (\Stra Isoun\). Jesus is in apposition with Saviour (accusative case) and comes at the end of the sentence in contrast with "this man" (David)...Jesus, descendant in the flesh from...(Romans:9:6f.|).

rwp@Acts:22:3 @{I am a Jew} (\Eg eimi anr Ioudaios\). Note use of \Eg\ for emphasis. Paul recounts his Jewish advantages or privileges with manifest pride as in strkjv@Acts:26:4f.; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:22; strkjv@Galatians:1:14; strkjv@Phillipians:3:4-7|. {Born} (\gegennmenos\). Perfect passive participle of \genna\. See above in strkjv@21:39| for the claim of Tarsus as his birth-place. He was a Hellenistic Jew, not an Aramaean Jew (cf. strkjv@Acts:6:1|). {Brought up} (\anatethrammenos\). Perfect passive participle again of \anatreph\, to nurse up, to nourish up, common old verb, but in the N.T. only here, strkjv@7:20ff.|, and MSS. in strkjv@Luke:4:16|. The implication is that Paul was sent to Jerusalem while still young, "from my youth" (26:4|)...seen Jesus in the flesh... (2Corinthians:5:16|). {At the feet of Gamaliel} (\pros tous podas Gamalil\). The rabbis usually sat on a raised seat with the pupils in a circle around either on lower seats or on the ground. Paul was thus nourished in Pharisaic Judaism as interpreted by Gamaliel, one of the lights of Judaism. For remarks on Gamaliel see chapter strkjv@5:34ff|. He was one of the seven Rabbis to whom the Jews gave the highest title \Rabban\ (our Rabbi). \Rabbi\ (my teacher) was next, the lowest being \Rab\ (teacher). "As Aquinas among the schoolmen was called _Doctor Angelicus_, and Bonaventura _Doctor Seraphicus_, so Gamaliel was called _the Beauty of the Law_" (Conybeare and Howson). {Instructed} (\pepaideumenos\). Perfect passive participle again (each participle beginning a clause), this time of \paideu\, old verb to train a child (\pais\) as in strkjv@7:22| which see. In this sense also in strkjv@1Timothy:1:20; strkjv@Titus:2:12|. Then to chastise as in strkjv@Luke:23:16,22| (which see); strkjv@2Timothy:2:25; strkjv@Hebrews:12:6f|. {According to the strict manner} (\kata akribeian\). Old word, only here in N.T. Mathematical accuracy, minute exactness as seen in the adjective in strkjv@26:5|. See also strkjv@Romans:10:2; Gal strkjv@1:4; strkjv@Phillipians:3:4-7|. {Of our fathers} (\patriou\). Old adjective from \pater\, only here and strkjv@24:14| in N.T. Means descending from father to son, especially property and other inherited privileges. \Patrikos\ (patrician) refers more to personal attributes and affiliations. {Being zealous for God} (\zlts huparchn tou theou\). Not adjective, but substantive {zealot} (same word used by James of the thousands of Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, strkjv@21:20| which see) with objective genitive \tou theou\ (for God). See also verse 14; strkjv@28:17; strkjv@2Timothy:1:3| where he makes a similar claim. Songs:did Peter (Acts:3:13; strkjv@5:30|) and Stephen (7:32|). Paul definitely claims, whatever freedom he demanded for Gentile Christians, to be personally "a zealot for God" "even as ye all are this day" (\kaths pantes humeis este smeron\). In his conciliation he went to the limit and puts himself by the side of the mob in their zeal for the law, mistaken as they were about him. He was generous surely to interpret their fanatical frenzy as zeal for God. But Paul is sincere as he proceeds to show by appeal to his own conduct.

rwp@Acts:28:4 @{The beast} (\to thrion\). Diminutive of \thr\ and so little beast. See on ¯Mark:1:13|. Aristotle and the medical writers apply the word to venomous serpents, the viper in particular (Knowling), as Luke does here. Vincent calls attention to the curious history of our word "_treacle_" for molasses (Latin _theriaca_) from \thriak\...antidote made from the flesh of...8:22|: "There is no more treacle in Gilead." Jeremy Taylor: "We kill the viper and make treacle of him." {Hanging from his hand} (\kremamenon ek ts cheiros autou\). Vivid picture of the snake dangling from Paul's hand. Present middle participle of \kremamai\, late form for \kremannumi\, to hang up, to suspend (cf. strkjv@Galatians:3:13|). {No doubt} (\pants\). Literally, By all means, old adverb. Cf. strkjv@21:22; strkjv@Luke:4:23; strkjv@1Corinthians:9:22|. Only by Luke and Paul in the N.T. "They _knew_ that he was a prisoner being taken to Rome on some grave charge, and _inferred_ that the charge was murder" (Page). {Though he hath escaped} (\diasthenta\). First aorist passive participle of \diasz\ (same verb used in strkjv@24:43,44; strkjv@28:1|), so-called concessive use of the participle (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1129). {Yet Justice} (\dik\). An abstraction personified like the Latin _Justitia_ (Page). The natives speak of \Dik\ as a goddess, but we know nothing of such actual worship in Malta, though the Greeks worshipped abstractions as in Athens. {Hath not suffered} (\ouk eiasen\). Did not suffer. They look on Paul as a doomed man as good as dead. These people thought that calamity was proof of guilt, poor philosophy and worse theology.

rwp@Info_Colossians @ PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE Epaphras did not come in vain, for Paul was tremendously stirred by the peril to Christianity from the Gnostics (\hoi gnstikoi\, the knowing ones). He had won his fight for freedom in Christ against the Judaizers who tried to fasten Jewish sacramentarianism upon spiritual Christianity. Now there is an equal danger of the dissipation of vital Christianity in philosophic speculation. In particular, the peril was keen concerning the Person of Christ when the Gnostics embraced Christianity and applied their theory of the universe to him. They split into factions on the subject of Christ. The Docetic (from \doke\, to seem) Gnostics held that Jesus did not have a real human body, but only a phantom body. He was, in fact, an aeon and had no real humanity. The Cerinthian (followers of Cerinthus) Gnostics admitted the humanity of the man Jesus, but claimed that the Christ was an aeon that came on Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove and left him on the Cross so that only the man Jesus died. At once this heresy sharpened the issue concerning the Person of Christ already set forth in strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|. Paul met the issue squarely and powerfully portrayed his full-length portrait of Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Son of Man (both deity and humanity)...the bars for the flesh while..._The Mystery-Religions and Christianity_, Glover's _The Conflict of Religion in the Early Roman Empire_, Kennedy's St. _Paul and the Mystery-Religions_, Lightfoot's _Commentary on Colossians_.

rwp@Colossians:2:1 @{How greatly I strive} (\hlikon agna ech\). Literally, "how great a contest I am having." The old adjectival relative \hlikos\ (like Latin _quantus_) is used for age or size in N.T. only here and strkjv@James:3:5| (twice, how great, how small). It is an inward contest of anxiety like the \merimna\ for all the churches (2Corinthians:11:28|). \Agna\ carries on the metaphor of \agnizomenos\ in strkjv@1:29|. {For them at Laodicea} (\tn en Laodikii\). {Supply} \huper\ as with \huper humn\. Paul's concern extended beyond Colossae to Laodicea (4:16|) and to Hierapolis (4:13|), the three great cities in the Lycus Valley where Gnosticism was beginning to do harm. Laodicea is the church described as lukewarm in strkjv@Revelation:3:14|. {For as many as have not seen my face} (\hosoi ouch heorakan to prospon mou\). The phrase undoubtedly includes Hierapolis (4:13|)...Paul's face in the flesh... (that is, in person, and not in picture). How precious a real picture of Paul would be to us today. The antecedent to \hosoi\ is not expressed and it would be \toutn\ after \huper\. The form \heorakan\ (perfect active indicative of \hora\ instead of the usual \herakasin\ has two peculiarities \o\ in Paul's Epistles (1Corinthians:9:1|) instead of \\ (see strkjv@John:1:18| for \heraken\) and \-an\ by analogy in place of \-asin\, which short form is common in the papyri. See strkjv@Luke:9:36| \herakan\.

rwp@Colossians:2:13 @{And you} (\kai humas\). Emphatic position, object of the verb \sunezopoisen\ (did he quicken) and repeated (second \hums\). You Gentiles as he explains. {Being dead through your trespasses} (\nekrous ontas tois paraptmasin\). Moral death, of course, as in strkjv@Romans:6:11; strkjv@Ephesians:2:1,5|. Correct text does not have \en\, but even so \paraptmasin\ (from \parapipt\, to fall beside or to lapse, strkjv@Hebrews:6:6|), a lapse or misstep as in strkjv@Matthew:6:14; strkjv@Romans:5:15-18; strkjv@Galatians:6:1|, can be still in the locative, though the instrumental makes good sense also. {...the uncircumcision of your flesh...} (\kai ti akroboustii ts sarkos humn\)...the uncircumcision of your flesh was...(Abbott). Clearly so, "the uncircumcision" used merely in a metaphorical sense. {Did he quicken together with him} (\sunezopoisen sun auti\). First aorist active indicative of the double compound verb \sunzopoie\, to make alive (\zos, poie\) with (\sun\, repeated also with \auti\, associative instrumental), found only here and in strkjv@Ephesians:2:5|, apparently coined by Paul for this passage. Probably \theos\ (God) is the subject because expressly so stated in strkjv@Ephesians:2:4f.| and because demanded by \sun auti\ here referring to Christ. This can be true even if Christ be the subject of \rken\ in verse 14|. {Having forgiven us} (\charisamenos hmin\). First aorist middle participle of \charizomai\, common verb from \charis\ (favour, grace). Dative of the person common as in strkjv@3:13|. The act of forgiving is simultaneous with the quickening, though logically antecedent.

rwp@Colossians:3:5 @{Mortify} (\nekrsate\). First aorist active imperative of \nekro\, late verb, to put to death, to treat as dead. Latin Vulgate _mortifico_, but "mortify" is coming with us to mean putrify. Paul boldly applies the metaphor of death (2:20; strkjv@3:3|) pictured in baptism (2:12|) to the actual life of the Christian. He is not to go to the other Gnostic extreme of license on the plea that the soul is not affected by the deeds of the body. Paul's idea is that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1Corinthians:6:19|). He mentions some of these "members upon the earth" like fornication (\porneian\), uncleanness (\akatharsian\), passion (\pathos\), evil desire (\epithumian kakn\), covetousness (\pleonexian\) "the which is idolatry" (\htis estin eidlolatria\)...the works of the flesh in...5:19-21|, though covetousness is not there named, but it is in strkjv@Ephesians:4:19; strkjv@5:5|.

rwp@Colossians:3:6 @{Cometh the wrath of God} (\erchetai h org tou theou\)...these sins of the flesh as...5:6|.

rwp@Ephesians:2:3 @{We also all} (\kai hmeis pantes\). We Jews. {Once lived} (\anestraphmen pote\). Second aorist passive indicative of \anastreph\, old verb, to turn back and forth, to live (2Corinthians:1:12|). Cf. \pote periepatsate\, of the Gentiles in verse 2|. {The desires} (\ta thelmata\). Late and rare word except in LXX and N.T., from \thel\..."the wills" of the flesh like...\tais epithumiais ts sarkos\ just before. Gentiles had no monopoly of such sinful impulses. {Of the mind} (\tn dianoin\). Plural again, "of the thoughts or purposes." {Were by nature children of wrath} (\metha tekna phusei orgs\). This is the proper order of these words which have been the occasion of much controversy. There is no article with \tekna\. Paul is insisting that Jews as well as Gentiles ("even as the rest") are the objects of God's wrath (\orgs\) because of their lives of sin. See strkjv@Romans:2:1-3:20| for the full discussion of this to Jews unpalatable truth. The use of \phusei\ (associative instrumental case of manner) is but the application of Paul's use of "all" (\pantes\) as shown also in strkjv@Romans:3:20; strkjv@5:12|. See \phusei\ of Gentiles in strkjv@Romans:2:14|. The implication of original sin is here, but not in the form that God's wrath rests upon little children before they have committed acts of sin. The salvation of children dying before the age of responsibility is clearly involved in strkjv@Romans:5:13f|.

rwp@Ephesians:5:30 @{Of his flesh and of his bones} (\ek ts sarkos autou kai ek tn osten autou\). These words are in the Textus Receptus (Authorized Version) supported by D G L P cursives Syriac, etc., though wanting in Aleph A B 17 Bohairic. Certainly not genuine.

rwp@Galatians:1:16 @{To reveal his Son in me} (\apokalupsai ton huion autou en emoi\). By "in me" (\en emoi\) Paul can mean to lay emphasis on his inward experience of grace or he may refer objectively to the vision of Christ on the way to Damascus, "in my case." Paul uses \en emoi\ in this sense (in my case) several times (verse 24; strkjv@2Corinthians:13:3; strkjv@Phillipians:1:30; strkjv@1Timothy:1:16|). Once (1Corinthians:14:11|) \en emoi\ is almost equivalent to the dative (to me). On the whole Lightfoot seems correct here in taking it to mean "in my case," though the following words suit either idea. Certainly Paul could not preach Christ among the Gentiles without the rich inward experience and in the objective vision he was called to that task. {I conferred not with flesh and blood} (\ou prosanethemn sarki kai haimati\). Second aorist middle indicative of \prosanatithmi\, old verb, double compound (\pros, ana\), to lay upon oneself in addition, to betake oneself to another, to confer with, dative case as here. In N.T. only here and strkjv@2:6|.

rwp@Galatians:3:3 @{...now perfected in the flesh?...} (\nun sarki epiteleisthe?\). Rather middle voice as in strkjv@1Peter:5:9|, finishing of yourselves. There is a double contrast, between \enarxamenoi\ (having begun) and \epiteleisthe\ (finishing) as in strkjv@2Corinthians:8:6; strkjv@Phillipians:1:6|, and also between "Spirit" (\pneumati\) and flesh (\sarki\). There is keen irony in this thrust.

rwp@Galatians:4:13 @{...an infirmity of the flesh...} (\di' astheneian ts sarkos\). All that we can get from this statement is the fact that Paul's preaching to the Galatians "the first time" or "the former time" (\to proteron\, adverbial accusative) was due to sickness of some kind whether it was eye trouble (4:15|)...the thorn in the flesh... (2Corinthians:12:7|) we do not know. It can be interpreted as applying to North Galatia or to South Galatia if he had an attack of malaria on coming up from Perga. But the narrative in strkjv@Acts:13; 14| does not read as if Paul had planned to pass by Pisidia and by Lycaonia but for the attack of illness. The Galatians understood the allusion for Paul says "Ye know" (\oidate\).

rwp@Galatians:5:18 @{Under the law} (\hupo nomon\)...Instead of "under the flesh" as...3:2-6|...law and spirit. The flesh made...(Rom strkjv@8:3; strkjv@Hebrews:9:10,13|). They are one and the same in result. See same idea in strkjv@Romans:8:14|. Note present tense of \agesthe\ (if you are continually led by the Spirit). See verse 23|.

rwp@Galatians:6:8 @{Corruption} (\phthoran\). For this old word from \phtheir\, see on ¯1Corinthians:15:42|...follows sins of the flesh as...{Eternal life} (\zn ainion\). See on ¯Matthew:25:46| for this interesting phrase so common in the Johannine writings. Plato used \ainios\ for perpetual. See also strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:9|. It comes as nearly meaning "eternal" as the Greek can express that idea.

rwp@Hebrews:2:14 @{Are sharers in flesh and blood} (\kekoinnken haimatos kai sarkos\)...MSS. read "blood and flesh." The...\koinne\, old verb with the regular genitive, elsewhere in the N.T. with the locative (Romans:12:13|) or with \en\ or \eis\. "The children have become partners (\koinnoi\) in blood and flesh." {Partook} (\metesche\). Second aorist active indicative of \metech\, to have with, a practical synonym for \koinne\ and with the genitive also (\tn autn\). That he might bring to nought (\hina katargsi\). Purpose of the incarnation clearly stated with \hina\ and the first aorist active subjunctive of \katarge\, old word to render idle or ineffective (from \kata, argos\), causative verb (25 times in Paul), once in Luke (Luke:13:7|), once in Hebrews (here). "By means of death" (his own death) Christ broke the power (\kratos\) of the devil over death (paradoxical as it seems), certainly in men's fear of death and in some unexplained way Satan had sway over the realm of death (Zechariah:3:5f.|). Note the explanatory \tout' estin\ (that is) with the accusative after it as before it. In strkjv@Revelation:12:7| Satan is identified with the serpent in Eden, though it is not done in the Old Testament. See strkjv@Romans:5:12; strkjv@John:8:44; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11; strkjv@1John:3:12|. Death is the devil's realm, for he is the author of sin. "Death as death is no part of the divine order" (Westcott).

rwp@Hebrews:10:20 @{By the way which he dedicated for us} (\hn enekainisen hmin hodon\). This "new" (\prosphaton\, freshly killed, newly made, from \pros\ and the root of \phatos\, in the papyri, only here in N.T.) and "living" (\zsan\) Jesus opened ("dedicated") for us by his Incarnation and Death for us. Thus he fulfilled God's promise of the "New Covenant" (8:7-13|)...explained as meaning the flesh of...(6:20|). Some do take "veil" here as obscuring the deity of Christ rather than the revelation of God in the human body of Christ (John:1:18; strkjv@14:9|)...of Christ in the flesh we...(Hebrews:2:17f.; strkjv@4:16|).

rwp@Hebrews:13:8 @{Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today, yea and forever} (\Isous Christos echthes kai smeron ho autos kai eis tous ainas\). There is no copula in the Greek. Vincent insists that \estin\ be supplied between \Isous\ and \Christos\, "Jesus is Christ," but it more naturally comes after \Christos\ as the Revised Version has it. The old adverb \echthes\ is rare in the N.T. (John:4:52; strkjv@Acts:7:28; strkjv@Hebrews:13:8|)...the days of Christ's flesh... (2:3; strkjv@5:7|) and to the recent work of the leaders (13:7|). "Today" (\smeron\, strkjv@3:15|) is the crisis which confronts them. "Forever" (\eis tous ainas\) is eternity as well as the Greek can say it. Jesus Christ is eternally "the same" (1:12|) and the revelation of God in him (1:1f.|) is final and never to be superseded or supplemented (Moffatt). Hence the peril of apostasy from the only hope of man.

rwp@James:5:3 @{Are rusted} (\katitai\). Perfect passive indicative (singular for \chrusos\ and \arguros\ are grouped as one) of \katio\, late verb (from \ios\, rust) with perfective sense of \kata\, to rust through (down to the bottom), found only here, Sir. strkjv@12:11, Epictetus (_Diss_. 4, 6, 14). {Rust} (\ios\). Poison in strkjv@James:3:8; strkjv@Romans:3:13| (only N.T. examples of old word). Silver does corrode and gold will tarnish. Dioscorides (V.91) tells about gold being rusted by chemicals. Modern chemists can even transmute metals as the alchemists claimed. {For a testimony} (\eis marturion\). Common idiom as in strkjv@Matthew:8:4| (use of \eis\ with accusative in predicate). {Against you} (\humin\). Dative of disadvantage as in strkjv@Mark:6:11| (\eis marturion autois\) where in the parallel passage (Luke:9:5|) we have \eis marturion ep' autous\. "To you" will make sense, as in strkjv@Matthew:8:4; strkjv@10:18|, but "against" is the idea here as in strkjv@Luke:21:13|. {Shall eat} (\phagetai\). Future middle (late form from \ephagon\) of defective verb \esthi\, to eat. {Your flesh} (\tas sarkas\)...is used for the fleshy parts...(Revelation:17:16; strkjv@19:18,21|). Rust eats like a canker, like cancer in the body. {As fire} (\hs pur\). Editors differ here whether to connect this phrase with \phagetai\, just before (as Mayor), for fire eats up more rapidly than rust, or with the following, as Westcott and Hort and Ropes, that is the eternal fire of Gehenna which awaits them (Matthew:25:41; strkjv@Mark:9:44|). This interpretation makes a more vivid picture for \ethsaurisate\ (ye have laid up, first aorist active indicative of \thsauriz\, strkjv@Matthew:6:19| and see strkjv@Proverbs:16:27|), but it is more natural to take it with \phagetai\.

rwp@Info_John @ A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE (SINCE 1880) ABBOT, EZRA, _On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_. ABBOT, PEABODY, and LIGHTFOOT, _The Fourth Gospel_. ABBOTT, E.A., _Johannine Vocabulary_.,_Johannine Grammar_. APPEL, _Die Echtheit des Johannesevangeliums_. ASKWITH, E.H., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_. BACON, B.W., _The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate_. BALDENSPERGER, W., _Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums_. BARTH, K., _The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels_. BAUER, W., _Das Johannes-Evangelium_. 2 Aufl.. BELZER, _Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes_. BERNARD, J. H., _Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1929), in Int. Crit. Comm. BERT, _Das Evangelium des Johannes_. BLASS, F., _Evangelium secundum Johannem_. BROOKE, A. E., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (Cambridge Biblical Essays, pp. 289 to 328. 1909). BURCH, VACHER, _The Structure and Message of St. John's Gospel_. BURNEY, C. F., _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_. CALMES, _L'Evangile selon S. Jean_. CANDLER, W. A., _Practical Studies in the Gospel of John_ (3 vols,, 1912-15). CARPENTER, J. ESTLIN, _The Johannine Writings_. CHAPMAN, DOM JOHN, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_. CHARNWOOD, LORD, _According to St. John_. CLEMEN, C., _Die Entstehung des Johannesevangeliums_. D'ALMA, _Lamentations:Controverse du quatrieme evangile_.,Philo et le quotrieme evangile_. DAUSCH' _Das Johannesevangelium_. DELFF, H., _Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_.,Neue Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des vierten Evangeliums. DODS, M., _Expositor's Bible_ (2 vols., 1891).,Expositor's Greek Testament_. DRUMMOND, JAMES, _An Inquiry into the Character and Author- ship of the Fourth Gospel_. EVANS, H. H., _St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel_. EWALD, P., _Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu seiner Losung_. FOUARD, S., _Jean et la hn de l'age apostolique_. GARDNER, P., _The Ephesian Gospel_. GARVIE, A. E., _The Beloved Disciple_. GOBEL, _Die Reden des Herrn nach Johannes_ (2 vols., 1906, 1910). GODET, F., _Comm. on the Gospel of St. John_ (Tr., 2 vols., 1886--90). GOGUEL, M., _Les sources du recit Johannique de la Passion_.,Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_. GORDON, S. D., _Quiet Talks on St. John's Gospel_. GORE, C., _Exposition of the Gospel of John_. GREEN, A. V., _The Ephesian Canonical Writings_. GREGORY, C. R., _Wellhausen und Johannes_. GRILL, J., _Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums_. GUMBEL, _Das Johannesevangelium Eine Erganzung des Lukas ev_.. HARRIS, J. RENDEL, _The Origin of the Prologue to St. John's Gospel_. HAYES, D. A., _John and His Writings_. HOERNLE, E. S., _The Record of the Loved Disciple_ etc.. HOLLAND, H. S., _The Philosophy of Faith and the Fourth Gospel_.,_The Fourth Gospel_. HOLTZMANN, H. J., _Evangelium, Briefe, und Offenbarung des Johannes_. 3 Aufl.. HOLTZMANN, _Hand-Comm_. 3 Aufl. von Bauer. HOVEY, A. H., _In American Comm_.. HOWARD, W. F., _The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation_. IVERACH, JAMES, _Gospel of John_ (Int. Stand. Bible Encycl.). JACKSON, H. L., _The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent German Criticism_.,_The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_. JOHNSTON, J. S., _The Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel_. KEISKER, _The Inner Witness of the Fourth Gospel_. KREYENBUHL, _Neue Losung der Johanneischen Frage_. LARFIELD, _Die beide Johannes von Ephesus_. LEATHES, STANLEY, _The Witness of St. John to Christ_. LEPIN, _L'origine du quatrieme evangile_ (1907; 1927).,_Lamentations:valeur historique du quatrieme euangile_. LEWIS, F. G., _The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel_. LEWIS, F. G., _Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel_. LIGHTFOOT, J. B., _Biblical Essays_ (pages 1-198; I-III, 1893). LLOYD, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_. LOISY, A., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_. LOWRIE, _The Doctrine of John_. LYMAN, MARY ELY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Life of Today_. MANSON, W., _The Incarnate Glory_. MAURICE, F. D., _The Gospel of St. John_. McGREGoR, G. H., _The Moffatt Commentary_. MONTGOMERY, J. A., _The Origin of the Gospel According to St. John_. MOUSE, _Johannes und Paulus_. MUIRHEAD, L. A., _The Message of the Fourth Gospel_. NOLLOTH, C. F., _The Fourth Evangelist_. NUNN, H. P. V., _The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel. ORR, JAMES, _The Authenticity of St. John's Gospel Deduced from Internal Evidence_. OVERBECK, _Das Johannesevangelium_. PLUMMER, A., _Cambridge Greek Testament_. REVILLE, J., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_. REYNOLDS, H. R., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D. B., 1899). RICHMOND, W., _The Gospel of the Rejection_. ROBERTSON, A. T., _The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John_. ROBINSON, A., _The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel_. ROBINSON, B. W., _The Gospel of John_. SANDAY, W., _Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_. SCHLATTER, _Die Sprache und Heimath des vierten Evangelisten_. SCHMIEDEL, P. W., _The Johannine Writings_. SCOTT, E. F., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology_. SCOTT, E. F., _The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel_. SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, C. E., _St. John, Apostle, Evangelist and Prophet_. SELBIE, W. B., _Belief and Life: Studies in the Thought of the Fourth Gospel_. SMITH, J. R., _The Teaching of the Fourth Gospel_. SMITH, P. V., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Historical Importance_. SPEER, R. E., _The Greatest Book in the World_. SPITTA, F., _Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu_. STANGE, _Die Eigenart des Johanneischen Produktion_. STANTON, V. H., _The Fourth Gospel_ (Part III of Gospels as Hist. Documents, 1921). STEVENS, G. B., _The Johannine Theology_. STRACHAN, R. H., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D C G 1906).,The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environ- ment_.,The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian_. TILLMANN, FRITZ, _Das Johannesevangelium Uebersetzt und Erklart_. VEDDER, H. C., _The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problems_. WARSCHAUER, J., _The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_. WATKINS, W. H., _Modern Criticism Considered in its Rela- tion to the Fourth Gospel_. WATSON, H. A., _The Mysticism of St. John's Gospel_. WEARING, _The World View of the Fourth Gospel_. WEISS, B., _Meyer Komm_. 9 Aufl..,_Das Johannesevangelium als einheitliches Werk_. WELLHAUSEN, J., _Das Evangelium Johannis_. WENDT, H. H., _The Gospel according to St. John: An Inquiry into its Genesis and Historical Value_.,_Die Schichten im vierten Evangelium_. WESTCOTT, B. F., _The Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1908). WHITELAW, _The Gospel of John_. WINDISCH, H., _Johannes und die Synoptiker_. WORSLEY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists_. WREDE, W., _Charakter und Tendenz del Johannesevangelium_. ZAHN, TH., _Dal Evangelium Johannis. 6 Aufl.. strkjv@John:1:1 @{In the beginning} (\en archi\). \Arch\ is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew _be reshith_ in strkjv@Genesis:1:1|. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. {Was} (\n\). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of \eimi\ to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (\egeneto\, became) appears in verse 14| for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in strkjv@8:58| "before Abraham came (\genesthai\) I am" (\eimi\, timeless existence). {The Word} (\ho logos\). \Logos\ is from \leg\, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. \Logos\ is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (\anima mundi\) and Marcus Aurelius used \spermatikos logos\ for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew _memra_ was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in strkjv@Proverbs:8:23|. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (_The Origin of the _Prologue to St. John_, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term \Logos\, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term \Logos\ is applied to Christ only in strkjv@John:1:1,14; strkjv@Revelation:19:13; strkjv@1John:1:1| "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in strkjv@Hebrews:4:12|. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f.; strkjv@Colossians:1:17|) and in strkjv@Hebrews:1:2f.| and in strkjv@John:17:5|. This term suits John's purpose better than \sophia\ (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the \aeon\ Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (\sarx egeneto\, verse 14|) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. {With God} (\pros ton theon\). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. \Pros\ with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In strkjv@1John:2:1| we have a like use of \pros\: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (\paraklton echomen pros ton patera\). See \prospon pros prospon\ (face to face, strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|), a triple use of \pros\. There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gnston ts pros alllous suntheias\, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., _Vocabulary_) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, _Origin of Prologue_, p. 8) that the use of \pros\ here and in strkjv@Mark:6:3| is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is _Koin_, not old Attic. In strkjv@John:17:5| John has \para soi\ the more common idiom. {And the Word was God} (\kai theos n ho logos\). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos n ho logos\. That would mean that all of God was expressed in \ho logos\ and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (\ho logos\) and the predicate without it (\theos\) just as in strkjv@John:4:24| \pneuma ho theos\ can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." Songs:in strkjv@1John:4:16| \ho theos agap estin\ can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 767f. Songs:in strkjv@John:1:14| \ho Logos sarx egeneto\...became flesh," not "the flesh became...(each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

rwp@John:1:14 @{And the Word became flesh} (\kai ho logos sarx egeneto\). See verse 3| for this verb and note its use for the historic event of the Incarnation rather than \n\ of verse 1|. Note also the absence of the article with the predicate substantive \sarx\...it cannot mean "the flesh became...-existence of the Logos has already been plainly stated and argued. John does not here say that the Logos entered into a man or dwelt in a man or filled a man. One is at liberty to see an allusion to the birth narratives in strkjv@Matthew:1:16-25; strkjv@Luke:1:28-38|...of a child "becoming flesh"? For...2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Galatians:4:4; strkjv@Romans:1:3; strkjv@8:3; strkjv@Phillipians:2:7f.; strkjv@1Timothy:3:16; strkjv@Hebrews:2:14|. "To explain the exact significance of \egeneto\ in this sentence is beyond the powers of any interpreter" (Bernard). Unless, indeed, as seems plain, John is referring to the Virgin Birth as recorded in Matthew and Luke. "The Logos of philosophy is, John declares, the Jesus of history" (Bernard). Thus John asserts the deity and the real humanity of Christ. He answers the Docetic Gnostics who denied his humanity. {Dwelt among us} (\esknsen en hmin\). First aorist ingressive aorist active indicative of \skno\, old verb, to pitch one's tent or tabernacle (\sknos\ or \skn\), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:7-15; strkjv@12:12; strkjv@13:6; strkjv@21:3|. In Revelation it is used of God tabernacling with men and here of the Logos tabernacling, God's Shekinah glory here among us in the person of his Son. {We beheld his glory} (\etheasametha tn doxan autou\). First aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (from \thea\, spectacle). The personal experience of John and of others who did recognize Jesus as the Shekinah glory (\doxa\) of God as James, the brother of Jesus, so describes him (James:2:1|). John employs \theaomai\ again in strkjv@1:32| (the Baptist beholding the Spirit coming down as a dove) and strkjv@1:38| of the Baptist gazing in rapture at Jesus. Songs:also strkjv@4:35; strkjv@11:45; strkjv@1John:1:1f.; strkjv@4:12,14|. By this word John insists that in the human Jesus he beheld the Shekinah glory of God who was and is the Logos who existed before with God. By this plural John speaks for himself and all those who saw in Jesus what he did. {As of the only begotten from the Father} (\hs monogenous para patros\). Strictly, "as of an only born from a father," since there is no article with \monogenous\ or with \patros\. In strkjv@John:3:16; strkjv@1John:4:9| we have \ton monogen\ referring to Christ. This is the first use in the Gospel of \patr\ of God in relation to the Logos. \Monogens\ (only born rather than only begotten) here refers to the eternal relationship of the Logos (as in strkjv@1:18|) rather than to the Incarnation. It distinguishes thus between the Logos and the believers as children (\tekna\) of God. The word is used of human relationships as in strkjv@Luke:7:12; strkjv@8:42; strkjv@9:38|. It occurs also in the LXX and strkjv@Hebrews:11:17|, but elsewhere in N.T. only in John's writings. It is an old word in Greek literature. It is not clear whether the words \para patros\ (from the Father) are to be connected with \monogenous\ (cf. strkjv@6:46; strkjv@7:29|, etc.) or with \doxan\ (cf. strkjv@5:41,44|). John clearly means to say that "the manifested glory of the Word was as it were the glory of the Eternal Father shared with His only Son" (Bernard). Cf. strkjv@8:54; strkjv@14:9; strkjv@17:5|. {Full} (\plrs\). Probably indeclinable accusative adjective agreeing with \doxan\ (or genitive with \monogenous\) of which we have papyri examples (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 275). As nominative \plrs\ can agree with the subject of \esknsen\. {Of grace and truth} (\charitos kai altheias\). Curiously this great word \charis\ (grace), so common with Paul, does not occur in John's Gospel save in strkjv@1:14,16,17|, though \altheia\ (truth) is one of the keywords in the Fourth Gospel and in 1John, occurring 25 times in the Gospel and 20 in the Johannine Epistles, 7 times in the Synoptics and not at all in Revelation (Bernard). In strkjv@1:17| these two words picture the Gospel in Christ in contrast with the law of Moses. See Epistles of Paul for origin and use of both words.

rwp@John:3:5 @{Of water and the Spirit} (\ex hudatos kai pneumatos\). Nicodemus had failed utterly to grasp the idea of the spiritual birth as essential to entrance into the Kingdom of God. He knew only Jews as members of that kingdom, the political kingdom of Pharisaic hope which was to make all the world Jewish (Pharisaic) under the King Messiah. Why does Jesus add \ex hudatos\ here? In verse 3| we have "\anthen\" (from above) which is repeated in verse 7|, while in verse 8| we have only \ek tou pneumatos\ (of the Spirit) in the best manuscripts. Many theories exist. One view makes baptism, referred to by \ex hudatos\ (coming up out of water), essential to the birth of the Spirit, as the means of obtaining the new birth of the Spirit. If so, why is water mentioned only once in the three demands of Jesus (3,5,7|)? Calvin makes water and Spirit refer to the one act (the cleansing work of the Spirit). Some insist on the language in verse 6|...the birth of the flesh coming...(the symbol before the thing signified) first and adding Spirit, he may have hoped to turn the mind of Nicodemus away from mere physical birth and, by pointing to the baptism of John on confession of sin which the Pharisees had rejected, to turn his attention to the birth from above by the Spirit. That is to say the mention of "water" here may have been for the purpose of helping Nicodemus without laying down a fundamental principle of salvation as being by means of baptism. Bernard holds that the words \hudatos kai\ (water and) do not belong to the words of Jesus, but "are a gloss, added to bring the saying of Jesus into harmony with the belief and practice of a later generation." Here Jesus uses \eiselthein\ (enter) instead of \idein\ (see) of verse 3|, but with the same essential idea (participation in the kingdom).

rwp@John:3:6 @{That which is born} (\to gegennmenon\)...The sharp contrast between flesh... (\sarx\) and Spirit (\pneuma\), drawn already in strkjv@1:13|, serves to remind Nicodemus of the crudity of his question in strkjv@3:4| about a second physical birth.

rwp@John:6:52 @{Strove} (\emachonto\). Imperfect (inchoative) middle of \machomai\, to fight in armed combat (Acts:7:26|), then to wage a war of words as here and strkjv@2Timothy:2:24|. They were already murmuring (41|), now they began bitter strife with one another over the last words of Jesus (43-51|), some probably seeing a spiritual meaning in them. There was division of opinion about Jesus in Jerusalem also later (7:12,40; strkjv@9:16; strkjv@10:19|). {How can?} (\Ps dunatai;\). The very idiom used by Nicodemus in strkjv@3:4,9|. Here scornful disbelief. {This man} (\houtos\). Contemptuous use pictured in verse 42|. {His flesh to eat} (\tn sarka autou phagein\). As if we were cannibals! Some MSS. do not have \autou\, but the meaning is clear. The mystical appropriation of Christ by the believer (Galatians:2:20; strkjv@Ephesians:3:17|) they could not comprehend, though some apparently were against this literal interpretation of "flesh" (\sarx\).

rwp@John:8:15 @{After the flesh} (\kata tn sarka\)...the standards of the flesh... (2Corinthians:5:16|). The Baptist had said: "There stands one among you whom ye know not" (John:1:26|). The Light of the World had come, but they loved darkness rather than light (3:19|), because the god of this age had blinded their thoughts so that they could not see the illumination of the gospel of the glory of Christ who is the image of God (2Corinthians:4:4|).

rwp@Luke:13:27 @{I know not whence ye are} (\ouk oida pothen este\)...with Christ in the flesh does...8:9| as in strkjv@Matthew:7:23|, there as in the LXX, here with \pantes ergatai adikias\, there with \hoi ergazomenoi tn anomian\. But \apostte\ (second aorist active imperative) here, and there \apochreite\ (present active imperative).

rwp@Mark:14:37 @{Simon, sleepest thou?} (\Simn, katheudeis;\)...the weakness of human flesh... (see on ¯Matthew:26:41|).

rwp@Mark:14:40 @{Very heavy} (\katabarunomenoi\). Perfective use of \kata-\ with the participle. Matthew has the simple verb. Mark's word is only here in the N.T. and is rare in Greek writers. Mark has the vivid present passive participle, while Matthew has the perfect passive \bebarmenoi\. {And they wist not what to answer him} (\kai ouk ideisan ti apokrithsin auti\). Deliberative subjunctive retained in the indirect question. Alone in Mark and reminds one of the like embarrassment of these same three disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Mark:9:6|)...occasions weakness of the flesh prevented...(Gould).

rwp@Matthew:26:41 @{Watch and pray} (\grgoreite kai proseuchesthe\). Jesus repeats the command of verse 38| with the addition of prayer and with the warning against the peril of temptation. He himself was feeling the worst of all temptations of his earthly life just then. He did not wish then to enter such temptation (\peirasmon\, here in this sense, not mere trial). Thus we are to understand the prayer in strkjv@Matthew:6:13| about leading (being led)...to weakness of the flesh as...{Spirit} (\pneuma\) here is the moral life (\intellect, will, emotions\)...as opposed to the flesh... (cf. strkjv@Isaiah:31:3; strkjv@Romans:7:25|). {Except I drink it} (\ean m auto pi\). Condition of the third class undetermined, but with likelihood of determination, whereas {if this cannot pass away} (\ei ou dunatai touto parelthein\) is first-class condition, determined as fulfilled, assumed to be true. This delicate distinction accurately presents the real attitude of Jesus towards this subtle temptation.

rwp@Matthew:27:32 @{Compelled} (\ggareusan\). This word of Persian origin was used in strkjv@Matthew:5:41|, which see. There are numerous papyri examples of Ptolemaic date and it survives in modern Greek vernacular. Songs:the soldiers treat Simon of Cyrene (a town of Libya) as a Persian courier (\aggaros\)...scourging, have made the flesh weak"...(Bruce). Yes, and the burden of sin of the world that was breaking his heart. {His cross} (\ton stauron autou\). Jesus had used the term cross about himself (16:24|). It was a familiar enough picture under Roman rule. Jesus had long foreseen and foretold this horrible form of death for himself (Matthew:20:19; strkjv@23:24; strkjv@26:2|). He had heard the cry of the mob to Pilate that he be crucified (27:22|) and Pilate's surrender (27:26|) and he was on the way to the Cross (27:31|). There were various kinds of crosses and we do not know precisely the shape of the Cross on which Jesus was crucified, though probably the one usually presented is correct. Usually the victim was nailed (hands and feet) to the cross before it was raised and it was not very high. The crucifixion was done by the soldiers (27:35|) in charge and two robbers were crucified on each side of Jesus, three crosses standing in a row (27:38|).

rwp@Philemon:1:16 @{No longer as a servant} (\ouketi hs doulon\). "No longer as a slave." Songs:it has to be here. Songs:it should be always. Paul sends Onesimus, the converted runaway slave, back to his legal master, but shows that he expects Philemon the Christian to treat Onesimus as a brother in Christ, not as a slave. {But more than a servant} (\all' huper doulon\). "But beyond a slave." {A brother beloved} (\adelphon agapton\). A brother in Christ. {How much rather to thee} (\posi de mllon soi\)...Christian slave. "In the flesh Philemon...(Meyer).

rwp@Revelation:17:16 @{These shall hate the harlot} (\houtoi missousin tn pornn\). Future active of \mise\. \Houtoi\ is resumptive demonstrative pronoun (masculine) referring to the ten horns and the beast (neuter); construction according to sense. The downfall of Rome will come from the sudden change in subject peoples. {Shall make her desolate and naked} (\rmmenn poisousin autn kai gumnn\). Future active of \poie\ and perfect passive predicate accusative participle of \ermo\, old verb (from \ermos\ desolate), again in strkjv@18:16,19|. \Gumnn\ (naked) is predicate adjective. {Shall eat her flesh} (\tas sarkas auts phagontai\). Future middle of the defective verb \esthi\, to eat. Note plural \sarkas\, portions of flesh (James:5:3|) as in strkjv@Psalms:27:2; strkjv@Micah:3:3|. {Shall burn her utterly with fire} (\autn katakausousin en puri\). Future active of \katakai\, to burn down (perfective use of \kai\). John wrote before the days of Alaric, Genseric, Ricimer, Totila, with their hordes which devastated Rome and the west in the fifth and sixth centuries. "No reader of the _Decline and Fall_ can be at a loss for materials which will at once illustrate and justify the general trend of St. John's prophecy" (Swete).

rwp@Revelation:19:18 @{That ye may eat} (\hina phagte\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \esthi\. {The flesh of kings} (\sarkas basilen\). "Pieces of flesh" (plural of \sarx\, flesh) and of all classes and conditions of men who fell in the battle (6:18; strkjv@11:13; strkjv@13:16; strkjv@19:5; strkjv@20:12|). War is no respecter of persons.

rwp@Romans:8:3 @{That the law could not do} (\to adunaton tou nomou\). Literally, "the impossibility of the law" as shown in strkjv@7:7-24|, either nominative absolute or accusative of general reference. No syntactical connection with the rest of the sentence. {In that} (\en hi\). "Wherein." {It was weak} (\sthenei\). Imperfect active, continued weak as already shown. {...the likeness of sinful flesh...} (\en homoimati sarkos hamartias\). For "likeness" see strkjv@Phillipians:2:7|...Son." Two genitives "of flesh of...(marked by sin)...is, but not the flesh of...{And for sin} (\kai peri hamartias\). Condensed phrase, God sent his Son also concerning sin (our sin). {Condemned sin in the flesh} (\katekrine tn hamartian en ti sarki\). First aorist active indicative of \katakrin\...took place in the flesh of...\tn\ had been repeated before \en ti sarki\...affirmed sin in the flesh of...(Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 784).

rwp@Romans:8:6 @{The mind} (\to phronma\)...or will of the flesh is...7:7-24|. {Life} (\z\). In contrast with "death." {Peace} (\eirn\). As seen in strkjv@5:1-5|.

rwp@Romans:15:27 @{Their debtors} (\opheiletai autn\). Objective genitive: the Gentiles are debtors to the Jews. See the word \opheilets\ in strkjv@1:14; strkjv@8:12|. {For if} (\ei gar\). Condition of the first class, assumed as true, first aorist active indicative (\ekoinnsan\, from \koinne\, to share) with associative instrumental case (\pneumatikois\, spiritual things). {To minister unto} (\leitourgsai\, first aorist active infinitive of \leitourge\ with dative case \autois\, to them), but here certainly with no "sacerdotal" functions (cf. verse 16|). {In carnal things} (\en tois sarkikois\)...natural life of the flesh... (\sarx\)...sinful aspects of the flesh at...

CONCORD flesh