NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp briefly:

rwp@1Corinthians:15:56 @{The power of sin} (\h dunamis ts hamartias\). See strkjv@Romans:4:15; strkjv@5:20; strkjv@6:14; 7; strkjv@Galatians:2:16; strkjv@3:1-5:4| for Paul's ideas here briefly expressed. In man's unrenewed state he cannot obey God's holy law.

rwp@1Peter:5:12 @{By Silvanus} (\dia Silouanou\). Probably this postscript (12-14|) is in Peter's own handwriting, as Paul did (2Thessalonians:3:17f.; strkjv@Galatians:6:11-18|). If so, Silvanus (Silas) was the amanuensis and the bearer of the Epistle. {As I account him} (\hs logizomai\). Peter uses Paul's phrase (1Corinthians:4:1; strkjv@Romans:8:18|) in giving approval to Paul's former companion (Acts:15:40|). {I have written} (\egrapsa\). Epistolary aorist applying to this Epistle as in strkjv@1Corinthians:5:11| (not strkjv@1Corinthians:5:9|); strkjv@1Corinthians:9:15; strkjv@Galatians:6:11; strkjv@Romans:15:15; strkjv@Philemon:1:19,21|. {Briefly} (\di' olign\). "By few words," as Peter looked at it, certainly not a long letter in fact. Cf. strkjv@Hebrews:13:22|. {Testifying} (\epimarturn\). Present active participle of \epimarture\, to bear witness to, old compound, here alone in N.T., though the double compound \sunepimarture\ in strkjv@Hebrews:2:4|. {That this is the true grace of God} (\tautn einai alth charin tou theou\). Infinitive \einai\ in indirect assertion and accusative of general reference (\tautn\) and predicate accusative \charin\. Peter includes the whole of the Epistle by God's grace (1:10|) and obedience to the truth (John:1:17; Gal strkjv@2:5; strkjv@Colossians:1:6|). {Stand ye fast therein} (\eis hn stte\). "In which (grace) take your stand" (ingressive aorist active imperative of \histmi\).

rwp@Acts:21:39 @{I am} (\Eg men eimi\). In contrast with the wild guess of Lysias Paul uses \men\ and \de\. He tells briefly who he is: {a Jew} (\Ioudaios\) by race, {of Tarsus in Cilicia} (\Tarseus ts Kilikias\) by country, belonging to Tarsus (this adjective \Tarseus\ only here and strkjv@Acts:9:11|), and proud of it, one of the great cities of the empire with a great university. {A citizen of no mean city} (\ouk asmou poles polits\). Litotes again, "no mean" (\asmos\, old adjective, unmarked, \a\ privative and \sma\, mark, insignificant, here only in the N.T.). This same litotes used by Euripides of Athens (_Ion_ 8). But Paul calls himself a citizen (\polits\) of Tarsus. Note the "effective assonance" (Page) in \poles polits\. Paul now (\de\) makes his request (\deomai\) of Lysias. {Give me leave} (\epitrepson moi\). First aorist active imperative of \epitrep\, old and common verb to turn to, to permit, to allow. It was a strange request and a daring one, to wish to speak to this mob howling for Paul's blood.

rwp@Ephesians:3:3 @{By revelation} (\kata apokalupsin\). Not essentially different from \di' apokalupses\ (Gal strkjv@1:12|). This was Paul's qualification for preaching "the mystery" (\to mustrion\. See strkjv@1:9|). {As I wrote afore} (\kaths proegrapsa\). First aorist active indicative of \prograph\ as in strkjv@Romans:15:4|, not picture forth as strkjv@Galatians:3:1|. But when and where? Epistolary aorist for this Epistle? That is possible. A previous and lost Epistle as in strkjv@1Corinthians:5:9|? That also is abstractly possible. To the preceding discussion of the Gentiles? Possible and also probable. {In few words} (\en oligi\). Not = \pro oligou\, shortly before, but as in strkjv@Acts:26:28| "in brief space or time" = \suntons\ (Acts:24:4|), "briefly."

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{The birth of Jesus Christ} (\tou [Isou] Christou h genesis\). In the Greek Jesus Christ comes before birth as the important matter after strkjv@1:16|. It is not certain whether "Jesus" is here a part of the text as it is absent in the old Syriac and the Old Latin while the Washington Codex has only "Christ." The Vatican Codex has "Christ Jesus." But it is plain that the story of the birth of Jesus Christ is to be told briefly as follows, "on this wise" (\houts\), the usual Greek idiom. The oldest and best manuscripts have the same word genealogy (\genesis\) used in strkjv@1:1|, not the word for birth (begotten) as in strkjv@1:16| (\gennsis\). "It is in fact the word Genesis. The evangelist is about to describe, not the genesis of the heaven and the earth, but the genesis of Him who made the heaven and the earth, and who will yet make a new heaven and a new earth" (Morison).

rwp@Matthew:1:18 @{Of the Holy Ghost} (\ek pneumatos hagiou\). The discovery that Mary was pregnant was inevitable and it is plain that she had not told Joseph. She "was found with child" (\heureth en gastri echousa\). This way of putting it, the usual Greek idiom, plainly shows that it was the discovery that shocked Joseph. He did not as yet know what Matthew plainly asserts that the Holy Ghost, not Joseph and not any man, was responsible for the pregnancy of Mary. The problem of the Virgin Birth of Jesus has been a disturbing fact to some through all the ages and is today to those who do not believe in the pre-existence of Christ, the Son of God, before his Incarnation on earth. This is the primal fact about the Birth of Christ. The Incarnation of Christ is clearly stated by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:5-11|; and involved in strkjv@Colossians:1:15-19|) and by John (John:1:14; strkjv@17:5|). If one frankly admits the actual pre-existence of Christ and the real Incarnation, he has taken the longest and most difficult step in the matter of the supernatural Birth of Christ. That being true, no merely human birth without the supernatural element can possibly explain the facts. Incarnation is far more than the Indwelling of God by the Holy Spirit in the human heart. To admit real incarnation and also full human birth, both father and mother, creates a greater difficulty than to admit the Virgin Birth of Jesus begotten by the Holy Spirit, as Matthew here says, and born of the Virgin Mary. It is true that only Matthew and Luke tell the story of the supernatural birth of Jesus, though strkjv@John:1:14| seems to refer to it. Mark has nothing whatever concerning the birth and childhood of Jesus and so cannot be used as a witness on the subject. Both Matthew and Luke present the birth of Jesus as not according to ordinary human birth. Jesus had no human father. There is such a thing in nature as parthenogenesis in the lower orders of life. But that scientific fact has no bearing here. We see here God sending his Son into the world to be the world's Saviour and he gave him a human mother, but not a human father so that Jesus Christ is both Son of God and Son of Man, the God Man. Matthew tells the story of the birth of Jesus from the standpoint of Joseph as Luke gives it from the standpoint of Mary. The two narratives harmonize with each other. One credits these most wonderful of all birth narratives according as he believes in the love and power of Almighty God to do what he wills. There is no miracle with God who has all power and all knowledge. The laws of nature are simply the expression of God's will, but he has not revealed all his will in the laws that we discover. God is Spirit. He is Person. He holds in his own power all life. strkjv@John:3:16| is called the Little Gospel because it puts briefly the love of God for men in sending his own Son to live and die for us.

rwp@Revelation:21:9 @{One of the seven angels} (\heis ek tn hepta aggeln\). As in strkjv@17:1| with the same introduction when the angel made the announcement about the harlot city (Babylon), so here the description of the heavenly city, the New Jerusalem, is given by one of the same group of angels who had the seven bowls. Thus the \numph\ (Bride) is placed in sharp contrast with the \porn\ (Harlot). The New Jerusalem was briefly presented in verse 2|, but now is pictured at length (21:9-22:5|) in a nearer and clearer vision. {The bride the wife of the Lamb} (\tn numphn tn gunaika tou arniou\). Twice already the metaphor of the Bride has been used (19:7; strkjv@21:2|), here termed "wife" (\gunaika\), mentioned proleptically as in strkjv@19:7| if the marriage is not yet a reality. For the use of the same metaphor elsewhere in the N.T. see on ¯19:7|.