NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp describes:

rwp@1Corinthians:3:3 @{For ye are yet carnal} (\eti gar sarkikoi este\). \Sarkikos\, unlike \sarkinos\, like \ikos\ formations, means adapted to, fitted for the flesh (\sarx\), one who 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) have given way to the flesh as if they were still \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:3:5 @{What then?} (\ti oun;\). He does not say \tis\ (who), but \ti\ (what), neuter singular interrogative pronoun. {Ministers} (\diakonoi\). Not leaders of parties or sects, but merely servants through whom ye believed. The etymology of the word Thayer gives as \dia\ and \konis\ "raising dust by hastening." In the Gospels it is the servant (Matthew:20:26|) or waiter (John:2:5|). Paul so describes himself as a minister (Colossians:1:23,25|). The technical sense of deacon comes later (Phillipians:1:1; strkjv@1Timothy:3:8,12|). {As the Lord gave to him} (\hs ho Kurios edken\). Hence no minister of the Lord like Apollos and Paul has any basis for pride or conceit nor should be made the occasion for faction and strife. This idea Paul enlarges upon through chapters strkjv@1Corinthians:3; 4| and it is made plain in chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:12|.

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. {That Jesus Christ 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\) describes Jesus as 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@1John:4:18 @{Fear} (\phobos\). Like a bond-slave (Romans:8:15|), not the reverence of a son (\eulabeia\, strkjv@Hebrews:5:7f.|) or the obedience to a father (\en phobi\, strkjv@1Peter:1:17|). This kind of dread is the opposite of \parrsia\ (boldness). {Perfect love} (\h teleia agap\). There is such a thing, perfect because it has been perfected (verses 12,17|). Cf. strkjv@James:1:4|. {Casteth out fear} (\ex ballei ton phobon\). "Drives fear out" so that it does not exist in real love. See \ekball ex\ in strkjv@John:6:37; strkjv@9:34f.; strkjv@12:31; strkjv@15:6| to turn out-of-doors, a powerful metaphor. Perfect love harbours no suspicion and no dread (1Corinthians:13|). {Hath punishment} (\kolasin echei\). Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:25:46|. \Timria\ has only the idea of penalty, \kolasis\ has also that of discipline, while \paideia\ has that of chastisement (Hebrews:12:7|). The one who still dreads (\phoboumenos\) has not been made perfect in love (\ou teteleitai\). Bengel graphically describes different types of men: "sine timore et amore; cum timore sine amore; cum timore et amore; sine timore cum amore."

rwp@1Timothy:3:5 @{If a man knoweth not} (\ei tis ouk oiden\). Condition of first class, assumed as true. {How to rule} (\prostnai\). Second aorist active infinitive of same verb \proistmi\ and with \oiden\ means "know how to rule," not "know that he rules." {How} (\ps\). Rhetorical question expecting negative answer. {Shall he take care of} (\epimelsetai\). Future middle of \epimeleomai\, old compound (\epi\, direction of care towards) verb, in LXX, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Luke:10:34f|. {The church of God} (\ekklsias theou\). Anarthrous as in verse 15|, elsewhere with article (1Corinthians:10:32; strkjv@15:9; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:1; strkjv@Galatians:1:13|). The local church described as belonging to God. No one in N.T. but Paul (Acts:20:28|) so describes the church. This verse is a parenthesis in the characteristics of the bishop.

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|) and 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:12:20 @{Lest by any means, when I come, I should find you not such as I would} (\m ps elthn ouch hoious thel heur humas\). An idiomatic construction after the verb of fearing (\phoboumai\) with \m ps\ as the conjunction and with \ouch\ as the negative of the verb \heur\ (second aorist active subjunctive of \heurisk\), \m\ the conjunction, \ouch\ the negative. See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 995. {And I be found} (\kag heureth\). Same construction with first aorist passive subjunctive. {Such as ye would not} (\hoion ou thelete\). Neat change in voice just before and position of the negative here. {Lest by any means} (\m ps\). Still further negative purpose by repeating the conjunction. With graphic pen pictures Paul describes what had been going on against him during his long absence. {Backbitings} (\katalaliai\). Late and rare word. In N.T. only here and strkjv@1Peter:2:1|. If it only existed nowhere else! {Whisperings} (\psithurismoi\). Late word from \psithuriz\, to whisper into one's ear. An onomatopoetic word for the sibilant murmur of a snake charmer (Ecclesiastes:10:11|). Only here in N.T. {Swellings} (\phusiseis\). From \phusio\, to swell up, late word only here and in ecclesiastical writers. Did Paul make up the word for the occasion? See on ¯1Corinthians:4:6| for verb. {Tumults} (\akatastasiai\). See on strkjv@2Corinthians:6:5|.

rwp@2John:1:7 @{Deceivers} (\planoi\). Late adjective (Diodorus, Josephus) meaning wandering, roving (1Timothy:4:1|). As a substantive in N.T. of Jesus (Matthew:27:63|), of Paul (2Corinthians:6:8|), and here. See the verb (\tn planontn hums\) in strkjv@1John:2:26| of the Gnostic deceivers as here and also of Jesus (John:7:12|). Cf. strkjv@1John:1:8|. {Are gone forth} (\exlthan\, alpha ending). Second aorist active indicative of \exerchomai\, perhaps an allusion to the crisis when they left the churches (1John:2:19|, same form). {Even they that confess not} (\hoi m homologountes\). "The ones not confessing" (\m\ regular negative with the participle). The articular participle describes the deceivers (\planoi\). {That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh} (\Isoun Christon erchomenon en sarki\). "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of \erchomai\ treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In strkjv@1John:4:2| we have \elluthota\ (perfect active participle) in this same construction with \homologe\, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation. There is no allusion here to the second coming of Christ. {This} (\houtos\). See strkjv@1John:2:18,22; strkjv@5:6,20|. {The deceiver and the antichrist} (\ho planos kai ho antichristos\). Article with each word, as in strkjv@Revelation:1:17|, to bring out sharply each separate phrase, though one individual is referred to. The one _par excellence_ in popular expectation (1John:2:22|), though many in reality (1John:2:18; strkjv@3John:1:7|).

rwp@2Thessalonians:2:7 @{For the mystery of lawlessness doth already work} (\to gar mustrion d energeitai ts anomias\). See strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:13| for \energeitai\. The genitive \ts anomias\ (lawlessness) describes \to mustrion\ (note emphatic position of both). This mystery (\mustrion\ secret, from \musts\, an initiate, \mue\, to wink or blink) means here the secret purpose of lawlessness already at work, the only instance of this usage in the N.T. where it is used of the kingdom of God (Matthew:13:11|), of God (1Corinthians:2:1|) and God's will (Ephesians:1:9|), of Christ (Ephesians:3:4|), of the gospel (Ephesians:6:9|), of faith (1Timothy:3:9|), of godliness (1Timothy:3:16|), of the seven stars (Revelation:1:20|), of the woman (Revelation:17:7|). But this secret will be "revealed" and then we shall understand clearly what Paul's meaning is here. {Until he be taken out of the way} (\hes ek mesou gentai\). Usual construction with \hes\ for the future (aorist middle subjunctive, \gentai\). Note absence of \an\ as often in N.T. and the \Koin\. Paul uses \hes\ only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:4:5|. When the obstacle is removed then the mystery of lawlessness will be revealed in plain outline.

rwp@2Timothy:3:3 @{Slanderers} (\diaboloi\). See strkjv@1Timothy:3:11; strkjv@Titus:2:3|. {Without self-control} (\akrateis\). Old word (\a\ privative and \kratos\), here only in N.T. {Fierce} (\anmeroi\). Old word (\a\ privative and \hmeros\, tame), only here in N.T. {No lovers of good} (\aphilagathoi\). Found only here (\a\ privative and \philagathos\, for which see strkjv@Titus:1:8|). See also strkjv@Phillipians:4:8|. A papyrus describes Antoninus as \philagathos\ and has \aphilokagathia\.

rwp@Acts:7:31 @{The sight} (\to horama\). Used of visions in the N.T. as in strkjv@Matthew:17:9|. {As he drew near} (\proserchomenou autou\). Genitive absolute with present middle participle of \proserchomai\. {A voice of the Lord} (\phn kuriou\). Here the angel of Jehovah of verse 30| is termed Jehovah himself. Jesus makes powerful use of these words in his reply to the Sadducees in defence of the doctrine of the resurrection and the future life (Mark:12:26; strkjv@Matthew:22:32; strkjv@Luke:20:37f.|) that God here describes himself as the God of the living. {Trembled} (\entromos genomenos\). Literally, becoming tremulous or terrified. The adjective \entromos\ (\en, tromos\ from \trem\, to tremble, to quake) occurs in Plutarch and the LXX. In the N.T. only here and strkjv@Acts:16:29|. {Durst not} (\ouk etolma\). Imperfect active, was not daring, negative conative imperfect.

rwp@Acts:8:1 @{Was consenting} (\n suneudokn\). Periphrastic imperfect of \suneudoke\, a late double compound (\sun, eu, doke\) that well describes Saul's pleasure in the death (\anairesis\, taking off, only here in the N.T., though old word) of Stephen. For the verb see on ¯Luke:23:32|. Paul himself will later confess that he felt so (Acts:22:20|), coolly applauding the murder of Stephen, a heinous sin (Romans:1:32|). It is a gruesome picture. Chapter 7 should have ended here. {On that day} (\en ekeini ti hmeri\). On that definite day, that same day as in strkjv@2:41|. {A great persecution} (\digmos megas\). It was at first persecution from the Sadducees, but this attack on Stephen was from the Pharisees so that both parties are now united in a general persecution that deserves the adjective "great." See on ¯Matthew:13:21| for the old word \digmos\ from \dik\, to chase, hunt, pursue, persecute. {Were all scattered abroad} (\pantes diesparsan\). Second aorist passive indicative of \diaspeir\, to scatter like grain, to disperse, old word, in the N.T. only in strkjv@Acts:8:1,4; strkjv@11:19|. {Except the apostles} (\pln tn apostoln\). Preposition \pln\ (adverb from \pleon\, more) with the ablative often in Luke. It remains a bit of a puzzle why the Pharisees spared the apostles. Was it due to the advice of Gamaliel in strkjv@Acts:5:34-40|? Or was it the courage of the apostles? Or was it a combination of both with the popularity of the apostles in addition?

rwp@Acts:8:23 @{That thou art} (\se onta\). Participle in indirect discourse after \hor\ (I see). {In the gall of bitterness} (\eis choln pikrias\). Old word from \cholas\ either from \che\, to pour, or \chlo\, yellowish green, bile or gall. In the N.T. only in strkjv@Matthew:27:34| and here. In LXX in sense of wormwood as well as bile. See strkjv@Deuteronomy:29:18; strkjv@32:32; strkjv@Lamentations:3:15; strkjv@Job:16:14|. "Gall and bitterness" in strkjv@Deuteronomy:29:18|. Here the gall is described by the genitive \pikrias\ as consisting in "bitterness." In strkjv@Hebrews:12:15| "a root of bitterness," a bitter root. This word \pikria\ in the N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:12:15; strkjv@Romans:3:14; strkjv@Ephesians:4:31|. The "bond of iniquity" (\sundesmon adikias\) is from strkjv@Isaiah:58:6|. Paul uses this word of peace (Ephesians:4:3|), of love (Colossians:3:14|), of the body (Colossians:2:19|). Peter describes Simon's offer as poison and a chain.

rwp@Acts:10:2 @{Devout} (\eusebs\). Old word from \eu\ (well) and \sebomai\ (to worship, to reverence), but rare in the N.T. (Acts:10:2,7; strkjv@2Peter:2:1|). It might refer to a worshipful pagan (Acts:17:23|, \sebasmata\, objects of worship), but connected with "one that feared God" (\phoboumenos ton theon\) Luke describes "a God-fearing proselyte" as in strkjv@10:22,35|. This is his usual term for the Gentile seekers after God (13:16, 26;17:4,17|, etc.), who had come into the worship of the synagogue without circumcision, and were not strictly proselytes, though some call such men "proselytes of the gate" (cf. strkjv@Acts:13:43|); but clearly Cornelius and his family were still regarded as outside the pale of Judaism (10:28,34; strkjv@11:1,8; strkjv@15:7|). They had seats in the synagogue, but were not Jews. {Gave much alms} (\poin eleemosunas pollas\). Doing many alms (the very phrase in strkjv@Matthew:6:2|), a characteristic mark of Jewish piety and from a Gentile to the Jewish people. {Prayed} (\deomenos\). Begging of God. Almsgiving and prayer were two of the cardinal points with the Jews (Jesus adds fasting in his picture of the Pharisee in strkjv@Matthew:6:1-18|).

rwp@Acts:11:2 @{They that were of the circumcision} (\hoi ek peritoms\). Literally, those of circumcision (on the side of circumcision, of the circumcision party). The phrase in strkjv@10:46| is confined to the six brethren with Peter in Caesarea (11:12|). That can hardly be the meaning here for it would mean that they were the ones who brought the charge against Peter though Hort takes this view. All the disciples in Jerusalem were Jews so that it can hardly mean the whole body. In strkjv@Galatians:2:12| the phrase has the narrower sense of the Judaizing or Pharisaic wing of the disciples (Acts:15:5|) who made circumcision necessary for all Gentile converts. Probably here by anticipation Luke so describes the beginning of that great controversy. The objectors probably did not know of Peter's vision at Joppa, but only of the revolutionary conduct of Peter in Caesarea. These extremists who spoke probably had abundant sympathy in their protest. The apostles are mentioned in verse 1|, but are not referred to in verse 2|. Apparently they are in contrast with the circumcision party in the church. {Contended} (\diekrinonto\). Imperfect middle of the common verb \diakrin\, to {separate}. Here to separate oneself apart (\dia\), to take sides against, to make a cleavage (\dia\, two, in two) as in strkjv@Jude:1:9|. Songs:Peter is at once put on the defensive as the contention went on. It is plain that Peter was not regarded as any kind of pope or overlord.

rwp@Acts:12:9 @{Wist not} (\ouk idei\). Past perfect of \oida\ used as imperfect, did not know. {Followed} (\kolouthei\). Imperfect active, kept on following as the angel had directed (verse 8|). That it was true (\hoti althes estin\). Indirect assertion and so present tense retained. Note "true" (\althes\) in the sense of reality or actuality. {Which was done} (\to ginomenon\). Present middle participle, that which was happening. {Thought he saw a vision} (\edokei horama blepein\). Imperfect active, kept on thinking, puzzled as he was. \Blepein\ is the infinitive in indirect assertion without the pronoun (he) expressed which could be either nominative in apposition with the subject as in strkjv@Romans:1:22| or accusative of general reference as in strkjv@Acts:5:36; strkjv@8:9| (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1036-40). Peter had had a vision in Joppa (10:10|) which Luke describes as an "ecstasy," but here is objective fact, at least Luke thought so and makes that distinction. Peter will soon know whether he is still in the cell or not as we find out that a dream is only a dream when we wake up.

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) describes Pheretima, Queen of Cyrene, as having swarms of worms which ate her flesh while still alive. Josephus (_Ant_. XIX. 8, 2) says that Herod Agrippa lingered for five days and says that the rotting of his flesh produced worms, an item in harmony with the narrative in Luke. Josephus gives further details, one a superstitious sight of an owl sitting on one of the ropes of the awning of the theatre while the people flattered him, an omen of his death to him. Luke puts it simply that God smote him. {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:13:48 @{As the Gentiles heard this they were glad} (\akouonta ta ethn echairon\). Present active participle of \akou\ and imperfect active of \chair\, linear action descriptive of the joy of the Gentiles. {Glorified the word of God} (\edoxazon ton logon tou theou\). Imperfect active again. The joy of the Gentiles increased the fury of the Jews. "The synagogue became a scene of excitement which must have been something like the original speaking with tongues" (Rackham). The joy of the Gentiles was to see how they could receive the higher blessing of Judaism without circumcision and other repellent features of Jewish ceremonialism. It was the gospel of grace and liberty from legalism that Paul had proclaimed. Whether strkjv@Galatians:4:13| describes this incident or not (the South Galatian theory), it illustrates it when Gentiles received Paul as if he were Christ Jesus himself. It was triumph with the Gentiles, but defeat with the Jews. {As many as were ordained to eternal life} (\hosoi san tetagmenoi eis zn ainion\). Periphrastic past perfect passive indicative of \tass\, a military term to place in orderly arrangement. The word "ordain" is not the best translation here. "Appointed," as Hackett shows, is better. The Jews here had voluntarily rejected the word of God. On the other side were those Gentiles who gladly accepted what the Jews had rejected, not all the Gentiles. Why these Gentiles here ranged themselves on God's side as opposed to the Jews Luke does not tell us. This verse does not solve the vexed problem of divine sovereignty and human free agency. There is no evidence that Luke had in mind an _absolutum decretum_ of personal salvation. Paul had shown that God's plan extended to and included Gentiles. Certainly the Spirit of God does move upon the human heart to which some respond, as here, while others push him away. {Believed} (\episteusan\). Summary or constative first aorist active indicative of \pisteu\. The subject of this verb is the relative clause. By no manner of legerdemain can it be made to mean "those who believe were appointed." It was saving faith that was exercised only by those who were appointed unto eternal life, who were ranged on the side of eternal life, who were thus revealed as the subjects of God's grace by the stand that they took on this day for the Lord. It was a great day for the kingdom of God.

rwp@Acts:15:1 @{And certain men came down from Judea} (\kai tines katelthontes apo ts Ioudaias\). Evidently the party of the circumcision in the church in Jerusalem (11:2|) had heard of the spread of the gospel among the Gentiles in Cyprus, Pamphylia, and South Galatia (Phrygia, Pisidia, Lycaonia). Possibly John Mark after his desertion at Perga (13:13|) told of this as one of his reasons for coming home. At any rate echoes of the jubilation in Antioch in Syria would be certain to reach Jerusalem. The Judaizers in Jerusalem, who insisted that all the Gentile Christians must become Jews also, had acquiesced in the case of Cornelius and his group (11:1-18|) after plain proof by Peter that it was the Lord's doing. But they had not agreed to a formal campaign to turn the exception into the rule and to make Christianity mainly Gentile with a few Jews instead of mainly Jewish with a few Gentiles. Since Paul and Barnabas did not come up to Jerusalem, the leaders among the Judaizers decided to go down to Antioch and attack Paul and Barnabas there. They had volunteered to go without church action in Jerusalem for their activity is disclaimed by the conference (Acts:15:24|). In strkjv@Galatians:2:4| Paul with some heat describes these Judaizers as "false brethren, secretly introduced who sneaked in to spy out our liberty." It is reasonably certain that this visit to Jerusalem described in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| is the same one as the Jerusalem Conference in Acts strkjv@15:5-29| in spite of the effort of Ramsay to identify it with that in strkjv@11:29f|. Paul in Galatians is not giving a list of his visits to Jerusalem. He is showing his independence of the twelve apostles and his equality with them. He did not see them in strkjv@11:29f.|, but only "the elders." In strkjv@Acts:15| Luke gives the outward narrative of events, in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10| Paul shows us the private interview with the apostles when they agreed on their line of conduct toward the Judaizers. In strkjv@Galatians:2:2| by the use of "them" (\autois\) Paul seems to refer to the first public meeting in Acts before the private interview that came in between verses strkjv@15:5-6|. If we recall the difficulty that Peter had on the subject of preaching the gospel to the heathen (10:1-11:18|), we can the better understand the attitude of the Judaizers. They were men of sincere convictions without a doubt, but they were obscurantists and unable and unwilling to receive new light from the Lord on a matter that involved their racial and social prejudices. They recalled that Jesus himself had been circumcised and that he had said to the Syro-Phoenician woman that he had come only save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matthew:15:24ff.|). They argued that Christ had not repealed circumcision. Songs:one of the great religious controversies of all time was begun, that between spiritual religion and ritualistic or ceremonial religion. It is with us yet with baptism taking the place of circumcision. These self-appointed champions of circumcision for Gentile Christians were deeply in earnest. {Taught the brethren} (\edidaskon tous adelphous\). Inchoative imperfect active, began to teach and kept it up. Their attitude was one of supercilious superiority. They probably resented the conduct of Barnabas, who, when sent by the Church in Jerusalem to investigate the conversion of the Greeks in Antioch (11:20-26|), did not return and report till a strong church had been established there with the help of Saul and only then with a big collection to confuse the issue. Paul and Barnabas were on hand, but the Judaizers persisted in their efforts to force their views on the church in Antioch. It was a crisis. {Except ye be circumcised after the custom of Moses, ye cannot be saved} (\ean me peritmthte ti ethei Muses, ou dunasthe sthnai\). There was the dictum of the Judaizers to the Gentiles. Paul and Barnabas had been circumcised. This is probably the precise language employed, for they spoke in Greek to these Greeks. It is a condition of the third class (undetermined, but with prospect of being determined, \ean\ plus the first aorist passive subjunctive of \peritemn\). There was thus hope held out for them, but only on condition that they be circumcised. The issue was sharply drawn. The associative instrumental case (\ti ethei\) is customary. "Saved" (\sthnai\) here is the Messianic salvation. This doctrine denied the efficacy of the work of Christ.

rwp@Acts:19:35 @{The town-clerk} (\ho grammateus\). Ephesus was a free city and elected its own officers and the recorder or secretary was the chief magistrate of the city, though the proconsul of the province of Asia resided there. This officer is not a mere secretary of another officer or like the copyists and students of the law among the Jews, but the most influential person in Ephesus who drafted decrees with the aid of the \stratgoi\, had charge of the city's money, was the power in control of the assembly, and communicated directly with the proconsul. Inscriptions at Ephesus give frequently this very title for their chief officer and the papyri have it also. The precise function varied in different cities. His name appeared on the coin at Ephesus issued in his year of office. {Had quieted the multitude} (\katasteilas ton ochlon\). First aorist active participle of \katastell\, to send down, arrange dress (Euripides), lower (Plutarch), restrain (papyrus example), only twice in the N.T. (here and verse 36|, be quiet), but in LXX and Josephus. He evidently took the rostrum and his very presence as the city's chief officer had a quieting effect on the billowy turmoil and a semblance of order came. He waited, however, till the hubbub had nearly exhausted itself (two hours) and did not speak till there was a chance to be heard. {Saith} (\phsin\). Historical present for vividness. {How that}. Merely participle \ousan\ and accusative \polin\ in indirect discourse, no conjunction at all (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1040ff.), common idiom after \ginsk\, to know. {Temple-keeper} (\nekoron\). Old word from \nes\ (\naos)\, temple, and \kore\, to sweep. Warden, verger, cleaner of the temple, a sacristan. Songs:in Xenophon and Plato. Inscriptions so describe Ephesus as \nekoron ts Artemidos\ as Luke has it here and also applied to the imperial _cultus_ which finally had several such temples in Ephesus. Other cities claimed the same honour of being \nekoros\, but it was the peculiar boast of Ephesus because of the great temple of Artemis. A coin of A.D. 65 describes Ephesus as \nekoros\. There are papyri examples of the term applied to individuals, one to Priene as \nekoros\ of the temple in Ephesus (Moulton and Milligan, _Vocabulary_). {And of the image which fell down from Jupiter} (\kai tou diopetous\). Supply \agalma\ (image), "the from heaven-fallen image." From Zeus (\Dios\) and \pet\ (\pipt, pipet\), to fall. Zeus (Jupiter) was considered lord of the sky or heaven and that is the idea in \diopetous\ here. The legend about a statue fallen from heaven occurs concerning the statue of Artemis at Tauris, Minerva at Athens, etc. Thus the recorder soothed the vanity (Rackham) of the crowd by appeal to the world-wide fame of Ephesus as sacristan of Artemis and of her heaven-fallen image.

rwp@Acts:21:32 @{Forthwith} (\exauts\). Common in the _Koin_ (\ex auts\, supply \hras\, hour). {He took} (\paralabn\). See verses 24,26|. {Centurions} (\hekatontarchas\). See on ¯Luke:7:2| for discussion. Plural shows that Lysias the chiliarch took several hundred soldiers along (a centurion with each hundred). {Ran down} (\katedramen\). Effective second aorist active indicative of \katatrech\. From the tower of Antonia, vivid scene. {And they} (\hoi de\). Demonstrative use of \hoi\. The Jewish mob who had begun the work of killing Paul (verse 31|). {Left off beating Paul} (\epausanto tuptontes ton Paulon\). The participle with \pauomai\ describes what they were already doing, the supplementary participle (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1121). They stopped before the job was over because of the sudden onset of the Roman soldiers. Some ten years before in a riot at the passover the Roman guard marched down and in the panic several hundred were trampled to death.

rwp@Info_Colossians @ SOME BOOKS ABOUT COLOSSIANS One may note commentaries by T. K. Abbott (_Int. Crit_. 1897), Gross Alexander (1910), Dargan (1887), Dibelius (1912), Ellicott (1890), Ewald (1905), Griffith-Thomas (1923), Findlay (1895), Haupt (1903), M. Jones (1923), Lightfoot (1904), Maclaren (1888), Meinertz (1917), Moule (1900), Mullins (1913), Oltramare (1891), Peake (1903), Radford (1931), A. T. Robertson (1926), Rutherford (1908), E. F. Scott (1930), Von Soden (1893), F. B. Westcott (1914), Williams (1907). strkjv@Colossians:1:1 @{Of Christ Jesus} (\Christou Isou\). This order in the later epistles shows that \Christos\ is now regarded as a proper name and not just a verbal adjective (Anointed One, Messiah). Paul describes himself because he is unknown to the Colossians, not because of attack as in strkjv@Galatians:1:1|. {Timothy} (\Timotheos\). Mentioned as in I and II Thess. when in Corinth, II Cor. when in Macedonia, Phil. and Philemon when in Rome as here.

rwp@Colossians:1:13 @{Delivered} (\erusato\). First aorist middle indicative of \ruomai\, old verb, to rescue. This appositional relative clause further describes God the Father's redemptive work and marks the transition to the wonderful picture of the person and work of Christ in nature and grace in verses 14-20|, a full and final answer to the Gnostic depreciation of Jesus Christ by speculative philosophy and to all modern efforts after a "reduced" picture of Christ. God rescued us out from (\ek\) the power (\exousias\) of the kingdom of darkness (\skotous\) in which we were held as slaves. {Translated} (\metestsen\). First aorist active indicative of \methistmi\ and transitive (not intransitive like second aorist \metest\). Old word. See strkjv@1Corinthians:13:2|. Changed us from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of light. {Of the Son of his love} (\tou huiou ts agaps autou\). Probably objective genitive (\agaps\), the Son who is the object of the Father's love like \agaptos\ (beloved) in strkjv@Matthew:3:17|. Others would take it as describing love as the origin of the Son which is true, but hardly pertinent here. But Paul here rules out the whole system of aeons and angels that the Gnostics placed above Christ. It is Christ's Kingdom in which he is King. He has moral and spiritual sovereignty.

rwp@Ephesians:1:3 @{Blessed} (\eulogtos\). Verbal of \euloge\, common in the LXX for Hebrew _baruk_ (Vulgate _benedictus_) and applied usually to God, sometimes to men (Genesis:24:31|), but in N.T. always to God (Luke:1:68|), while \eulogmenos\ (perfect passive participle) is applied to men (Luke:1:42|). "While \eulogmenos\ points to an isolated act or acts, \eulogtos\ describes the intrinsic character" (Lightfoot). Instead of the usual \eucharistoumen\ (Colossians:1:3|) Paul here uses \eulogtos\, elsewhere only in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:3| in opening, though in a doxology in strkjv@Romans:1:25; strkjv@9:5; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:31|. The copula here is probably \estin\ (is), though either \est\ (imperative) or \ei\ (optative as wish) will make sense. {The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ} (\ho theos kai patr tou Kuriou hmn Isou Christou\). \Kai\ is genuine here, though not in strkjv@Colossians:1:3|. The one article (\ho\) with \theos kai patr\ links them together as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:3; strkjv@3:11,13; strkjv@Galatians:1:4|. See also the one article in strkjv@2Peter:1:1,11|. In strkjv@Ephesians:1:17| we have \ho theos tou Kuriou hmn Isou Christou\, and the words of Jesus in strkjv@John:20:17|. {Who hath blessed us} (\ho eulogsas hums\). First aorist active participle of \euloge\, the same word, antecedent action to the doxology (\eulogtos\). {With} (\en\). So-called instrumental use of \en\ though {in} is clear. {Every spiritual blessing} (\pasi eulogii pneumatiki\). Third use of the root \eulog\ (verbal, verb, substantive). Paul lovingly plays with the idea. The believer is a citizen of heaven and the spiritual blessings count for most to him. {In the heavenly places in Christ} (\en tois epouraniois en Christi\). In four other places in Eph. (1:20; strkjv@2:6; strkjv@3:10; strkjv@6:12|). This precise phrase (with \en\) occurs nowhere else in the N.T. and has a clearly local meaning in strkjv@1:20; strkjv@2:6; strkjv@3:10|, doubtful in strkjv@6:12|, but probably so here. In strkjv@2:6| the believer is conceived as already seated with Christ. Heaven is the real abode of the citizen of Christ's kingdom (Phillipians:3:20|) who is a stranger on earth (Phillipians:1:27; strkjv@Ephesians:2:19|). The word \epouranios\ (heavenly) occurs in various passages in the N.T. in contrast with \ta epigeia\ (the earthly) as in strkjv@John:3:12; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:40,48,49; strkjv@Phillipians:2:10|, with \patris\ (country) in strkjv@Hebrews:11:16|, with \klsis\ (calling) in strkjv@Hebrews:3:1|, with \drea\ (gift) in strkjv@Hebrews:6:4|, with \basileia\ (kingdom) in strkjv@2Timothy:4:18|.

rwp@Hebrews:9:1 @{Even the first covenant} (\kai h prt\). \Kai\ (even) is doubtful. No word for covenant with \prte\ (cf. strkjv@8:7|). {Had} (\eiche\). Imperfect active, used to have. {Ordinances} (\dikaimata\). Regulations (from \dikaio\) as in strkjv@Luke:1:6; strkjv@Romans:5:16|. {Of divine service} (\latreias\). No word for "divine," though worship is meant as in strkjv@Romans:9:4; strkjv@Phillipians:3:3|. Genitive case. {And its sanctuary, a sanctuary of this world} (\to te hagion kosmikon\). By \to hagion\ the author describes the whole sanctuary (Exodus:36:3; strkjv@Numbers:3:38|) like \tn hagin\ in strkjv@8:2|. \Kosmikon\ is a late adjective (Aristotle, Plutarch) from \kosmos\, relating to this world, like \epi gs\ (upon earth) of strkjv@8:4|. It is in the predicate position, not attributive.

rwp@Info_John @ ONLY ONE JOHN OF EPHESUS It is true that an ambiguous statement of Papias (circa A.D. 120) is contained in Eusebius where the phrase "the Elder John " (\ho presbuteros Ianns\) occurs. The most natural way to understand Papias is that he is referring to the Apostle John by this phrase as he describes the teachings of the apostles by "the words of the elders" just before. This interpretation of the allusion of Papias has been rendered almost certain by the work of Dom John Chapman, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). Not before Eusebius is the error found of two Johns in Ephesus, one the apostle, the other the so-called Presbyter. "Papias is no witness for the admission of two Johns of Asia Minor. Irenaeus, too, in any case, knows of but one John of Asia Minor. And this John was an eye-witness of our Lord's Life" (Bousset, _Die Offenbarumg des Joh._, p. 38, translation of Nolloth, _The Fourth Evangelist_, p. 63, note). Let this be admitted and much becomes clear.

rwp@Info_John @ LIKE THE JOHANNINE EPISTLES Critics of all classes agree that, whoever was the author of the Fourth Gospel, the same man wrote the First Epistle of John. There is the same inimitable style, the same vocabulary, the same theological outlook. Undoubtedly the same author wrote also Second and Third John, for, brief as they are, they exhibit the same characteristics. In Second and Third John the author describes himself as "the Elder" (\ho presbuteros\), which fact has led some to argue for the mythical "Presbyter John" as the author in place of the Apostle John and so of First John and the Fourth Gospel. It is argued that the Apostle John would have termed himself "the Apostle John" after the fashion of Paul. But the example of the Apostle Peter disposes of that argument, for in addressing the elders (1Peter:5:1|) he calls himself "your fellow-elder" (\ho sunpresbuteros\). In the Epistles John opposes Gnosticism both of the Docetic type which denied the actual humanity of Jesus as in strkjv@1John:1:1-4| and the Cerinthian type which denied the identity of the man Jesus and the _aeon_ Christ which came on Jesus at his baptism and left him at his death on the Cross as in strkjv@1John:2:22|. One of the many stories told about John is his abhorrence of Cerinthus when found in the same public bath with him. As Westcott shows, the Epistles of John prove his actual humanity while assuming his deity, whereas the Fourth Gospel proves his deity while assuming his humanity.

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\, so that it cannot mean "the flesh became the Word." The Pre-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|, if he wishes, since John clearly had the Synoptics before him and chiefly supplemented them in his narrative. In fact, one is also at liberty to ask what intelligent meaning can one give to John's language here apart from the Virgin Birth? What ordinary mother or father ever speaks of a child "becoming flesh"? For the Incarnation see also strkjv@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:1:45 @{Philip findeth} (\heuriskei Philippos\). Dramatic present again. Philip carries on the work. One wins one. If that glorious beginning had only kept on! Now it takes a hundred to win one. {Nathaniel} (\ton Nathanal\). It is a Hebrew name meaning "God has given" like the Greek \Theodore\ (Gift of God). He was from Cana of Galilee (John:21:2|), not far from Bethsaida and so known to Philip. His name does not occur in the Synoptics while Bartholomew (a patronymic, _Bar Tholmai_) does not appear in John. They are almost certainly two names of the same man. Philip uses \heurkamen\ (verse 41|) also to Nathanael and so unites himself with the circle of believers, but instead of \Messian\ describes him "of whom (\hon\ accusative with \egrapsen\) Moses in the law (Deuteronomy:18:15|) and the prophets (so the whole O.T. as in strkjv@Luke:24:27,44|) did write." {Jesus of Nazareth the son of Joseph} (\Isoun huion tou Isph ton apo Nazaret\). More exactly, "Jesus, son of Joseph, the one from Nazareth." Jesus passed as son (no article in the Greek) of Joseph, though John has just described him as "God-only Begotten" in verse 18|, but certainly Philip could not know this. Bernard terms this part "the irony of St. John" for he is sure that his readers will agree with him as to the real deity of Jesus Christ. These details were probably meant to interest Nathanael.

rwp@Luke:3:22 @{Descended} (\katabnai\). Same construction as the preceding infinitive. {The Holy Ghost} (\to pneuma to hagion\). The Holy Spirit. strkjv@Mark:1:10| has merely the Spirit (\to pneuma\) while strkjv@Matthew:3:16| has the Spirit of God (\pneuma theou\). {In a bodily form} (\smatiki eidei\). Alone in Luke who has also "as a dove" (\hs peristeran\) like Matthew and Mark. This probably means that the Baptist saw the vision that looked like a dove. Nothing is gained by denying the fact or possibility of the vision that looked like a dove. God manifests his power as he will. The symbolism of the dove for the Holy Spirit is intelligible. We are not to understand that this was the beginning of the Incarnation of Christ as the Cerinthian Gnostics held. But this fresh influx of the Holy Spirit may have deepened the Messianic consciousness of Jesus and certainly revealed him to the Baptist as God's Son. {And a voice came out of heaven} (\kai phnn ex ouranou genesthai\). Same construction of infinitive with accusative of general reference. The voice of the Father to the Son is given here as in strkjv@Mark:1:11|, which see, and strkjv@Matthew:3:17| for discussion of the variation there. The Trinity here manifest themselves at the baptism of Jesus which constitutes the formal entrance of Jesus upon his Messianic ministry. He enters upon it with the Father's blessing and approval and with the power of the Holy Spirit upon him. The deity of Christ here appears in plain form in the Synoptic Gospels. The consciousness of Christ is as clear on this point here as in the Gospel of John where the Baptist describes him after his baptism as the Son of God (John:1:34|).

rwp@Luke:11:49 @{The wisdom of God} (\h sophia tou theou\). In strkjv@Matthew:23:34| Jesus uses "I send" (\eg apostell\) without this phrase "the wisdom of God." There is no book to which it can refer. Jesus is the wisdom of God as Paul shows (1Corinthians:1:30|), but it is hardly likely that he so describes himself here. Probably he means that God in his wisdom said, but even so "Jesus here speaks with confident knowledge of the Divine counsels" (Plummer). See strkjv@Luke:10:22; strkjv@15:7,10|. Here the future tense occurs, "I will send" (\apostel\). {Some of them} (\ex autn\). No "some" (\tinas\) in the Greek, but understood. They will act as their fathers did. They will kill and persecute.

rwp@Mark:9:25 @{A multitude came running together} (\episuntrechei ochlos\). A double compound here alone in the N.T. and not in the old Greek writers. \Epitrech\ occurs in the papyri, but not \episuntrech\. The double compound vividly describes the rapid gathering of the crowd to Jesus and the epileptic boy to see the outcome. {Come out of him} (\exelthe ex autou\). Jesus addresses the demon as a separate being from the boy as he often does. This makes it difficult to believe that Jesus was merely indulging popular belief in a superstition. He evidently regards the demon as the cause in this case of the boy's misfortune.

rwp@Mark:11:18 @{Sought how they might destroy him} (\eztoun ps auton apolessin\). Imperfect indicative, a continuous attitude and endeavour. Note deliberative subjunctive with \ps\ retained in indirect question. Here both Sadducees (chief priests) and Pharisees (scribes) combine in their resentment against the claims of Jesus and in the determination to kill him. Long ago the Pharisees and the Herodians had plotted for his death (Mark:3:6|). Now in Jerusalem the climax has come right in the temple. {For they feared him} (\ephobounto gar\). Imperfect middle indicative. Hence in wrath they planned his death and yet they had to be cautious. The Triumphal Entry had shown his power with the people. And now right in the temple itself "all the multitude was astonished at his teaching" (\ps ho ochlos exeplsseto epi ti didachi autou\). Imperfect passive. The people looked on Jesus as a hero, as the Messiah. This verse aptly describes the crisis that has now come between Christ and the Sanhedrin.

rwp@Mark:13:7 @{Must needs come to pass} (\dei genesthai\). Already there were outbreaks against the Jews in Alexandria, at Seleucia with the slaughter of more than fifty thousand, at Jamnia, and elsewhere. Caligula, Claudius, Nero will threaten war before it finally comes with the destruction of the city and temple by Titus in A.D. 70. Vincent notes that between this prophecy by Jesus in A.D. 30 (or 29) and the destruction of Jerusalem there was an earthquake in Crete (A.D. 46 or 47), at Rome (A.D. 51), at Apamaia in Phrygia (A.D. 60), at Campania (A.D. 63). He notes also four famines during the reign of Claudius A.D. 41-54. One of them was in Judea in A.D. 44 and is alluded to in strkjv@Acts:11:28|. Tacitus (_Annals_ xvi. 10-13) describes the hurricanes and storms in Campania in A.D. 65.

rwp@Mark:14:54 @{Peter had followed him afar off} (\Hosea:Petros apo makrothen kolouthsen auti\). Here Mark uses the constative aorist (\kolouthsen\) where strkjv@Matthew:26:58|, and strkjv@Luke:22:54| have the picturesque imperfect (\kolouthei\), was following. Possibly Mark did not care to dwell on the picture of Peter furtively following at a distance, not bold enough to take an open stand with Christ as the Beloved Disciple did, and yet unable to remain away with the other disciples. {Was sitting with} (\n sunkathmenos\). Periphrastic imperfect middle, picturing Peter making himself at home with the officers (\hupretn\), under rowers, literally, then servants of any kind. strkjv@John:18:25| describes Peter as standing (\hests\). Probably he did now one, now the other, in his restless weary mood. {Warming himself in the light} (\thermainomenos prs to phs\). Direct middle. Fire has light as well as heat and it shone in Peter's face. He was not hidden as much as he supposed he was.

rwp@Romans:1:4 @{Who was declared} (\tou horisthentos\). Articular participle (first aorist passive) of \horiz\ for which verb see on ¯Luke:22:22; strkjv@Acts:2:23|. He was the Son of God in his preincarnate state (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6|) and still so after his Incarnation (verse 3|, "of the seed of David"), but it was the Resurrection of the dead (\ex anastases nekrn\, the general resurrection implied by that of Christ) that definitely marked Jesus off as God's Son because of his claims about himself as God's Son and his prophecy that he would rise on the third day. This event (cf. strkjv@1Corinthians:15|) gave God's seal "with power" (\en dunamei\), "in power," declared so in power (2Corinthians:13:4|). The Resurrection of Christ is the miracle of miracles. "The resurrection only declared him to be what he truly was" (Denney). {According to the spirit of holiness} (\kata pneuma hagisuns\). Not the Holy Spirit, but a description of Christ ethically as \kata sarka\ describes him physically (Denney). \Hagisun\ is rare (1Thessalonians:3:13; strkjv@2Corinthians:7:1| in N.T.), three times in LXX, each time as the attribute of God. "The \pneuma hagisuns\, though not the Divine nature, is that in which the Divinity or Divine Personality Resided " (Sanday and Headlam). {Jesus Christ our Lord} (\Isou Christou tou kuriou hmn\). These words gather up the total personality of Jesus (his deity and his humanity).

rwp@Romans:1:30 @Paul changes the construction again to twelve substantives and adjectives that give vivid touches to this composite photograph of the God abandoned soul. {Whisperers} (\psithuristas\). Old word from \psithuriz\, to speak into the ear, to speak secretly, an onomatopoetic word like \psithurismos\ (2Corinthians:12:20|) and only here in N.T. {Backbiters} (\katalalous\). Found nowhere else except in Hermas, compound like \katalale\, to talk back (James:4:11|), and \katalalia\, talking back (2Corinthians:12:20|), talkers back whether secretly or openly. {Hateful to God} (\theostugeis\). Old word from \theos\ and \stuge\. All the ancient examples take it in the passive sense and so probably here. Songs:\stugtos\ (Titus:3:13|). Vulgate has _deo odibiles_. {Insolent} (\hubristas\). Old word for agent from \hubriz\, to give insult to, here alone in N.T. save strkjv@1Timothy:1:13|. {Haughty} (\huperphanous\). From \huper\ and \phainomai\, to appear above others, arrogant in thought and conduct, "stuck up." {Boastful} (\alazonas\). From \al\, wandering. Empty pretenders, swaggerers, braggarts. {Inventors of evil things} (\epheuretas kakn\). Inventors of new forms of vice as Nero was. Tacitus (_Ann_. IV. ii) describes Sejanus as _facinorum omnium repertor_ and Virgil (_Aen_. ii. 163) _scelerum inventor_. {Disobedient to parents} (\goneusin apeitheis\). Cf. strkjv@1Timothy:1:9; strkjv@2Timothy:3:2|. An ancient and a modern trait.

rwp@Romans:7:24 @{O wretched man that I am} (\talaipros eg anthrpos\). "Wretched man I." Old adjective from \tla\, to bear, and \pros\, a callus. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:3:17|. "A heart-rending cry from the depths of despair" (Sanday and Headlam). {Out of the body of this death} (\ek tou smatos tou thanatou toutou\). Songs:the order of words demands. See verse 13| for "death" which finds a lodgment in the body (Lightfoot). If one feels that Paul has exaggerated his own condition, he has only to recall strkjv@1Timothy:1:15| when he describes himself a chief of sinners. He dealt too honestly with himself for Pharisaic complacency to live long.

rwp@Romans:12:9 @{Without hypocrisy} (\anupokritos\). Late double compound adjective for which see strkjv@2Corinthians:6:6|. Hypocritical or pretended love is no love at all as Paul describes \agap\ in strkjv@1Corinthians:13|. {Abhor} (\apostugountes\). Old verb with intensive (\apo\) dislike, only here in N.T. The present active participle is here employed in the sense of the present active indicative as sometimes happens with the independent participle (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 1132ff.). This same idiom appears with \kollmenoi\ (cleaving) for which verb see on ¯1Corinthians:6:17|, with \progoumenoi\ (preferring) in verse 10| (old verb here only in N.T.), and with the participles in verses 11-13| and again in verses 16-18|. One can supply \este\ if he prefers.