OT-HISTORY.filter - rwp challenge:

rwp@1Corinthians:12:18 @{But now} (\nun de\). But as things are, in contrast to that absurdity. {Hath God set} (\ho theos etheto\). Second aorist middle indicative. God did it and of himself. {Even as it pleased him} (\kaths thelsen\). Why challenge God's will? Cf. strkjv@Romans:9:20|.

rwp@2Timothy:1:8 @{Be not ashamed of} (\m epaischunthis\). First aorist (ingressive) passive subjunctive (in prohibition) of \epaischunomai\, old word, to be ashamed. Again in verse 16| without augment (\epaischunthn\), transitive use of the passive voice as often in the _Koin_ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 818). See strkjv@Romans:1:16; strkjv@6:21|. "Do not become ashamed" (as he had not). {The testimony of our Lord} (\to marturion tou kuriou\). For the old word \marturion\ see strkjv@1Corinthians:1:6; strkjv@2:1|. Paul probably has in mind the saying of Jesus preserved in strkjv@Mark:8:38| (Luke:9:26|). See also strkjv@2:12|. {His prisoner} (\ton desmion autou\). As in strkjv@Phillipians:1:12; strkjv@Philemon:1:1,9; strkjv@Ephesians:3:1; strkjv@4:1| (the first Roman captivity). Paul is in his last captivity and refers to it again in verse 16; strkjv@2:9|. {Suffer hardship with} (\sunkakopathson\). First aorist active imperative of the double compound \sunkakopathe\, first known use and in N.T. only here and strkjv@2:3| (in eccles. writers). But \kakopathe\, to suffer evil, is old verb (2:9; strkjv@4:5|). Paul is fond of compounds of \sun\. Paul challenges Timothy by this verb which he apparently coins for the purpose to a joint (\sun\) suffering with the Lord Jesus and Paul "for the gospel" (\ti euaggelii\, dative case rather than associative instrumental "with"). {According to the power of God} (\kata dunamin theou\). Given by God (2Corinthians:6:7|).

rwp@2Timothy:2:3 @{Suffer hardship with me} (\sunkakopathson\). See strkjv@1:8| for this verb. The old preacher challenges the young one to share hardship with him for Christ. {As a good soldier} (\hos kalos stratits\). Paul does not hesitate to use this military metaphor (this word only here for a servant of Christ) with which he is so familiar. He had already used the metaphor in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:7; strkjv@2Corinthians:10:3f.; strkjv@1Timothy:1:18|. In strkjv@Phillipians:2:25| he called Epaphroditus "my fellow-soldier" (\sunstratitn mou\) as he did Archippus in strkjv@Philemon:1:2|.

rwp@Acts:13:46 @{Spake out boldly} (\parrsiasamenoi\). First aorist middle participle of \parrsiazomai\, to use freedom in speaking, to assume boldness. Both Paul and Barnabas accepted the challenge of the rabbis. They would leave their synagogue, but not without a word of explanation. {It was necessary to you first} (\Humin n anagkaion prton\). They had done their duty and had followed the command of Jesus (1:8|). They use the very language of Peter in strkjv@3:26| (\humin prton\) "to you first." This position Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles will always hold, the Jew first in privilege and penalty (Romans:1:16; strkjv@2:9,10|). {Ye thrust it from you} (\aptheisthe auton\). Present middle (indirect, from yourselves) indicative of \apthe\, to push from. Vigorous verb seen already in strkjv@Acts:7:27,39| which see. {Judge yourselves unworthy} (\ouk axious krinete heautous\). Present active indicative of the common verb \krin\, to judge or decide with the reflexive pronoun expressed. Literally, Do not judge yourselves worthy. By their action and their words they had taken a violent and definite stand. {Lo, we turn to the Gentiles} (\idou strephometha eis ta ethn\). It is a crisis (\idou\, lo): "Lo, we turn ourselves to the Gentiles." Probably also aoristic present, we now turn (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 864-70). \Strephometha\ is probably the direct middle (Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 806-08) though the aorist passive \estraphn\ is so used also (7:39|). It is a dramatic moment as Paul and Barnabas turn from the Jews to the Gentiles, a prophecy of the future history of Christianity. In strkjv@Romans:9-11| Paul will discuss at length the rejection of Christ by the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles to be the real (the spiritual) Israel.

rwp@Acts:15:13 @{After they had held their peace} (\meta to sigsai autous\). Literally, "after the becoming silent (ingressive aorist active of the articular infinitive) as to them (Barnabas and Paul, accusative of general reference)." {James answered} (\apekrith Iakbos\). First aorist passive (deponent) indicative. It was expected that James, as President of the Conference, would speak last. But he wisely waited to give every one an opportunity to speak. The challenge of the Judaizers called for an opinion from James. Furneaux thinks that he may have been elected one of the twelve to take the place of James the brother of John since Paul (Galatians:1:19|) calls him apostle. More likely he was asked to preside because of his great gifts and character as chief of the elders.

rwp@Acts:17:16 @{Now while Paul waited for them in Athens} (\En de tais Athnais ekdechomenou autous tou Paulou\). Genitive absolute with present middle participle of \ekdechomai\, old verb to receive, but only with the sense of looking out for, expecting found here and elsewhere in N.T We know that Timothy did come to Paul in Athens (1Thessalonians:3:1,6|) from Thessalonica and was sent back to them from Athens. If Silas also came to Athens, he was also sent away, possibly to Philippi, for that church was deeply interested in Paul. At any rate both Timothy and Silas came from Macedonia to Corinth with messages and relief for Paul (Acts:18:5; strkjv@2Corinthians:11:8f.|). Before they came and after they left, Paul felt lonely in Athens (1Thessalonians:3:1|), the first time on this tour or the first that he has been completely without fellow workers. Athens had been captured by Sulla B.C. 86. After various changes Achaia, of which Corinth is the capital, is a separate province from Macedonia and A.D. 44 was restored by Claudius to the Senate with the Proconsul at Corinth. Paul is probably here about A.D. 50. Politically Athens is no longer of importance when Paul comes though it is still the university seat of the world with all its rich environment and traditions. Rackham grows eloquent over Paul the Jew of Tarsus being in the city of Pericles and Demosthenes, Socrates and Plato and Aristotle, Sophocles and Euripides. In its Agora Socrates had taught, here was the Academy of Plato, the Lyceum of Aristotle, the Porch of Zeno, the Garden of Epicurus. Here men still talked about philosophy, poetry, politics, religion, anything and everything. It was the art centre of the world. The Parthenon, the most beautiful of temples, crowned the Acropolis. Was Paul insensible to all this cultural environment? It is hard to think so for he was a university man of Tarsus and he makes a number of allusions to Greek writers. Probably it had not been in Paul's original plan to evangelize Athens, difficult as all university seats are, but he cannot be idle though here apparently by chance because driven out of Macedonia. {Was provoked} (\parxuneto\). Imperfect passive of \paroxun\, old verb to sharpen, to stimulate, to irritate (from \para, oxus\), from \paroxusmos\ (Acts:15:39|), common in old Greek, but in N.T. only here and strkjv@1Corinthians:13:5|. It was a continual challenge to Paul's spirit when he beheld (\therountos\, genitive of present participle agreeing with \autou\ (his), though late MSS. have locative \therounti\ agreeing with \en auti\). {The city full of idols} (\kateidlon ousan tn polin\). Note the participle \ousan\ not preserved in the English (either the city being full of idols or that the city was full of idols, sort of indirect discourse). Paul, like any stranger was looking at the sights as he walked around. This adjective \kateidlon\ (perfective use of \kata\ and \eidlon\ is found nowhere else, but it is formed after the analogy of \katampelos, katadendron\), full of idols. Xenophon (_de Republ. Ath_.) calls the city \hol bomos, hol thuma theois kai anathma\ (all altar, all sacrifice and offering to the gods). These statues were beautiful, but Paul was not deceived by the mere art for art's sake. The idolatry and sensualism of it all glared at him (Romans:1:18-32|). Renan ridicules Paul's ignorance in taking these statues for idols, but Paul knew paganism better than Renan. The superstition of this centre of Greek culture was depressing to Paul. One has only to recall how superstitious cults today flourish in the atmosphere of Boston and Los Angeles to understand conditions in Athens. Pausanias says that Athens had more images than all the rest of Greece put together. Pliny states that in the time of Nero Athens had over 30,000 public statues besides countless private ones in the homes. Petronius sneers that it was easier to find a god than a man in Athens. Every gateway or porch had its protecting god. They lined the street from the Piraeus and caught the eye at every place of prominence on wall or in the agora.

rwp@Acts:17:18 @{And certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him} (\tines de kai tn Epikourin kai Stikn philosophn suneballon auti\). Imperfect active of \sunball\, old verb, in the N.T. only by Luke, to bring or put together in one's mind (Luke:2:19|), to meet together (Acts:20:14|), to bring together aid (18:27|), to confer or converse or dispute as here and already strkjv@4:15| which see. These professional philosophers were always ready for an argument and so they frequented the agora for that purpose. Luke uses one article and so groups the two sects together in their attitude toward Paul, but they were very different in fact. Both sects were eager for argument and both had disdain for Paul, but they were the two rival practical philosophies of the day, succeeding the more abstruse theories of Plato and Aristotle. Socrates had turned men's thought inward (\Gnthi Seauton\, Know Thyself) away from the mere study of physics. Plato followed with a profound development of the inner self (metaphysics). Aristotle with his cyclopaedic grasp sought to unify and relate both physics and metaphysics. Both Zeno and Epicurus (340-272 B.C.) took a more practical turn in all this intellectual turmoil and raised the issues of everyday life. Zeno (360-260 B.C.) taught in the \Stoa\ (Porch) and so his teaching was called Stoicism. He advanced many noble ideas that found their chief illustration in the Roman philosophers (Seneca, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius). He taught self-mastery and hardness with an austerity that ministered to pride or suicide in case of failure, a distinctly selfish and unloving view of life and with a pantheistic philosophy. Epicurus considered practical atheism the true view of the universe and denied a future life and claimed pleasure as the chief thing to be gotten out of life. He did not deny the existence of gods, but regarded them as unconcerned with the life of men. The Stoics called Epicurus an atheist. Lucretius and Horace give the Epicurean view of life in their great poems. This low view of life led to sensualism and does today, for both Stoicism and Epicureanism are widely influential with people now. "Eat and drink for tomorrow we die," they preached. Paul had doubtless become acquainted with both of these philosophies for they were widely prevalent over the world. Here he confronts them in their very home. He is challenged by past-masters in the art of appealing to the senses, men as skilled in their dialectic as the Pharisaic rabbis with whom Paul had been trained and whose subtleties he had learned how to expose. But, so far as we know, this is a new experience for Paul to have a public dispute with these philosophical experts who had a natural contempt for all Jews and for rabbis in particular, though they found Paul a new type at any rate and so with some interest in him. "In Epicureanism, it was man's sensual nature which arrayed itself against the claims of the gospel; in Stoicism it was his self-righteousness and pride of intellect" (Hackett). Knowling calls the Stoic the Pharisee of philosophy and the Epicurean the Sadducee of philosophy. Socrates in this very agora used to try to interest the passers-by in some desire for better things. That was 450 years before Paul is challenged by these superficial sophistical Epicureans and Stoics. It is doubtful if Paul had ever met a more difficult situation. {What would this babbler say?} (\Ti an theloi ho spermologos houtos legein?\). The word for "babbler" means "seed-picker" or picker up of seeds (\sperma\, seed, \leg\, to collect) like a bird in the agora hopping about after chance seeds. Plutarch applies the word to crows that pick up grain in the fields. Demosthenes called Aeschines a \spermologos\. Eustathius uses it of a man hanging around in the markets picking up scraps of food that fell from the carts and so also of mere rhetoricians and plagiarists who picked up scraps of wisdom from others. Ramsay considers it here a piece of Athenian slang used to describe the picture of Paul seen by these philosophers who use it, for not all of them had it ("some," \tines\). Note the use of \an\ and the present active optative \theloi\, conclusion of a fourth-class condition in a rhetorical question (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1021). It means, What would this picker up of seeds wish to say, if he should get off an idea? It is a contemptuous tone of supreme ridicule and doubtless Paul heard this comment. Probably the Epicureans made this sneer that Paul was a charlatan or quack. {Other some} (\hoi de\). But others, in contrast with the "some" just before. Perhaps the Stoics take this more serious view of Paul. {He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods} (\zenn daimonin dokei kataggeleus einai\). This view is put cautiously by \dokei\ (seems). \Kataggeleus\ does not occur in the old Greek, though in ecclesiastical writers, but Deissmann (_Light from the Ancient East_, p. 99) gives an example of the word "on a marble stele recording a decree of the Mitylenaens in honour of the Emperor Augustus," where it is the herald of the games. Here alone in the N.T. \Daimonion\ is used in the old Greek sense of deity or divinity whether good or bad, not in the N.T. sense of demons. Both this word and \kataggeleus\ are used from the Athenian standpoint. \Xenos\ is an old word for a guest-friend (Latin _hospes_) and then host (Romans:16:23|), then for foreigner or stranger (Matthew:25:31; strkjv@Acts:17:21|), new and so strange as here and strkjv@Hebrews:13:9; strkjv@1Peter:4:12|, and then aliens (Ephesians:2:12|). This view of Paul is the first count against Socrates: Socrates does wrong, introducing new deities (\adikei Skrats, kaina daimonia eisphern\, Xen. _Mem_. I). On this charge the Athenians voted the hemlock for their greatest citizen. What will they do to Paul? This Athens was more sceptical and more tolerant than the old Athens. But Roman law did not allow the introduction of a new religion (_religio illicita_). Paul was walking on thin ice though he was the real master philosopher and these Epicureans and Stoics were quacks. Paul had the only true philosophy of the universe and life with Jesus Christ as the centre (Colossians:1:12-20|), the greatest of all philosophers as Ramsay justly terms him. But these men are mocking him. {Because he preached Jesus and the resurrection} (\hoti ton Isoun kai tn anastasin euggelizato\). Reason for the view just stated. Imperfect middle indicative of \euaggeliz\, to "gospelize." Apparently these critics considered \anastasis\ (Resurrection) another deity on a par with Jesus. The Athenians worshipped all sorts of abstract truths and virtues and they misunderstood Paul on this subject. They will leave him as soon as he mentions the resurrection (verse 32|). It is objected that Luke would not use the word in this sense here for his readers would not under stand him. But Luke is describing the misapprehension of this group of philosophers and this interpretation fits in precisely.

rwp@Galatians:5:26 @{Let us not be} (\m ginmetha\). Present middle subjunctive (volitive), "Let us cease becoming vainglorious" (\kenodoxoi\), late word only here in N.T. (\kenos, doxa\). Once in Epictetus in same sense. {Provoking one another} (\alllous prokaloumenoi\). Old word \prokale\, to call forth, to challenge to combat. Only here in N.T. and in bad sense. The word for "provoke" in strkjv@Hebrews:10:24| is \paroxusmon\ (our "paroxysm"). {Envying} (\phthonountes\). Old verb from \phthonos\. Only here in N.T.

rwp@John:7:50 @{Nicodemus} (\Nikodmos\). Not heard from since chapter 3 when he timidly came to Jesus by night. Now he boldly protests against the injustice of condemning Jesus unheard. He appears once more (and only in John) in strkjv@19:39| with Joseph of Arimathea as a secret disciple of Jesus. He is a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin and his present act is courageous. {Saith} (\legei\). Dramatic present active indicative as in strkjv@2:3|. {Before} (\proteron\). This is genuine, a reference to the visit in chapter 3, but \nuktos\ (by night) is not genuine here. {Being one of them} (\heis n ex autn\). As a member of the Sanhedrin he takes up the challenge in verse 48|. He is both ruler and Pharisee.

rwp@John:8:12 @{Again therefore} (\palin oun\). This language fits in better with strkjv@7:52| than with strkjv@8:11|. Just suppose Jesus is in the temple on the following day. {Unto them} (\autois\). The Pharisees and crowds in the temple after the feast was past. {I am the light of the world} (\eg eimi to phs tou kosmou\). Jesus had called his followers "the light of the world" (Matthew:5:14|), but that was light reflected from him. Already Jesus (the Logos) had been called the true light of men (1:9; strkjv@3:19|). The Psalmist calls God his Light (27:1|). Songs:Isaiah:60:19|. At the feast of tabernacles in the Court of the Women where Jesus was on this day (8:20|) there were brilliant candelabra and there was the memory of the pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night. But with all this background this supreme and exclusive claim of Jesus (repeated in strkjv@9:5|) to being the light of the whole world (of Gentiles as well as of Jews) startled the Pharisees and challenged their opposition. {Shall have the light of life} (\hexei to phs ts zs\). The light which springs from and issues in life (Westcott). Cf. strkjv@6:33,51| about Jesus being the Bread of Life. In this sublime claim we come to a decisive place. It will not do to praise Jesus and deny his deity. Only as the Son of God can we justify and accept this language which otherwise is mere conceit and froth.

rwp@John:13:8 @{Thou shalt never wash my feet} (\ou m nipsis mou tous podas eis ton aina\). Strong double negative \ou m\ with first aorist active subjunctive of \nipt\ with \eis ton aina\ (for ever) added and \mou\ (my) made emphatic by position. Peter's sudden humility should settle the issue, he felt. {If I wash thee not} (\ean m nips se\). Third-class condition with \ean m\ (negative). Jesus picks up the challenge of Peter whose act amounted to irreverence and want of confidence. "The first condition of discipleship is self-surrender" (Westcott). Songs:"Jesus, waiting with the basin" (Dods), concludes. {Thou hast no part with me} (\ouk echeis meros met' emou\). Not simply here at the supper with its fellowship, but in the deeper sense of mystic fellowship as Peter was quick to see. Jesus does not make foot-washing essential to spiritual fellowship, but simply tests Peter's real pride and mock-humility by this symbol of fellowship.

rwp@John:13:38 @{Wilt thou lay down?} (\thseis;\). Jesus picks up Peter's very words and challenges his boasted loyalty. See such repetition in strkjv@16:16f.,31; strkjv@21:17|. {Shall not crow} (\phnsi\). Aorist active subjunctive of \phne\, to use the voice, used of animals and men. Note strong double negative \ou m\. Mark adds \dis\ (twice). John's report is almost identical with that in strkjv@Luke:22:34|. The other disciples joined in Peter's boast (Mark:14:31; strkjv@Matthew:26:35|). {Till thou hast denied} (\hes hou arnsi\). Future middle indicative or aorist middle subjunctive second person singular (form identical) with compound conjunction \hes hou\ (until which time), "till thou deny or deniest" (_futurum exactum_ needless). Peter is silenced for the present. They all "sat astounded and perplexed" (Dods).

rwp@John:18:20 @{Openly} (\parrsii\). As already shown (7:4; strkjv@8:26; strkjv@10:24,39; strkjv@16:25,29|. See strkjv@7:4| for same contrast between \en parrsii\ and \en krupti\. {I ever taught} (\eg pantote edidaxa\). Constative aorist active indicative. For the temple teaching see strkjv@John:2:19; strkjv@7:14,28; strkjv@8:20, strkjv@19:23; strkjv@Mark:14:49| and strkjv@John:6:59| for the synagogue teaching (often in the Synoptics). Examples of private teaching are Nicodemus (John:3|) and the woman of Samaria (John:4|). Jesus ignores the sneer at his disciples, but challenges the inquiry about his teaching as needless.

rwp@John:21:16 @{Lovest thou me?} (\agapis me;\). This time Jesus drops the \pleon toutn\ and challenges Peter's own statement. Peter repeats the same words in reply. {Tend my sheep} (\poimaine ta probatia\). Present active imperative of \poimain\, old verb from \poimn\ (shepherd), "shepherd my lambs" (\probatia\, diminutive of \probaton\, sheep).

rwp@John:21:17 @{Lovest thou me?} (\phileis me;\). This time Jesus picks up the word \phile\ used by Peter and challenges that. These two words are often interchanged in the N.T., but here the distinction is preserved. Peter was cut to the heart (\elupth\, first aorist passive of \lupe\, to grieve) because Jesus challenges this very verb, and no doubt the third question vividly reminds him of the three denials in the early morning by the fire. He repeats his love for Jesus with the plea: "Thou knowest all things." {Feed my sheep} (\boske ta probatia\). Many MSS. both here and in verse 16| read \probata\ (sheep) instead of \probatia\ (little sheep or lambs).

rwp@Luke:1:47 @{Hath rejoiced} (\galliasen\). This is aorist active indicative. Greek tenses do not correspond to those in English. The verb \agallia\ is a Hellenistic word from the old Greek \agall\. It means to exult. See the substantive \agalliasis\ in strkjv@Luke:1:14,44|. Mary is not excited like Elisabeth, but breathes a spirit of composed rapture. {My spirit} (\to pneuma mou\). One need not press unduly the difference between "soul" (\psuch\) in verse 46| and "spirit" here. Bruce calls them synonyms in parallel clauses. Vincent argues that the soul is the principle of individuality while the spirit is the point of contact between God and man. It is doubtful, however, if the trichotomous theory of man (body, soul, and spirit) is to be insisted on. It is certain that we have an inner spiritual nature for which various words are used in strkjv@Mark:12:30|. Even the distinction between intellect, emotions, and will is challenged by some psychologists. {God my Saviour} (\ti thei ti sotri mou\). Article with each substantive. God is called Saviour in the O.T. (Deuteronomy:32:15, strkjv@Psalms:24:5; strkjv@95:1|).

rwp@Luke:4:2 @{Being tempted} (\peirazomenos\). Present passive participle and naturally parallel with the imperfect passive \geto\ (was led) in verse 1|. This is another instance of poor verse division which should have come at the end of the sentence. See on ¯Matthew:4:1; strkjv@Mark:1:13| for the words "tempt" and "devil." The devil challenged the Son of man though also the Son of God. It was a contest between Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, and the slanderer of men. The devil had won with Adam and Eve. He has hopes of triumph over Jesus. The story of this conflict is given only in strkjv@Matthew:4:1-11; strkjv@Luke:4:1-13|. There is a mere mention of it in strkjv@Mark:1:12f|. Songs:then here is a specimen of the Logia of Jesus (Q), a non-Markan portion of Matthew and Luke, the earliest document about Christ. The narrative could come ultimately only from Christ himself. It is noteworthy that it bears all the marks of the high conception of Jesus as the Son of God found in the Gospel of John and in Paul and Hebrews, the rest of the New Testament in fact, for Mark, Matthew, Luke, Acts, Peter, and Jude:follow in this same strain. The point is that modern criticism has revealed the Messianic consciousness of Jesus as God's Son at his Baptism and in his Temptations at the very beginning of his ministry and in the oldest known documents about Christ (The Logia, Mark's Gospel). {He did eat nothing} (\ouk ephagen ouden\). Second aorist (constative) active indicative of the defective verb \esthi\. Mark does not give the fast. strkjv@Matthew:4:2| has the aorist active participle \nsteusas\ which usually means a religious fast for purposes of devotion. That idea is not excluded by Luke's words. The entrance of Jesus upon his Messianic ministry was a fit time for this solemn and intense consecration. This mental and spiritual strain would naturally take away the appetite and there was probably nothing at hand to eat. The weakness from the absence of food gave the devil his special opportunity to tempt Jesus which he promptly seized. {When they were completed} (\suntelestheisn autn\). Genitive absolute with the first aorist passive participle feminine plural because \hemern\ (days) is feminine. According to Luke the hunger (\epeinasen\, became hungry, ingressive aorist active indicative) came at the close of the forty days as in strkjv@Matthew:4:2|.

rwp@Matthew:11:28 @{Come unto me} (\deute pros me\). Verses 28 to 30 are not in Luke and are among the special treasures of Matthew's Gospel. No sublimer words exist than this call of Jesus to the toiling and the burdened (\pephortismenoi\, perfect passive participle, state of weariness) to come to him. He towers above all men as he challenges us. "I will refresh you" (\k'ago anapaus hmas\). Far more than mere rest, rejuvenation. The English slang expression "rest up" is close to the idea of the Greek compound \ana-pau\. It is causative active voice.

rwp@Romans:8:31 @{For these things} (\pros tauta\). From strkjv@8:12| on Paul has made a triumphant presentation of the reasons for the certainty of final sanctification of the sons of God. He has reached the climax with glorification (\edoxasen\ in verse 30|). But Paul lets the objector have his say as he usually does so that in verses 31-39| he considers the objections. {If God is for us, who is against us?} (\ei ho theos huper hmn, tis kath' hmn?\). This condition of the first class carries Paul's challenge to all doubters. There is no one on a par with God. Note the two prepositions in contrast (\huper\, over, \kata\, down or against).

rwp@Romans:10:14 @{How then shall they call?} (\ps oun epikalesntai?\). Deliberative subjunctive (first aorist middle) of \epikaleomai\ (see verses 12,13|). The antecedent of \eis hon\ (in whom) is not expressed. {How shall they believe?} (\pos pisteussin?\). Deliberative subjunctive again (first aorist active of \pisteu\ just used). Each time Paul picks up the preceding verb and challenges that. Here again the antecedent \eis touton\ before \hon\ is not expressed. {How shall they hear?} (\pos akoussin?\). Deliberative subjunctive (first aorist active of \akou\). {Without a preacher?} (\chris krussontos?\). Preposition \chris\ with ablative singular masculine present active participle of \kruss\, "without one preaching." {How shall they preach?} (\ps kruxsin?\). Deliberative subjunctive again (first aorist active \kruss\, to preach). {Except they be sent?} (\ean m apostalsin?\). Second aorist passive deliberative subjunctive of \apostell\, to send, from which verb \apostolos\ apostle comes. Negative condition of third class. In graphic style Paul has made a powerful plea for missions. It is just as true today as then.