NONE.filter - rwp problems:

rwp@Info_1Corinthians @ It is clear therefore that Paul wrote what we call I Corinthians in a disturbed state of mind. He had founded the church there, had spent two years there (Acts:18|), and took pardonable pride in his work there as a wise architect (1Corinthians:3:10|) for he had built the church on Christ as the foundation. He was anxious that his work should abide. It is plain that the disturbances in the church in Corinth were fomented from without by the Judaizers whom Paul had defeated at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:1-35; strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10|). They were overwhelmed there, but renewed their attacks in Antioch (Galatians:2:11-21|). Henceforth throughout the second mission tour they are a disturbing element in Galatia, in Corinth, in Jerusalem. While Paul is winning the Gentiles in the Roman Empire to Christ, these Judaizers are trying to win Paul's converts to Judaism. Nowhere do we see the conflict at so white a heat as in Corinth. Paul finally will expose them with withering sarcasm (2Corinthians:10-13|) as Jesus did the Pharisees in strkjv@Matthew:23| on that last day in the temple. Factional strife, immorality, perverted ideas about marriage, spiritual gifts, and the resurrection, these complicated problems are a vivid picture of church life in our cities today. The discussion of them shows Paul's manysidedness and also the powerful grasp that he has upon the realities of the gospel. Questions of casuistry are faced fairly and serious ethical issues are met squarely. But along with the treatment of these vexed matters Paul sings the noblest song of the ages on love (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:13|) and writes the classic discussion on the resurrection (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:15|). If one knows clearly and fully the Corinthian Epistles and Paul's dealings with Corinth, he has an understanding of a large section of his life and ministry. No church caused him more anxiety than did Corinth (2Corinthians:11:28|).

rwp@1Corinthians:1:2 @{The church of God} (\ti ekklsii tou theou\). Belonging to God, not to any individual or faction, as this genitive case shows. In strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:1| Paul wrote "the church of the Thessalonians in God" (\en thei\), but "the churches of God" in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:14|. See same idiom in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:32; strkjv@11:16,22; strkjv@15:9; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:1; strkjv@Galatians:1:13|, etc. {Which is in Corinth} (\ti ousi en Korinthi\). See on strkjv@Acts:13:1| for idiom. It is God's church even in Corinth, "_laetum et ingens paradoxon_" (Bengel). This city, destroyed by Mummius B.C. 146, had been restored by Julius Caesar a hundred years later, B.C. 44, and now after another hundred years has become very rich and very corrupt. The very word "to Corinthianize" meant to practise vile immoralities in the worship of Aphrodite (Venus). It was located on the narrow Isthmus of the Peloponnesus with two harbours (Lechaeum and Cenchreae). It had schools of rhetoric and philosophy and made a flashy imitation of the real culture of Athens. See strkjv@Acts:18| for the story of Paul's work here and now the later developments and divisions in this church will give Paul grave concern as is shown in detail in I and II Corinthians. All the problems of a modern city church come to the front in Corinth. They call for all the wisdom and statesmanship in Paul. {That are sanctified} (\hgiasmenois\). Perfect passive participle of \hagiaz\, late form for \hagiz\, so far found only in the Greek Bible and in ecclesiastical writers. It means to make or to declare \hagion\ (from \hagos\, awe, reverence, and this from \haz\, to venerate). It is significant that Paul uses this word concerning the {called saints} or {called to be saints} (\kltois hagiois\) in Corinth. Cf. \kltos apostolos\ in strkjv@1:1|. It is because they are sanctified {in Christ Jesus} (\en Christi Isou\). He is the sphere in which this act of consecration takes place. Note plural, construction according to sense, because \ekklsia\ is a collective substantive. {With all that call upon} (\sun psin tois epikaloumenois\). Associative instrumental case with \sun\ rather than \kai\ (and), making a close connection with "saints" just before and so giving the Corinthian Christians a picture of their close unity with the brotherhood everywhere through the common bond of faith. This phrase occurs in the LXX (Genesis:12:8; strkjv@Zechariah:13:9|) and is applied to Christ as to Jehovah (2Thessalonians:1:7,9,12; strkjv@Phillipians:2:9,10|). Paul heard Stephen pray to Christ as Lord (Acts:7:59|). Here "with a plain and direct reference to the Divinity of our Lord" (Ellicott). {Their Lord and ours} (\autn kai hmn\). This is the interpretation of the Greek commentators and is the correct one, an afterthought and expansion (\epanorthsis\) of the previous "our," showing the universality of Christ.

rwp@1Corinthians:2:13 @{Which things also we speak} (\ha kai laloumen\). This onomatopoetic verb \lale\ (from \la-la\), to utter sounds. In the papyri the word calls more attention to the form of utterance while \leg\ refers more to the substance. But \lale\ in the N.T. as here is used of the highest and holiest speech. Undoubtedly Paul employs the word purposely for the utterance of the revelation which he has understood. That is to say, there is revelation (verse 10|), illumination (verse 12|), and inspiration (verse 13|). Paul claims therefore the help of the Holy Spirit for the reception of the revelation, for the understanding of it, for the expression of it. Paul claimed this authority for his preaching (1Thessalonians:4:2|) and for his epistles (2Thessalonians:3:14|). {Not in words which man's wisdom teacheth} (\ouk en didaktois anthrpins sophias logois\). Literally, "not in words taught by human wisdom." The verbal adjective \didaktois\ (from \didask\, to teach) is here passive in idea and is followed by the ablative case of origin or source as in strkjv@John:6:45|, \esontai pantes didaktoi theou\ (from strkjv@Isaiah:54:13|), "They shall all be taught by God." The ablative in Greek, as is well known, has the same form as the genitive, though quite different in idea (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 516). Songs:then Paul claims the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance (\laloumen\) of the words, "which the Spirit teacheth (\en didaktois pneumatos\), "in words taught by the Spirit" (ablative \pneumatos\ as above). Clearly Paul means that the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance of the revelation extends to the words. No theory of inspiration is here stated, but it is not _mere_ human wisdom. Paul's own Epistles bear eloquent witness to the lofty claim here made. They remain today after nearly nineteen centuries throbbing with the power of the Spirit of God, dynamic with life for the problems of today as when Paul wrote them for the needs of the believers in his time, the greatest epistles of all time, surcharged with the energy of God. {Comparing spiritual things with spiritual} (\pneumatikois pneumatika sunkrinontes\). Each of these words is in dispute. The verb \sunkrin\, originally meant to combine, to join together fitly. In the LXX it means to interpret dreams (Genesis:40:8,22; strkjv@41:12|) possibly by comparison. In the later Greek it may mean to compare as in strkjv@2Corinthians:10:12|. In the papyri Moulton and Milligan (_Vocabulary_) give it only for "decide," probably after comparing. But "comparing," in spite of the translations, does not suit well here. Songs:it is best to follow the original meaning to combine as do Lightfoot and Ellicott. But what gender is \pneumatikois\? Is it masculine or neuter like \pneumatika\? If masculine, the idea would be "interpreting (like LXX) spiritual truths to spiritual persons" or "matching spiritual truths with spiritual persons." This is a possible rendering and makes good sense in harmony with verse 14|. If \pneumatikois\ be taken as neuter plural (associative instrumental case after \sun\ in \sunkrinontes\), the idea most naturally would be, "combining spiritual ideas (\pneumatika\) with spiritual words" (\pneumatikois\). This again makes good sense in harmony with the first part of verse 13|. On the whole this is the most natural way to take it, though various other possibilities exist.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:1 @{Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote} (\peri de hn egrapsate\). An ellipsis of \peri toutn\, the antecedent of \peri hn\, is easily supplied as in papyri. The church had written Paul a letter in which a number of specific problems about marriage were raised. He answers them _seriatim_. The questions must be clearly before one in order intelligently to interpret Paul's replies. The first is whether a single life is wrong. Paul pointedly says that it is not wrong, but good (\kalon\). One will get a one-sided view of Paul's teaching on marriage unless he keeps a proper perspective. One of the marks of certain heretics will be forbidding to marry (1Timothy:4:3|). Paul uses marriage as a metaphor of our relation to Christ (2Corinthians:11:2; strkjv@Romans:7:4; strkjv@Ephesians:5:28-33|). Paul is not here opposing marriage. He is only arguing that celibacy may be good in certain limitations. The genitive case with \haptesthai\ (touch) is the usual construction.

rwp@1Corinthians:8:2 @{Puffeth up} (\phusioi\). From \phusio\ (present indicative active). See on ¯4:6|. Pride may be the result, not edification (\oikodomei\) which comes from love. Note article (\h\) with both \gnsis\ and \agap\, making the contrast sharper. See on ¯1Thessalonians:5:11| for the verb \oikodome\, to build up. Love is the solution, not knowledge, in all social problems. {That he knoweth anything} (\egnkenai ti\). Perfect active infinitive in indirect discourse after \dokei\ (condition of first class with \ei\). Songs:"has acquired knowledge" (cf. strkjv@3:18|), has gone to the bottom of the subject. {He knoweth not yet} (\oup egn\). Second aorist active indicative, timeless aorist, summary (punctiliar) statement of his ignorance. {As he ought to know} (\kaths dei gnnai\). Second aorist active infinitive, ingressive aorist (come to know). Newton's remark that he was only gathering pebbles on the shore of the ocean of truth is pertinent. The really learned man knows his ignorance of what lies beyond. Shallow knowledge is like the depth of the mud hole, not of the crystal spring.

rwp@1Corinthians:11:11 @{Howbeit} (\pln\). This adversative clause limits the preceding statement. Each sex is incomplete without (\chris\, apart from, with the ablative case) the other. {In the Lord} (\en Kurii\). In the sphere of the Lord, where Paul finds the solution of all problems.

rwp@1Corinthians:16:1 @{Now concerning the collection for the saints} (\peri de ts logias ts eis tous hagious\). Paul has discussed all the problems raised by the Corinthians. Now he has on his own heart the collection for the saints in Jerusalem (see chapters strkjv@2Corinthians:8; 9|). This word \logia\ (or \-eia\) is now known to be derived from a late verb \logeu\, to collect, recently found in papyri and inscriptions (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 143). The word \logia\ is chiefly found in papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions that tell of religious collections for a god or a temple (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 105). The introduction of this topic may seem sudden, but the Corinthians were behind with their part of it. They may even have asked further about it. Paul feels no conflict between discussion of the resurrection and the collection. {Songs:also do ye} (\houts kai humas poisate\). Paul had given orders (\dietaxa\) to the churches of Galatia and now gives them like commands. As a matter of fact, they had promised a long time before this (2Corinthians:8:10; strkjv@9:1-5|). Now do what you pledged.

rwp@1Corinthians:16:16 @{That ye also be in subjection unto such} (\hina kai humeis hupotasssthe tois toioutois\). This is the exhortation begun in verse 15|. The family of Stephanas took the lead in good works. Do ye also follow such leaders. This is our great problem today, to find great leaders and many loyal followers. This would solve all church problems, great leadership and great following. Lend a hand.

rwp@Info_1Timothy @ FIRST TIMOTHY PROBABLY A.D. 65 FROM MACEDONIA BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION Assuming the Pauline authorship the facts shape up after this fashion. Paul had been in Ephesus (1Timothy:1:3|) after his arrival from Rome, which was certainly before the burning of Rome in A.D. 64. He had left Timothy in charge of the work in Ephesus and has gone on into Macedonia (1Timothy:1:3|), possibly to Philippi as he had hoped (Phillipians:2:24|). He wishes to help Timothy meet the problems of doctrine (against the Gnostics), discipline, and church training which are increasingly urgent. There are personal touches of a natural kind about Timothy's own growth and leadership. There are wise words here from the greatest of all preachers to a young minister whom Paul loved. strkjv@1Timothy:1:1 @{According to the commandment} (\kat' epitagn\). A late _Koin_ word (Polybius, Diodorus), but a Pauline word also in N.T. This very idiom ("by way of command") in strkjv@1Corinthians:7:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:8; strkjv@Romans:16:26; strkjv@1Timothy:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:3|. Paul means to say that he is an apostle under orders. {Of God our Saviour} (\theou stros hmn\). Genitive case with \epitagn\. In the LXX \str\ (old word from \sz\ for agent in saving, applied to deities, princes, kings, etc.) occurs 20 times, all but two to God. The Romans called the emperor "Saviour God." In the N.T. the designation of God as Saviour is peculiar to strkjv@Luke:1:47; strkjv@Jude:1:25; strkjv@1Timothy:1:3; strkjv@2:3; strkjv@4:10; strkjv@Titus:1:3; strkjv@2:10; strkjv@3:4|. In the other Epistles Paul uses it of Christ (Phillipians:3:20; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23|) as in strkjv@2Timothy:1:10|. In strkjv@2Peter:1:1| we have "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" as in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. {Our hope} (\ts elpidos hmn\). Like strkjv@Colossians:1:27|. More than the author and object of hope, "its very substance and foundation" (Ellicott).

rwp@Info_2Corinthians @ It is clear therefore that Paul wrote what we call I Corinthians in a disturbed state of mind. He had founded the church there, had spent two years there (Acts:18|), and took pardonable pride in his work there as a wise architect (1Corinthians:3:10|) for he had built the church on Christ as the foundation. He was anxious that his work should abide. It is plain that the disturbances in the church in Corinth were fomented from without by the Judaizers whom Paul had defeated at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:1-35; strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10|). They were overwhelmed there, but renewed their attacks in Antioch (Galatians:2:11-21|). Henceforth throughout the second mission tour they are a disturbing element in Galatia, in Corinth, in Jerusalem. While Paul is winning the Gentiles in the Roman Empire to Christ, these Judaizers are trying to win Paul's converts to Judaism. Nowhere do we see the conflict at so white a heat as in Corinth. Paul finally will expose them with withering sarcasm (2Corinthians:10-13|) as Jesus did the Pharisees in strkjv@Matthew:23| on that last day in the temple. Factional strife, immorality, perverted ideas about marriage, spiritual gifts, and the resurrection, these complicated problems are a vivid picture of church life in our cities today. The discussion of them shows Paul's manysidedness and also the powerful grasp that he has upon the realities of the gospel. Questions of casuistry are faced fairly and serious ethical issues are met squarely. But along with the treatment of these vexed matters Paul sings the noblest song of the ages on love (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:13|) and writes the classic discussion on the resurrection (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:15|). If one knows clearly and fully the Corinthian Epistles and Paul's dealings with Corinth, he has an understanding of a large section of his life and ministry. No church caused him more anxiety than did Corinth (2Corinthians:11:28|).

rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER ABOUT A.D. 66 OR 67 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION MOST DOUBTFUL NEW TESTAMENT BOOK Every book in the New Testament is challenged by some one, as indeed the historicity of Jesus Christ himself is and the very existence of God. But it is true that more modern scholars deny the genuineness of II Peter than that of any single book in the canon. This is done by men like F. H. Chase, J. B. Mayor, and R. D. Strachan, who are followers of Christ as Lord and Saviour. One has to admit that the case concerning II Peter has problems of peculiar difficulty that call for careful consideration and balanced judgment. One other word needs to be said, which is that an adverse decision against the authenticity of II Peter stands by itself and does not affect the genuineness of the other books. It is easy to take an extreme position for or against it without full knowledge of all the evidence.

rwp@Info_Acts @ LUKE THE AUTHOR It ought to be possible to assume this as a fact since the work of Ramsay and Harnack on various phases of the problems concerning the Acts. Harnack, in particular, has covered the ground with his accustomed thoroughness and care in his two volumes (_The Acts of the Apostles_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1909; _The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1911). Ramsay's view may be found in Chapter I of _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen_, Chapter XII of _Pauline and Other Studies_. A good summary of the matter appears in Part V of _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_ by Dr. D. A. Hayes, in Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, and in the introduction to the various commentaries by Knowling, Rackham, Furneaux, Rendall, Hackett, Meyer-Wendt, Zahn, Blass, Campbell-Morgan, Stokes. In Part I of _The Acts of the Apostles_, Vol. II of _The Beginnings of Christianity_, edited by Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake both sides are ably presented: _The Case for the Tradition_ by C. W. Emmet, _The Case against the Tradition_ by H. Windisch. _The Internal Evidence of Acts_ is discussed by the Editors, Foakes-Jackson and Lake, with an adverse conclusion against Luke. Henry J. Cadbury surveys _The Tradition_ (the external evidence) and draws a negative conclusion likewise on the ground that the early writers who ascribe Acts to Luke were not critical scholars. A similar position is taken by Cadbury in his more recent volume, _The Making of Luke--Acts_ (1927). But all the same the traditional view that Luke is the author of the Acts holds the field with those who are not prejudiced against it. The view of Baur that Acts is a _Tendenz_ writing for the purpose of healing the breach between Peter and Paul and showing that the two factions came together had great influence for a while. In fact both Ramsay and Harnack at first held it. Ramsay broke away first and he was followed by Harnack. Both were influenced to change their views by the accumulation of evidence to the effect that the author of both the Gospel and Acts is Luke the Physician and Friend of Paul. Part of this evidence has already been given in the Introduction to the Gospel according to Luke.

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE TEXT OF THE ACTS A special problem arises concerning the text of Acts inasmuch as the Codex Bezae (D) with some other Western support presents a great many additions to the Neutral-Alexandrian text of Aleph A B C. Blass has even proposed the idea that Luke himself issued two editions of the book, an attractive hypothesis that is not generally accepted. J. M. Wilson has published _The Acts of the Apostles from Codex Bezae_. The whole subject is elaborately treated by J. H. Ropes in Vol. III, _The Text of Acts_ in Part I of _The Beginnings of Christianity_. Besides thorough discussion of all the problems of text involved Ropes gives the text of the Vatican Codex (B) on the left page and that of Codex Bezae (D) on the right, making comparison easy. Blass's ideas appear in his _Acta Apostolorum_.

rwp@Acts:13:16 @{Paul stood up} (\anastas Paulos\). The Jewish custom was to sit while speaking (Luke:4:20|), but the Greek and Roman was to stand (Acts:17:22|). It is possible as Lewin (_Life of St. Paul_, Vol. 1, p. 141) suggests that here Paul stepped upon the platform and then took his seat as he began to speak or he may have followed the Greek and Roman custom. Paul is the leader now and the more gifted speaker (Acts:14:12|), so that he responds to the courteous invitation of the rulers. {Beckoning} (\kataseisas\). First aorist active participle of \katasei\, old verb to shake down, a dramatic gesture for quiet and order like Peter in strkjv@12:17| and Paul on the steps of the tower of Antonia (21:40|). {And ye that fear God} (\kai hoi phoboumenoi ton theon\). Evidently large numbers of these Gentiles like Cornelius in Caesarea were present. They offered Paul a great opportunity for reaching the purely pagan Gentiles. This (verses 16-41|) is the first full report of a sermon of Paul's that Luke has preserved for us. He is now a practised preacher of the gospel that he began proclaiming at Damascus, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of promise and the Saviour of the whole world both Jew and Gentile if they will only believe on him and be saved. It is possible that Paul here based his sermon on the passages of the law and the prophets that had just been read. He uses two words from the LXX, one in verse 19| from strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:31| \etrophophorsen\ (as a nursing-father bare he them), the reading of many old MSS. and the one preferred by the American Committee, the other in verse 17| from strkjv@Isaiah:1:2| \hupssen\ (exalted). At any rate it is clear that Paul spoke in Greek so that all could understand his sermon. He may have written out notes of this sermon afterwards for Luke. The keynotes of Paul's theology as found in his Epistles appear in this sermon. It is interesting to observe the steady growth of Paul's Christology as he faced the great problems of his day. Here we see Paul's gospel for the Jews and the God-fearers (Gentiles friendly to the Jews).

rwp@Acts:14:23 @{And when they had appointed for them elders in every church} (\cheirotonsantes de autois kat' ekklsian presbuterous\). They needed also some form of organization, though already churches. Note distributive use of \kata\ with \ekklsian\ (2:46; strkjv@5:42; strkjv@Titus:1:5|). \Cheirotone\ (from \cheirotonos\, extending the hand, \cheir\, hand, and \tein\, to stretch) is an old verb that originally meant to vote by show of the hands, finally to appoint with the approval of an assembly that chooses as in strkjv@2Corinthians:8:19|, and then to appoint without regard to choice as in Josephus (_Ant_. XIII. 2, 2) of the appointment of Jonathan as high priest by Alexander. Songs:in strkjv@Acts:10:41| the compound \procheiratone\ is used of witnesses appointed by God. But the seven (deacons) were first selected by the Jerusalem church and then appointed (\katastsomen\) by the apostles. That is probably the plan contemplated by Paul in his directions to Titus (Titus:1:5|) about the choice of elders. It is most likely that this plan was the one pursued by Paul and Barnabas with these churches. They selected the elders in each instance and Paul and Barnabas "ordained" them as we say, though the word \cheirotone\ does not mean that. "Elders" were mentioned first in strkjv@11:30|. Later Paul will give the requirements expected in these "elders" or "bishops" (Phillipians:1:1|) as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:1-7; strkjv@Titus:1:5-9|. It is fairly certain that these elders were chosen to correspond in a general way with the elders in the Jewish synagogue after which the local church was largely copied as to organization and worship. Paul, like Jesus, constantly worshipped and spoke in the synagogues. Already it is plain, as at Antioch in Syria (11:26|), that the Christians can no longer count on the use of the Jewish synagogue. They must have an organization of their own. The use of the plural here implies what was true at Philippi (Phillipians:1:1|) and Ephesus (Acts:20:17,28|) that each church (one in each city) "had its college of elders" (Hackett) as in Jerusalem (21:18|). Elder (\presbuteros\) was the Jewish name and bishop (\episkopos\) the Greek name for the same office. "Those who are called elders in speaking of Jewish communities are called bishops in speaking of Gentile communities" (Hackett). Hovey rightly holds against Hackett that teaching was a normal function of these elders, pastors or bishops as they were variously called (1Timothy:3:2; strkjv@Titus:1:9; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:28,30; strkjv@Ephesians:4:11|). {Had prayed with fasting} (\proseuxamenoi meta nstein\). It was a serious matter, this formal setting apart of these "elders" in the churches. Songs:it was done in a public meeting with prayer and fasting as when Paul and Barnabas were sent forth from Antioch in Syria (13:3|) on this mission tour. {They commended them to the Lord} (\parethento autous ti kurii\). Second aorist middle indicative of \paratithmi\. Old and solemn word, to entrust, to deposit as in a bank (1Timothy:1:18; strkjv@2Timothy:2:2|). Cf. \parathk\ in strkjv@1Timothy:6:20; strkjv@2Timothy:1:12,14|. It was all that they could now do, to commit them to the Lord Jesus. Jesus used this word on the cross (Luke:22:32|). {On whom they had believed} (\eis hon pepisteukeisan\). Past perfect indicative (without augment) of \pisteu\. They had "trusted" in Jesus (2Timothy:1:12|) and Paul now "entrusts" them to him with confidence. It was a solemn and serious occasion in each instance as it always is to set apart men for the ministry. These men may not have been ideal men for this service, but they were the only ones available and they were chosen from the actual membership in each instance, men who knew local conditions and problems.

rwp@Colossians:1:9 @{That ye may be filled with} (\hina plrthte\). First aorist (effective) passive subjunctive of \plro\, to fill full. {The knowledge of his will} (\tn epignsin tou thelmatos autou\). The accusative case is retained with this passive verb. \Epignsis\ is a _Koin_ word (Polybius, Plutarch, etc.) for additional (\epi\) or full knowledge. The word is the keynote of Paul's reply to the conceit of Gnosticism. The cure for these intellectual upstarts is not ignorance, not obscurantism, but more knowledge of the will of God. {In all spiritual wisdom and understanding} (\en pasi sophii kai sunesei pneumatiki\). Both \pasei\ (all) and \pneumatiki\ (spiritual) are to be taken with both \sophii\ and \sunesei\. In strkjv@Ephesians:1:8| Paul uses \phronsei\ (from \phrn\, intellect) rather than \sunesei\ (grasp, from \sunimi\, to send together). \Sunesis\ is the faculty of deciding in particular cases while \sophia\ gives the general principles (Abbott). Paul faces Gnosticism with full front and wishes the freest use of all one's intellectual powers in interpreting Christianity. The preacher ought to be the greatest man in the world for he has to deal with the greatest problems of life and death.

rwp@Colossians:2:15 @{Having put off from himself} (\apekdusamenos\). Only here and strkjv@3:9| and one MS. of Josephus (\apekdus\). Both \apodu\ and \ekdu\ occur in ancient writers. Paul simply combines the two for expression of complete removal. But two serious problems arise here. Is God or Christ referred to by \apekdusamenos\? What is meant by "the principalities and the powers" (\tas archas kai tas exousias\)? Modern scholars differ radically and no full discussion can be attempted here as one finds in Lightfoot, Haupt, Abbott, Peake. On the whole I am inclined to look on God as still the subject and the powers to be angels such as the Gnostics worshipped and the verb to mean "despoil" (American Standard Version) rather than "having put off from himself." In the Cross of Christ God showed his power openly without aid or help of angels. {He made a show of them} (\edeigmatisen\). First aorist active indicative of \deigmatiz\, late and rare verb from \deigma\ (Jude:1:7|), an example, and so to make an example of. Frequent in the papyri though later than \paradeigmatiz\ and in N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:1:19| of Joseph's conduct toward Mary. No idea of disgrace is necessarily involved in the word. The publicity is made plain by "openly" (\en parrsii\). {Triumphing over them on it} (\thriambeusas autous en auti\). On the Cross the triumph was won. This late, though common verb in _Koin_ writers (\ekthriambeu\ in the papyri) occurs only twice in the N.T., once "to lead in triumph" (2Corinthians:2:14|), here to celebrate a triumph (the usual sense). It is derived from \thriambos\, a hymn sung in festal procession and is kin to the Latin _triumphus_ (our triumph), a triumphal procession of victorious Roman generals. God won a complete triumph over all the angelic agencies (\autous\, masculine regarded as personal agencies). Lightfoot adds, applying \thriambeusas\ to Christ: "The convict's gibbet is the victor's car." It is possible, of course, to take \auti\ as referring to \cheirographon\ (bond) or even to Christ.

rwp@Colossians:3:17 @{Whatsoever ye do} (\pn hoti ean poite\). Indefinite relative (everything whatever) with \ean\ and the present active subjunctive, a common idiom in such clauses. {Do all} (\panta\). The imperative \poieite\ has to be supplied from \poite\ in the relative clause. \Panta\ is repeated from \pn\ (singular), but in the plural (all things). \Pn\ is left as a nominative absolute as in strkjv@Matthew:10:32; strkjv@Luke:12:10|. This is a sort of Golden Rule for Christians "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (\en onomati Kuriou Isou\), in the spirit of the Lord Jesus (Ephesians:5:20|). What follows (directions to the various groups) is in this same vein. Sociological problems have always existed. Paul puts his finger on the sore spot in each group with unerring skill like a true diagnostician.

rwp@Info_Ephesians @ THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS FROM ROME A.D. 63 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There are some problems of a special nature that confront us about the so-called Epistle to the Ephesians. THE AUTHORSHIP It is not admitted by all that Paul wrote it, though no other adequate explanation of its origin has ever been given. Songs:far as subject matter and vocabulary and style are concerned, if Colossians is Pauline, there is little or nothing to be said against the Pauline authorship of this Epistle.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ THE REASON FOR HIS EPISTLES In a real sense Paul's Epistles are tracts for the times, not for the age in general, but to meet real emergencies. He wrote to a particular church or group of churches or persons to meet immediate needs brought to his attention by messengers or letters. Dr. Deissmann contends strongly for the idea of calling Paul's Epistles "letters" rather than "Epistles." He gives a studied literary character to "epistles" as more or less artificial and written for the public eye rather than for definite effect. Four of Paul's Epistles are personal (those to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy) beyond a doubt, but in these which can properly be termed personal letters there are the principles of the gospel applied to personal, social, and ecclesiastical problems in such a pungent fashion that they possess permanent value. In the earliest group of Paul's Epistles, he reminds the Thessalonians of the official character of the Epistle which was meant for the church as a whole (1Thessalonians:5:27|). He says also: "But if any one does not obey our word by the epistle, mark this one, not to associate with him, that he may be put to shame" (2Thessalonians:3:14|). He calls attention to his signature as proof of the genuineness of every epistle (2Thessalonians:3:17|). He gave directions for the public reading of his epistles (Colossians:4:16|). He regarded them as the expression of God's will through the life of the churches and he put his whole heart into them. Two great controversies stirred Paul's life. That with the Judaizers called forth the great doctrinal group (I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans). That with the Gnostics occasioned the Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians (Laodiceans) and this controversy ran on into the Pastoral Epistles. Each Epistle had its particular occasion which will be pointed out in due season. But even in the short ones like Philippians, Colossians and Ephesians Paul deals with the sublimest of all themes, the Person of Christ, with a masterfulness never equalled elsewhere. Even in I Corinthians, which deals so largely with church problems in Corinth, two great chapters rise to the heights of real eloquence (Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:13| on Love and Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:15| on the Resurrection). Romans, the greatest of his Epistles, has the fullest discussion of Paul's gospel of grace and Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:8| has a sweep of imagination and a grasp of faith unsurpassed. Hence, while denying to Paul the artificial rules of the rhetoricians attributed to him by Blass, I cannot agree that Paul's church Epistles are mere incidental letters. It is not a question whether Paul was writing for posterity or for the present emergency. He wrote for the present emergency in the most effective possible way. He brought the whole gospel message to bear upon the varied and pressing problems of the early Christians in the power of the Holy Spirit with the eloquence of a mind all ablaze with the truth and with a heart that yearned for their souls for Christ. They are not literary epistles, but they are more than personal letters. They are thunderbolts of passion and power that struck centre and that strike fire now for all who will take the trouble to come to them for the mind of Christ that is here.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ FOUR GROUPS OF PAULINE EPISTLES I. First Thessalonians. | Second Thessalonians. | A.D. 50 to 51. Chief topic Eschatology. To correct misconceptions in Thessalonica. II. First Corinthians. | Second Corinthians | Galatians | A.D. 54 to 57. Romans. | Chief topic Justification by Faith. Defence against the Judaizers. III. Philippians. | Philemon. | Colossians. | A.D. 61 to 63. Ephesians (Laodiceans). Chief topic Christology. Defence against the Gnostic perversions of the Person of Christ. IV. First Timothy. | Titus. | A.D. 65 to 68. Second Timothy. | Ecclesiastical Problems to the fore. DEVELOPMENT IN PAUL'S THEOLOGY

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ The study of Paul's Epistles in the order of their writing is the best possible way of seeing his own growth as a theologian and interpreter of Christ. Sabatier long ago laid emphasis on this point in his book _The Apostle Paul_ as did Matheson in _The Spiritual Development of Paul_. It is a tragedy to have to read Paul's Epistles as printed in the usual Greek text of Westcott and Hort and the English translations, beginning with Romans and ending with Philemon. In the manuscripts that give Paul's Epistles Romans comes first as the largest and most important, but Titus and Philemon come after II Timothy (the last just before his death). We know something of Paul's early preaching how he laid emphasis on the Messiahship of Jesus proven by his resurrection, Paul himself having seen the Risen Christ (Acts:9:22|). This conviction and experience lay at the foundation of all his work and he never faltered concerning it (Acts:17:3). In the earliest sermon of which we have a full report Paul proclaims justification by faith in Christ with forgiveness of sins (Acts:13:38f.|), blessings not obtained by the law of Moses. In the unfolding life of Paul he grappled with great problems of Jewish rabbinism and Greek philosophy and mystery-religions and Paul himself grew in stature as he courageously and victoriously faced Judaizer and Gnostic. There are scholars who claim that Paul surrendered to the appeal of Gnostic sacramentarianism and so went back on his great doctrine of justification by faith, not by works. It will be shown at the proper time that this view misinterprets Paul's attitude. The events given by Luke in the Acts fit in with the self-revelation of Paul in his own Epistles as we read them. Each one of the four groups of Epistles has a slightly different style and vocabulary as is natural when one comes to think of it. The same thing is true of the plays of Shakespeare and the poems of Milton. Style is the man, Buffon says. Yes, but style is also a function of the subject. Particularly is this true of vocabulary which has to vary with the different topics treated. But style in the same man varies with different ages. Ripened old age mellows the exuberance of youth and the passionate vehemence of manhood. We shall see Paul himself in his Epistles, letting himself go in various ways and in different moods. But in all the changing phases of his life and work there is the same masterful man who glories in being the slave of Jesus Christ and the Apostle to the Gentiles. The passion of Paul is Christ and one can feel the throb of the heart of the chief of sinners who became the chief of saints in all his Epistles. There is the Pauline glow and glory in them all.

rwp@Galatians:2:2 @{By revelation} (\kata apokalupsin\). In strkjv@Acts:15:2| the church sent them. But surely there is no inconsistency here. {I laid before them} (\anethemn autois\). Second aorist middle indicative of old word \anatithmi\, to put up, to place before, with the dative case. But who were the "them" (\autois\)? Evidently not the private conference for he distinguishes this address from that, "but privately" (\kat' idian\). Just place strkjv@Acts:15:4f.| beside the first clause and it is clear: "I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles," precisely as Luke has recorded. Then came the private conference after the uproar caused by the Judaizers (Acts:15:5|). {Before them who were of repute} (\tois dokousin\). He names three of them (Cephas, James, and John). James the Lord's brother, for the other James is now dead (Acts:12:1f.|). But there were others also, a select group of real leaders. The decision reached by this group would shape the decision of the public conference in the adjourned meeting. Songs:far as we know Paul had not met John before, though he had met Peter and James at the other visit. Lightfoot has much to say about the Big Four (St. Paul and the Three) who here discuss the problems of mission work among Jews and Gentiles. It was of the utmost importance that they should see eye to eye. The Judaizers were assuming that the twelve apostles and James the Lord's brother would side with them against Paul and Barnabas. Peter had already been before the Jerusalem Church for his work in Caesarea (Acts:11:1-18|). James was considered a very loyal Jew. {Lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain} (\m ps eis kenon trech edramon\). Negative purpose with the present subjunctive (\trech\) and then by a sudden change the aorist indicative (\edramon\), as a sort of afterthought or retrospect (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 201; Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 988). There are plenty of classical parallels. See also strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:5| for both together again.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION UNSETTLED PROBLEMS Probably no book in the New Testament presents more unsettled problems than does the Epistle to the Hebrews. On that score it ranks with the Fourth Gospel, the Apocalypse of John, and Second Peter. But, in spite of these unsolved matters, the book takes high rank for its intellectual grasp, spiritual power, and its masterful portrayal of Christ as High Priest. It is much briefer than the Fourth Gospel, but in a sense it carries on further the exalted picture of the Risen Christ as the King-Priest who reigns and pleads for us now.

rwp@Info_James @ THE PURPOSE If James is writing solely to non-Christian Jews, the purpose is to win them to Christ, and so he puts the gospel message in a way to get a hearing from the Jews. That is true, whether he has them in mind or not, though he does not do it by the suppression of the deity of Jesus Christ. In the very first verse he places him on a par with God as "the Lord Jesus Christ." In strkjv@James:2:1| he presents Jesus as the object of faith: "as you believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Glory" (Moffatt's Translation), where Jesus is termed the Shekinah Glory of God. It is true that there is no discussion in the Epistle of the cross and the resurrection of Jesus, but there is an allusion to the murder of Jesus in strkjv@James:5:6| and the second coming in strkjv@James:5:8|. The chief aim of the Epistle is to strengthen the faith and loyalty of the Jewish Christians in the face of persecution from rich and overbearing Jews who were defrauding and oppressing them. It is a picture of early Christian life in the midst of difficult social conditions between capital and labor which also exist today. Songs:then it is a very modern message even if it is the earliest New Testament book. The glory of the New Testament lies precisely at this point in that the revelation of God in Christ meets our problems today because it did meet those of the first century A.D. Christian principles stand out clearly for our present-day living.

rwp@Info_John @ A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE (SINCE 1880) ABBOT, EZRA, _On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1880). ABBOT, PEABODY, and LIGHTFOOT, _The Fourth Gospel_ (1891). ABBOTT, E.A., _Johannine Vocabulary_ (1935).,_Johannine Grammar_ (1906). APPEL, _Die Echtheit des Johannesevangeliums_ (1915). ASKWITH, E.H., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). BACON, B.W., _The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate_ (1910). BALDENSPERGER, W., _Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums_ (1898). BARTH, K., _The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels_ (1907). BAUER, W., _Das Johannes-Evangelium_. 2 Aufl. (1925). BELZER, _Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes_ (1905). BERNARD, J. H., _Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1929), in Int. Crit. Comm. BERT, _Das Evangelium des Johannes_ (1922). BLASS, F., _Evangelium secundum Johannem_ (1902). 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_ (1928). BURNEY, C. F., _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). CALMES, _L'Evangile selon S. Jean_ (1904). CANDLER, W. A., _Practical Studies in the Gospel of John_ (3 vols,, 1912-15). CARPENTER, J. ESTLIN, _The Johannine Writings_ (1927). CHAPMAN, DOM JOHN, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). CHARNWOOD, LORD, _According to St. John_ (1925). CLEMEN, C., _Die Entstehung des Johannesevangeliums_ (1912). D'ALMA, _Lamentations:Controverse du quatrieme evangile_ (1908).,Philo et le quotrieme evangile_ (1911). DAUSCH' _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1909). DELFF, H., _Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_ (1890).,Neue Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des vierten Evangeliums (1890). DODS, M., _Expositor's Bible_ (2 vols., 1891).,Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1897). DRUMMOND, JAMES, _An Inquiry into the Character and Author- ship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1904). EVANS, H. H., _St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel_ (1888). EWALD, P., _Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu seiner Losung_ (1890). FOUARD, S., _Jean et la hn de l'age apostolique_ (1904). GARDNER, P., _The Ephesian Gospel_ (1915). GARVIE, A. E., _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922). 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_ (1910).,Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1924). GORDON, S. D., _Quiet Talks on St. John's Gospel_. GORE, C., _Exposition of the Gospel of John_ (1920). GREEN, A. V., _The Ephesian Canonical Writings_ (1910). GREGORY, C. R., _Wellhausen und Johannes_ (1910). GRILL, J., _Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums_ (1902). GUMBEL, _Das Johannesevangelium Eine Erganzung des Lukas ev_. (1911). HARRIS, J. RENDEL, _The Origin of the Prologue to St. John's Gospel_ (1917). HAYES, D. A., _John and His Writings_ (1917). HOERNLE, E. S., _The Record of the Loved Disciple_ etc. (1913). HOLLAND, H. S., _The Philosophy of Faith and the Fourth Gospel_ (1919).,_The Fourth Gospel_ (1923). HOLTZMANN, H. J., _Evangelium, Briefe, und Offenbarung des Johannes_. 3 Aufl. (1908). HOLTZMANN, _Hand-Comm_. 3 Aufl. von Bauer (1908). HOVEY, A. H., _In American Comm_. (1885). HOWARD, W. F., _The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation_ (1931). IVERACH, JAMES, _Gospel of John_ (Int. Stand. Bible Encycl.). JACKSON, H. L., _The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent German Criticism_ (1906).,_The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). JOHNSTON, J. S., _The Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel_ (1909). KEISKER, _The Inner Witness of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). KREYENBUHL, _Neue Losung der Johanneischen Frage_ (1905). LARFIELD, _Die beide Johannes von Ephesus_ (1914). LEATHES, STANLEY, _The Witness of St. John to Christ_. LEPIN, _L'origine du quatrieme evangile_ (1907; 1927).,_Lamentations:valeur historique du quatrieme euangile_ (1910). LEWIS, F. G., _The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel_ (1908). LEWIS, F. G., _Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). LIGHTFOOT, J. B., _Biblical Essays_ (pages 1-198; I-III, 1893). LLOYD, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_ (1932). LOISY, A., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1903). LOWRIE, _The Doctrine of John_ (1899). LYMAN, MARY ELY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Life of Today_ (1931). MANSON, W., _The Incarnate Glory_ (1923). MAURICE, F. D., _The Gospel of St. John_ (1906). McGREGoR, G. H., _The Moffatt Commentary_ (1930). MONTGOMERY, J. A., _The Origin of the Gospel According to St. John_ (1923). MOUSE, _Johannes und Paulus_ (1915). MUIRHEAD, L. A., _The Message of the Fourth Gospel_ (1925). NOLLOTH, C. F., _The Fourth Evangelist_ (1925). NUNN, H. P. V., _The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel (1927). ORR, JAMES, _The Authenticity of St. John's Gospel Deduced from Internal Evidence_. OVERBECK, _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1911). PLUMMER, A., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1913). REVILLE, J., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1901). REYNOLDS, H. R., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D. B., 1899). RICHMOND, W., _The Gospel of the Rejection_ (1906). ROBERTSON, A. T., _The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John_ (1916). ROBINSON, A., _The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel_ (1929). ROBINSON, B. W., _The Gospel of John_ (1925). SANDAY, W., _Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_ (1905). SCHLATTER, _Die Sprache und Heimath des vierten Evangelisten_ (1903). SCHMIEDEL, P. W., _The Johannine Writings_ (1908). SCOTT, E. F., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology_ (1906). SCOTT, E. F., _The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, C. E., _St. John, Apostle, Evangelist and Prophet_ (1909). SELBIE, W. B., _Belief and Life: Studies in the Thought of the Fourth Gospel_ (1916). SMITH, J. R., _The Teaching of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SMITH, P. V., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Historical Importance_ (1926). SPEER, R. E., _The Greatest Book in the World_ (1915). SPITTA, F., _Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu_ (1910). STANGE, _Die Eigenart des Johanneischen Produktion_ (1914). STANTON, V. H., _The Fourth Gospel_ (Part III of Gospels as Hist. Documents, 1921). STEVENS, G. B., _The Johannine Theology_ (1898). STRACHAN, R. H., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D C G 1906).,The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environ- ment_ (1917).,The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian_ (1925). TILLMANN, FRITZ, _Das Johannesevangelium Uebersetzt und Erklart_ (1931). VEDDER, H. C., _The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problems_ (1917). WARSCHAUER, J., _The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_. WATKINS, W. H., _Modern Criticism Considered in its Rela- tion to the Fourth Gospel_ (1890). WATSON, H. A., _The Mysticism of St. John's Gospel_ (1916). WEARING, _The World View of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). WEISS, B., _Meyer Komm_. 9 Aufl. (1902).,_Das Johannesevangelium als einheitliches Werk_ (1911). WELLHAUSEN, J., _Das Evangelium Johannis_ (1908). WENDT, H. H., _The Gospel according to St. John: An Inquiry into its Genesis and Historical Value_ (1911).,_Die Schichten im vierten Evangelium_ (1911). WESTCOTT, B. F., _The Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1908). WHITELAW, _The Gospel of John_ (1888). WINDISCH, H., _Johannes und die Synoptiker_ (1927). WORSLEY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists_ (1911). WREDE, W., _Charakter und Tendenz del Johannesevangelium_ (1903). ZAHN, TH., _Dal Evangelium Johannis (1908). 6 Aufl. (1921). 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\, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE GOSPEL OF LUKE BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is not room here for a full discussion of all the interesting problems raised by Luke as the author of the Gospel and Acts. One can find them ably handled in the Introduction to Plummer's volume on Luke's Gospel in the _International and Critical Commentary_, in the Introduction to Ragg's volume on Luke's Gospel in the _Westminster Commentaries_, in the Introduction to Easton's _Gospel According to St. Luke_, Hayes' _Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, Ramsay's _Luke the Physician_, Harnack's _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake's _Beginnings of Christianity_, Carpenter's _Christianity According to St. Luke_, Cadbury's _The Making of Luke-Acts_, McLachlan's _St. Luke: The Man and His Work_, Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, to go no further. It is a fascinating subject that appeals to scholars of all shades of opinion.

rwp@Luke:1:48 @{The low estate} (\tn tapeinsin\). The bride of a carpenter and yet to be the mother of the Messiah. Literal sense here as in strkjv@1:52|. {Shall call me blessed} (\makariousin me\). So-called Attic future of an old verb, to felicitate. Elisabeth had already given her a beatitude (\makaria\, strkjv@1:45|). Another occurs in strkjv@11:27|. But this is a very different thing from the worship of Mary (Mariolatry) by Roman Catholics. See my _The Mother of Jesus: Her Problems and Her Glory_.

rwp@Luke:2:46 @{After three days} (\meta hmeras treis\). One day out, one day back, and on the third day finding him. {In the temple} (\en ti hieri\). Probably on the terrace where members of the Sanhedrin gave public instruction on sabbaths and feast-days, so probably while the feast was still going on. The rabbis probably sat on benches in a circle. The listeners on the ground, among whom was Jesus the boy in a rapture of interest. {Both hearing them and asking them questions} (\kai akouonta autn kai epertnta autous\). Paul sat at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts:22:3|). Picture this eager boy alive with interest. It was his one opportunity in a theological school outside of the synagogue to hear the great rabbis expound the problems of life. This was the most unusual of all children, to be sure, in intellectual grasp and power. But it is a mistake to think that children of twelve do not think profoundly concerning the issues of life. What father or mother has ever been able to answer a child's questions?

rwp@Luke:9:59 @{And he said unto another} (\eipen de pros heteron\). strkjv@Matthew:8:21| omits Christ's "Follow me" (\akolouthei moi\) and makes this man a volunteer instead of responding to the appeal of Jesus. There is no real opposition, of course. In Matthew's account the man is apologetic as in Luke. Plummer calls him "one of the casual disciples" of whom there are always too many. The scribes knew how to give plausible reasons for not being active disciples. {First} (\prton\). One of the problems of life is the relation of duties to each other, which comes first. The burial of one's father was a sacred duty (Genesis:25:9|), but, as in the case of Tobit strkjv@4:3, this scribe's father probably was still alive. What the scribe apparently meant was that he could not leave his father while still alive to follow Jesus around over the country.

rwp@Luke:20:44 @{David therefore} (\Daueid oun\). Without \ei\ as in strkjv@Matthew:22:45|. On the basis of this definite piece of exegesis (\oun\, therefore) Jesus presses the problem (\ps\, how) for an explanation. The deity and the humanity of the Messiah in strkjv@Psalms:110| are thus set forth, the very problems that disturbed the rabbis then and that upset many critics today.

rwp@Mark:3:21 @{His friends} (\hoi par' autou\). The phrase means literally "those from the side of him (Jesus)." It could mean another circle of disciples who had just arrived and who knew of the crowds and strain of the Galilean ministry who now come at this special juncture. But the idiom most likely means the kinspeople or family of Jesus as is common in the LXX. The fact that in verse 31| "his mother and his brothers" are expressly mentioned would indicate that they are "the friends" alluded to in verse 21|. It is a mournful spectacle to think of the mother and brothers saying, {He is beside himself} (\exest\). Second aorist active indicative intransitive. The same charge was brought against Paul (Acts:26:24; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:13|). We say that one is out of his head. Certainly Mary did not believe that Jesus was in the power of Beelzebub as the rabbis said already. The scribes from Jerusalem are trying to discount the power and prestige of Jesus (3:22|). See on ¯Matthew:9:32-34; strkjv@10:25; strkjv@12:24| for Beelzebub and Beelzebul. Mary probably felt that Jesus was overwrought and wished to take him home out of the excitement and strain that he might get rest and proper food. See my _The Mother of Jesus: Her Problems and Her Glory_. The brothers did not as yet believe the pretensions and claims of Jesus (John:7:5|). Herod Antipas will later consider Jesus as John the Baptist _redivivus_, the scribes treat him as under demonic possession, even the family and friends fear a disordered mind as a result of overstrain. It was a crucial moment for Jesus. His family or friends came to take him home, to lay hold of him (\kratsai\), forcibly if need be.

rwp@Matthew:1:24 @{Took unto him his wife} (\parelaben tn gunaika autou\). The angel had told him not to be afraid to "take to his side" Mary his wife (1:20|). Songs:when he awoke from his sleep he promptly obeyed the angel and "took his wife home" (Moffatt). One can only imagine the relief and joy of Mary when Joseph nobly rose to his high duty toward her. I have tried to sketch Mary's problems in _Mary the Mother of Jesus: Her Problems and Her Glory._

rwp@Matthew:13:23 @{Verily beareth fruit} (\d karpophorei\). Who in reality (\d\) does bear fruit (cf. strkjv@Matthew:7:16-20|). The fruit reveals the character of the tree and the value of the straw for wheat. Some grain must come else it is only chaff, straw, worthless. The first three classes have no fruit and so show that they are unfruitful soil, unsaved souls and lives. There is variety in those who do bear fruit, but they have some fruit. The lesson of the parable as explained by Jesus is precisely this, the variety in the results of the seed sown according to the soil on which it falls. Every teacher and preacher knows how true this is. It is the teacher's task as the sower to sow the right seed, the word of the kingdom. The soil determines the outcome. There are critics today who scout this interpretation of the parable by Jesus as too allegorical with too much detail and probably not that really given by Jesus since modern scholars are not agreed on the main point of the parable. But the average Christian sees the point all right. This parable was not meant to explain all the problems of human life.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE REVELATION OF JOHN ABOUT A.D. 95 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION DIFFICULTY IN THE PROBLEM Perhaps no single book in the New Testament presents so many and so formidable problems as the Apocalypse of John. These difficulties concern the authorship, the date, the apocalyptic method, the relation to the other Johannine books, the purpose, the historical environment, the reception of the book in the New Testament canon, the use and misuse of the book through the ages, etc. In the eastern churches the recognition of the Apocalypse of John was slower than in the west, since it was not in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Caius of Rome attributed the book to Cerinthus the Gnostic, but he was ably answered by Hippolytus, who attributed it to the Apostle John. The Council of Laodicea (about A.D. 360) omitted it, but the third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) accepted it. The dispute about millenarianism led Dionysius of Alexandria (middle of the third century, A.D.) to deny the authorship to the Apostle John, though he accepted it as canonical. Eusebius suggested a second John as the author. But finally the book was accepted in the east as Hebrews was in the west after a period of doubt.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY (ONLY BOOKS SINCE 1875) Abbott, E. A., _Johannine Grammar_ (1906).,_Notes on New Testament Criticism_ (Part VII of Diatessarica, 1907). Allo, E. B., _L'apocalypse et l'epoque de la parousia_ (1915).,_Saint Jean. L'apocalypse_ (1921). Baldensperger, _Messian. Apok. Hoffnung_. 3rd ed. (1903). Baljon, J. M. S., _Openbaring van Johannes_ (1908). Beckwith, J. T., _The Apocalypse of John_ (1919). Benson, E. W., _The Apocalypse_ (1900). Berg, _The Drama of the Apocalypse_ (1894). Bleek, F., _Lectures on the Apocalypse_ (1875). Boll, _Aus der Offenbarung Johannis_ (1914). Bousset, W., _Die Offenbarung Johannis_. 2 Aufl. (1906).,_Zur Textkritik der Apokalypse_ (1894). Brown, Charles, _Heavenly Visions_ (1911). Brown, D., _The Structure of the Apocalypse_ (1891). Bullinger, _Die Apokalypse_ (1904). Bungeroth, _Schlussel zur Offenbarung Johannis_ (1907). Burger, C. H. A., _Offenbarung Johannis_ (1877). Cadwell, _The Revelation of Jesus Christ_ (1920). Calmes, _L'Apokalypse devant la Critique_ (1907). Campbell, _The Patmos Letters Applied to Modern Criticism_ (1908). Carrington, P., _The Meaning of the Revelation_ (1931). Case, S. J., _The Millennial Hope_ (1918).,_The Revelation of John_ (1920). Charles, R. H., _Studies in the Apocalypse_ (1913).,_The Revelation of St. John_. 2 vols. (1921). Chevalin, _L'apocalypse et les temps presents_ (1904). Crampon, _L'apocalypse de S. Jean_ (1904). Dean, J. T., _The Book of Revelation_ (1915) Deissmann, A., _Light from the Ancient East_. Tr. by Strachan (1927). Delaport, _Fragments sahidiques du N.T. Apocalypse_ (1906). Douglas, C. E., _New Light on the Revelation of St. John the Divine_ (1923). Dusterdieck, _Offenbarung Johannis_. 4 Aufl. (1887). Eckman, _When Christ Comes Again_ (1917). Erbes, _Offenbar. Johan. Kritischuntersucht_ (1891). Forbes, H. P., _International Handbook on the Apocalypse_ (1907). Gebhardt, _Doctrine of the Apocalypse_ (1878). Geil, W. E., _The Isle That Is Called Patmos_ (1905). Gibson, E. C. S., _The Revelation of St. John_ (1910). Gigot, _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1915). Glazebrook, _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1924). Gunkel, H., _Schopfung und Chaos_ (1895). Gwynn, _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1897). Harnack, A., _Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur_. Bd I (1897). Henderson, B. W., _The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero_ (1903). Hill, _Apocalyptic Problems_ (1916). Hill, Erskine, _Mystic Studies in the Apocalypse_ (1931). Hirscht, _Die Apokalypse und ihre neueste Kritik_ (1895). Holtzmann, H. J., _Die Offenbarung Johannis_ (1891). Holtzmann-Bauer, _Hand-Comm., Offenbarung des Johannis_. 3 Aufl. (1908). Horne, _The Meaning of the Apocalypse_ (1916). Hort, F. J. A., _The Apocalypse of St. John, Chs. 1-3_ (1908). James, M. R., _The Apocalypse in Art_ (1931). Jowett, G. T., _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1910). Kubel, _Offenbarung Johannis_ (1893). Laughlin, _The Solecisms of the Apocalypse_ (1902). Lee, S., _Revelation in Speaker's Comm_. (1881). Linder, _Die Offenbarung des Johannis aufgeschlossen_ (1905). Llwyd, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_ (1932). Lohmeyer, E., _Die Offenbarung des Johannes_. Handbuch zum N.T. (1926). Loisy, A., _L'Apocalypse de Jean_ (1923). Matheson, _Sidelights upon Patmos_. Milligan, W., _The Revelation of St. John_. Schaff's Popular Comm. (1885).,_The Book of Revelation_. Expositor's Bible (1889).,_Lectures on the Apocalypse_ (1892).,_Discussions on the Apocalypse_ (1893). Moffatt, James, _Intr. to Literature of the N.T_. (1911).,_Revelation in Expos. Greek Testament_ (1910). Moule, H.C., _Some Thoughts on the Seven Epistles_ (1915). Mozley, _The Christian's Hope in the Apocalypse_ (1915). Oman, John, _The Book of Revelation_ (1923).,_The Text of Revelation_ (1928). Osborn, _The Lion and the Lamb_ (1922). Palmer, _The Drama of the Apocalypse_ (1902). Paul, _Latter Day Light on the Apocalypse_ (1898). Peake, A. S., _The Revelation of John_ (1921). Porter, F. C., _The Messages of the Apocalyptic Writers_ (1905). Pounder, _Historical Notes on the Book of Revelation_ (1912). Prager, L., _Die Offenbarung Johannis_ (1901). Ramsay, A., _Revelation in Westminster N.T_. (1910). Ramsay, W. M., _The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia_ (1904). Rauch, _Offenbarung des Johannis_ (1894). Reymond, _L'apocalypse_ (1908). Ross, J. J., _Pearls from Patmos_ (1923). Russell, J. S., _The Parousia_ (1878). Sabatier, _Les Origines Litteraires et la Comp. de l'Apoc_. (1888). Schlatter, _Der Evangelist Johannes_ (1931). Schoen, _L'Origine de l'Apocalypse_ (1887). Scott, C. Anderson, _Revelation in New Century Bible_ (1902). Scott, C. A., _Revelation in Devot. Comm_. (1906). Scott, J. J., _Lectures on the Apocalypse_ (1909). Selwyn, E. C., _The Christian Prophets and the Prophetic Apocalypse_ (1901). Shepherd, W. J. L., _The Revelation of St. John the Divine_. 2 vols. (1923). Simcox, W. H., _Revelation in Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1893). Smith, J. A., _Revelation in American Comm_. (1888).,_The World Lighted_ (1890).,_The Divine Parable of History_ (1901). Spitta, F., _Die Offenbarung des Johannis_ (1889). Strange, _Instructions on the Revelation of St. John the Divine_ (1900). Swete, H. B., _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1906). 2nd ed. 1907. Turner, C. H., _Studies in Early Church History_ (1912). Vischer, _Die Offenb. Johan. eine judische Apok_ (1886). Volter, _Offenb. Johannis_. 2 Aufl. (1911).,_Das Problem der Apok_. (1893). Weiss, B., _Die Johannes-Apokalypse_. Textkrit. (1891, 2 Aufl. 1902). Weiss, J., _Offenb. Johannis_ (1904). Wellhausen, J., _Analyse der Offenb_. (1907). Weyland, _Omwerkings-en Compilatie-Hupothesen Toegepast op de Apok_. (1888). Whiting, _The Revelation of John_ (1918). Zahn, _Introduction to the N.T_. 3 vols. (1909).,_Komm_. (1926).

rwp@Info_Romans @ THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS SPRING OF A.D. 57 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE The genuineness of the Epistle is so generally admitted by scholars that it is unnecessary to prove it here, for Loman, Steck, and the Dutch scholars (Van Manen, etc.) who deny it as Pauline are no longer taken seriously. He wrote it from Corinth because he sent it to Rome by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Romans:16:2|) if chapter 16 is acknowledged to be a part of the Epistle. Chapter 16 is held by some to be really a short epistle to Ephesus because of the long list of names in it, because of Paul's long stay in Ephesus, because he had not yet been to Rome, and because, in particular, Aquila and Priscilla are named (Romans:16:3-5|) who had been with Paul in Ephesus. But they had come from Rome before going to Corinth and there is no reason for thinking that they did not return to Rome. It was quite possible for Paul to have many friends in Rome whom he had met elsewhere. People naturally drifted to Rome from all over the empire. The old MSS. (Aleph A B C D) give chapter 16 as an integral part of the Epistle. Marcion rejected it and chapter 15 also for reasons of his own. Renan's theory that Romans was a circular letter like Ephesians sent in different forms to different churches (Rome, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.) has appealed to some scholars as explaining the several doxologies in the Epistle, but they cause no real difficulty since Paul interjected them in his other epistles according to his moods (2Corinthians:1:20|, for instance). That theory raises more problems than it solves as, for example, Paul's remarks about going to Rome (Romans:1:9-16|) which apply to Rome. Lightfoot suggests the possibility that Paul added strkjv@Romans:16:25-27| some years after the original date so as to turn it into a circular letter. But the MSS. do not support that theory and that leaves strkjv@Romans:15:22-33 in the Epistle quite unsuitable to a circular letter. Modern knowledge leaves the Epistle intact with occasional variations in the MSS. on particular points as is true of all the N.T.

rwp@Romans:5:12 @{Therefore} (\dia touto\). "For this reason." What reason? Probably the argument made in verses 1-11|, assuming our justification and urging exultant joy in Christ because of the present reconciliation by Christ's death and the certainty of future final salvation by his life. {As through one man} (\hsper di' henos anthrpou\). Paul begins a comparison between the effects of Adam's sin and the effects of the redemptive work of Christ, but he does not give the second member of the comparison. Instead of that he discusses some problems about sin and death and starts over again in verse 15|. The general point is plain that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants, though he does not say how it was done whether by the natural or the federal headship of Adam. It is important to note that Paul does not say that the whole race receives the full benefit of Christ's atoning death, but only those who do. Christ is the head of all believers as Adam is the head of the race. In this sense Adam "is a figure of him that was to come." {Sin entered into the world} (\h hamartia eis ton kosmon eislthen\). Personification of sin and represented as coming from the outside into the world of humanity. Paul does not discuss the origin of evil beyond this fact. There are some today who deny the fact of sin at all and who call it merely "an error of mortal mind" (a notion) while others regard it as merely an animal inheritance devoid of ethical quality. {And so death passed unto all men} (\kai houts eis pantas anthrpous dilthen\). Note use of \dierchomai\ rather than \eiserchomai\, just before, second aorist active indicative in both instances. By "death" in strkjv@Genesis:2:17; strkjv@3:19| physical death is meant, but in verses 17,21| eternal death is Paul's idea and that lurks constantly behind physical death with Paul. {For that all sinned} (\eph' hi pantes hmarton\). Constative (summary) aorist active indicative of \hamartan\, gathering up in this one tense the history of the race (committed sin). The transmission from Adam became facts of experience. In the old Greek \eph' hi\ usually meant "on condition that," but "because" in N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 963).

rwp@Romans:8:39 @{To separate us} (\hms chrisai\). Aorist active infinitive of \choriz\ (same verb as in 35|). God's love is victor over all possible foes, "God's love that is in Christ Jesus." Paul has reached the mountain top. He has really completed his great argument concerning the God-kind of righteousness save for its bearing on some special problems. The first of these concerns the fact that the Jews (God's chosen people) have so largely rejected the gospel (chapters 9-11|).

rwp@Romans:13:8 @{Save to love one another} (\ei m to alllous agapin\). "Except the loving one another." This articular infinitive is in the accusative case the object of \opheilete\ and partitive apposition with \mden\ (nothing). This debt can never be paid off, but we should keep the interest paid up. {His neighbour} (\ton heteron\). "The other man," "the second man." "Just as in the relations of man and God \pistis\ has been substituted for \nomos\, so between man and man \agap\ takes the place of definite legal relations" (Sanday and Headlam). See strkjv@Matthew:22:37-40| for the words of Jesus on this subject. Love is the only solution of our social relations and national problems.

rwp@Titus:1:5 @{For this cause} (\toutou charin\). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Ephesians:3:1,14|. Paul may be supplementing oral instruction as in Timothy's case and may even be replying to a letter from Titus (Zahn). {Left I thee in Crete} (\apeleipon se en Krti\). This is the imperfect active of \apoleip\, though MSS. give the aorist active also (\apelipon\) and some read \kateleipon\ or \katelipon\. Both are common verbs, though Paul uses \kataleip\ only in strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:1| except two quotations (Romans:11:4; strkjv@Ephesians:5:31|) and \apoleip\ only here and strkjv@2Timothy:4:13,20|. Perhaps \apoleip\ suggests a more temporary stay than \kataleip\. Paul had apparently stopped in Crete on his return from Spain about A.D. 65. {That thou shouldest set in order} (\hina epidiorthsi\). Late and rare double compound (inscriptions, here only in N.T.), first aorist middle subjunctive (final clause with \hina\) of \epidiortho\, to set straight (\ortho\) thoroughly (\dia\) in addition (\epi\), a clean job of it. {The things that were wanting} (\ta leiponta\). "The things that remain." See strkjv@3:13; strkjv@Luke:18:22|. Either things left undone or things that survive. In both senses the new pastor faces problems after the tornado has passed. Parry takes it "of present defects" in Cretan character. {And appoint} (\kai katastsis\). Final clause still and first aorist active subjunctive of \kathistmi\, the word used in strkjv@Acts:6:13| about the deacons. The word does not preclude the choice by the churches (in every city, \kata polin\, distributive use of \kata\). This is a chief point in the \epidorthsis\ (White). {Elders} (\presbuterous\). See strkjv@1Timothy:3:2; strkjv@4:17|. {As I gave thee charge} (\hs eg soi dietaxamn\). First aorist (constative) middle imperative of \diatass\, clear reference to previous personal details given to Titus on previous occasions.