NT-EPISTLES.filter - rwp remains:

rwp@1Corinthians:15:29 @{Else} (\epei\). Otherwise, if not true. On this use of \epei\ with ellipsis see on ¯5:10; strkjv@7:14|. {Which are baptized for the dead} (\hoi baptizomenoi huper tn nekrn\). This passage remains a puzzle. Stanley gives thirteen interpretations, no one of which may be correct. Over thirty have been suggested. The Greek expositors took it to be about the dead (\huper\ in sense of \peri\ as often as in strkjv@2Corinthians:1:6|) since baptism is a burial and a resurrection (Romans:6:2-6|). Tertullian tells of some heretics who took it to mean baptized in the place of dead people (unsaved) in order to save them. Some take it to be baptism over the dead. Others take it to mean that Paul and others were in peril of death as shown by baptism (see verse 30|). {At all} (\hols\). See on ¯5:1|.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:39 @{The same flesh} (\h aut sarx\). Paul takes up animal life to show the great variety there is as in the plant kingdom. Even if evolution should prove to be true, Paul's argument remains valid. Variety exists along with kinship. Progress is shown in the different kingdoms, progress that even argues for a spiritual body after the body of flesh is lost. {Of beasts} (\ktnn\). Old word, from \ktaomai\, to possess, and so property. See strkjv@Luke:10:34|. {Of birds} (\ptnn\). Old word from \petomai\, to fly, winged, flying. Only here in N.T.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:44 @{A natural body} (\sma psuchikon\). See on ¯2:14| for this word, a difficult one to translate since \psuch\ has so many meanings. Natural is probably as good a rendering as can be made, but it is not adequate, for the body here is not all \psuch\ either as soul or life. The same difficulty exists as to a spiritual body (\sma pneumatikon\). The resurrection body is not wholly \pneuma\. Caution is needed here in filling out details concerning the \psuch\ and the \pneuma\. But certainly he means to say that the "spiritual body" has some kind of germinal connection with the "natural body," though the development is glorious beyond our comprehension though not beyond the power of Christ to perform (Phillipians:3:21|). The force of the argument remains unimpaired though we cannot follow fully into the thought beyond us. {If there is} (\ei estin\). "If there exists" (\estin\ means this with accent on first syllable), a condition of first class assumed as true. {There is also} (\estin kai\). There exists also.

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@Colossians:3:3 @{For ye died} (\apethanete gar\). Definite event, aorist active indicative, died to sin (Romans:6:2|). {Is hid} (\kekruptai\). Perfect passive indicative of \krupt\, old verb, to hide, remains concealed, locked "together with" (\sun\) Christ, "in" (\en\) God. No hellish burglar can break that combination.

rwp@Info_Epistles-General @ IMPORTANCE OF THE GENERAL EPISTLES Without them we should be deprived of much concerning three outstanding personalities in early Christianity. We should know much less of "James, and Cephas, and John, they who were reputed to be pillars" (Galatians:2:9|). We should know less also of the Judaic (not Judaizing) form of Christianity seen in the Epistles of James and Jude:in contrast with, though not opposed to, the Pauline type. In Peter's Epistles we see, indeed, a mediating position without compromise of principle, for Peter in the Jerusalem Conference loyally supported Paul and Barnabas even if he did flicker for a moment later in Antioch. In the Johannine Epistles we see the great Eagle soar as in his Gospel in calm serenity in spite of conflict with the Gnostics who struck at the very life of Christianity itself. "The only opposition which remains worthy of a Christian's consideration is that between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, love and hate, God and the world, Christ and Antichrist, life and death" (Plummer). Songs:we can be grateful for the preservation of these little Epistles which reveal differences in the development of the great Christian leaders and the adaptation of the gospel message to changing world conditions then and now. Info_Epistles-Pastorial

rwp@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ Objections on internal grounds are made on the lines laid down by Baur and followed by Renan. They are chiefly four. The "most decisive" as argued by McGiffert (_History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age_, p. 402) is that "the Christianity of the Pastoral Epistles is not the Christianity of Paul." He means as we know Paul in the other Epistles. But this charge is untrue. It is true that Paul here lists faith with the virtues, but he does that in strkjv@Galatians:5:22|. Nowhere does Paul give a loftier word about faith than in strkjv@1Timothy:1:12-17|. Another objection urged is that the ecclesiastical organization seen in the Pastoral Epistles belongs to the second century, not to the time of Paul's life. Now we have the Epistles of Ignatius in the early part of the second century in which "bishop" is placed over "elders" of which there is no trace in the New Testament (Lightfoot). A forger in the second century would certainly have reproduced the ecclesiastical organization of that century instead of the first as we have it in the Pastoral Epistles. There is only here the normal development of bishop (=elder) and deacon. A third objection is made on the ground that there is no room in Paul's life as we know it in the Acts and the other Pauline Epistles for the events alluded to in the Pastoral Epistles and it is also argued on late and inconclusive testimony that Paul was put to death A.D. 64 and had only one Roman imprisonment. If Paul was executed A.D. 64, this objection has force in it, though Bartlet (_The Apostolic Age_) tries to make room for them in the period covered by the Acts. Duncan makes the same attempt for the Pauline scraps admitted by him as belonging to the hypothecated imprisonment in Ephesus. But, if we admit the release of Paul from the first Roman imprisonment, there is ample room before his execution in A.D. 68 for the events referred to in the Pastoral Epistles and the writing of the letters (his going east to Ephesus, Macedonia, to Crete, to Troas, to Corinth, to Miletus, to Nicopolis, to Rome), including the visit to Spain before Crete once planned for (Romans:15:24,28|) and mentioned by Clement of Rome as a fact ("the limit of the west"). The fourth objection is that of the language in the Pastoral Epistles. Probably more men are influenced by this argument than by any other. The ablest presentation of this difficulty is made by P. N. Harrison in _The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles_ (1921). Besides the arguments Dr. Harrison has printed the Greek text in a fashion to help the eye see the facts. Words not in the other Pauline Epistles are in red, Pauline phrases (from the other ten) are underlined, _hapax legomena_ are marked by an asterisk. At a superficial glance one can see that the words here not in the other Pauline Epistles and the common Pauline phrases are about equal. The data as to mere words are broadly as follows according to Harrison: Words in the Pastorals, not elsewhere in the N.T. (Pastoral _hapax legomena_) 175 (168 according to Rutherford); words in the other ten Pauline Epistles not elsewhere in the N.T. 470 (627 according to Rutherford). Variations in MSS. will account for some of the difficulty of counting. Clearly there is a larger proportion of new words in the Pastorals (about twice as many) than in the other Pauline Epistles. But Harrison's tables show remarkable differences in the other Epistles also. The average of such words per page in Romans is 4, but 5.6 in II Corinthians, 6.2 in Philippians, and only 4 in Philemon. Parry (_Comm._, p. CXVIII) notes that of the 845 words in the Pastorals as compared with each other 278 occur only in I Tim., 96 only in Titus, 185 only in II Tim. "If vocabulary alone is taken, this would point to separate authorship of each epistle." And yet the same style clearly runs through all three. After all vocabulary is not wholly a personal problem. It varies with age in the same person and with the subject matter also. Precisely such differences exist in the writings of Shakespeare and Milton as critics have long ago observed. The only problem that remains is whether the differences are so great in the Pastoral Epistles as to prohibit the Pauline authorship when "Paul the aged" writes on the problem of pastoral leadership to two of the young ministers trained by him who have to meet the same incipient Gnostic heresy already faced in Colossians and Ephesians. My judgment is that, all things considered, the contents and style of the Pastoral Epistles are genuinely Pauline, mellowed by age and wisdom and perhaps written in his own hand or at least by the same amanuensis in all three instances. Lock suggests Luke as the amanuensis for the Pastorals.

rwp@Galatians:4:6 @{Because ye are sons} (\hoti este huioi\). This is the reason for sending forth the Son (4:4| and here). We were "sons" in God's elective purpose and love. \Hoti\ is causal (1Corinthians:12:15; strkjv@Romans:9:7|). {The Spirit of his Son} (\to pneuma tou huioi autou\). The Holy Spirit, called the Spirit of Christ (Romans:8:9f.|), the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phillipians:1:19|). The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son (John:15:26|). {Crying, Abba, Father} (\krazon Abba ho patr\). The participle agrees with \pneuma\ neuter (grammatical gender), not neuter in fact. An old, though rare in present as here, onomatopoetic word to croak as a raven (Theophrastus, like Poe's _The Raven_), any inarticulate cry like "the unuttered groanings" of strkjv@Romans:8:26| which God understands. This cry comes from the Spirit of Christ in our hearts. \Abba\ is the Aramaic word for father with the article and \ho patr\ translates it. The articular form occurs in the vocative as in strkjv@John:20:28|. It is possible that the repetition here and in strkjv@Romans:8:15| may be "a sort of affectionate fondness for the very term that Jesus himself used" (Burton) in the Garden of Gethsemane (Mark:14:36|). The rabbis preserve similar parallels. Most of the Jews knew both Greek and Aramaic. But there remains the question why Jesus used both in his prayer. Was it not natural for both words to come to him in his hour of agony as in his childhood? The same thing may be true here in Paul's case.

rwp@James:3:6 @{The tongue is a fire} (\h glssa pur\). Songs:necessarily since there is no article with \pur\ (apparently same word as German _feuer_, Latin _purus_, English _pure, fire_). This metaphor of fire is applied to the tongue in strkjv@Proverbs:16:27; strkjv@26:18-22|; Sirach strkjv@28:22. {The world of iniquity} (\ho kosmos ts adikias\). A difficult phrase, impossible to understand according to Ropes as it stands. If the comma is put after \pur\ instead of after \adikias\, then the phrase may be the predicate with \kathistatai\ (present passive indicative of \kathistmi\, "is constituted," or the present middle "presents itself"). Even so, \kosmos\ remains a difficulty, whether it means the "ornament" (1Peter:3:3|) or "evil world" (James:1:27|) or just "world" in the sense of widespread power for evil. The genitive \adikias\ is probably descriptive (or qualitative). Clearly James means to say that the tongue can play havoc in the members of the human body. {Which defileth the whole body} (\h spilousa holon to sma\). Present active participle of \spilo\ late _Koin_, verb, to stain from \spilos\ (spot, also late word, in N.T. only in strkjv@Ephesians:5:27; strkjv@2Peter:2:13|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@Judges:1:23|. Cf. strkjv@1:27| \aspilon\ (unspotted). {Setteth on fire} (\phlogizousa\). Present active participle of \phlogiz\, old verb, to set on fire, to ignite, from \phlox\ (flame), in N.T. only in this verse. See \anaptei\ (verse 5|). {The wheel of nature} (\ton trochon geneses\). Old word for wheel (from \trech\, to run), only here in N.T. "One of the hardest passages in the Bible" (Hort). To what does \trochon\ refer? For \geneses\ see strkjv@1:23| apparently in the same sense. Vincent suggests "the wheel of birth" (cf. strkjv@Matthew:1:1,18|). The ancient writers often use this same phrase (or \kuklos\, cycle, in place of \trochos\), but either in a physiological or a philosophical sense. James may have caught the metaphor from the current use, but certainly he has no such Orphic or Pythagorean doctrine of the transmigration of souls, "the unending round of death and rebirth" (Ropes). The wheel of life may be considered either in motion or standing still, though setting on fire implies motion. There is no reference to the zodiac. {And is set on fire by hell} (\kai phlogizomen hupo gehenns\). Present passive participle of \phlogiz\, giving the continual source of the fire in the tongue. For the metaphor of fire with \gehenna\ see strkjv@Matthew:5:22|.

rwp@John:6:59 @{In the synagogue} (\en sunaggi\). Definite like our in church, though article absent. Only use of the word in John except strkjv@18:20|. "Among the ruins at _Tell Hum_, the probable site of Capernaum, have been found among the remains of a synagogue a block of stone perhaps the lintel, carved with a pot of manna, and with a pattern of vine leaves and clusters of grapes" (Vincent).

rwp@John:18:4 @{Knowing all the things that were coming upon him} (\eids panta ta erchomena ep' auton\). Mentioned already in strkjv@John:13:1|. He was not taken by surprise. The surrender and death of Jesus were voluntary acts, though the guilt of Judas and the rest remains.

rwp@Luke:6:13 @{When it was day} (\hote egeneto hmera\). When day came, after the long night of prayer. {He chose from them twelve} (\eklexamenos ap' autn ddeka\). The same root (\leg\) was used for picking out, selecting and then for saying. There was a large group of "disciples" or "learners" whom he "called" to him (\prosephnsen\), and from among whom he chose (of himself, and for himself, indirect middle voice (\eklexamenos\). It was a crisis in the work of Christ. Jesus assumed full responsibility even for the choice of Judas who was not forced upon Jesus by the rest of the Twelve. "You did not choose me, but I chose you," (John:15:16|) where Jesus uses \exelexasthe\ and \exelexamn\ as here by Luke. {Whom also he named apostles} (\hous kai apostolous nomasen\). Songs:then Jesus gave the twelve chosen disciples this appellation. Aleph and B have these same words in strkjv@Mark:3:14| besides the support of a few of the best cursives, the Bohairic Coptic Version and the Greek margin of the Harclean Syriac. Westcott and Hort print them in their text in strkjv@Mark:3:14|, but it remains doubtful whether they were not brought into Mark from strkjv@Luke:6:13| where they are undoubtedly genuine. See strkjv@Matthew:10:2| where the connection with sending them out by twos in the third tour of Galilee. The word is derived from \apostell\, to send (Latin, _mitto_) and apostle is missionary, one sent. Jesus applies the term to himself (\apesteilas\, strkjv@John:17:3|) as does strkjv@Hebrews:3:1|. The word is applied to others, like Barnabas, besides these twelve including the Apostle Paul who is on a par with them in rank and authority, and even to mere messengers of the churches (2Corinthians:8:23|). But these twelve apostles stand apart from all others in that they were all chosen at once by Jesus himself "that they might be with him" (Mark:3:14|), to be trained by Jesus himself and to interpret him and his message to the world. In the nature of the case they could have no successors as they had to be personal witnesses to the life and resurrection of Jesus (Acts:1:22|). The selection of Matthias to succeed Judas cannot be called a mistake, but it automatically ceased. For discussion of the names and groups in the list see discussion on ¯Matthew:10:1-4; strkjv@Mark:3:14-19|.

rwp@Luke:16:18 @{Committeth adultery} (\moicheuei\). Another repeated saying of Christ (Matthew:5:32; strkjv@Mark:10:11f.; strkjv@Matthew:19:9f.|). Adultery remains adultery, divorce or no divorce, remarriage or no marriage.

rwp@Mark:8:8 @{Broken pieces that remained over} (\perisseumata klasmatn\). Overplus, abundance, remains of broken pieces not used, not just scraps or crumbs.

rwp@Mark:16:6 @{Be not amazed} (\m ekthambeisthe\). The angel noted their amazement (verse 5|) and urges the cessation of it using this very word. {The Nazarene} (\ton Nazarnon\). Only in Mark, to identify "Jesus" to the women. {The crucified one} (\ton estaurmenon\). This also in strkjv@Matthew:28:5|. This description of his shame has become his crown of glory, for Paul (Gal strkjv@6:14|), and for all who look to the Crucified and Risen Christ as Saviour and Lord. He is risen (\gerth\). First aorist passive indicative, the simple fact. In strkjv@1Corinthians:15:4| Paul uses the perfect passive indicative \eggertai\ to emphasize the permanent state that Jesus remains risen. {Behold the place} (\ide ho topos\). Here \ide\ is used as an interjection with no effect on the case (nominative). In strkjv@Matthew:28:6| \idete\ is the verb with the accusative. See Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 302.

rwp@Matthew:1:2 @{Begat} (\egennsen\). This word comes, like some of the early chapters of Genesis, with regularity through verse 16, until the birth of Jesus is reached when there is a sudden change. The word itself does not always mean immediate parentage, but merely direct descent. In verse 16| we have "Joseph the husband of Mary, from whom was begotten Jesus who is called Christ" (\ton Isph ton andra Marias ex hs egennth Isous ho legomenos Christos\). The article occurs here each time with the object of "begat," but not with the subject of the verb to distinguish sharply the proper names. In the case of David the King (1:6|) and Joseph the husband of Mary (1:16|) the article is repeated. The mention of the brethren of Judah (1:2|) and of both Phares and Zara (1:3|) may show that Matthew was not copying a family pedigree but making his own table. All the Greek manuscripts give verse 16| as above save the Ferrar Group of minuscules which are supported by the Sinaitic Syriac Version. Because of this fact Von Soden, whose text Moffatt translates, deliberately prints his text "_Jacob begat Jesus_" (\Isph de egennsen Isoun\). But the Sinaitic Syriac gives the Virgin Birth of Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:1:18-25|. Hence it is clear that "begat" here in strkjv@1:16| must merely mean line of descent or the text has been tampered with in order to get rid of the Virgin Birth idea, but it was left untouched in strkjv@1:18-25|. I have a full discussion of the problem in chapter XIV of _Studies in the Text of the New Testament_. The evidence as it now stands does not justify changing the text of the Greek uncials to suit the Sinaitic Syriac. The Virgin Birth of Jesus remains in strkjv@1:16|. The spelling of these Hebrew names in English is usually according to the Hebrew form, not the Greek. In the Greek itself the Hebrew spelling is often observed in violation of the Greek rules for the ending of words with no consonants save _n,r,s_. But the list is not spelled consistently in the Greek, now like the Hebrew as in Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, now like the Greek as in Judah, Solomon, Hezekiah, though the Hebrew style prevails.

rwp@Matthew:27:63 @{Sir, we remember} (\kurie, emnesthmen\). This was the next day, on our Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, the day after the Preparation (Matthew:27:62|). Ingressive aorist indicative, we have just recalled. It is objected that the Jewish rulers would know nothing of such a prediction, but in strkjv@Matthew:12:40| he expressly made it to them. Meyer scouts as unhistorical legend the whole story that Christ definitely foretold his resurrection on the third day. But that is to make legendary much of the Gospels and to limit Jesus to a mere man. The problem remains why the disciples forgot and the Jewish leaders remembered. But that is probably due on the one hand to the overwhelming grief of the disciples coupled with the blighting of all their hopes of a political Messiah in Jesus, and on the other hand to the keen nervous fear of the leaders who dreaded the power of Jesus though dead. They wanted to make sure of their victory and prevent any possible revival of this pernicious heresy. {That deceiver} (\ekeinos ho planos\) they call him, a vagabond wanderer (\planos\) with a slur in the use of {that} (\ekeinos\), a picturesque sidelight on their intense hatred of and fear of Jesus.

rwp@Revelation:3:12 @{He that overcometh} (\ho nikn\). Nominative absolute as in strkjv@2:26|, resumed by the accusative \auton\ (him). {A pillar} (\stulon\). Old word for column, in N.T. only here, strkjv@10:1; strkjv@Galatians:2:9; strkjv@1Timothy:3:15|. Metaphorical and personal use with a double significance of being firmly fixed and giving stability to the building. Philadelphia was a city of earthquakes. "Temple" (\naos\) here is also metaphorical (7:15|), as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:15| for the people of God. In strkjv@21:22| we read that there is no temple in the heavenly Jerusalem (21:10-22:5|) descending as the new Jerusalem with God himself as the temple, though the metaphorical temple is mentioned in strkjv@7:15|. {He shall go out thence no more} (\ex ou m elthi\). Strong double negative \ou m\ with the second aorist active subjunctive of \erchomai\. The subject is \ho nikn\ (the one overcoming). "Fixity of character is at last achieved" (Charles). He, like the \stulos\ (pillar), remains in place. {Upon him} (\ep' auton\). Upon \ho nikn\ (the victor), not upon the pillar (\stulos\). He receives this triple name (of God, of the city of God, of Christ) on his forehead (14:1; strkjv@7:3; strkjv@17:5; strkjv@22:4|) just as the high-priest wore the name of Jehovah upon his forehead (Exodus:28:36,38|), the new name (2:17|), without any magical or talismanic power, but as proof of ownership by God, as a citizen of the New Jerusalem, with the new symbol of the glorious personality of Christ (Revelation:19:12|), in contrast with the mark of the beast on others (13:17; strkjv@14:17|). For citizenship in God's city see strkjv@Galatians:4:26; strkjv@Phillipians:3:20; strkjv@Hebrews:11:10; strkjv@12:22; strkjv@13:14|. {The new Jerusalem} (\ts kains Ierousalm\). Not \neas\ (young), but \kains\ (fresh). See also strkjv@21:2,10| and already strkjv@Galatians:4:26; strkjv@Hebrews:12:22|. Charles distinguishes between the Jerusalem before the final judgment and this new Jerusalem after that event. Perhaps so! In the Apocalypse always this form \Ierousalm\ (3:12; strkjv@21:2,10|), but in John's Gospel \Hierosoluma\ (1:19|, etc.). {Which cometh down} (\h katabainousa\). Nominative case in apposition with the preceding genitive \poles\ as in strkjv@1:5; strkjv@2:20|, etc. {Mine own new name} (\to onoma mou to kainon\). For which see strkjv@2:17; strkjv@19:12,16|. Christ himself will receive a new name along with all else in the future world (Gressmann).

rwp@Romans:3:9 @{What then?} (\ti oun?\). Paul's frequent query, to be taken with verses 1,2|. {Are we in worse case than they?} (\proechometha?\). The American Revisers render it: "Are we in better case than they?" There is still no fresh light on this difficult and common word though it occurs alone in the N.T. In the active it means to have before, to excel. But here it is either middle or passive. Thayer takes it to be middle and to mean to excel to one's advantage and argues that the context demands this. But no example of the middle in this sense has been found. If it is taken as passive, Lightfoot takes it to mean, "Are we excelled" and finds that sense in Plutarch. Vaughan takes it as passive but meaning, "Are we preferred?" This suits the context, but no other example has been found. Songs:the point remains unsettled. The papyri throw no light on it. {No, in no wise} (\ou pants\). "Not at all." See strkjv@1Corinthians:5:10|. {We before laid to the charge} (\proitiasametha\). First aorist middle indicative of \proaitiaomai\, to make a prior accusation, a word not yet found anywhere else. Paul refers to strkjv@1:18-32| for the Greeks and strkjv@2:1-29| for the Jews. The infinitive \einai\ with the accusative \pantas\ is in indirect discourse. {Under sin} (\hupo hamartian\). See strkjv@Galatians:3:22; strkjv@Romans:7:14|.