NT-GOSPEL.filter - rwp begot:

rwp@1John:5:1 @{That Jesus is the Christ} (\hoti Isous estin ho Christos\). The Cerinthian antichrist denies the identity of Jesus and Christ (2:22|). Hence John insists on this form of faith (\pisteun\ here in the full sense, stronger than in strkjv@3:23; strkjv@4:16|, seen also in \pistis\ in verse 4|, where English and Latin fall down in having to use another word for the verb) as he does in verse 5| and in accord with the purpose of John's Gospel (20:31|). Nothing less will satisfy John, not merely intellectual conviction, but full surrender to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. "The Divine Begetting is the antecedent, not the consequent of the believing" (Law). For "is begotten of God" (\ek tou theou gegenntai\) see strkjv@2:29; strkjv@3:9; strkjv@4:7; strkjv@5:4,18|. John appeals here to family relationship and family love. {Him that begat} (\ton gennsanta\). First aorist active articular participle of \genna\, to beget, the Father (our heavenly Father). {Him also that is begotten of him} (\ton gegennmenon ex autou\). Perfect passive articular participle of \genna\, the brother or sister by the same father. Songs:then we prove our love for the common Father by our conduct towards our brothers and sisters in Christ.

rwp@1John:5:4 @{For} (\hoti\). The reason why God's commandments are not heavy is the power that comes with the new birth from God. {Whatsoever is begotten of God} (\pn to gegennmenon ek tou theou\). Neuter singular perfect passive participle of \genna\ rather than the masculine singular (verse 1|) to express sharply the universality of the principle (Rothe) as in strkjv@John:3:6,8; strkjv@6:37,39|. {Overcometh the world} (\niki ton kosmon\). Present active indicative of \nika\, a continuous victory because a continuous struggle, "keeps on conquering the world" ("the sum of all the forces antagonistic to the spiritual life," D. Smith). {This is the victory} (\haut estin h nik\). For this form of expression see strkjv@1:5; strkjv@John:1:19|. \Nik\ (victory, cf. \nika\), old word, here alone in N.T., but the later form \nikos\ in strkjv@Matthew:12:20; strkjv@1Corinthians:15:54f.,57|. {That overcometh} (\h niksasa\). First aorist active articular participle of \nika\. The English cannot reproduce the play on the word here. The aorist tense singles out an individual experience when one believed or when one met temptation with victory. Jesus won the victory over the world (John:16:33|) and God in us (1John:4:4|) gives us the victory. {Even our faith} (\h pistis hmn\). The only instance of \pistis\ in the Johannine Epistles (not in John's Gospel, though in the Apocalypse). It is our faith in Jesus Christ as shown by our confession (verse 1|) and by our life (verse 2|).

rwp@1John:5:18 @{We know} (\oidamen\). As in strkjv@3:2,14; strkjv@5:15,19,20|. He has "ye know" in strkjv@2:20; strkjv@3:5,15|. {Sinneth not} (\ouch hamartanei\). Lineal present active indicative, "does not keep on sinning," as he has already shown in strkjv@3:4-10|. {He that was begotten of God} (\ho genntheis ek tou theou\). First aorist passive articular participle referring to Christ, if the reading of A B is correct (\trei auton\, not \trei heauton\). It is Christ who keeps the one begotten of God (\gegennmenos ek tou theou\ as in strkjv@3:9| and so different from \ho genntheis\ here). It is a difficult phrase, but this is probably the idea. Jesus (John:18:37|) uses \gegennmai\ of himself and uses also \tre\ of keeping the disciples (John:17:12,15; strkjv@Revelation:3:10|). {The evil one} (\ho ponros\). Masculine and personal as in strkjv@2:13|, not neuter, and probably Satan as in strkjv@Matthew:6:13|, not just any evil man. {Touchest him not} (\ouch haptetai autou\). Present middle indicative of \hapt\, elsewhere in John only strkjv@John:20:17|. It means to lay hold of or to grasp rather than a mere superficial touch (\thiggan\, both in strkjv@Colossians:2:21|). Here the idea is to touch to harm. The devil cannot snatch such a man from Christ (John:6:38f.|).

rwp@Hebrews:1:5 @{Unto which} (\Tini\). "To which individual angel." As a class angels are called sons of God (Elohim) (Psalms:29:1|), but no single angel is called God's Son like the Messiah in strkjv@Psalms:2:7|. Dods takes "have I begotten thee" (\gegennka se\, perfect active indicative of \genna\) to refer to the resurrection and ascension while others refer it to the incarnation. {And again} (\kai palin\). This quotation is from strkjv@2Samuel:7:14|. Note the use of \eis\ in the predicate with the sense of "as" like the Hebrew (LXX idiom), not preserved in the English. See strkjv@Matthew:19:5; strkjv@Luke:2:34|. Like Old English "to" or "for." See strkjv@2Corinthians:6:18; strkjv@Revelation:21:7| for the same passage applied to relation between God and Christians while here it is treated as Messianic.

rwp@John:1:13 @{Which were born} (\hoi egennthsan\). First aorist passive indicative of \genna\, to beget, "who were begotten." By spiritual generation (of God, \ek theou\), not by physical (\ex haimatn\, plural as common in classics and O.T., though why it is not clear unless blood of both father and mother; \ek thelmatos sarkos\, from sexual desire; \ek thelmatos andros\, from the will of the male). But _b_ of the old Latin reads _qui natus est_ and makes it refer to Christ and so expressly teach the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Likewise Irenaeus reads _qui natus est_ as does Tertullian who argues that _qui nati sunt_ (\hoi egennthsan\) is an invention of the Valentinian Gnostics. Blass (_Philology of the Gospels_, p. 234) opposes this reading, but all the old Greek uncials read \hoi egennthsan\ and it must be accepted. The Virgin Birth is doubtless implied in verse 14|, but it is not stated in verse 13|.

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@John:3:16 @{For so} (\houts gar\). This use of \gar\ is quite in John's style in introducing his comments (2:25; strkjv@4:8; strkjv@5:13|, etc.). This "Little Gospel" as it is often called, this "comfortable word" (the Anglican Liturgy), while not a quotation from Jesus is a just and marvellous interpretation of the mission and message of our Lord. In verses 16-21| John recapitulates in summary fashion the teaching of Jesus to Nicodemus. {Loved} (\gapsen\). First aorist active indicative of \agapa\, the noble word so common in the Gospels for the highest form of love, used here as often in John (14:23; strkjv@17:23; strkjv@1John:3:1; strkjv@4:10|) of God's love for man (cf. strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:16; strkjv@Romans:5:8; strkjv@Ephesians:2:4|). In strkjv@21:15| John presents a distinction between \agapa\ and \phile\. \Agapa\ is used also for love of men for men (13:34|), for Jesus (8:42|), for God (1John:4:10|). {The world} (\ton kosmon\). The whole cosmos of men, including Gentiles, the whole human race. This universal aspect of God's love appears also in strkjv@2Corinthians:5:19; strkjv@Romans:5:8|. {That he gave} (\hste edken\). The usual classical construction with \hste\ and the indicative (first aorist active) practical result, the only example in the N.T. save that in strkjv@Galatians:2:13|. Elsewhere \hste\ with the infinitive occurs for actual result (Matthew:13:32|) as well as purpose (Matthew:10:1|), though even this is rare. {His only begotten Son} (\ton huion ton monogen\). "The Son the only begotten." For this word see on ¯1:14,18; strkjv@3:18|. The rest of the sentence, the purpose clause with \hina-echi\ precisely reproduces the close of strkjv@3:15| save that \eis auton\ takes the place of \en auti\ (see strkjv@1:12|) and goes certainly with \pisteun\ (not with \echi\ as \en auti\ in verse 15|) and the added clause "should not perish but" (\m apoltai alla\, second aorist middle subjunctive, intransitive, of \apollumi\, to destroy). The same contrast between "perish" and "eternal life" (for this world and the next) appears also in strkjv@10:28|. On "perish" see also strkjv@17:12|.

rwp@John:3:18 @{Is not judged} (\ou krinetai\). Present passive indicative. Trust in Christ prevents condemnation, for he takes our place and pays the penalty for sin for all who put their case in his hands (Romans:8:32f.|). The believer in Christ as Saviour does not come into judgment (John:5:24|). {Hath been judged already} (\d kekritai\). Perfect passive indicative of \krin\. Judgment has already been passed on the one who refuses to believe in Christ as the Saviour sent by the Father, the man who is not willing to come to Christ for life (5:40|). {Because he hath not believed} (\hoti m pepisteuken\). Perfect active indicative of \pisteu\, has taken a permanent attitude of refusal. Here \hoti m\ states the reason subjectively as the judgment of the Judge in any such case (\ho m pisteun\ already mentioned) while in strkjv@1John:5:10| \hoti ou pepisteuken\ gives the reason objectively (\ou\ instead of \m\) conceived as an actual case and no longer hypothetical. See strkjv@1:12| for \eis to onoma\ with \pisteu\ (believing on the name) and strkjv@1:14| for \monogenous\ (only begotten) and also strkjv@3:16|.

rwp@Luke:3:23 @{Jesus Himself} (\autos Isous\). Emphatic intensive pronoun calling attention to the personality of Jesus at this juncture. When he entered upon his Messianic work. {When he began to teach} (\archomenos\). The words "to teach" are not in the Greek text. The Authorized Version "began to be about thirty years of age," is an impossible translation. The Revised Version rightly supplies "to teach" (\didaskein\) after the present participle \archomenos\. Either the infinitive or the participle can follow \archomai\, usually the infinitive in the _Koin_. It is not necessary to supply anything (Acts:1:22|). {Was about thirty years of age} (\n hsei etn triakonta\). Tyndale has it right "Jesus was about thirty yere of age when he beganne." Luke does not commit himself definitely to precisely thirty years as the age of Christ. The Levites entered upon full service at that age, but that proves nothing about Jesus. God's prophets enter upon their task when the word of God comes to them. Jesus may have been a few months under or over thirty or a year or two less or more. {Being Son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli} (\n huios hs enomizeto Isph tou Helei\). For the discussion of the genealogy of Jesus see on ¯Matthew:1:1-17|. The two genealogies differ very widely and many theories have been proposed about them. At once one notices that Luke begins with Jesus and goes back to Adam, the Son of God, while Matthew begins with Abraham and comes to "Joseph the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ" (Matthew:1:16|). Matthew employs the word "begot" each time, while Luke has the article \tou\ repeating \huiou\ (Son) except before Joseph. They agree in the mention of Joseph, but Matthew says that "Jacob begat Joseph" while Luke calls "Joseph the son of Heli." There are other differences, but this one makes one pause. Joseph, of course, did not have two fathers. If we understand Luke to be giving the real genealogy of Jesus through Mary, the matter is simple enough. The two genealogies differ from Joseph to David except in the cases of Zorobabel and Salathiel. Luke evidently means to suggest something unusual in his genealogy by the use of the phrase "as was supposed" (\hs enomizeto\). His own narrative in strkjv@Luke:1:26-38| has shown that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. Plummer objects that, if Luke is giving the genealogy of Jesus through Mary, \huios\ must be used in two senses here (son as was supposed of Joseph, and grandson through Mary of Heli). But that is not an unheard of thing. In neither list does Matthew or Luke give a complete genealogy. Just as Matthew uses "begat" for descent, so does Luke employ "son" in the same way for descendant. It was natural for Matthew, writing for Jews, to give the legal genealogy through Joseph, though he took pains to show in strkjv@Matthew:1:16,18-25| that Joseph was not the actual father of Jesus. It was equally natural for Luke, a Greek himself and writing for the whole world, to give the actual genealogy of Jesus through Mary. It is in harmony with Pauline universality (Plummer) that Luke carries the genealogy back to Adam and does not stop with Abraham. It is not clear why Luke adds "the Son of God" after Adam (3:38|). Certainly he does not mean that Jesus is the Son of God only in the sense that Adam is. Possibly he wishes to dispose of the heathen myths about the origin of man and to show that God is the Creator of the whole human race, Father of all men in that sense. No mere animal origin of man is in harmony with this conception.

rwp@Luke:7:12 @{Behold} (\kai idou\). The \kai\ introduces the apodosis of the temporal sentence and has to be left out in translations. It is a common idiom in Luke, \kai idou\. {There was carried out} (\exekomizeto\). Imperfect passive indicative. Common verb in late Greek for carrying out a body for burial, though here only in the N.T. (\ekkomiz\). Rock tombs outside of the village exist there today. {One that was dead} (\tethnks\). Perfect active participle of \thnsk\, to die. {The only son of his mother} (\monogens huios ti mtri auto\). Only begotten son to his mother (dative case). The compound adjective \monogens\ (\monos\ and \genos\) is common in the old Greek and occurs in the N.T. about Jesus (John:3:16,18|). The "death of a widow's only son was the greatest misfortune conceivable" (Easton). {And she was a widow} (\kai aut n chra\). This word \chra\ gives the finishing touch to the pathos of the situation. The word is from \chros\, bereft. The mourning of a widow for an only son is the extremity of grief (Plummer). {Much people} (\ochlos hikanos\). Considerable crowd as often with this adjective \hikanos\. Some were hired mourners, but the size of the crowd showed the real sympathy of the town for her.

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: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@Matthew:1:20 @{An angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream} (\aggelos kuriou kat' onar ephan auti\). This expression (\aggelos kuriou\) is without the article in the New Testament except when, as in strkjv@1:24|, there is reference to the angel previously mentioned. Sometimes in the Old Testament Jehovah Himself is represented by this phrase. Surely Joseph needed God's help if ever man did. If Jesus was really God's Son, Joseph was entitled to know this supreme fact that he might be just to both Mary and her Child. It was in a dream, but the message was distinct and decisive for Joseph. He is called "Son of David" as had been shown by Matthew in strkjv@Matthew:1:16|. Mary is called his "wife" (\tn gunaika sou\). He is told "not to become afraid" (ingressive first aorist passive subjunctive in prohibition, (\m phobthis\), "to take to his side" (\paralabein\, ingressive aorist active infinitive) her whom he had planned (\enthumthentos\, genitive absolute again, from \en\ and \thumos\) to send away with a writ of divorce. He had pondered and had planned as best he knew, but now God had called a halt and he had to decide whether he was willing to shelter Mary by marrying her and, if necessary, take upon himself whatever stigma might attach to her. Joseph was told that the child was begotten of the Holy Spirit and thus that Mary was innocent of any sin. But who would believe it now if he told it of her? Mary knew the truth and had not told him because she could not expect him to believe it.

rwp@Romans:8:10 @{The body is dead} (\to men sma nekron\). Has the seeds of death in it and will die "because of sin." {The spirit is life} (\to de pneuma z\). The redeemed human spirit. He uses \z\ (life) instead of \zsa\ (living), "God-begotten, God-sustained life" (Denney), if Christ is in you.