Bible:
Filter: String:

OT-LAW.filter - rwp problem:


rwp@1Corinthians:1:2 @{The church of God} (\tˆi ekklˆsiƒi tou theou\). Belonging to God, not to any individual or faction, as this genitive case shows. In strkjv@1Thessalonians:1:1| Paul wrote "the church of the Thessalonians in God" (\en the“i\), but "the churches of God" in strkjv@1Thessalonians:2:14|. See same idiom in strkjv@1Corinthians:10:32; strkjv@11:16,22; strkjv@15:9; strkjv@2Corinthians:1:1; strkjv@Galatians:1:13|, etc. {Which is in Corinth} (\tˆi ousˆi en Korinth“i\). See on strkjv@Acts:13:1| for idiom. It is God's church even in Corinth, "_laetum et ingens paradoxon_" (Bengel). This city, destroyed by Mummius B.C. 146, had been restored by Julius Caesar a hundred years later, B.C. 44, and now after another hundred years has become very rich and very corrupt. The very word "to Corinthianize" meant to practise vile immoralities in the worship of Aphrodite (Venus). It was located on the narrow Isthmus of the Peloponnesus with two harbours (Lechaeum and Cenchreae). It had schools of rhetoric and philosophy and made a flashy imitation of the real culture of Athens. See strkjv@Acts:18| for the story of Paul's work here and now the later developments and divisions in this church will give Paul grave concern as is shown in detail in I and II Corinthians. All the problems of a modern city church come to the front in Corinth. They call for all the wisdom and statesmanship in Paul. {That are sanctified} (\hˆgiasmenois\). Perfect passive participle of \hagiaz“\, late form for \hagiz“\, so far found only in the Greek Bible and in ecclesiastical writers. It means to make or to declare \hagion\ (from \hagos\, awe, reverence, and this from \haz“\, to venerate). It is significant that Paul uses this word concerning the {called saints} or {called to be saints} (\klˆtois hagiois\) in Corinth. Cf. \klˆtos apostolos\ in strkjv@1:1|. It is because they are sanctified {in Christ Jesus} (\en Christ“i Iˆsou\). He is the sphere in which this act of consecration takes place. Note plural, construction according to sense, because \ekklˆsia\ is a collective substantive. {With all that call upon} (\sun pƒsin tois epikaloumenois\). Associative instrumental case with \sun\ rather than \kai\ (and), making a close connection with "saints" just before and so giving the Corinthian Christians a picture of their close unity with the brotherhood everywhere through the common bond of faith. This phrase occurs in the LXX (Genesis:12:8; strkjv@Zechariah:13:9|) and is applied to Christ as to Jehovah (2Thessalonians:1:7,9,12; strkjv@Phillipians:2:9,10|). Paul heard Stephen pray to Christ as Lord (Acts:7:59|). Here "with a plain and direct reference to the Divinity of our Lord" (Ellicott). {Their Lord and ours} (\aut“n kai hˆm“n\). This is the interpretation of the Greek commentators and is the correct one, an afterthought and expansion (\epanorth“sis\) of the previous "our," showing the universality of Christ.

rwp@1Corinthians:2:13 @{Which things also we speak} (\ha kai laloumen\). This onomatopoetic verb \lale“\ (from \la-la\), to utter sounds. In the papyri the word calls more attention to the form of utterance while \leg“\ refers more to the substance. But \lale“\ in the N.T. as here is used of the highest and holiest speech. Undoubtedly Paul employs the word purposely for the utterance of the revelation which he has understood. That is to say, there is revelation (verse 10|), illumination (verse 12|), and inspiration (verse 13|). Paul claims therefore the help of the Holy Spirit for the reception of the revelation, for the understanding of it, for the expression of it. Paul claimed this authority for his preaching (1Thessalonians:4:2|) and for his epistles (2Thessalonians:3:14|). {Not in words which man's wisdom teacheth} (\ouk en didaktois anthr“pinˆs sophias logois\). Literally, "not in words taught by human wisdom." The verbal adjective \didaktois\ (from \didask“\, to teach) is here passive in idea and is followed by the ablative case of origin or source as in strkjv@John:6:45|, \esontai pantes didaktoi theou\ (from strkjv@Isaiah:54:13|), "They shall all be taught by God." The ablative in Greek, as is well known, has the same form as the genitive, though quite different in idea (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 516). Songs:then Paul claims the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance (\laloumen\) of the words, "which the Spirit teacheth (\en didaktois pneumatos\), "in words taught by the Spirit" (ablative \pneumatos\ as above). Clearly Paul means that the help of the Holy Spirit in the utterance of the revelation extends to the words. No theory of inspiration is here stated, but it is not _mere_ human wisdom. Paul's own Epistles bear eloquent witness to the lofty claim here made. They remain today after nearly nineteen centuries throbbing with the power of the Spirit of God, dynamic with life for the problems of today as when Paul wrote them for the needs of the believers in his time, the greatest epistles of all time, surcharged with the energy of God. {Comparing spiritual things with spiritual} (\pneumatikois pneumatika sunkrinontes\). Each of these words is in dispute. The verb \sunkrin“\, originally meant to combine, to join together fitly. In the LXX it means to interpret dreams (Genesis:40:8,22; strkjv@41:12|) possibly by comparison. In the later Greek it may mean to compare as in strkjv@2Corinthians:10:12|. In the papyri Moulton and Milligan (_Vocabulary_) give it only for "decide," probably after comparing. But "comparing," in spite of the translations, does not suit well here. Songs:it is best to follow the original meaning to combine as do Lightfoot and Ellicott. But what gender is \pneumatikois\? Is it masculine or neuter like \pneumatika\? If masculine, the idea would be "interpreting (like LXX) spiritual truths to spiritual persons" or "matching spiritual truths with spiritual persons." This is a possible rendering and makes good sense in harmony with verse 14|. If \pneumatikois\ be taken as neuter plural (associative instrumental case after \sun\ in \sunkrinontes\), the idea most naturally would be, "combining spiritual ideas (\pneumatika\) with spiritual words" (\pneumatikois\). This again makes good sense in harmony with the first part of verse 13|. On the whole this is the most natural way to take it, though various other possibilities exist.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:1 @{Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote} (\peri de h“n egrapsate\). An ellipsis of \peri tout“n\, the antecedent of \peri h“n\, is easily supplied as in papyri. The church had written Paul a letter in which a number of specific problems about marriage were raised. He answers them _seriatim_. The questions must be clearly before one in order intelligently to interpret Paul's replies. The first is whether a single life is wrong. Paul pointedly says that it is not wrong, but good (\kalon\). One will get a one-sided view of Paul's teaching on marriage unless he keeps a proper perspective. One of the marks of certain heretics will be forbidding to marry (1Timothy:4:3|). Paul uses marriage as a metaphor of our relation to Christ (2Corinthians:11:2; strkjv@Romans:7:4; strkjv@Ephesians:5:28-33|). Paul is not here opposing marriage. He is only arguing that celibacy may be good in certain limitations. The genitive case with \haptesthai\ (touch) is the usual construction.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:12 @{But to the rest say I, not the Lord} (\tois de loipois leg“ eg“, ouch ho Kurios\). Paul has no word about marriage from Jesus beyond the problem of divorce. This is no disclaimer of inspiration. He simply means that here he is not quoting a command of Jesus. {An unbelieving wife} (\gunaika apiston\). This is a new problem, the result of work among the Gentiles, that did not arise in the time of Jesus. The form \apiston\ is the same as the masculine because a compound adjective. Paul has to deal with mixed marriages as missionaries do today in heathen lands. The rest (\hoi loipoi\) for Gentiles (Ephesians:2:3|) we have already had in strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:13; strkjv@5:6| which see. The Christian husband married his wife when he himself was an unbeliever. The word \apistos\ sometimes means unfaithful (Luke:12:46|), but not here (cf. strkjv@John:20:27|). {She is content} (\suneudokei\). Late compound verb to be pleased together with, agree together. In the papyri. {Let him not leave her} (\mˆ aphiet“ autˆn\). Perhaps here and in verses 11,13| \aphiˆmi\ should be translated "put away" like \apolu“\ in strkjv@Mark:10:1|. Some understand \aphiˆmi\ as separation from bed and board, not divorce.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:13 @{Which hath an unbelieving husband} (\hˆtis echei andra apiston\). Relative clause here, while a conditional one in verse 12| (\ei tis\, if any one). Paul is perfectly fair in stating both sides of the problem of mixed marriages.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:16 @{For how knowest thou?} (\ti gar oidas;\). But what does Paul mean? Is he giving an argument _against_ the believer accepting divorce or _in favour_ of doing so? The syntax allows either interpretation with \ei\ (if) after \oidas\. Is the idea in \ei\ (if) _hope_ of saving the other or _fear_ of not saving and hence peril in continuing the slavery of such a bondage? The latter idea probably suits the context best and is adopted by most commentators. And yet one hesitates to interpret Paul as _advocating_ divorce unless strongly insisted on by the unbeliever. There is no problem at all unless the unbeliever makes it. If it is a hopeless case, acquiescence is the only wise solution. But surely the believer ought to be sure that there is no hope before he agrees to break the bond. Paul raises the problem of the wife first as in verse 10|.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:25 @{I have no commandment of the Lord} (\epitagˆn Kuriou ouk ech“\). A late word from \epitass“\, old Greek verb to enjoin, to give orders to. Paul did have (verse 10|) a command from the Lord as we have in Matthew and Mark. It was quite possible for Paul to know this command of Jesus as he did other sayings of Jesus (Acts:20:35|) even if he had as yet no access to a written gospel or had received no direct revelation on the subject from Jesus (1Corinthians:11:23|). Sayings of Jesus were passed on among the believers. But Paul had no specific word from Jesus on the subject of virgins. They call for special treatment, young unmarried women only Paul means (7:25,28,34,36-38|) and not as in strkjv@Revelation:14:4| (metaphor). It is probable that in the letter (7:1|) the Corinthians had asked about this problem. {But I give my judgment} (\gn“mˆn de did“mi\). About mixed marriages (12-16|) Paul had the command of Jesus concerning divorce to guide him. Here he has nothing from Jesus at all. Songs:he gives no "command," but only "a judgment," a deliberately formed decision from knowledge (2Corinthians:8:10|), not a mere passing fancy. {As one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful} (\h“s ˆleˆmenos hupo kuriou pistos einai\). Perfect passive participle of \elee“\, old verb to receive mercy (\eleos\). \Pistos\ is predicate nominative with infinitive \einai\. This language, so far from being a disclaimer of inspiration, is an express claim to help from the Lord in the forming of this duly considered judgment, which is in no sense a command, but an inspired opinion.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:36 @{That he behaveth himself unseemly} (\aschˆmonein\). Old verb, here only in N.T., from \aschˆm“n\ (1Corinthians:12:23|), from \a\ privative and \schˆma\. Occurs in the papyri. Infinitive in indirect discourse after \nomizei\ (thinks) with \ei\ (condition of first class, assumed as true). {If she be past the flower of her age} (\ean ˆi huperakmos\). Old word, only here in N.T., from \huper\ (over) and \akmˆ\ (prime or bloom of life), past the bloom of youth, _superadultus_ (Vulgate). Compound adjective with feminine form like masculine. Apparently the Corinthians had asked Paul about the duty of a father towards his daughter old enough to marry. {If need so requireth} (\kai hout“s opheilei ginesthai\). "And it ought to happen." Paul has discussed the problem of marriage for virgins on the grounds of expediency. Now he faces the question where the daughter wishes to marry and there is no serious objection to it. The father is advised to consent. Roman and Greek fathers had the control of the marriage of their daughters. "My marriage is my father's care; it is not for me to decide about that" (Hermione in Euripides' _Andromache_, 987). {Let them marry} (\gameit“san\). Present active plural imperative (long form).

rwp@1Corinthians:7:38 @{Doeth well} (\kal“s poiei\). Songs:Paul commends the father who gives his daughter in marriage (\gamizei\). This verb \gamiz“\ has not been found outside the N.T. See on ¯Matthew:22:30|. {Shall do better} (\kreisson poiˆsei\). In view of the present distress (7:26|) and the shortened time (7:29|). And yet, when all is said, Paul leaves the whole problem of getting married an open question to be settled by each individual case.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:40 @{Happier} (\makari“terƒ\). Comparative of \makarios\ used in the Beatitudes (Matthew:5:3ff.|). {After my judgment} (\kata tˆn emˆn gn“mˆn\). The same word used in verse 25|, not a command. {I think} (\dok“\). From \doke“\, not \nomiz“\ of verse 26|. But he insists that he has "the spirit of God" (\pneuma theou\) in the expression of his inspired judgment on this difficult, complicated, tangled problem of marriage. But he has discharged his duty and leaves each one to decide for himself.

rwp@1Corinthians:8:1 @{Now concerning things sacrificed to idols} (\peri de t“n eid“lothut“n\). Plainly the Corinthians had asked also about this problem in their letter to Paul (7:1|). This compound adjective (\eid“lon\, idol, \thutos\, verbal adjective from \thu“\, to sacrifice) is still found only in the N.T. and ecclesiastical writers, not so far in the papyri. We have seen this problem mentioned in the decision of the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:29; strkjv@21:25|). The connection between idolatry and impurity was very close, especially in Corinth. See both topics connected in strkjv@Revelation:2:14,20|. By \eid“lothuta\ was meant the portion of the flesh left over after the heathen sacrifices. The heathen called it \hierothuton\ (1Corinthians:10:28|). This leftover part "was either eaten sacrificially, or taken home for private meals, or sold in the markets" (Robertson and Plummer). What were Christians to do about eating such portions either buying in the market or eating in the home of another or at the feast to the idol? Three questions are thus involved and Paul discusses them all. There was evidently difference of opinion on the subject among the Corinthian Christians. Aspects of the matter come forward not touched on in the Jerusalem Conference to which Paul does not here allude, though he does treat it in strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10|. There was the more enlightened group who acted on the basis of their superior knowledge about the non-existence of the gods represented by the idols. {Ye know that we all have knowledge} (\oidamen hoti pantes gn“sin echomen\). This may be a quotation from the letter (Moffatt, _Lit. of N.T._, p. 112). Since their conversion to Christ, they know the emptiness of idol-worship. Paul admits that all Christians have this knowledge (personal experience, \gn“sis\), but this problem cannot be solved by knowledge.

rwp@1Corinthians:8:2 @{Puffeth up} (\phusioi\). From \phusio“\ (present indicative active). See on ¯4:6|. Pride may be the result, not edification (\oikodomei\) which comes from love. Note article (\hˆ\) with both \gn“sis\ and \agapˆ\, making the contrast sharper. See on ¯1Thessalonians:5:11| for the verb \oikodome“\, to build up. Love is the solution, not knowledge, in all social problems. {That he knoweth anything} (\egn“kenai ti\). Perfect active infinitive in indirect discourse after \dokei\ (condition of first class with \ei\). Songs:"has acquired knowledge" (cf. strkjv@3:18|), has gone to the bottom of the subject. {He knoweth not yet} (\oup“ egn“\). Second aorist active indicative, timeless aorist, summary (punctiliar) statement of his ignorance. {As he ought to know} (\kath“s dei gn“nai\). Second aorist active infinitive, ingressive aorist (come to know). Newton's remark that he was only gathering pebbles on the shore of the ocean of truth is pertinent. The really learned man knows his ignorance of what lies beyond. Shallow knowledge is like the depth of the mud hole, not of the crystal spring.

rwp@1Corinthians:9:19 @{I brought myself under bondage} (\emauton edoul“sa\). Voluntary bondage, I enslaved myself to all, though free. Causative verb in \-o“\ (\doulo“\, from \doulos\). The more (\tous pleionas\). Than he could have done otherwise. Every preacher faces this problem of his personal attitude and conduct. Note \kerdˆs“\ (as in verses 20,21,22|, but once \hina kerdan“\ in 21|, regular liquid future of \kerdain“\) with \hina\ is probably future active indicative (James:4:13|), though Ionic aorist active subjunctive from \kerda“\ is possible (Matthew:18:15|). "He refuses payment in money that he may make the greater gain in souls" (Edwards).

rwp@1Corinthians:9:22 @{I became weak} (\egenomˆn asthenˆs\). This is the chief point, the climax in his plea for the principle of love on the part of the enlightened for the benefit of the unenlightened (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:8|). He thus brings home his conduct about renouncing pay for preaching as an illustration of love (8:13|). {All things} (\panta\) {to all men} (\tois pasin\, the whole number) {by all means} (\pant“s\). Pointed play on the word all, {that I may save some} (\hina tinas s“s“\). This his goal and worth all the cost of adaptation. In matters of principle Paul was adamant as about Titus the Greek (Galatians:2:5|). In matters of expediency as about Timothy (Acts:16:3|) he would go half way to win and to hold. This principle was called for in dealing with the problem of eating meat offered to idols (Romans:14:1; strkjv@15:1; strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:14|).

rwp@1Corinthians:11:11 @{Howbeit} (\plˆn\). This adversative clause limits the preceding statement. Each sex is incomplete without (\ch“ris\, apart from, with the ablative case) the other. {In the Lord} (\en Kuri“i\). In the sphere of the Lord, where Paul finds the solution of all problems.

rwp@1Corinthians:12:1 @{Now concerning spiritual gifts} (\peri de t“n pneumatik“n\). Clearly one of the items asked about in the letter to Paul (7:1|) and introduced precisely as the problem of meats offered to idols (8:1|). This question runs to the end of chapter 14. Plainly much trouble had arisen in Corinth in the exercise of these gifts.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:35 @{But some one will say} (\alla erei tis\). Paul knows what the sceptics were saying. He is a master at putting the standpoint of the imaginary adversary. {How} (\p“s\). This is still the great objection to the resurrection of our bodies. Granted that Jesus rose from the dead, for the sake of argument, these sceptics refuse to believe in the possibility of our resurrection. It is the attitude of Matthew Arnold who said, "Miracles do not happen." Scientifically we know the "how" of few things. Paul has an astounding answer to this objection. Death itself is the way of resurrection as in the death of the seed for the new plant (verses 36f.|). {With what manner of body} (\poi“i s“mati\). This is the second question which makes plainer the difficulty of the first. The first body perishes. Will that body be raised? Paul treats this problem more at length (verses 38-54|) and by analogy of nature (Cf. Butler's famous _Analogy_). It is a spiritual, not a natural, body that is raised. \S“ma\ here is an organism. {Flesh} (\sarx\) is the \s“ma\ for the natural man, but there is spiritual (\pneumatikon\) \s“ma\ for the resurrection.

rwp@1Corinthians:16:1 @{Now concerning the collection for the saints} (\peri de tˆs logias tˆs eis tous hagious\). Paul has discussed all the problems raised by the Corinthians. Now he has on his own heart the collection for the saints in Jerusalem (see chapters strkjv@2Corinthians:8; 9|). This word \logia\ (or \-eia\) is now known to be derived from a late verb \logeu“\, to collect, recently found in papyri and inscriptions (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 143). The word \logia\ is chiefly found in papyri, ostraca, and inscriptions that tell of religious collections for a god or a temple (Deissmann, _Light from the Ancient East_, p. 105). The introduction of this topic may seem sudden, but the Corinthians were behind with their part of it. They may even have asked further about it. Paul feels no conflict between discussion of the resurrection and the collection. {Songs:also do ye} (\hout“s kai humas poiˆsate\). Paul had given orders (\dietaxa\) to the churches of Galatia and now gives them like commands. As a matter of fact, they had promised a long time before this (2Corinthians:8:10; strkjv@9:1-5|). Now do what you pledged.

rwp@1Corinthians:16:16 @{That ye also be in subjection unto such} (\hina kai humeis hupotassˆsthe tois toioutois\). This is the exhortation begun in verse 15|. The family of Stephanas took the lead in good works. Do ye also follow such leaders. This is our great problem today, to find great leaders and many loyal followers. This would solve all church problems, great leadership and great following. Lend a hand.

rwp@Info_1John @ THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION RELATION TO THE FOURTH GOSPEL There are few scholars who deny that the Epistles of John and the Fourth Gospel are by the same writer. As a matter of fact "in the whole of the First Epistle there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel" (Schulze). H. J. Holtzmann (_Jahrbuch fur Protestantische Theologie_, 1882, P. 128) in a series of articles on the "Problem of the First Epistle of St. John in its Relation to the Gospel" thinks that the similarities are closer than those between Luke's Gospel and the Acts. Baur argued that this fact was explained by conscious imitation on the part of one or the other, probably by the author of the Epistle. The solution lies either in identity of authorship or in imitation. If there is identity of authorship, Holtzmann argues that the Epistle is earlier, as seems to me to be true, while Brooke holds that the Gospel is the earlier and that the First Epistle represents the more complete ideas of the author. Both Holtzmann and Brooke give a detailed comparison of likenesses between the First Epistle and the Fourth Gospel in vocabulary, syntax, style, ideas. The arguments are not conclusive as to the priority of Epistle or Gospel, but they are as to identity of authorship. One who accepts, as I do, the Johannine authorship of the Fourth Gospel for the reasons given in Volume V of this series, does not feel called upon to prove the Johannine authorship of the three Epistles that pass under the Apostle's name. Westcott suggests that one compare strkjv@John:1:1-18| with strkjv@1John:1:1-4| to see how the same mind deals with the same ideas in different connections. "No theory of conscious imitation can reasonably explain the subtle coincidences and differences in these two short crucial passages."

rwp@Info_1John @ BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, _Epistles of John_ (Speaker's Comm., 1889). Barrett, _Devotional Comm. on John_ (1910). Baumgartner, _Die Schriften des N.T_. (IV. 3, 1918). Belser, _Komm_. (1906). Bennett, _New-Century Bible_. Brooke, _Int. Crit. Comm_. (Johannine Epistles, 1912). Cox, _Private Letters of St. Paul and St. John_ (1887). Ebrard, _Die Briefe Johannis_ (1859). Ewald, _Die Johanneischen Schriften_ (1861). Findlay, _Fellowship in the Life Eternal_ (1909) Gibbon, _Eternal Life_ (1890). Gore, _Epistles of John_ (1921). Green, _Ephesian Canonical Writings_ (1910). Haring, _Die Johannesbriefe_ (1927). Haupt, _I John_ (1869). Hilgenfeld, _Das Evangelium und die Briefe Johannis nach ihrem Lehrbegriff dargestellt_ (1849). Holtzmann-Bauer, _Hand-Comm. sum N.T_. (1908). Holtzmann, _Das Problem des I Johannesbr. in seinem Ver- haltniss zum Evang_. (Jahrbuch fur Prot. Theologie, 1881, 1882). Huther, _Crit. and Exeget. to the General Eps. of James and John_ (1882). Karl, _Johanneische Studien_ (der I Johannes Brief, 1898). Law, _The Tests of Life_ (1909). Lias, _Epistles of John_ (1887). Loisy, _Les epitres dites de Jean_ (1921) in le quatrieme evan- gile. Lucke, _Comm. on Epistles of John_ (1837). Luthardt, _Strack-Zoeckler Komm_. (1895). Maurice, _The Epistles of St. John_ (1857). Plummer, _Cambridge Greek Test_ (1886). Ramsay, A., _Westminster N.T_. (1910). Ritter, _Die Gemeinschaft der Heiligen_ (1929). Robertson, J. A., _The Johannine Epistles_ (1920). Rothe, _Der erste Brief Johannis_ (1879). Sawtelle, _American Comm_. (1890). Smith, David, _The Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1910). Watson, _Epistles of John_ (1910). Weiss, B., _Die drei Briefe des Apostels Johannis_ (Meyer Komm. 1900). Wendt, _Die Johannesbriefe und das Johanneische Christen- tum_ (1925). Westcott, _The Epistles of St. John_. 3rd ed. (1892). Windisch, _Die Katholischer Briefe_ (Handbuch zum N.T., 2 Aufl., 1930). Wrede, _In Die Heiligen Schriften des N.T_. (2 Aufl., 1924). Wurm, _Die Irrlehrer im I Johannes Brief_ (1903). strkjv@1John:1:1 @{That which} (\ho\). Strictly speaking, the neuter relative here is not personal, but the message "concerning the Word of life" (\peri tou logou tˆs z“ˆs\), a phrase that reminds one at once of the Word (\Logos\) in strkjv@John:1:1,14; strkjv@Revelation:19:14| (an incidental argument for identity of authorship for all these books). For discussion of the \Logos\ see on ¯John:1:1-18|. Here the \Logos\ is described by \tˆs z“ˆs\ (of life), while in strkjv@John:1:4| he is called \hˆ z“ˆ\ (the Life) as here in verse 2| and as Jesus calls himself (John:11:25; strkjv@14:6|), an advance on the phrase here, and in strkjv@Revelation:19:14| he is termed \ho logos tou theou\ (the Word of God), though in strkjv@John:1:1| the \Logos\ is flatly named \ho theos\ (God). John does use \ho\ in a collective personal sense in strkjv@John:6:37,39|. See also \pan ho\ in strkjv@1John:5:4|. {From the beginning} (\ap' archˆs\). Anarthrous as in strkjv@John:1:1; strkjv@6:64; strkjv@16:4|. See same phrase in strkjv@2:7|. The reference goes beyond the Christian dispensation, beyond the Incarnation, to the eternal purpose of God in Christ (John:3:16|), "coeval in some sense with creation" (Westcott). {That which we have heard} (\ho akˆkoamen\). Note fourfold repetition of \ho\ (that which) without connectives (asyndeton). The perfect tense (active indicative of \akou“\) stresses John's equipment to speak on this subject so slowly revealed. It is the literary plural unless John associates the elders of Ephesus with himself (Lightfoot) the men who certified the authenticity of the Gospel (John:21:24|). {That which we have seen} (\ho he“rakamen\). Perfect active, again, of \hora“\, with the same emphasis on the possession of knowledge by John. {With our eyes} (\tois ophthalmois hˆm“n\). Instrumental case and showing it was not imagination on John's part, not an optical illusion as the Docetists claimed, for Jesus had an actual human body. He could be heard and seen. {That which we beheld} (\ho etheasametha\). Repetition with the aorist middle indicative of \theaomai\ (the very form in strkjv@John:1:14|), "a spectacle which broke on our astonished vision" (D. Smith). {Handled} (\epsˆlaphˆsan\). First aorist active indicative of \psˆlapha“\, old and graphic verb (from \psa“\, to touch), the very verb used by Jesus to prove that he was not a mere spirit (Luke:24:39|). Three senses are here appealed to (hearing, sight, touch) as combining to show the reality of Christ's humanity against the Docetic Gnostics and the qualification of John by experience to speak. But he is also "the Word of life" and so God Incarnate.

rwp@1John:2:16 @{All that} (\pƒn to\). Collective use of the neuter singular as in strkjv@5:4|, like \pƒn ho\ in strkjv@John:6:37,39|. Three examples, not necessarily covering all sins, are given in the nominative in apposition with \pƒn to\. "The lust of the flesh" (\hˆ epithumia tˆs sarkos\, subjective genitive, lust felt by the flesh) may be illustrated by strkjv@Mark:4:19; strkjv@Galatians:5:17|. Songs:the genitive with \hˆ epithumia t“n ophthalm“n\ (the lust of the eyes) is subjective, lust with the eyes as organs as shown by Jesus in strkjv@Matthew:5:28|. The use of the "movies" today for gain by lustful exhibitions is a case in point. For \alazoneia\ see on ¯James:4:16|, the only other N.T. example. \Alaz“n\ (a boaster) occurs in strkjv@Romans:1:30; strkjv@2Timothy:3:2|. \Bios\ (life) as in strkjv@3:17| is the external aspect (Luke:8:14|), not the inward principle (\z“ˆ\). David Smith thinks that, as in the case of Eve (Genesis:3:1-6|) and the temptations of Jesus (Matthew:4:1-11|), these three sins include all possible sins. But they are all "of the world" (\ek tou kosmou\) in origin, in no sense "of the Father" (\ek tou patros\). The problem for the believer is always how to be in the world and yet not of it (John:17:11,14ff.|).

rwp@Info_1Peter @ SOME BOOKS Alford, H., Vol. IV. 1 of his _Greek Testament_ (1870). Baldwin, _The Fisherman of Galilee_ (1923). Barnes, _St. Peter in Rome and His Tomb on the Vatican Hill_. Beck, J. T., _Erklarung der Briefe Petri_ (1895). Bennett, W. H., _New-Century Bible_ (1901). Bigg, C., _Intern. Crit. Comm_. (1901). Birks, _Studies in the Life and Character of St. Peter_ (1887). Blenkin, _The First Ep. General of St. Peter_ (1915). Camerlinck, _Commentarius in epistolas catholicas_ (1909). Cooke and Lumby, _Speaker's Comm_. (1881). Couard, _Commentaire_ (1895). Couard, _Simon Petrus der Apostel des Herrn_. Davidson, _St. Peter and His Training_. Elert, _Die Religiositat des Petrus_ (1911). Erbes, _Die Todestage der Apostels Paulus and Petrus_ (1899). Foakes-Jackson, F. J., _Peter Prince of Apostles_ (1927). Foster, Ora D., _The Literary Relations of the First Epistle of Peter_ (1913). Fouard, C., _St. Peter and the First Years of Christianity_ (1892). Gallagher, M., _Was the Apostle Peter Ever at Rome?_ (1894). Goutard, _Essai critique et historique sur la prem. e'pitre de S. Pierre_ (1905). Green, S. G., _The Apostle Peter: His Life and Letters_ (1880). Guignebert, _Lamentations:Primaute' de Pierre et la Venue de Pierre a Rome_ (1909). Gunkel, H., _Die Schriften d. N.T_. 3 Aufl. (1917). Hart, J. H. A., _Expos. Greek Test_. (1910). Henriott, _Saint Pierre_ (1891). Hort, F. J. A., _The First Epistle of St. Peter strkjv@1:1-2:17_ (1898). Howson, J., _Horae Petrinae_ (1883). Jenkins, R. C., _The Apostle Peter. Claims of Catholics_ (1875). Johnstone, _The First Epistle of Peter_ (1888). Kasteren, Van, _Deuteronomy:Eerste Brief Van d. Ap. Petrus_ (1911). Keil, C. F., _Comm. uber die Briefe des Petrus und Juda_ (1883). Knopf, R., _Die Briefe Petri und Juda_ (1912). Kogel, J., _Die Gedankenheit des Ersten Briefes Petri_ (1902). Kuhl, E., _Die Briefe Petri und Judae_ (Meyer Komm., 6 Aufl., 1897). Lietzmann, _Petrus and Paulus in Rom_. Lumby, J. R., _Expositor's Bible_ (1893). Masterman, J. H. B., _Epistles of St. Peter_ (1900). McInnis, J.M., _Simon Peter Fisherman and Philosopher_ (1928). Meyer, F. B., _Peter: Fisherman, Disciple, Apostle_ (1920). Moffatt, James, _Moffatt Comm. on N.T._ (1930). Monneir, J., _Lamentations:premiere e'pitre de l'apotre Pierre_ (1900). Perdelwitz, _Die Mysterienreligion und das Problem des ersten Petrusbriefes_ (1911). Plumptre, _Cambridge Bible_ (1879). Reagan, _The Preaching of Peter, the Beginning of Christian Apologetics_ (1922). Robinson, C. G., _Simon Peter: His Life and Times_ (1889). Ross, J. M. E., _The First Epistle of Peter_ (1913). Salmond, A. D. F., _Schaff's Comm_. (1883). Scharfe, _Die petrinische Stromung der neut. Literatur_ (1893). Schmid, _Petrus in Rome_ (1879). Seeley, _The Life and Writings of St. Peter_. Soden, Von, H., _Hand-Komm_. (3 Aufl., 1899). Taylor, W. M., _Peter the Apostle_ (1876). Thomas, W. H., Griffith, _The Apostle Peter_ (2nd ed., 1905). Thompson, _Life-Work of Peter the Apostle_. Upham, _Simon Peter Shepherd_ (1910). Usteri, J. M., _Wiss. und prakt. Komm. uber den I Petrus- brief_ (1887). Volter, D., _Der I Petrusbrief_ (1906). Weiss, B., _Die erste Petrusbrief und die Kritik_ (1906). _Der petrinische Lehrbegriff_ (1855). Williams, N. M., _American Comm_. Windisch, H., _Die Katholische Briefe. Handbuch zum N.T._ (2 Aufl., 1930). Wohlenberg, G., _Der erste und zweite Petrusbrief und der Judasbrief_. (Zahn Komm., 2 Aufl., 1915.) strkjv@1Peter:1:1 @{Peter} (\Petros\). Greek form for the Aramaic (Chaldaic) \Cˆphƒs\, the nickname given Simon by Jesus when he first saw him (John:1:42|) and reaffirmed in the Greek form on his great confession (Matthew:16:18|), with an allusion to \petra\, another form for a rock, ledge, or cliff. In strkjv@2Peter:1:1| we have both \Sim“n\ and \Petros\. Paul in his Epistles always terms himself Paul, not Saul. Songs:Peter uses this name, not Cephas or Simon, because he is writing to Christians scattered over Asia Minor. The nominative absolute occurs here as in strkjv@James:1:1|, but without \chairein\ as there, the usual form of greeting in letters (Acts:23:26|) so common in the papyri. {An apostle of Jesus Christ} (\apostolos Iˆsou Christou\). This is his official title, but in strkjv@2Peter:1:1| \doulos\ is added, which occurs alone in strkjv@James:1:1|. In II and III John we have only \ho presbuteros\ (the elder), as Peter terms himself \sunpresbuteros\ in strkjv@1Peter:5:1|. Paul's usage varies greatly: only the names in I and II Thessalonians, the title \apostolos\ added and defended in Galatians and Romans as also in I and II Corinthians and Colossians and Ephesians and II Timothy with "by the will of God" added, and in I Timothy with the addition of "according to the command of God." In Philippians Paul has only "\doulos\ (slave) \Christou Iˆsou\," like James and Jude. In Romans and Titus Paul has both \doulos\ and \apostolos\, like II Peter, while in Philemon he uses only \desmios\ (prisoner) \Iˆsou Christou\. {To the elect} (\eklektois\). Without article (with the article in strkjv@Matthew:24:22,24,31|) and dative case, "to elect persons" (viewed as a group). Bigg takes \eklektois\ (old, but rare verbal adjective from \ekleg“\, to pick out, to select) as an adjective describing the next word, "to elect sojourners." That is possible and is like \genos eklekton\ in strkjv@2:9|. See the distinction between \klˆtoi\ (called) and \eklektoi\ (chosen) in strkjv@Matthew:22:14|. {Who are sojourners} (\parepidˆmois\). Late double compound adjective (\para, epidˆmountes\, strkjv@Acts:2:10|, to sojourn by the side of natives), strangers sojourning for a while in a particular place. Songs:in Polybius, papyri, in LXX only twice (Genesis:23:4|; 38 or 39 12), in N.T. only here, strkjv@2:11; strkjv@Hebrews:11:13|. The picture in the metaphor here is that heaven is our native country and we are only temporary sojourners here on earth. {Of the Dispersion} (\diasporƒs\). See strkjv@John:7:35| for literal sense of the word for scattered (from \diaspeir“\, to scatter abroad, strkjv@Acts:8:1|) Jews outside of Palestine, and strkjv@James:1:1| for the sense here to Jewish Christians, including Gentile Christians (only N T. examples). Note absence of the article, though a definite conception (of the Dispersion). The Christian is a pilgrim on his way to the homeland. These five Roman provinces include what we call Asia Minor north and west of the Taurus mountain range (Hort). Hort suggests that the order here suggests that Silvanus (bearer of the Epistle) was to land in Pontus from the Euxine Sea, proceed through Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, to Bithynia, where he would re-embark for Rome. This, he holds, explains the separation of Pontus and Bithynia, though the same province. Only Galatia and Asia are mentioned elsewhere in the N.T. as having Christian converts, but the N.T. by no means gives a full account of the spread of the Gospel, as can be judged from strkjv@Colossians:1:6,23|.

rwp@Info_1Timothy @ FIRST TIMOTHY PROBABLY A.D. 65 FROM MACEDONIA BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION Assuming the Pauline authorship the facts shape up after this fashion. Paul had been in Ephesus (1Timothy:1:3|) after his arrival from Rome, which was certainly before the burning of Rome in A.D. 64. He had left Timothy in charge of the work in Ephesus and has gone on into Macedonia (1Timothy:1:3|), possibly to Philippi as he had hoped (Phillipians:2:24|). He wishes to help Timothy meet the problems of doctrine (against the Gnostics), discipline, and church training which are increasingly urgent. There are personal touches of a natural kind about Timothy's own growth and leadership. There are wise words here from the greatest of all preachers to a young minister whom Paul loved. strkjv@1Timothy:1:1 @{According to the commandment} (\kat' epitagˆn\). A late _Koin‚_ word (Polybius, Diodorus), but a Pauline word also in N.T. This very idiom ("by way of command") in strkjv@1Corinthians:7:6; strkjv@2Corinthians:8:8; strkjv@Romans:16:26; strkjv@1Timothy:1:1; strkjv@Titus:1:3|. Paul means to say that he is an apostle under orders. {Of God our Saviour} (\theou s“tˆros hˆm“n\). Genitive case with \epitagˆn\. In the LXX \s“tˆr\ (old word from \s“z“\ for agent in saving, applied to deities, princes, kings, etc.) occurs 20 times, all but two to God. The Romans called the emperor "Saviour God." In the N.T. the designation of God as Saviour is peculiar to strkjv@Luke:1:47; strkjv@Jude:1:25; strkjv@1Timothy:1:3; strkjv@2:3; strkjv@4:10; strkjv@Titus:1:3; strkjv@2:10; strkjv@3:4|. In the other Epistles Paul uses it of Christ (Phillipians:3:20; strkjv@Ephesians:5:23|) as in strkjv@2Timothy:1:10|. In strkjv@2Peter:1:1| we have "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" as in strkjv@Titus:2:13|. {Our hope} (\tˆs elpidos hˆm“n\). Like strkjv@Colossians:1:27|. More than the author and object of hope, "its very substance and foundation" (Ellicott).

rwp@1Timothy:6:1 @{Under the yoke} (\hupo zugon\). As slaves (\douloi\, bondsmen). Perhaps under heathen masters (1Peter:2:18|). For the slave problem, see also strkjv@Philemon:1; strkjv@Colossians:3:22; strkjv@Ephesians:6:5; strkjv@Titus:2:9|. See strkjv@Matthew:11:29| for Christ's "yoke" (\zugon\, from \zeugnumi\, to join). {Their own masters} (\tous idious despotas\). That is always where the shoe pinches. Our "despot" is this very Greek word, the strict correlative of slave (\doulos\), while \kurios\ has a wider outlook. Old word only here, strkjv@Titus:2:9; strkjv@2Timothy:2:21; strkjv@1Peter:2:18| for human masters. Applied to God in strkjv@Luke:2:29; strkjv@Acts:4:24,29| and to Christ in strkjv@2Peter:2:1|. {The name of God} (\to onoma tou theou\). See strkjv@Romans:2:24|. If the heathen could say that Christian slaves were not as dependable as non-Christian slaves. Negative purpose with \hina mˆ\ and present passive subjunctive (\blasphˆmˆtai\).

rwp@Info_2Corinthians @ It is clear therefore that Paul wrote what we call I Corinthians in a disturbed state of mind. He had founded the church there, had spent two years there (Acts:18|), and took pardonable pride in his work there as a wise architect (1Corinthians:3:10|) for he had built the church on Christ as the foundation. He was anxious that his work should abide. It is plain that the disturbances in the church in Corinth were fomented from without by the Judaizers whom Paul had defeated at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:1-35; strkjv@Galatians:2:1-10|). They were overwhelmed there, but renewed their attacks in Antioch (Galatians:2:11-21|). Henceforth throughout the second mission tour they are a disturbing element in Galatia, in Corinth, in Jerusalem. While Paul is winning the Gentiles in the Roman Empire to Christ, these Judaizers are trying to win Paul's converts to Judaism. Nowhere do we see the conflict at so white a heat as in Corinth. Paul finally will expose them with withering sarcasm (2Corinthians:10-13|) as Jesus did the Pharisees in strkjv@Matthew:23| on that last day in the temple. Factional strife, immorality, perverted ideas about marriage, spiritual gifts, and the resurrection, these complicated problems are a vivid picture of church life in our cities today. The discussion of them shows Paul's manysidedness and also the powerful grasp that he has upon the realities of the gospel. Questions of casuistry are faced fairly and serious ethical issues are met squarely. But along with the treatment of these vexed matters Paul sings the noblest song of the ages on love (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:13|) and writes the classic discussion on the resurrection (chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:15|). If one knows clearly and fully the Corinthian Epistles and Paul's dealings with Corinth, he has an understanding of a large section of his life and ministry. No church caused him more anxiety than did Corinth (2Corinthians:11:28|).

rwp@Info_2John @ SECOND JOHN ABOUT A.D. 85 TO 90 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is little to add to what was said about the First Epistle except that here the author terms himself "the elder" (\ho presbuteros\) and writes to "the elect lady" (\eklektˆi kuriƒi\). There is dispute about both of these titles. Some hold that it is the mythical "presbyter John" of whom Papias may speak, if so understood, but whose very existence is disproved by Dom Chapman in _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). Peter the apostle (1Peter:1:1|) calls himself "fellow-elder" (\sunpresbuteros\) with the other elders (1Peter:5:1|). The word referred originally to age (Luke:15:25|), then to rank or office as in the Sanhedrin (Matthew:16:21; strkjv@Acts:6:12|) and in the Christian churches (Acts:11:30; strkjv@20:17; strkjv@1Timothy:5:17,19|) as here also. A few even deny that the author is the same as in the First Epistle of John, but just an imitator. But the bulk of modern scholarly opinion agrees that the same man wrote all three Epistles and the Fourth Gospel (the Beloved Disciple, and many still say the Apostle John) whatever is true of the Apocalypse. There is no way of deciding whether "the elect lady" is a woman or a church. The obvious way of taking it is to a woman of distinction in one of the churches, as is true of "the co-elect lady in Babylon" (1Peter:5:13|), Peter's wife, who travelled with him (1Corinthians:9:5|). Some even take \kuria\ to be the name of the lady (Cyria). Some also take it to be "Eklecta the lady." Dr. Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 31) holds that Pergamum is the church to which the letter was sent. The same commentaries treat I, II, and III John as a rule, though Poggel has a book on II, III John (1896) and Bresky (1906) has _Das Verhaltnis des Zweiten Johannesbriefes zum dritten_. Dr. J. Rendel Harris has an interesting article in _The Expositor_ of London for March, 1901, on "The Problem of the Address to the Second Epistle of John," in which he argues from papyri examples that \kuria\ here means "my dear" or "my lady." But Findlay (_Fellowship in the Life Eternal_, p. 26) argues that "the qualifying adjunct 'elect' lifts us into the region of Christian calling and dignity." It is not certain that II John was written after I John, though probable. Origen rejected it and the Peshitta Syriac does not have II and III John. strkjv@2John:1:1 @{And her children} (\kai tois teknois autˆs\). As with \eklektˆ kuria\, so here \tekna\ may be understood either literally as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:4|, or spiritually, as in strkjv@Galatians:4:19,25; strkjv@1Timothy:1:2|. For the spiritual sense in \teknia\ see strkjv@1John:2:1,12|. {Whom} (\hous\). Masculine accusative plural, though \teknois\ is neuter plural (dative), construction according to sense, not according to grammatical gender, "embracing the mother and the children of both sexes" (Vincent). See thus \hous\ in strkjv@Galatians:4:19|. {I} (\Eg“\). Though \ho presbuteros\ is third person, he passes at once after the Greek idiom to the first and there is also special emphasis here in the use of \agap“\ with the addition of \en alˆtheiƒi\ (in truth, in the highest sphere, as in strkjv@John:17:19; strkjv@3John:1:1|) and \ouk eg“ monos\ (not I only, "not I alone"). Brooke argues that this language is unsuitable if to a single family and not to a church. But Paul employs this very phrase in sending greetings to Prisca and Aquila (Romans:16:4|). {That know} (\hoi egn“kotes\). Perfect active articular participle of \gin“sk“\, "those that have come to know and still know."

rwp@Info_2Peter @ THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER ABOUT A.D. 66 OR 67 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION MOST DOUBTFUL NEW TESTAMENT BOOK Every book in the New Testament is challenged by some one, as indeed the historicity of Jesus Christ himself is and the very existence of God. But it is true that more modern scholars deny the genuineness of II Peter than that of any single book in the canon. This is done by men like F. H. Chase, J. B. Mayor, and R. D. Strachan, who are followers of Christ as Lord and Saviour. One has to admit that the case concerning II Peter has problems of peculiar difficulty that call for careful consideration and balanced judgment. One other word needs to be said, which is that an adverse decision against the authenticity of II Peter stands by itself and does not affect the genuineness of the other books. It is easy to take an extreme position for or against it without full knowledge of all the evidence.

rwp@2Thessalonians:3:15 @{Not as an enemy} (\mˆ h“s echthron\). This is always the problem in such ostracism as discipline, however necessary it is at times. Few things in our churches are more difficult of wise execution than the discipline of erring members. The word \echthros\ is an adjective, hateful, from \echthos\, hate. It can be passive, {hated}, as in strkjv@Romans:11:28|, but is usually active {hostile}, enemy, foe.

rwp@Info_Acts @ LUKE THE AUTHOR It ought to be possible to assume this as a fact since the work of Ramsay and Harnack on various phases of the problems concerning the Acts. Harnack, in particular, has covered the ground with his accustomed thoroughness and care in his two volumes (_The Acts of the Apostles_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1909; _The Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, English Translation by Rev. J. R. Wilkinson, 1911). Ramsay's view may be found in Chapter I of _St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen_, Chapter XII of _Pauline and Other Studies_. A good summary of the matter appears in Part V of _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_ by Dr. D. A. Hayes, in Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, and in the introduction to the various commentaries by Knowling, Rackham, Furneaux, Rendall, Hackett, Meyer-Wendt, Zahn, Blass, Campbell-Morgan, Stokes. In Part I of _The Acts of the Apostles_, Vol. II of _The Beginnings of Christianity_, edited by Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake both sides are ably presented: _The Case for the Tradition_ by C. W. Emmet, _The Case against the Tradition_ by H. Windisch. _The Internal Evidence of Acts_ is discussed by the Editors, Foakes-Jackson and Lake, with an adverse conclusion against Luke. Henry J. Cadbury surveys _The Tradition_ (the external evidence) and draws a negative conclusion likewise on the ground that the early writers who ascribe Acts to Luke were not critical scholars. A similar position is taken by Cadbury in his more recent volume, _The Making of Luke--Acts_ (1927). But all the same the traditional view that Luke is the author of the Acts holds the field with those who are not prejudiced against it. The view of Baur that Acts is a _Tendenz_ writing for the purpose of healing the breach between Peter and Paul and showing that the two factions came together had great influence for a while. In fact both Ramsay and Harnack at first held it. Ramsay broke away first and he was followed by Harnack. Both were influenced to change their views by the accumulation of evidence to the effect that the author of both the Gospel and Acts is Luke the Physician and Friend of Paul. Part of this evidence has already been given in the Introduction to the Gospel according to Luke.

rwp@Info_Acts @ THE TEXT OF THE ACTS A special problem arises concerning the text of Acts inasmuch as the Codex Bezae (D) with some other Western support presents a great many additions to the Neutral-Alexandrian text of Aleph A B C. Blass has even proposed the idea that Luke himself issued two editions of the book, an attractive hypothesis that is not generally accepted. J. M. Wilson has published _The Acts of the Apostles from Codex Bezae_. The whole subject is elaborately treated by J. H. Ropes in Vol. III, _The Text of Acts_ in Part I of _The Beginnings of Christianity_. Besides thorough discussion of all the problems of text involved Ropes gives the text of the Vatican Codex (B) on the left page and that of Codex Bezae (D) on the right, making comparison easy. Blass's ideas appear in his _Acta Apostolorum_.

rwp@Acts:12:18 @{As soon as it was day} (\Genomenˆs hˆmeras\). Genitive absolute, day having come. {No small stir} (\tarachos ouk oligos\). Litotes (\ouk oligos\), occurs eight times in the Acts as in strkjv@15:2|, and nowhere else in the N.T. \Tarachos\ (stir) is an old word from \tarass“\, to agitate. In the N.T only here and strkjv@19:23|. Probably all sixteen soldiers were agitated over this remarkable escape. They were responsible for the prisoner with their lives (cf. strkjv@Acts:16:27; strkjv@27:42|). Furneaux suggests that Manaen, the king's foster-brother and a Christian (13:1|), was the "angel" who rescued Peter from the prison. That is not the way that Peter looked at it. {What was become of Peter} (\ti ara ho Petros egeneto\). An indirect question with the aorist indicative retained. \Ara\ adds a syllogism (therefore) to the problem as in strkjv@Luke:1:66|. The use of the neuter \ti\ (as in strkjv@Acts:13:25|) is different from \tis\, though nominative like \Petros\, literally, "what then Peter had become," "what had happened to Peter" (in one idiom). See the same idiom in strkjv@John:21:21| (\houtos de ti\). {But this one what} (verb \genˆsetai\ not used).

rwp@Acts:13:16 @{Paul stood up} (\anastas Paulos\). The Jewish custom was to sit while speaking (Luke:4:20|), but the Greek and Roman was to stand (Acts:17:22|). It is possible as Lewin (_Life of St. Paul_, Vol. 1, p. 141) suggests that here Paul stepped upon the platform and then took his seat as he began to speak or he may have followed the Greek and Roman custom. Paul is the leader now and the more gifted speaker (Acts:14:12|), so that he responds to the courteous invitation of the rulers. {Beckoning} (\kataseisas\). First aorist active participle of \katasei“\, old verb to shake down, a dramatic gesture for quiet and order like Peter in strkjv@12:17| and Paul on the steps of the tower of Antonia (21:40|). {And ye that fear God} (\kai hoi phoboumenoi ton theon\). Evidently large numbers of these Gentiles like Cornelius in Caesarea were present. They offered Paul a great opportunity for reaching the purely pagan Gentiles. This (verses 16-41|) is the first full report of a sermon of Paul's that Luke has preserved for us. He is now a practised preacher of the gospel that he began proclaiming at Damascus, that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah of promise and the Saviour of the whole world both Jew and Gentile if they will only believe on him and be saved. It is possible that Paul here based his sermon on the passages of the law and the prophets that had just been read. He uses two words from the LXX, one in verse 19| from strkjv@Deuteronomy:1:31| \etrophophorˆsen\ (as a nursing-father bare he them), the reading of many old MSS. and the one preferred by the American Committee, the other in verse 17| from strkjv@Isaiah:1:2| \hups“sen\ (exalted). At any rate it is clear that Paul spoke in Greek so that all could understand his sermon. He may have written out notes of this sermon afterwards for Luke. The keynotes of Paul's theology as found in his Epistles appear in this sermon. It is interesting to observe the steady growth of Paul's Christology as he faced the great problems of his day. Here we see Paul's gospel for the Jews and the God-fearers (Gentiles friendly to the Jews).

rwp@Acts:13:48 @{As the Gentiles heard this they were glad} (\akouonta ta ethnˆ 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 ˆsan tetagmenoi eis z“ˆn ai“nion\). 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:14:23 @{And when they had appointed for them elders in every church} (\cheirotonˆsantes de autois kat' ekklˆsian presbuterous\). They needed also some form of organization, though already churches. Note distributive use of \kata\ with \ekklˆsian\ (2:46; strkjv@5:42; strkjv@Titus:1:5|). \Cheirotone“\ (from \cheirotonos\, extending the hand, \cheir\, hand, and \tein“\, to stretch) is an old verb that originally meant to vote by show of the hands, finally to appoint with the approval of an assembly that chooses as in strkjv@2Corinthians:8:19|, and then to appoint without regard to choice as in Josephus (_Ant_. XIII. 2, 2) of the appointment of Jonathan as high priest by Alexander. Songs:in strkjv@Acts:10:41| the compound \procheiratone“\ is used of witnesses appointed by God. But the seven (deacons) were first selected by the Jerusalem church and then appointed (\katastˆsomen\) by the apostles. That is probably the plan contemplated by Paul in his directions to Titus (Titus:1:5|) about the choice of elders. It is most likely that this plan was the one pursued by Paul and Barnabas with these churches. They selected the elders in each instance and Paul and Barnabas "ordained" them as we say, though the word \cheirotone“\ does not mean that. "Elders" were mentioned first in strkjv@11:30|. Later Paul will give the requirements expected in these "elders" or "bishops" (Phillipians:1:1|) as in strkjv@1Timothy:3:1-7; strkjv@Titus:1:5-9|. It is fairly certain that these elders were chosen to correspond in a general way with the elders in the Jewish synagogue after which the local church was largely copied as to organization and worship. Paul, like Jesus, constantly worshipped and spoke in the synagogues. Already it is plain, as at Antioch in Syria (11:26|), that the Christians can no longer count on the use of the Jewish synagogue. They must have an organization of their own. The use of the plural here implies what was true at Philippi (Phillipians:1:1|) and Ephesus (Acts:20:17,28|) that each church (one in each city) "had its college of elders" (Hackett) as in Jerusalem (21:18|). Elder (\presbuteros\) was the Jewish name and bishop (\episkopos\) the Greek name for the same office. "Those who are called elders in speaking of Jewish communities are called bishops in speaking of Gentile communities" (Hackett). Hovey rightly holds against Hackett that teaching was a normal function of these elders, pastors or bishops as they were variously called (1Timothy:3:2; strkjv@Titus:1:9; strkjv@1Corinthians:12:28,30; strkjv@Ephesians:4:11|). {Had prayed with fasting} (\proseuxamenoi meta nˆstei“n\). It was a serious matter, this formal setting apart of these "elders" in the churches. Songs:it was done in a public meeting with prayer and fasting as when Paul and Barnabas were sent forth from Antioch in Syria (13:3|) on this mission tour. {They commended them to the Lord} (\parethento autous t“i kuri“i\). Second aorist middle indicative of \paratithˆmi\. Old and solemn word, to entrust, to deposit as in a bank (1Timothy:1:18; strkjv@2Timothy:2:2|). Cf. \parathˆkˆ\ in strkjv@1Timothy:6:20; strkjv@2Timothy:1:12,14|. It was all that they could now do, to commit them to the Lord Jesus. Jesus used this word on the cross (Luke:22:32|). {On whom they had believed} (\eis hon pepisteukeisan\). Past perfect indicative (without augment) of \pisteu“\. They had "trusted" in Jesus (2Timothy:1:12|) and Paul now "entrusts" them to him with confidence. It was a solemn and serious occasion in each instance as it always is to set apart men for the ministry. These men may not have been ideal men for this service, but they were the only ones available and they were chosen from the actual membership in each instance, men who knew local conditions and problems.

rwp@Acts:15:20 @{But that we write unto them} (\alla episteilai autois\). By way of contrast (\alla\). First aorist active infinitive of \epistell“\, old verb to send to one (message, letter, etc.). Our word \epistle\ (\epistolˆ\ as in verse 30|) comes from this verb. In the N.T. only here, He strkjv@13:22|, and possibly strkjv@Acts:21:25|. {That they abstain from} (\tou apechesthai\). The genitive of the articular infinitive of purpose, present middle (direct) of \apech“\, old verb, to hold oneself back from. The best old MSS. do not have \apo\, but the ablative is clear enough in what follows. James agrees with Peter in his support of Paul and Barnabas in their contention for Gentile freedom from the Mosaic ceremonial law. The restrictions named by James affect the moral code that applies to all (idolatry, fornication, murder). Idolatry, fornication and murder were the outstanding sins of paganism then and now (Revelation:22:15|). Harnack argues ably against the genuineness of the word \pniktou\ (strangled) which is absent from D Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian. It is a nice point, though the best MSS. have it in accord with strkjv@Leviticus:17:10-16|. The problem is whether the words were added because "blood" was understood as not "murder," but a reference to the Mosaic regulation or whether it was omitted to remove the ceremonial aspect and make it all moral and ethical. The Western text omits the word also in verse 29|. But with the word retained here and in verse 29| the solution of James is not a compromise, though there is a wise concession to Jewish feeling. {Pollutions of idols} (\alisgˆmat“n\). From \alisge“\ only in the LXX and this substantive nowhere else. The word refers to idolatrous practices (pollutions) and things sacrificed to idols (\eid“luth“n\) in verse 29|, not to sacrificial meat sold in the market (1Corinthians:10:27|), a matter not referred to here. Cf. strkjv@Leviticus:17:1-9|. All the four items in the position of James (accepting \pniktou\) are mentioned in strkjv@Leviticus:17,18|.

rwp@Acts:15:38 @{But Paul thought not good to take with them} (\Paulos de ˆxiou--mˆ sunparalambanein touton\). The Greek is far more effective than this English rendering. It is the imperfect active of \axio“\, old verb to think meet or right and the present active infinitive of the same verb (\sunparalamban“\) with negative used with this infinitive. Literally, "But Paul kept on deeming it wise not to be taking along with them this one." Barnabas looked on it as a simple punctiliar proposal (aorist infinitive), but Paul felt a lively realization of the problem of having a quitter on his hands (present infinitive). Each was insistent in his position (two imperfects). Paul had a definite reason for his view describing John Mark as "him who withdrew from them from Pamphylia" (\ton apostanta ap' aut“n apo Pamphulias\). Second aorist active articular participle of \aphistˆmi\, intransitive use, "the one who stood off from, apostatized from" (our very word "apostasy"). And also as the one who "went not with them to the work" (\kai mˆ sunelthonta autois eis to ergon\). At Perga Mark had faced the same task that Paul and Barnabas did, but he flinched and flickered and quit. Paul declined to repeat the experiment with Mark.

rwp@Acts:16:7 @{Over against Mysia} (\kata tˆn Musian\). This was an ill-defined region rather north and west of Phrygia. The Romans finally absorbed most of it in the Province of Asia. {They assayed to go into Bithynia} (\epeirazon eis tˆn Bithunian poreuthˆnai\). Conative imperfect of \peiraz“\ and ingressive aorist passive infinitive of \poreuomai\. Now Bithynia is northeast of Mysia and north of Galatia (province). Clearly Luke means to say that Paul had, when hindered by the Holy Spirit from going west into Asia, gone north so as to come in front of Bithynia. This journey would take him directly through Phrygia and the North Galatian country (the real Gauls or Celts). This is, to my mind, the strongest argument for the North Galatian view in these verses 6,7|. The grammar and the topography bring Paul right up to Bithynia (north of the old Galatia). It is verses 6,7| that make me pause before accepting the plausible arguments of Ramsay for the South Galatian theory. In itself the problem is nothing like so important or so determinative as he makes it. But shall we smash Luke's grammar to pieces to bolster up a theory of criticism? {And the Spirit of Jesus suffered them not} (\kai ouk eiasen autous to pneuma Iˆsou\). The same Spirit who in verse 6| had forbidden going into Asia now closed the door into Bithynia. This expression occurs nowhere else, but we have the spirit of Christ (Romans:8:9|) and the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Phillipians:1:19|). \Eiasen\ is first aorist active indicative of \ea“\, old verb to allow.

rwp@Acts:21:9 @{Virgins which did prophesy} (\parthenoi prophˆteusai\). Not necessarily an "order" of virgins, but Philip had the honour of having in his home four virgin daughters with the gift of prophecy which was not necessarily predicting events, though that was done as by Agabus here. It was more than ordinary preaching (cf. strkjv@19:6|) and was put by Paul above the other gifts like tongues (1Corinthians:14:1-33|). The prophecy of Joel (2:28f.|) about their sons and daughters prophesying is quoted by Peter and applied to the events on the day of Pentecost (Acts:2:17|). Paul in strkjv@1Corinthians:11:5| gives directions about praying and prophesying by the women (apparently in public worship) with the head uncovered and sharply requires the head covering, though not forbidding the praying and prophesying. With this must be compared his demand for silence by the women in strkjv@1Corinthians:14:34-40; strkjv@1Timothy:2:8-15| which it is not easy to reconcile. One wonders if there was not something known to Paul about special conditions in Corinth and Ephesus that he has not told. There was also Anna the prophetess in the temple (Luke:2:36|) besides the inspired hymns of Elizabeth (Luke:1:42-45|) and of Mary (Luke:1:46-55|). At any rate there was no order of women prophets or official ministers. There were Old Testament prophetesses like Miriam, Deborah, Huldah. Today in our Sunday schools the women do most of the actual teaching. The whole problem is difficult and calls for restraint and reverence. One thing is certain and that is that Luke appreciated the services of women for Christ as is shown often in his writings (Luke:8:1-3|, for instance) before this incident.

rwp@Colossians:1:9 @{That ye may be filled with} (\hina plˆr“thˆte\). First aorist (effective) passive subjunctive of \plˆro“\, to fill full. {The knowledge of his will} (\tˆn epign“sin tou thelˆmatos autou\). The accusative case is retained with this passive verb. \Epign“sis\ is a _Koin‚_ word (Polybius, Plutarch, etc.) for additional (\epi\) or full knowledge. The word is the keynote of Paul's reply to the conceit of Gnosticism. The cure for these intellectual upstarts is not ignorance, not obscurantism, but more knowledge of the will of God. {In all spiritual wisdom and understanding} (\en pasˆi sophiƒi kai sunesei pneumatikˆi\). Both \pasei\ (all) and \pneumatikˆi\ (spiritual) are to be taken with both \sophiƒi\ and \sunesei\. In strkjv@Ephesians:1:8| Paul uses \phronˆsei\ (from \phrˆn\, intellect) rather than \sunesei\ (grasp, from \suniˆmi\, to send together). \Sunesis\ is the faculty of deciding in particular cases while \sophia\ gives the general principles (Abbott). Paul faces Gnosticism with full front and wishes the freest use of all one's intellectual powers in interpreting Christianity. The preacher ought to be the greatest man in the world for he has to deal with the greatest problems of life and death.

rwp@Colossians:2:15 @{Having put off from himself} (\apekdusamenos\). Only here and strkjv@3:9| and one MS. of Josephus (\apekdus\). Both \apodu“\ and \ekdu“\ occur in ancient writers. Paul simply combines the two for expression of complete removal. But two serious problems arise here. Is God or Christ referred to by \apekdusamenos\? What is meant by "the principalities and the powers" (\tas archas kai tas exousias\)? Modern scholars differ radically and no full discussion can be attempted here as one finds in Lightfoot, Haupt, Abbott, Peake. On the whole I am inclined to look on God as still the subject and the powers to be angels such as the Gnostics worshipped and the verb to mean "despoil" (American Standard Version) rather than "having put off from himself." In the Cross of Christ God showed his power openly without aid or help of angels. {He made a show of them} (\edeigmatisen\). First aorist active indicative of \deigmatiz“\, late and rare verb from \deigma\ (Jude:1:7|), an example, and so to make an example of. Frequent in the papyri though later than \paradeigmatiz“\ and in N.T. only here and strkjv@Matthew:1:19| of Joseph's conduct toward Mary. No idea of disgrace is necessarily involved in the word. The publicity is made plain by "openly" (\en parrˆsiƒi\). {Triumphing over them on it} (\thriambeusas autous en aut“i\). On the Cross the triumph was won. This late, though common verb in _Koin‚_ writers (\ekthriambeu“\ in the papyri) occurs only twice in the N.T., once "to lead in triumph" (2Corinthians:2:14|), here to celebrate a triumph (the usual sense). It is derived from \thriambos\, a hymn sung in festal procession and is kin to the Latin _triumphus_ (our triumph), a triumphal procession of victorious Roman generals. God won a complete triumph over all the angelic agencies (\autous\, masculine regarded as personal agencies). Lightfoot adds, applying \thriambeusas\ to Christ: "The convict's gibbet is the victor's car." It is possible, of course, to take \aut“i\ as referring to \cheirographon\ (bond) or even to Christ.

rwp@Colossians:3:11 @{Where} (\hopou\). In this "new man" in Christ. Cf. strkjv@Galatians:3:28|. {There cannot be} (\ouk eni\). \Eni\ is the long (original) form of \en\ and \estin\ is to be understood. "There does not exist." This is the ideal which is still a long way ahead of modern Christians as the Great War proved. Race distinctions (Greek \Hellˆn\ and Jew \Ioudaios\) disappear in Christ and in the new man in Christ. The Jews looked on all others as Greeks (Gentiles). Circumcision (\peritomˆ\) and uncircumcision (\akrobustia\) put the Jewish picture with the cleavage made plainer (cf. strkjv@Ephesians:2|). The Greeks and Romans regarded all others as barbarians (\barbaroi\, strkjv@Romans:1:14|), users of outlandish jargon or gibberish, onomatopoetic repetition (\bar-bar\). {A Scythian} (\Skuthˆs\) was simply the climax of barbarity, _bar-baris barbariores_ (Bengel), used for any rough person like our "Goths and Vandals." {Bondman} (\doulos\, from \de“\, to bind), {freeman} (\eleutheros\, from \erchomai\, to go). Class distinctions vanish in Christ. In the Christian churches were found slaves, freedmen, freemen, masters. Perhaps Paul has Philemon and Onesimus in mind. But labour and capital still furnish a problem for modern Christianity. {But Christ is all} (\alla panta Christos\). Demosthenes and Lucian use the neuter plural to describe persons as Paul does here of Christ. The plural \panta\ is more inclusive than the singular \pƒn\ would be. {And in all} (\kai en pƒsin\). Locative plural and neuter also. "Christ occupies the whole sphere of human life and permeates all its developments" (Lightfoot). Christ has obliterated the words barbarian, master, slave, all of them and has substituted the word \adelphos\ (brother).

rwp@Colossians:3:17 @{Whatsoever ye do} (\pƒn hoti ean poiˆte\). Indefinite relative (everything whatever) with \ean\ and the present active subjunctive, a common idiom in such clauses. {Do all} (\panta\). The imperative \poieite\ has to be supplied from \poiˆte\ in the relative clause. \Panta\ is repeated from \pƒn\ (singular), but in the plural (all things). \Pƒn\ is left as a nominative absolute as in strkjv@Matthew:10:32; strkjv@Luke:12:10|. This is a sort of Golden Rule for Christians "in the name of the Lord Jesus" (\en onomati Kuriou Iˆsou\), in the spirit of the Lord Jesus (Ephesians:5:20|). What follows (directions to the various groups) is in this same vein. Sociological problems have always existed. Paul puts his finger on the sore spot in each group with unerring skill like a true diagnostician.

rwp@Colossians:4:1 @{That which is just and equal} (\to dikaion kai tˆn isotˆta\). Paul changes from \to ison\ (like \to dikaion\, neuter singular adjective with article for abstract idea) to the abstract substantive \isotˆs\, old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@2Corinthians:8:13f|. If employers always did this, there would be no labour problem. {A Master in heaven} (\Kurion en ouran“i\). A wholesome reminder to the effect that he keeps his eye on the conduct of masters of men here towards their employees.

rwp@Info_Ephesians @ THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS FROM ROME A.D. 63 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There are some problems of a special nature that confront us about the so-called Epistle to the Ephesians. THE AUTHORSHIP It is not admitted by all that Paul wrote it, though no other adequate explanation of its origin has ever been given. Songs:far as subject matter and vocabulary and style are concerned, if Colossians is Pauline, there is little or nothing to be said against the Pauline authorship of this Epistle.

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@Info_Epistles-Pastorial @ Special Books on the Pastoral Epistles (besides Introductions to the N.T., Apostolic History, Lives of Paul, the Epistles of Paul as a whole): Belser (1907), Bernard (_Cambridge Gr. T., 1899), E. F. Brown (_Westminster_, 1917), Bowen (_Dates of P. Letters_, 1900), Dibelius (_Handbuch_, 1913), Ellicott (1883), P. Fairbairn, P. N. Harrison (_Problem of the Past. Eps._, 1921), Harvey (1890), Hesse (_Die Entst._, 1889), Humphreys (_Camb. B._, 1897), Huther (1890), H. J. Holtzmann (1880), James (_Genuineness and Authorship of P. Eps._, 1906), Kohler (_Schriften N.T._, 2 Aufl. 1907), Knabenbauer (1913), Kraukenberg (1901), Laughlin (_Past. Eps. in Light of One Rom. Imp._, 1905), Lilley (1901), W. Lock (_Int. & Crit. Comm._, 1924), Lutgert (_Die Irrlehre d. P._, 1909), Maier (_Die Hauptprobleme d. P._, 1910), Mayer (1913), Meinertz (1913), Michaelis, W (Pastoralbriefe etc. zur Echtheitsfrage der Pastoralbriefe, 1930), Niebergall (_Handbuch_, 1909), Parry (1920), Plummer (_Exp. B._, 1896), Pope (1901), Riggenbach (1898), Stock (_Plain Talks on_, 1914), Strachan (_Westm. N.T._, 1910), von Soden (_Hand-Comm._, 1891), Wace (_Sp. Comm._, 1885), B. Weiss (_Meyer Komm._, ed. 5, 1886), White (Exp. Grk. T., 1910), Wohlenberg (_Zahn's Komm._, 1906). Info_Epistles-Paul

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ THE REASON FOR HIS EPISTLES In a real sense Paul's Epistles are tracts for the times, not for the age in general, but to meet real emergencies. He wrote to a particular church or group of churches or persons to meet immediate needs brought to his attention by messengers or letters. Dr. Deissmann contends strongly for the idea of calling Paul's Epistles "letters" rather than "Epistles." He gives a studied literary character to "epistles" as more or less artificial and written for the public eye rather than for definite effect. Four of Paul's Epistles are personal (those to Philemon, Titus, and Timothy) beyond a doubt, but in these which can properly be termed personal letters there are the principles of the gospel applied to personal, social, and ecclesiastical problems in such a pungent fashion that they possess permanent value. In the earliest group of Paul's Epistles, he reminds the Thessalonians of the official character of the Epistle which was meant for the church as a whole (1Thessalonians:5:27|). He says also: "But if any one does not obey our word by the epistle, mark this one, not to associate with him, that he may be put to shame" (2Thessalonians:3:14|). He calls attention to his signature as proof of the genuineness of every epistle (2Thessalonians:3:17|). He gave directions for the public reading of his epistles (Colossians:4:16|). He regarded them as the expression of God's will through the life of the churches and he put his whole heart into them. Two great controversies stirred Paul's life. That with the Judaizers called forth the great doctrinal group (I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Romans). That with the Gnostics occasioned the Epistles to the Colossians and the Ephesians (Laodiceans) and this controversy ran on into the Pastoral Epistles. Each Epistle had its particular occasion which will be pointed out in due season. But even in the short ones like Philippians, Colossians and Ephesians Paul deals with the sublimest of all themes, the Person of Christ, with a masterfulness never equalled elsewhere. Even in I Corinthians, which deals so largely with church problems in Corinth, two great chapters rise to the heights of real eloquence (Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:13| on Love and Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:15| on the Resurrection). Romans, the greatest of his Epistles, has the fullest discussion of Paul's gospel of grace and Chapter strkjv@1Corinthians:8| has a sweep of imagination and a grasp of faith unsurpassed. Hence, while denying to Paul the artificial rules of the rhetoricians attributed to him by Blass, I cannot agree that Paul's church Epistles are mere incidental letters. It is not a question whether Paul was writing for posterity or for the present emergency. He wrote for the present emergency in the most effective possible way. He brought the whole gospel message to bear upon the varied and pressing problems of the early Christians in the power of the Holy Spirit with the eloquence of a mind all ablaze with the truth and with a heart that yearned for their souls for Christ. They are not literary epistles, but they are more than personal letters. They are thunderbolts of passion and power that struck centre and that strike fire now for all who will take the trouble to come to them for the mind of Christ that is here.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ FOUR GROUPS OF PAULINE EPISTLES I. First Thessalonians. | Second Thessalonians. | A.D. 50 to 51. Chief topic Eschatology. To correct misconceptions in Thessalonica. II. First Corinthians. | Second Corinthians | Galatians | A.D. 54 to 57. Romans. | Chief topic Justification by Faith. Defence against the Judaizers. III. Philippians. | Philemon. | Colossians. | A.D. 61 to 63. Ephesians (Laodiceans). Chief topic Christology. Defence against the Gnostic perversions of the Person of Christ. IV. First Timothy. | Titus. | A.D. 65 to 68. Second Timothy. | Ecclesiastical Problems to the fore. DEVELOPMENT IN PAUL'S THEOLOGY

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ The study of Paul's Epistles in the order of their writing is the best possible way of seeing his own growth as a theologian and interpreter of Christ. Sabatier long ago laid emphasis on this point in his book _The Apostle Paul_ as did Matheson in _The Spiritual Development of Paul_. It is a tragedy to have to read Paul's Epistles as printed in the usual Greek text of Westcott and Hort and the English translations, beginning with Romans and ending with Philemon. In the manuscripts that give Paul's Epistles Romans comes first as the largest and most important, but Titus and Philemon come after II Timothy (the last just before his death). We know something of Paul's early preaching how he laid emphasis on the Messiahship of Jesus proven by his resurrection, Paul himself having seen the Risen Christ (Acts:9:22|). This conviction and experience lay at the foundation of all his work and he never faltered concerning it (Acts:17:3). In the earliest sermon of which we have a full report Paul proclaims justification by faith in Christ with forgiveness of sins (Acts:13:38f.|), blessings not obtained by the law of Moses. In the unfolding life of Paul he grappled with great problems of Jewish rabbinism and Greek philosophy and mystery-religions and Paul himself grew in stature as he courageously and victoriously faced Judaizer and Gnostic. There are scholars who claim that Paul surrendered to the appeal of Gnostic sacramentarianism and so went back on his great doctrine of justification by faith, not by works. It will be shown at the proper time that this view misinterprets Paul's attitude. The events given by Luke in the Acts fit in with the self-revelation of Paul in his own Epistles as we read them. Each one of the four groups of Epistles has a slightly different style and vocabulary as is natural when one comes to think of it. The same thing is true of the plays of Shakespeare and the poems of Milton. Style is the man, Buffon says. Yes, but style is also a function of the subject. Particularly is this true of vocabulary which has to vary with the different topics treated. But style in the same man varies with different ages. Ripened old age mellows the exuberance of youth and the passionate vehemence of manhood. We shall see Paul himself in his Epistles, letting himself go in various ways and in different moods. But in all the changing phases of his life and work there is the same masterful man who glories in being the slave of Jesus Christ and the Apostle to the Gentiles. The passion of Paul is Christ and one can feel the throb of the heart of the chief of sinners who became the chief of saints in all his Epistles. There is the Pauline glow and glory in them all.

rwp@Galatians:2:2 @{By revelation} (\kata apokalupsin\). In strkjv@Acts:15:2| the church sent them. But surely there is no inconsistency here. {I laid before them} (\anethemˆn autois\). Second aorist middle indicative of old word \anatithˆmi\, to put up, to place before, with the dative case. But who were the "them" (\autois\)? Evidently not the private conference for he distinguishes this address from that, "but privately" (\kat' idian\). Just place strkjv@Acts:15:4f.| beside the first clause and it is clear: "I laid before them the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles," precisely as Luke has recorded. Then came the private conference after the uproar caused by the Judaizers (Acts:15:5|). {Before them who were of repute} (\tois dokousin\). He names three of them (Cephas, James, and John). James the Lord's brother, for the other James is now dead (Acts:12:1f.|). But there were others also, a select group of real leaders. The decision reached by this group would shape the decision of the public conference in the adjourned meeting. Songs:far as we know Paul had not met John before, though he had met Peter and James at the other visit. Lightfoot has much to say about the Big Four (St. Paul and the Three) who here discuss the problems of mission work among Jews and Gentiles. It was of the utmost importance that they should see eye to eye. The Judaizers were assuming that the twelve apostles and James the Lord's brother would side with them against Paul and Barnabas. Peter had already been before the Jerusalem Church for his work in Caesarea (Acts:11:1-18|). James was considered a very loyal Jew. {Lest by any means I should be running or had run in vain} (\mˆ p“s eis kenon trech“ ˆ edramon\). Negative purpose with the present subjunctive (\trech“\) and then by a sudden change the aorist indicative (\edramon\), as a sort of afterthought or retrospect (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 201; Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 988). There are plenty of classical parallels. See also strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:5| for both together again.

rwp@Galatians:2:5 @{No, not for an hour} (\oude pros h“ran\). Pointed denial that he and Barnabas yielded at all "in the way of subjection" (\tˆi hupotagˆi\, in the subjection demanded of them). The compromisers pleaded for the circumcision of Titus "because of the false brethren" in order to have peace. The old verb \eik“\, to yield, occurs here alone in the N.T. See strkjv@2Corinthians:9:13| for \hupotagˆ\. {The truth of the gospel} (\hˆ alˆtheia tou euaggeliou\). It was a grave crisis to call for such language. The whole problem of Gentile Christianity was involved in the case of Titus, whether Christianity was to be merely a modified brand of legalistic Judaism or a spiritual religion, the true Judaism (the children of Abraham by faith). The case of Timothy later was utterly different, for he had a Jewish mother and a Greek father. Titus was pure Greek.

rwp@Galatians:2:16 @{Is not justified} (\ou dikaioutai\). Present passive indicative of \dikaio“\, an old causative verb from \dikaios\, righteous (from \dike\, right), to make righteous, to declare righteous. It is made like \axio“\, to deem worthy, and \koino“\, to consider common. It is one of the great Pauline words along with \dikaiosunˆ\, righteousness. The two ways of getting right with God are here set forth: by faith in Christ Jesus (objective genitive), by the works of the law (by keeping all the law in the most minute fashion, the way of the Pharisees). Paul knew them both (see strkjv@Romans:7|). In his first recorded sermon the same contrast is made that we have here (Acts:13:39|) with the same word \dikaio“\, employed. It is the heart of his message in all his Epistles. The terms faith (\pistis\), righteousness (\dikaiosunˆ\), law (\nomos\), works (\erga\) occur more frequently in Galatians and Romans because Paul is dealing directly with the problem in opposition to the Judaizers who contended that Gentiles had to become Jews to be saved. The whole issue is here in an acute form. {Save} (\ean mˆ\). Except. {Even we} (\kai hˆmeis\). We Jews believed, had to believe, were not saved or justified till we did believe. This very point Peter had made at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts:15:10f.|). He quotes strkjv@Psalms:143:2|. Paul uses \dikaiosunˆ\ in two senses (1) Justification, on the basis of what Christ has done and obtained by faith. Thus we are set right with God. strkjv@Romans:1-5|. (2) Sanctification. Actual goodness as the result of living with and for Christ. strkjv@Romans:6-8|. The same plan exists for Jew and Gentile.

rwp@Galatians:3:2 @{This only} (\touto monon\). Paul strikes at the heart of the problem. He will show their error by the point that the gifts of the Spirit came by the hearing of faith, not by works of the law.

rwp@Info_Hebrews @ THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION UNSETTLED PROBLEMS Probably no book in the New Testament presents more unsettled problems than does the Epistle to the Hebrews. On that score it ranks with the Fourth Gospel, the Apocalypse of John, and Second Peter. But, in spite of these unsolved matters, the book takes high rank for its intellectual grasp, spiritual power, and its masterful portrayal of Christ as High Priest. It is much briefer than the Fourth Gospel, but in a sense it carries on further the exalted picture of the Risen Christ as the King-Priest who reigns and pleads for us now.

rwp@Hebrews:12:3 @{Consider} (\analogisasthe\). First aorist middle imperative of \analogizomai\, old word to reckon up, to compare, to weigh, only here in the N.T. See \katanoˆsate\ in strkjv@3:1|. Understanding Jesus is the key to the whole problem, the cure for doubt and hesitation. {Endured} (\hupomemenˆkota\). Perfect active participle of the same verb \hupomen“\ used in verse 2|. {Gainsaying} (\antilogian\). Old word from \antilogos\ (from \antileg“\), already in strkjv@6:16; strkjv@7:7|. {Of sinners} (\hupo t“n hamart“l“n\). "By sinners." {Against themselves} (\eis heautous\). Against their better selves if a genuine reading. But \eis heauton\ (against himself), against Christ, is far more likely correct. {That ye wax not weary} (\hina mˆ kamˆte\). Negative final clause with \hina mˆ\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \kamn“\, old verb to be weary as here or sick as in strkjv@James:5:15|. {Fainting in your souls} (\tais psuchais hum“n ekluomenoi\). Present passive participle of \eklu“\, old verb to loosen out, to set free, and in passive to be enfeebled, to be tired out (here in soul with locative case), as in verse 5|. The rest of the Epistle drives home the argument.

rwp@James:5:4 @{The hire} (\ho misthos\). Old word for wages (Matthew:20:8|). {Labourers} (\ergat“n\). Any one who works (\ergazomai\), especially agricultural workers (Matthew:9:37|). {Who mowed} (\t“n amˆsant“n\). Genitive plural of the articular first aorist active participle of \ama“\ (from \hama\, together), old verb, to gather together, to reap, here only in N.T. {Fields} (\ch“ras\). Estates or farms (Luke:12:16|). {Which is of you kept back by fraud} (\ho aphusterˆmenos aph' hum“n\). Perfect passive articular participle of \aphustere“\, late compound (simplex \hustere“\ common as strkjv@Matthew:19:20|), to be behindhand from, to fail of, to cause to withdraw, to defraud. Pitiful picture of earned wages kept back by rich Jews, old problem of capital and labour that is with us yet in acute form. {The cries} (\hai boai\). Old word from which \boa“\ comes (Matthew:3:3|), here only in N.T. The stolen money "cries out" (\krazei\), the workers cry out for vengeance. {That reaped} (\t“n therisant“n\). Genitive plural of the articular participle first aorist active of \theriz“\ (old verb from \theros\, summer, strkjv@Matthew:24:32|), to reap, to harvest while summer allows (Matthew:6:26|). {Have entered} (\eiselˆluthan\). Perfect active third person plural indicative of \eiserchomai\, old and common compound, to go or come into. This late form is by analogy of the aorist for the usual form in \-asi\. {Of the Lord of Sabaoth} (\Kuriou Saba“th\). "Of the Lord of Hosts," quotation from strkjv@Isaiah:5:9| as in strkjv@Romans:9:29|, transliterating the Hebrew word for "Hosts," an expression for the omnipotence of God like \Pantokrat“r\ (Revelation:4:8|). God hears the cries of the oppressed workmen even if the employers are deaf.

rwp@Info_John @ HISTORICAL VALUE OF THE FOURTH GOSPEL It is just here that the chief attack is made on the Fourth Gospel even by some who admit the Johannine authorship. It is now assumed by some that the Fourth Gospel is not on a par with the Synoptics in historical reliability and some harmonies omit it entirely or place it separately at the close, though certainly Tatian used it with the Synoptics in his _Diatessaron_, the first harmony of the Gospels. Some even follow Schmiedel in seeing only a symbolic or parabolic character in the miracles in the Fourth Gospel, particularly in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus in chapter strkjv@John:11| which occurs here alone. But John makes this miracle play quite an important part in the culmination of events at the end. Clearly the author professes to be giving actual data largely out of his own experience and knowledge. It is objected by some that the Fourth Gospel gives an unnatural picture of Christ with Messianic claims at the very start. But the Synoptics give that same claim at the baptism and temptation, not to mention Luke's account of the Boy Jesus in the temple. The picture of the Jews as hostile to Jesus is said to be overdrawn in the Fourth Gospel. The answer to that appears in the Sermon on the Mount, the Sabbath miracles, the efforts of the Pharisees and lawyers to catch Jesus in his talk, the final denunciation in strkjv@Matthew:23|, all in the Synoptics. The opposition to Jesus grew steadily as he revealed himself more clearly. Some of the difficulties raised are gratuitous as in the early cleansing of the temple as if it could not have happened twice, confounding the draught of fishes in chapter strkjv@John:21| with that in strkjv@Luke:5|, making Mary of Bethany at the feast of a Simon in chapter strkjv@John:12| the same as the sinful woman at the feast of another Simon in strkjv@Luke:7|, making John's Gospel locate the last passover meal a day ahead instead of at the regular time as the Synoptics have it. Rightly interpreted these difficulties disappear. In simple truth, if one takes the Fourth Gospel at its face value, the personal recollections of the aged John phrased in his own way to supplement the narratives in the Synoptics, there is little left to give serious trouble. The Jerusalem ministry with the feasts is a case in point. The narrative of the call of the first disciples in chapter strkjv@John:1| is another. The author followed Simon in bringing also his own brother James to Jesus. John was present in the appearance of Christ before Annas, and Pilate. He was at the Cross when no other apostles were there. He took the mother of Jesus to his home and then returned to the Cross. He saw the piercing of the side of Jesus. He knew and saw the deed of Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus. E. H. Askwith has a most helpful discussion of this whole problem in _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910).

rwp@Info_John @ A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY OF RECENT LITERATURE (SINCE 1880) ABBOT, EZRA, _On the Authorship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1880). ABBOT, PEABODY, and LIGHTFOOT, _The Fourth Gospel_ (1891). ABBOTT, E.A., _Johannine Vocabulary_ (1935).,_Johannine Grammar_ (1906). APPEL, _Die Echtheit des Johannesevangeliums_ (1915). ASKWITH, E.H., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). BACON, B.W., _The Fourth Gospel in Research and Debate_ (1910). BALDENSPERGER, W., _Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums_ (1898). BARTH, K., _The Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels_ (1907). BAUER, W., _Das Johannes-Evangelium_. 2 Aufl. (1925). BELZER, _Das Evangelium des heiligen Johannes_ (1905). BERNARD, J. H., _Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1929), in Int. Crit. Comm. BERT, _Das Evangelium des Johannes_ (1922). BLASS, F., _Evangelium secundum Johannem_ (1902). BROOKE, A. E., _The Historical Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (Cambridge Biblical Essays, pp. 289 to 328. 1909). BURCH, VACHER, _The Structure and Message of St. John's Gospel_ (1928). BURNEY, C. F., _The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). CALMES, _L'Evangile selon S. Jean_ (1904). CANDLER, W. A., _Practical Studies in the Gospel of John_ (3 vols,, 1912-15). CARPENTER, J. ESTLIN, _The Johannine Writings_ (1927). CHAPMAN, DOM JOHN, _John the Presbyter and the Fourth Gospel_ (1911). CHARNWOOD, LORD, _According to St. John_ (1925). CLEMEN, C., _Die Entstehung des Johannesevangeliums_ (1912). D'ALMA, _Lamentations:Controverse du quatrieme evangile_ (1908).,Philo et le quotrieme evangile_ (1911). DAUSCH' _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1909). DELFF, H., _Das vierte Evangelium wiederhergestellt_ (1890).,Neue Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des vierten Evangeliums (1890). DODS, M., _Expositor's Bible_ (2 vols., 1891).,Expositor's Greek Testament_ (1897). DRUMMOND, JAMES, _An Inquiry into the Character and Author- ship of the Fourth Gospel_ (1904). EVANS, H. H., _St. John the Author of the Fourth Gospel_ (1888). EWALD, P., _Das Hauptproblem der Evangelienfrage und der Weg zu seiner Losung_ (1890). FOUARD, S., _Jean et la hn de l'age apostolique_ (1904). GARDNER, P., _The Ephesian Gospel_ (1915). GARVIE, A. E., _The Beloved Disciple_ (1922). GOBEL, _Die Reden des Herrn nach Johannes_ (2 vols., 1906, 1910). GODET, F., _Comm. on the Gospel of St. John_ (Tr., 2 vols., 1886--90). GOGUEL, M., _Les sources du recit Johannique de la Passion_ (1910).,Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1924). GORDON, S. D., _Quiet Talks on St. John's Gospel_. GORE, C., _Exposition of the Gospel of John_ (1920). GREEN, A. V., _The Ephesian Canonical Writings_ (1910). GREGORY, C. R., _Wellhausen und Johannes_ (1910). GRILL, J., _Untersuchungen uber die Entstehung des vierten Evangeliums_ (1902). GUMBEL, _Das Johannesevangelium Eine Erganzung des Lukas ev_. (1911). HARRIS, J. RENDEL, _The Origin of the Prologue to St. John's Gospel_ (1917). HAYES, D. A., _John and His Writings_ (1917). HOERNLE, E. S., _The Record of the Loved Disciple_ etc. (1913). HOLLAND, H. S., _The Philosophy of Faith and the Fourth Gospel_ (1919).,_The Fourth Gospel_ (1923). HOLTZMANN, H. J., _Evangelium, Briefe, und Offenbarung des Johannes_. 3 Aufl. (1908). HOLTZMANN, _Hand-Comm_. 3 Aufl. von Bauer (1908). HOVEY, A. H., _In American Comm_. (1885). HOWARD, W. F., _The Fourth Gospel in Recent Criticism and Interpretation_ (1931). IVERACH, JAMES, _Gospel of John_ (Int. Stand. Bible Encycl.). JACKSON, H. L., _The Fourth Gospel and Some Recent German Criticism_ (1906).,_The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). JOHNSTON, J. S., _The Philosophy of the Fourth Gospel_ (1909). KEISKER, _The Inner Witness of the Fourth Gospel_ (1922). KREYENBUHL, _Neue Losung der Johanneischen Frage_ (1905). LARFIELD, _Die beide Johannes von Ephesus_ (1914). LEATHES, STANLEY, _The Witness of St. John to Christ_. LEPIN, _L'origine du quatrieme evangile_ (1907; 1927).,_Lamentations:valeur historique du quatrieme euangile_ (1910). LEWIS, F. G., _The Irenaeus Testimony to the Fourth Gospel_ (1908). LEWIS, F. G., _Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel_ (1910). LIGHTFOOT, J. B., _Biblical Essays_ (pages 1-198; I-III, 1893). LLOYD, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_ (1932). LOISY, A., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1903). LOWRIE, _The Doctrine of John_ (1899). LYMAN, MARY ELY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Life of Today_ (1931). MANSON, W., _The Incarnate Glory_ (1923). MAURICE, F. D., _The Gospel of St. John_ (1906). McGREGoR, G. H., _The Moffatt Commentary_ (1930). MONTGOMERY, J. A., _The Origin of the Gospel According to St. John_ (1923). MOUSE, _Johannes und Paulus_ (1915). MUIRHEAD, L. A., _The Message of the Fourth Gospel_ (1925). NOLLOTH, C. F., _The Fourth Evangelist_ (1925). NUNN, H. P. V., _The Son of Zebedee and the Fourth Gospel (1927). ORR, JAMES, _The Authenticity of St. John's Gospel Deduced from Internal Evidence_. OVERBECK, _Das Johannesevangelium_ (1911). PLUMMER, A., _Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1913). REVILLE, J., _Leviticus:quatrieme evangile_ (1901). REYNOLDS, H. R., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D. B., 1899). RICHMOND, W., _The Gospel of the Rejection_ (1906). ROBERTSON, A. T., _The Divinity of Christ in the Gospel of John_ (1916). ROBINSON, A., _The Historical Character of St. John's Gospel_ (1929). ROBINSON, B. W., _The Gospel of John_ (1925). SANDAY, W., _Criticism of the Fourth Gospel_ (1905). SCHLATTER, _Die Sprache und Heimath des vierten Evangelisten_ (1903). SCHMIEDEL, P. W., _The Johannine Writings_ (1908). SCOTT, E. F., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Purpose and Theology_ (1906). SCOTT, E. F., _The Historical and Religious Value of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SCOTT-MONCRIEFF, C. E., _St. John, Apostle, Evangelist and Prophet_ (1909). SELBIE, W. B., _Belief and Life: Studies in the Thought of the Fourth Gospel_ (1916). SMITH, J. R., _The Teaching of the Fourth Gospel_ (1903). SMITH, P. V., _The Fourth Gospel: Its Historical Importance_ (1926). SPEER, R. E., _The Greatest Book in the World_ (1915). SPITTA, F., _Das Johannesevangelium als Quelle der Geschichte Jesu_ (1910). STANGE, _Die Eigenart des Johanneischen Produktion_ (1914). STANTON, V. H., _The Fourth Gospel_ (Part III of Gospels as Hist. Documents, 1921). STEVENS, G. B., _The Johannine Theology_ (1898). STRACHAN, R. H., _Gospel of John_ (Hastings, D C G 1906).,The Fourth Gospel: Its Significance and Environ- ment_ (1917).,The Fourth Evangelist: Dramatist or Historian_ (1925). TILLMANN, FRITZ, _Das Johannesevangelium Uebersetzt und Erklart_ (1931). VEDDER, H. C., _The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problems_ (1917). WARSCHAUER, J., _The Problem of the Fourth Gospel_. WATKINS, W. H., _Modern Criticism Considered in its Rela- tion to the Fourth Gospel_ (1890). WATSON, H. A., _The Mysticism of St. John's Gospel_ (1916). WEARING, _The World View of the Fourth Gospel_ (1918). WEISS, B., _Meyer Komm_. 9 Aufl. (1902).,_Das Johannesevangelium als einheitliches Werk_ (1911). WELLHAUSEN, J., _Das Evangelium Johannis_ (1908). WENDT, H. H., _The Gospel according to St. John: An Inquiry into its Genesis and Historical Value_ (1911).,_Die Schichten im vierten Evangelium_ (1911). WESTCOTT, B. F., _The Gospel according to St. John_ (2 vols., 1908). WHITELAW, _The Gospel of John_ (1888). WINDISCH, H., _Johannes und die Synoptiker_ (1927). WORSLEY, _The Fourth Gospel and the Synoptists_ (1911). WREDE, W., _Charakter und Tendenz del Johannesevangelium_ (1903). ZAHN, TH., _Dal Evangelium Johannis (1908). 6 Aufl. (1921). strkjv@John:1:1 @{In the beginning} (\en archˆi\). \Archˆ\ is definite, though anarthrous like our at home, in town, and the similar Hebrew _be reshith_ in strkjv@Genesis:1:1|. But Westcott notes that here John carries our thoughts beyond the beginning of creation in time to eternity. There is no argument here to prove the existence of God any more than in Genesis. It is simply assumed. Either God exists and is the Creator of the universe as scientists like Eddington and Jeans assume or matter is eternal or it has come out of nothing. {Was} (\ˆn\). Three times in this sentence John uses this imperfect of \eimi\ to be which conveys no idea of origin for God or for the Logos, simply continuous existence. Quite a different verb (\egeneto\, became) appears in verse 14| for the beginning of the Incarnation of the Logos. See the distinction sharply drawn in strkjv@8:58| "before Abraham came (\genesthai\) I am" (\eimi\, timeless existence). {The Word} (\ho logos\). \Logos\ is from \leg“\, old word in Homer to lay by, to collect, to put words side by side, to speak, to express an opinion. \Logos\ is common for reason as well as speech. Heraclitus used it for the principle which controls the universe. The Stoics employed it for the soul of the world (\anima mundi\) and Marcus Aurelius used \spermatikos logos\ for the generative principle in nature. The Hebrew _memra_ was used in the Targums for the manifestation of God like the Angel of Jehovah and the Wisdom of God in strkjv@Proverbs:8:23|. Dr. J. Rendel Harris thinks that there was a lost wisdom book that combined phrases in Proverbs and in the Wisdom of Solomon which John used for his Prologue (_The Origin of the _Prologue to St. John_, p. 43) which he has undertaken to reproduce. At any rate John's standpoint is that of the Old Testament and not that of the Stoics nor even of Philo who uses the term \Logos\, but not John's conception of personal pre-existence. The term \Logos\ is applied to Christ only in strkjv@John:1:1,14; strkjv@Revelation:19:13; strkjv@1John:1:1| "concerning the Word of life" (an incidental argument for identity of authorship). There is a possible personification of "the Word of God" in strkjv@Hebrews:4:12|. But the personal pre-existence of Christ is taught by Paul (2Corinthians:8:9; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6f.; strkjv@Colossians:1:17|) and in strkjv@Hebrews:1:2f.| and in strkjv@John:17:5|. This term suits John's purpose better than \sophia\ (wisdom) and is his answer to the Gnostics who either denied the actual humanity of Christ (Docetic Gnostics) or who separated the \aeon\ Christ from the man Jesus (Cerinthian Gnostics). The pre-existent Logos "became flesh" (\sarx egeneto\, verse 14|) and by this phrase John answered both heresies at once. {With God} (\pros ton theon\). Though existing eternally with God the Logos was in perfect fellowship with God. \Pros\ with the accusative presents a plane of equality and intimacy, face to face with each other. In strkjv@1John:2:1| we have a like use of \pros\: "We have a Paraclete with the Father" (\paraklˆton echomen pros ton patera\). See \pros“pon pros pros“pon\ (face to face, strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|), a triple use of \pros\. There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gn“ston tˆs pros allˆlous sunˆtheias\, "the knowledge of our intimacy with one another" (M.&M., _Vocabulary_) which answers the claim of Rendel Harris, _Origin of Prologue_, p. 8) that the use of \pros\ here and in strkjv@Mark:6:3| is a mere Aramaism. It is not a classic idiom, but this is _Koin‚_, not old Attic. In strkjv@John:17:5| John has \para soi\ the more common idiom. {And the Word was God} (\kai theos ˆn ho logos\). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos ˆn ho logos\. That would mean that all of God was expressed in \ho logos\ and the terms would be interchangeable, each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (\ho logos\) and the predicate without it (\theos\) just as in strkjv@John:4:24| \pneuma ho theos\ can only mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." Songs:in strkjv@1John:4:16| \ho theos agapˆ estin\ can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, _Grammar_, pp. 767f. Songs:in strkjv@John:1:14| \ho Logos sarx egeneto\, "the Word became flesh," not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of Father and Son, what Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other). Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

rwp@John:6:5 @{Lifting up his eyes} (\eparas tous ophthalmous\). First aorist active participle of \epair“\. See the same phrase in strkjv@4:35| where it is also followed by \theaomai\; strkjv@11:41; strkjv@17:1; strkjv@Luke:6:20|. Here it is particularly expressive as Jesus looked down from the mountain on the approaching multitude. {Cometh unto him} (\erchetai pros auton\). Present middle indicative, "is coming to him." The same \ochlos polus\ (here \polus ochlos\) of verse 2| that had followed Jesus around the head of the lake. {Whence are we to buy?} (\Pothen agoras“men;\). Deliberative subjunctive (aorist active). John passes by the earlier teaching and healing of the Synoptics (Mark:6:34f.; strkjv@Matthew:14:14f.; strkjv@Luke:9:11f.|) till mid-afternoon. In John also Jesus takes up the matter of feeding the multitude with Philip (from the other Bethsaida, strkjv@1:44|) whereas in the Synoptics the disciples raise the problem with Jesus. Songs:the disciples raise the problem in the feeding of the four thousand (Mark:8:4; strkjv@Matthew:15:33|). See strkjv@Numbers:11:13-22| (about Moses) and strkjv@2Kings:4:42f|. (about Elisha). {Bread} (\artous\). "Loaves" (plural) as in strkjv@Matthew:4:3|. {That these may eat} (\hina phag“sin houtoi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the second aorist active subjunctive of \esthi“\ (defective verb).

rwp@John:8:34 @{Every one that committeth sin is the bondservant of sin} (\pas ho poi“n tˆn hamartian doulos estin [tˆs hamartias]\). The Western class omits \tˆs hamartias\ (sin), but that is the idea anyhow. Note the use of \poi“n\ (present active participle, continuous habit or practice), not \poiˆsas\ (aorist active participle for single act), precisely as in strkjv@1John:3:4-8|. Note also strkjv@3:21| for \ho poi“n tˆn alˆtheian\ (the one who practises the truth). Sin, like the worst narcotic, is habit forming. Hence the problem today for criminologists for paroled or pardoned criminals nearly always go back to crime, sink again into sin, the slaves of sin. Xenophon has this notion of the slavery of sin (_Memor_. IV. 5. 3). Songs:Paul clearly in strkjv@Romans:6:17,20| "slaves of sin" (\douloi tˆs hamartias\).

rwp@John:9:2 @{Who did sin?} (\tis hˆmarten;\). Second aorist active indicative of \hamartan“\. See strkjv@Acts:3:2; strkjv@14:8| for two examples of lameness from birth. Blindness is common in the Orient and Jesus healed many cases (cf. strkjv@Mark:8:23; strkjv@10:46|) and mentions this fact as one of the marks of the Messiah in the message to the Baptist (Matthew:11:5|). This is the only example of congenital blindness healed. It is not clear that the disciples expected Jesus to heal this case. They are puzzled by the Jewish notion that sickness was a penalty for sin. The Book of Job:had shown that this was not always the case and Jesus shows it also (Luke:13:1-5|). If this man was guilty, it was due to prenatal sin on his part, a curious notion surely. The other alternative charged it upon his parents. That is sometimes true (Exodus:20:5|, etc.), but by no means always. The rabbinical casuists loved to split hairs on this problem. Ezekiel (Ezekiel:18:20|) says: "The soul that sinneth it shall die" (individual responsibility for sin committed). There is something in heredity, but not everything. {That he should be born blind} (\hina tuphlos gennˆthˆi\). Probably consecutive (or sub-final) use of \hina\ with first aorist passive subjunctive of \genna“\.

rwp@John:9:18 @{The Jews} (\hoi Ioudaioi\). Probably the incredulous and hostile section of the Pharisees in verse 16| (cf. strkjv@5:10|). {Did not believe} (\ouk episteusan\). The facts told by the man, "that he had been blind and had received his sight" (\hoti ˆn tuphlos kai aneblepsen\), conflicted with their theological views of God and the Sabbath. Songs:they refused belief "until they called the parents" (\he“s hotou eph“nˆsan tous goneis\). Usual construction of \he“s hotou\ ( = until which time, like \he“s\ alone) with aorist active indicative of \ph“ne“\, old verb from \ph“nˆ\ (voice, sound). They called out loud for his parents to throw light on this grave problem to cover up their own stupidity.

rwp@John:11:49 @{Caiaphas} (\Kaiaphas\). Son-in-law of Annas and successor and high priest for 18 years (A.D. 18 to 36). {That year} (\tou eniautou ekeinou\). Genitive of time; his high-priesthood included that year (A.D. 29 or 30). Songs:he took the lead at this meeting. {Ye know nothing at all} (\humeis ouk oidate ouden\). In this he is correct, for no solution of their problem had been offered.

rwp@John:20:13 @{I do not know} (\ouk oida\). Singular here, not plural as in verse 2|, because clearly Mary is alone here. But the problem is the same. She did not see Peter and John at the tomb.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE GOSPEL OF LUKE BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION There is not room here for a full discussion of all the interesting problems raised by Luke as the author of the Gospel and Acts. One can find them ably handled in the Introduction to Plummer's volume on Luke's Gospel in the _International and Critical Commentary_, in the Introduction to Ragg's volume on Luke's Gospel in the _Westminster Commentaries_, in the Introduction to Easton's _Gospel According to St. Luke_, Hayes' _Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, Ramsay's _Luke the Physician_, Harnack's _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake's _Beginnings of Christianity_, Carpenter's _Christianity According to St. Luke_, Cadbury's _The Making of Luke-Acts_, McLachlan's _St. Luke: The Man and His Work_, Robertson's _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_, to go no further. It is a fascinating subject that appeals to scholars of all shades of opinion.

rwp@Info_Luke @ A SKETCH OF LUKE His name is not a common one, and is probably a shortened form of \Lukios\ and \Lukanos\. Some of the manuscripts of the Gospel actually have as the title \Kata Lukanon\. Dean Plumptre suggests that the Latin poet Lucanus was named after Luke who probably was the family physician when he was born. That is conjecture as well as the notion of Hayes that, since the brothers Gallio and Seneca were uncles of Lucanus they were influenced by Luke to be friendly toward Paul both in Corinth and in Rome. It is probable that Luke was a Greek, certainly a Gentile, possibly a freedman. Songs:this man who wrote more than one-fourth of the New Testament was not a Jew. It is not certain whether his home was in Antioch or in Philippi. It is also uncertain whether he was already converted when Paul met him at Troas. The Codex Bezae has a "we" passage after strkjv@Acts:11:27| which, if genuine, would bring Luke in contact with Paul before Troas. Hayes thinks that he was a slave boy in the family of Theophilus at Antioch, several conjectures in one. We do not know that Theophilus lived at Antioch. It may have been Rome. But, whether one of Paul's converts or not, he was a loyal friend to Paul. If he lived at Antioch, he could have studied medicine there and the great medical temple of Aesculapius was at Aegae, not far away. As a Greek physician, Luke was a university man and in touch with the science of his day. Greek medicine is the beginning of the science of medicine as it is known today. Tradition calls him a painter, but of that we know nothing. Certainly he was a humanist and a man of culture and broad sympathies and personal charm. He was the first genuine scientist who faced the problem of Christ and of Christianity. It must be said of him that he wrote his books with open mind and not as a credulous enthusiast.

rwp@Info_Luke @ THE DATE OF THE GOSPEL There are two outstanding facts to mark off the date of this Gospel by Luke. It was later than the Gospel of Mark since Luke makes abundant use of it. It was before the Acts of the Apostles since he definitely refers to it in strkjv@Acts:1:1|. Unfortunately the precise date of both _termini_ is uncertain. There are still some scholars who hold that the author of the Acts shows knowledge of the _Antiquities_ of Josephus and so is after A.D. 85, a mistaken position, in my opinion, but a point to be discussed when Acts is reached. Still others more plausibly hold that the Acts was written after the destruction of Jerusalem and that the Gospel of Luke has a definite allusion to that event (Luke:21:20f.|), which is interpreted as a prophecy _post eventum_ instead of a prediction by Christ a generation beforehand. Many who accept this view hold to authorship of both Acts and Gospel by Luke. I have long held the view, now so ably defended by Harnack, that the Acts of the Apostles closes as it does for the simple and obvious reason that Paul was still a prisoner in Rome. Whether Luke meant the Acts to be used in the trial in Rome, which may or may not have come to pass, is not the point. Some argue that Luke contemplated a third book which would cover the events of the trial and Paul's later career. There is no proof of that view. The outstanding fact is that the book closes with Paul already a prisoner for two years in Rome. If the Acts was written about A.D. 63, as I believe to be the case, then obviously the Gospel comes earlier. How much before we do not know. It so happens that Paul was a prisoner a little over two years in Caesarea. That period gave Luke abundant opportunity for the kind of research of which he speaks in strkjv@Luke:1:1-4|. In Palestine he could have access to persons familiar with the earthly life and teachings of Jesus and to whatever documents were already produced concerning such matters. Luke may have produced the Gospel towards the close of the stay of Paul in Caesarea or during the early part of the first Roman imprisonment, somewhere between A.D. 59 and 62. The other testimony concerns the date of Mark's Gospel which has already been discussed in volume I. There is no real difficulty in the way of the early date of Mark's Gospel. All the facts that are known admit, even argue for a date by A.D. 60. If Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome, as is possible, it would certainly be before A.D. 64, the date of the burning of Rome by Nero. There are scholars, however, who argue for a much earlier date for his gospel, even as early as A.D. 50. The various aspects of the Synoptic problem are ably discussed by Hawkins in his _Horae Synopticae_, by Sanday and others in _Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem_, by Streeter in his _The Four Gospels_, by Hayes in his _The Synoptic Gospels and the Book of Acts_, by Harnack in his _Date of the Acts and the Synoptic Gospels_, by Stanton in his _The Gospels as Historical Documents_, and by many others. My own views are given at length in my _Studies in Mark's Gospel_ and in _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_.

rwp@Luke:1:48 @{The low estate} (\tˆn tapein“sin\). The bride of a carpenter and yet to be the mother of the Messiah. Literal sense here as in strkjv@1:52|. {Shall call me blessed} (\makariousin me\). So-called Attic future of an old verb, to felicitate. Elisabeth had already given her a beatitude (\makaria\, strkjv@1:45|). Another occurs in strkjv@11:27|. But this is a very different thing from the worship of Mary (Mariolatry) by Roman Catholics. See my _The Mother of Jesus: Her Problems and Her Glory_.

rwp@Luke:2:46 @{After three days} (\meta hˆmeras treis\). One day out, one day back, and on the third day finding him. {In the temple} (\en t“i hier“i\). Probably on the terrace where members of the Sanhedrin gave public instruction on sabbaths and feast-days, so probably while the feast was still going on. The rabbis probably sat on benches in a circle. The listeners on the ground, among whom was Jesus the boy in a rapture of interest. {Both hearing them and asking them questions} (\kai akouonta aut“n kai eper“t“nta autous\). Paul sat at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts:22:3|). Picture this eager boy alive with interest. It was his one opportunity in a theological school outside of the synagogue to hear the great rabbis expound the problems of life. This was the most unusual of all children, to be sure, in intellectual grasp and power. But it is a mistake to think that children of twelve do not think profoundly concerning the issues of life. What father or mother has ever been able to answer a child's questions?

rwp@Luke:6:6 @{On another sabbath} (\en heter“i sabbat“i\). This was a second (\heteron\, as it often means), but not necessarily the next, sabbath. This incident is given by all three synoptics (Mark:3:1-6; strkjv@Matthew:12:9-14; strkjv@Luke:6:6-11|). See Matt. and Mark for details. Only Luke notes that it was on a sabbath. Was this because Luke as a physician had to meet this problem in his own practise? {Right hand} (\hˆ dexia\). This alone in Luke, the physician's eye for particulars.

rwp@Luke:8:19 @{His mother and brethren} (\hˆ mˆtˆr kai hoi adelphoi autou\). strkjv@Mark:3:31-35; strkjv@Matthew:12:46-50| place the visit of the mother and brothers of Jesus before the parable of the sower. Usually Luke follows Mark's order, but he does not do so here. At first the brothers of Jesus (younger sons of Joseph and Mary, I take the words to mean, there being sisters also) were not unfriendly to the work of Jesus as seen in strkjv@John:2:12| when they with the mother of Jesus are with him and the small group (half dozen) disciples in Capernaum after the wedding in Cana. But as Jesus went on with his work and was rejected at Nazareth (Luke:4:16-31|), there developed an evident disbelief in his claims on the part of the brothers who ridiculed him six months before the end (John:7:5|). At this stage they have apparently come with Mary to take Jesus home out of the excitement of the crowds, perhaps thinking that he is beside himself (Mark:3:21|). They hardly believed the charge of the rabbis that Jesus was in league with Beelzebub. Certainly the mother of Jesus could give no credence to that slander. But she herself was deeply concerned and wanted to help him if possible. See discussion of the problem in my little book _The Mother of Jesus_ and also on ¯Mark:3:31| and ¯Matthew:12:46|. {Come to him} (\suntuchein\). Second aorist active infinitive of \suntugchan“\, an old verb, though here alone in the N.T., meaning to meet with, to fall in with as if accidentally, here with associative instrumental case \aut“i\.

rwp@Luke:9:45 @{It was concealed from them} (\ˆn parakekalummenon ap' aut“n\). Periphrastic past perfect of \parakalupt“\, a common verb, but only here in the N.T., to cover up, to hide from. This item only in Luke. {That they should not perceive it} (\hina mˆ aisth“ntai auto\). Second aorist middle subjunctive of the common verb \aisthanomai\ used with \hina mˆ\, negative purpose. This explanation at least relieves the disciples to some extent of full responsibility for their ignorance about the death of Jesus as strkjv@Mark:9:32| observes, as does Luke here that they were afraid to ask him. Plummer says, "They were not allowed to understand the saying then, in order that they might remember it afterwards, and see that Jesus had met His sufferings with full knowledge and free will." Perhaps also, if they had fully understood, they might have lacked courage to hold on to the end. But it is a hard problem.

rwp@Luke:9:46 @{A reasoning} (\dialogismos\). A dispute. The word is from \dialogizomai\, the verb used in strkjv@Mark:9:33| about this incident. In Luke this dispute follows immediately after the words of Jesus about his death. They were afraid to ask Jesus about that subject, but strkjv@Matthew:18:1| states that they came to Jesus to settle it. {Which of them should be greatest} (\to tis an eiˆ meiz“n aut“n\). Note the article with the indirect question, the clause being in the accusative of general reference. The optative with \an\ is here because it was so in the direct question (potential optative with \an\ retained in the indirect). But Luke makes it plain that it was not an abstract problem about greatness in the kingdom of heaven as they put it to Jesus (Matthew:18:1|), but a personal problem in their own group. Rivalries and jealousies had already come and now sharp words. By and by James and John will be bold enough to ask for the first places for themselves in this political kingdom which they expect (Mark:10:35; strkjv@Matthew:20:20|). It is a sad spectacle.

rwp@Luke:9:59 @{And he said unto another} (\eipen de pros heteron\). strkjv@Matthew:8:21| omits Christ's "Follow me" (\akolouthei moi\) and makes this man a volunteer instead of responding to the appeal of Jesus. There is no real opposition, of course. In Matthew's account the man is apologetic as in Luke. Plummer calls him "one of the casual disciples" of whom there are always too many. The scribes knew how to give plausible reasons for not being active disciples. {First} (\pr“ton\). One of the problems of life is the relation of duties to each other, which comes first. The burial of one's father was a sacred duty (Genesis:25:9|), but, as in the case of Tobit strkjv@4:3, this scribe's father probably was still alive. What the scribe apparently meant was that he could not leave his father while still alive to follow Jesus around over the country.

rwp@Luke:9:60 @{Leave the dead to bury their own dead} (\aphes tous nekrous thapsai tous heaut“n nekrous\). This paradox occurs so in strkjv@Matthew:8:22|. The explanation is that the spiritually dead can bury the literally dead. For such a quick change in the use of the same words see strkjv@John:5:21-29| (spiritual resurrection from sin in strkjv@John:5:21-27|, bodily resurrection from the grave, strkjv@John:5:28,29|) and strkjv@John:11:25f|. The harshness of this proverb to the scribe probably is due to the fact that he was manifestly using his aged father as an excuse for not giving Christ active service. {But go thou and publish abroad the kingdom of God} (\su de apelth“n diaggelle tˆn basileian tou theou\). The scribe's duty is put sharply (\But do thou, su de\). Christ called him to preach, and he was using pious phrases about his father as a pretext. Many a preacher has had to face a similar delicate problem of duty to father, mother, brothers, sisters and the call to preach. This was a clear case. Jesus will help any man called to preach to see his duty. Certainly Jesus does not advocate renunciation of family duties on the part of preachers.

rwp@Luke:10:28 @{Thou hast answered right} (\orth“s apekrithˆs\). First aorist passive indicative second singular with the adverb \orth“s\. The answer was correct so far as the words went. In strkjv@Mark:12:34| Jesus commends the scribe for agreeing to his interpretation of the first and the second commandments. That scribe was "not far from the kingdom of God," but this lawyer was "tempting" Jesus. {Do this and thou shalt live} (\touto poiei kai zˆsˆi\). Present imperative (keep on doing this forever) and the future indicative middle as a natural result. There was only one trouble with the lawyer's answer. No one ever did or ever can "do" what the law lays down towards God and man always. To slip once is to fail. Songs:Jesus put the problem squarely up to the lawyer who wanted to know {by doing what}. Of course, if he kept the law {perfectly always}, he would inherit eternal life.

rwp@Luke:12:29 @{Seek not ye} (\humeis mˆ zˆteite\). Note emphatic position of "ye" (\humeis\). Stop seeking (\mˆ\ and present imperative active). strkjv@Matthew:6:31| has: "Do not become anxious" (\mˆ merimnˆsˆte\), \mˆ\ and ingressive subjunctive occur as direct questions (What are we to eat? What are we to drink? What are we to put on?) whereas here they are in the indirect form as in verse 22| save that the problem of clothing is not here mentioned: {Neither be ye of doubtful mind} (\kai mˆ mete“rizesthe\). \Mˆ\ and present passive imperative (stop being anxious) of \mete“riz“\. An old verb from \mete“ros\ in midair, high (our meteor), to lift up on high, then to lift oneself up with hopes (false sometimes), to be buoyed up, to be tossed like a ship at sea, to be anxious, to be in doubt as in late writers (Polybius, Josephus). This last meaning is probably true here. In the LXX and Philo, but here only in the N.T.

rwp@Luke:13:23 @{Are they few that be saved?} (\ei oligoi hoi s“zomenoi;\). Note use of \ei\ as an interrogative which can be explained as ellipsis or as \ei=ˆ\ (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1024). This was an academic theological problem with the rabbis, the number of the elect.

rwp@Luke:20:44 @{David therefore} (\Daueid oun\). Without \ei\ as in strkjv@Matthew:22:45|. On the basis of this definite piece of exegesis (\oun\, therefore) Jesus presses the problem (\p“s\, how) for an explanation. The deity and the humanity of the Messiah in strkjv@Psalms:110| are thus set forth, the very problems that disturbed the rabbis then and that upset many critics today.

rwp@Luke:22:38 @{Lord, behold, here are two swords} (\kurie idou machairai h“de duo\). They took his words literally. And before this very night is over Peter will use one of these very swords to try to cut off the head of Malchus only to be sternly rebuked by Jesus (Mark:14:47; strkjv@Matthew:26:51f.; strkjv@Luke:22:50f.; strkjv@John:18:10f.|). Then Jesus will say: "For all that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew:26:52|). Clearly Jesus did not mean his language even about the sword to be pressed too literally. Songs:he said: "It is enough" (\Hikanon estin\). It is with sad irony and sorrow that Jesus thus dismisses the subject. They were in no humour now to understand the various sides of this complicated problem. Every preacher and teacher understands this mood, not of impatience, but of closing the subject for the present.

rwp@Mark:1:20 @{With the hired servants} (\meta t“n misth“t“n\). One hired for wages (\misthos\), a very old Greek word. Zebedee and his two sons evidently had an extensive business in co-operation with Andrew and Simon (Luke:5:7,10|). Mark alone has this detail of the hired servants left with Zebedee. They left the boat and their father (Matthew:4:22|) with the hired servants. The business would go on while they left all (Luke:5:11|) and became permanent followers of Jesus. Many a young man has faced precisely this problem when he entered the ministry. Could he leave father and mother, brothers and sisters, while he went forth to college and seminary to become a fisher of men? Not the least of the sacrifices made in the education of young preachers is that made by the home folks who have additional burdens to bear because the young preacher is no longer a bread-winner at home. Most young preachers joyfully carry on such burdens after entering the ministry.

rwp@Mark:1:23 @{With an unclean spirit} (\en pneumati akathart“i\). This use of \en\ "with" is common in the Septuagint like the Hebrew _be_, but it occurs also in the papyri. It is the same idiom as "in Christ," "in the Lord" so common with Paul. In English we speak of our being in love, in drink, in his cups, etc. The unclean spirit was in the man and the man in the unclean spirit, a man in the power of the unclean spirit. Luke has "having," the usual construction. See on ¯Matthew:22:43|. Unclean spirit is used as synonymous with {demon} (\daimonion\). It is the idea of estrangement from God (Zechariah:13:2|). The whole subject of demonology is difficult, but no more so than the problem of the devil. Jesus distinguishes between the man and the unclean spirit. Usually physical or mental disease accompanied the possession by demons. One wonders today if the degenerates and confirmed criminals so common now are not under the power of demons. The only cure for confirmed criminals seems to be conversion (a new heart).

rwp@Mark:3:6 @{And straightway with the Herodians took council} (\euthus meta t“n Hˆr“idian“n\). The Pharisees could stand no more. Songs:out they stalked at once in a rage of madness (Luke:6:11|) and outside of the synagogue took counsel (\sumboulion epoiˆsan\) or gave counsel (\sumboulion edidoun\, as some MSS. have it, imperfect tense, offered counsel as their solution of the problem) with their bitter enemies, the Herodians, on the sabbath day still "how they might destroy him" (\hop“s auton apoles“sin\), a striking illustration of the alternatives of Jesus a few moments before, "to save life or to kill." This is the first mention of the Herodians or adherents of Herod Antipas and the Herod family rather than the Romans. The Pharisees would welcome the help of their rivals to destroy Jesus. In the presence of Jesus they unite their forces as in strkjv@Mark:8:15; strkjv@12:13; strkjv@Matthew:22:16|.

rwp@Mark:3:21 @{His friends} (\hoi par' autou\). The phrase means literally "those from the side of him (Jesus)." It could mean another circle of disciples who had just arrived and who knew of the crowds and strain of the Galilean ministry who now come at this special juncture. But the idiom most likely means the kinspeople or family of Jesus as is common in the LXX. The fact that in verse 31| "his mother and his brothers" are expressly mentioned would indicate that they are "the friends" alluded to in verse 21|. It is a mournful spectacle to think of the mother and brothers saying, {He is beside himself} (\exestˆ\). Second aorist active indicative intransitive. The same charge was brought against Paul (Acts:26:24; strkjv@2Corinthians:5:13|). We say that one is out of his head. Certainly Mary did not believe that Jesus was in the power of Beelzebub as the rabbis said already. The scribes from Jerusalem are trying to discount the power and prestige of Jesus (3:22|). See on ¯Matthew:9:32-34; strkjv@10:25; strkjv@12:24| for Beelzebub and Beelzebul. Mary probably felt that Jesus was overwrought and wished to take him home out of the excitement and strain that he might get rest and proper food. See my _The Mother of Jesus: Her Problems and Her Glory_. The brothers did not as yet believe the pretensions and claims of Jesus (John:7:5|). Herod Antipas will later consider Jesus as John the Baptist _redivivus_, the scribes treat him as under demonic possession, even the family and friends fear a disordered mind as a result of overstrain. It was a crucial moment for Jesus. His family or friends came to take him home, to lay hold of him (\kratˆsai\), forcibly if need be.

rwp@Mark:5:13 @{And he gave them leave} (\kai epetrepsen autois\). These words present the crucial difficulty for interpreters as to why Jesus allowed the demons to enter the hogs and destroy them instead of sending them back to the abyss. Certainly it was better for hogs to perish than men, but this loss of property raises a difficulty of its own akin to the problem of tornadoes and earthquakes. The question of one man containing so many demons is difficult also, but not much more so than how one demon can dwell in a man and make his home there. One is reminded of the man out of whom a demon was cast, but the demon came back with seven other demons and took possession. Gould thinks that this man with a legion of demons merely makes a historical exaggeration. "I feel as if I were possessed by a thousand devils." That is too easy an explanation. See on ¯Matthew:8:32| for "rushed down the steep." {They were choked} (\epnigonto\). Imperfect tense picturing graphically the disappearance of pig after pig in the sea. strkjv@Luke:8:33| has \apegnigˆ\, {choked off}, constative second aorist passive indicative, treated as a whole, strkjv@Matthew:8:32| merely has "perished" (\apethanon\; died).

rwp@Mark:6:13 @{They cast out many demons and they anointed with oil} (\exeballon kai ˆleiphon elai“i\). Imperfect tenses, continued repetition. Alone in Mark. This is the only example in the N.T. of \aleiph“ elai“i\ used in connection with healing save in strkjv@James:5:14|. In both cases it is possible that the use of oil (olive oil) as a medicine is the basis of the practice. See strkjv@Luke:10:34| for pouring oil and wine upon the wounds. It was the best medicine of the ancients and was used internally and externally. It was employed often after bathing. The papyri give a number of examples of it. The only problem is whether \aleiph“\ in Mark and James is used wholly in a ritualistic and ceremonial sense or partly as medicine and partly as a symbol of divine healing. The very word \aleiph“\ can be translated rub or anoint without any ceremony. "Traces of a ritual use of the unction of the sick appear first among Gnostic practices of the second century" (Swete). We have today, as in the first century, God and medicine. God through nature does the real healing when we use medicine and the doctor.

rwp@Mark:10:4 @{To write a bill of divorcement and to put her away} (\biblion apostasiou grapsai kai apolusai\). The word for "bill" (\biblion\) is a diminutive and means "little book," like the Latin _libellus_, from which comes our word _libel_ (Vincent). Wycliff has it here "a libel of forsaking." This same point the Pharisees raise in strkjv@Matthew:19:7|, showing probably that they held to the liberal view of Hillel, easy divorce for almost any cause. That was the popular view as now. See on ¯Matthew:19:7| for this and for discussion of "for your hardness of heart" (\sklˆrokardia\). Jesus expounds the purpose of marriage (Genesis:2:24|) and takes the stricter view of divorce, that of the school of Shammai. See on ¯Matthew:19:1-12| for discussion. strkjv@Mark:10:10| notes that the disciples asked Jesus about this problem "in the house" after they had gone away from the crowd.

rwp@Mark:10:17 @{Ran} (\prosdram“n\). Jesus had left the house (10:10|) and was proceeding with the caravan on the way (\eis hodon\) when this ruler eagerly ran and kneeled (\gonupetˆsas\) and was asking (\epˆr“tƒ\, imperfect) Jesus about his problem. Both these details alone in Mark.

rwp@Mark:12:35 @{How say the scribes} (\P“s legousin hoi grammateis\). The opponents of Jesus are silenced, but he answers them and goes on teaching (\didask“n\) in the temple as before the attacks began that morning (11:27|). They no longer dare to question Jesus, but he has one to put to them "while the Pharisees were gathered together" (Matthew:22:41|). The question is not a conundrum or scriptural puzzle (Gould), but "He contents himself with pointing out a difficulty, in the solution of which lay the key to the whole problem of His person and work" (Swete). The scribes all taught that the Messiah was to be the son of David (John:7:41|). The people in the Triumphal Entry had acclaimed Jesus as the son of David (Matthew:21:9|). But the rabbis had overlooked the fact that David in strkjv@Psalms:110:1| called the Messiah his Lord also. The deity and the humanity of the Messiah are both involved in the problem. strkjv@Matthew:22:45| observes that "no one was able to answer him a word."

rwp@Mark:16:3 @{Who shall roll us away the stone?} (\Tis apokulisei hˆmin ton lithon;\). Alone in Mark. The opposite of \proskuli“\ in strkjv@15:46|. In verse 4| {rolled back} (\anekekulistai\, perfect passive indicative) occurs also. Both verbs occur in _Koin‚_ writers and in the papyri. Clearly the women have no hope of the resurrection of Jesus for they were raising the problem (\elegon\, imperfect) as they walked along.

rwp@Mark:16:4 @{Looking up they see} (\anablepsasai the“rousin\). With downcast eyes and heavy hearts (Bruce) they had been walking up the hill. Mark has his frequent vivid dramatic present "behold." Their problem is solved for the stone lies rolled back before their very eyes. strkjv@Luke:24:2| has the usual aorist "found." {For} (\gar\). Mark explains by the size of the stone this sudden and surprising sight right before their eyes.

rwp@Mark:16:14 @{To the eleven themselves} (\autois tois hendeka\). Both terms, eleven and twelve (John:20:24|), occur after the death of Judas. There were others present on this first Sunday evening according to strkjv@Luke:24:33|. {Afterward} (\husteron\) is here alone in Mark, though common in Matthew. {Upbraided} (\“neidisen\). They were guilty of unbelief (\apistian\) and hardness of heart (\sklˆrokardian\). Doubt is not necessarily a mark of intellectual superiority. One must steer between credulity and doubt. That problem is a vital one today in all educated circles. Some of the highest men of science today are devout believers in the Risen Christ. Luke explains how the disciples were upset by the sudden appearance of Christ and were unable to believe the evidence of their own senses (Luke:24:38-43|).

rwp@Matthew:1:2 @{Begat} (\egennˆsen\). 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 I“sˆph ton andra Marias ex hˆs egennˆthˆ Iˆsous 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_" (\I“sˆph de egennˆsen Iˆsoun\). 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 @{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" (\heurethˆ 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:1:24 @{Took unto him his wife} (\parelaben tˆn gunaika autou\). The angel had told him not to be afraid to "take to his side" Mary his wife (1:20|). Songs:when he awoke from his sleep he promptly obeyed the angel and "took his wife home" (Moffatt). One can only imagine the relief and joy of Mary when Joseph nobly rose to his high duty toward her. I have tried to sketch Mary's problems in _Mary the Mother of Jesus: Her Problems and Her Glory._

rwp@Matthew:7:29 @{And not as their scribes} (\kai ouch h“s hoi grammateis aut“n\). They had heard many sermons before from the regular rabbis in the synagogues. We have specimens of these discourses preserved in the Mishna and Gemara, the Jewish Talmud when both were completed, the driest, dullest collection of disjounted comments upon every conceivable problem in the history of mankind. The scribes quoted the rabbis before them and were afraid to express an idea without bolstering it up by some predecessor. Jesus spoke with the authority of truth, the reality and freshness of the morning light, and the power of God's Spirit. This sermon which made such a profound impression ended with the tragedy of the fall of the house on the sand like the crash of a giant oak in the forest. There was no smoothing over the outcome.

rwp@Matthew:13:13 @{Because seeing} (\hoti blepontes\). In the parallel passages in strkjv@Mark:4:12| and strkjv@Luke:8:10| we find \hina\ with the subjunctive. This does not necessarily mean that in Mark and Luke \hina=hoti\ with the causal sense, though a few rare instances of such usage may be found in late Greek. For a discussion of the problem see my chapter on "The Causal Use of _Hina_" in _Studies in Early Christianity_ (1928) edited by Prof. S.J. Case. Here in Matthew we have first "an adaptation of strkjv@Isaiah:6:9f.| which is quoted in full in v. 14f.|" (McNeile). Thus Matthew presents "a striking paradox, 'though they see, they do not (really) see'" (McNeile). Cf. strkjv@John:9:41|. The idiom here in Matthew gives no trouble save in comparison with Mark and Luke which will be discussed in due turn. The form \suniousin\ is an omega verb form (\suni“\) rather than the \mi\ verb (\suniˆmi\) as is common in the _Koin‚_.

rwp@Matthew:13:23 @{Verily beareth fruit} (\dˆ karpophorei\). Who in reality (\dˆ\) does bear fruit (cf. strkjv@Matthew:7:16-20|). The fruit reveals the character of the tree and the value of the straw for wheat. Some grain must come else it is only chaff, straw, worthless. The first three classes have no fruit and so show that they are unfruitful soil, unsaved souls and lives. There is variety in those who do bear fruit, but they have some fruit. The lesson of the parable as explained by Jesus is precisely this, the variety in the results of the seed sown according to the soil on which it falls. Every teacher and preacher knows how true this is. It is the teacher's task as the sower to sow the right seed, the word of the kingdom. The soil determines the outcome. There are critics today who scout this interpretation of the parable by Jesus as too allegorical with too much detail and probably not that really given by Jesus since modern scholars are not agreed on the main point of the parable. But the average Christian sees the point all right. This parable was not meant to explain all the problems of human life.

rwp@Matthew:15:24 @{I was not sent} (\ouk apestalˆn\). Second aorist passive indicative of \apostell“\. Jesus takes a new turn with this woman in Phoenicia. He makes a test case of her request. In a way she represented the problem of the Gentile world. He calls the Jews "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" in spite of the conduct of the Pharisees.

rwp@Matthew:18:17 @{Refuse to hear} (\parakousˆi\). Like strkjv@Isaiah:65:12|. Many papyri examples for ignoring, disregarding, hearing without heeding, hearing aside (\para-\), hearing amiss, overhearing (Mark:5:36|). {The church} (\tˆi ekklˆsiƒi\). The local body, not the general as in strkjv@Matthew:16:18| which see for discussion. The problem here is whether Jesus has in mind an actual body of believers already in existence or is speaking prophetically of the local churches that would be organized later (as in Acts). There are some who think that the Twelve Apostles constituted a local \ekklˆsia\, a sort of moving church of preachers. That could only be true in essence as they were a band of ministers and not located in any one place. Bruce holds that they were "the nucleus" of a local church at any rate.

rwp@Matthew:20:6 @{All the day idle} (\holˆn tˆn hˆmeran argoi\). Extent of time (accusative) again. \Argoi\ is \a\ privative and \ergon\, work, no work. The problem of the unemployed.

rwp@Matthew:22:36 @{The great commandment in the law} (\entolˆ megalˆ en t“i nom“i\). The positive adjective is sometimes as high in rank as the superlative. See \megas\ in strkjv@Matthew:5:19| in contrast with \elachistos\. The superlative \megistos\ occurs in the N.T. only in strkjv@2Peter:1:4|. Possibly this scribe wishes to know which commandment stood first (Mark:12:28|) with Jesus. "The scribes declared that there were 248 affirmative precepts, as many as the members of the human body; and 365 negative precepts, as many as the days in the year, the total being 613, the number of letters in the Decalogue" (Vincent). But Jesus cuts through such pettifogging hair-splitting to the heart of the problem.

rwp@Matthew:22:42 @{The Christ} (\tou Christou\). The Messiah, of course, not Christ as a proper name of Jesus. Jesus here assumes that strkjv@Psalms:110| refers to the Messiah. By his pungent question about the Messiah as David's son and Lord he really touches the problem of his Person (his Deity and his Humanity). Probably the Pharisees had never faced that problem before. They were unable to answer.

rwp@Matthew:24:3 @{As he sat} (\kathˆmenou\). Genitive absolute. Picture of Jesus sitting on the Mount of Olives looking down on Jerusalem and the temple which he had just left. After the climb up the mountain four of the disciples (Peter, James, John, Andrew) come to Jesus with the problem raised by his solemn words. They ask these questions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, his own second coming (\parousia\, presence, common in the papyri for the visit of the emperor), and the end of the world. Did they think that they were all to take place simultaneously? There is no way to answer. At any rate Jesus treats all three in this great eschatological discourse, the most difficult problem in the Synoptic Gospels. Many theories are advanced that impugn the knowledge of Jesus or of the writers or of both. It is sufficient for our purpose to think of Jesus as using the destruction of the temple and of Jerusalem which did happen in that generation in A.D. 70, as also a symbol of his own second coming and of the end of the world (\sunteleias tou ai“nos\) or consummation of the age. In a painting the artist by skilful perspective may give on the same surface the inside of a room, the fields outside the window, and the sky far beyond. Certainly in this discourse Jesus blends in apocalyptic language the background of his death on the cross, the coming destruction of Jerusalem, his own second coming and the end of the world. He now touches one, now the other. It is not easy for us to separate clearly the various items. It is enough if we get the picture as a whole as it is here drawn with its lessons of warning to be ready for his coming and the end. The destruction of Jerusalem came as he foretold. There are some who would date the Synoptic Gospels after A.D. 70 in order to avoid the predictive element involved in the earlier date. But that is to limit the fore-knowledge of Jesus to a merely human basis. The word \parousia\ occurs in this chapter alone (3,27,37,39|) in the Gospels, but often in the Epistles, either of presence as opposed to absence (Phillipians:2:12|) or the second coming of Christ (2Thessalonians:2:1|).

rwp@Matthew:24:29 @{Immediately} (\euthe“s\). This word, common in Mark's Gospel as \euthus\, gives trouble if one stresses the time element. The problem is how much time intervenes between "the tribulation of those days" and the vivid symbolism of verse 29|. The use of \en tachei\ in strkjv@Revelation:1:1| should make one pause before he decides. Here we have a prophetic panorama like that with foreshortened perspective. The apocalyptic pictures in verse 29| also call for sobriety of judgment. One may compare Joel's prophecy as interpreted by Peter in strkjv@Acts:21:16-22|. Literalism is not appropriate in this apocalyptic eschatology.

rwp@Matthew:24:34 @{This generation} (\hˆ genea hautˆ\). The problem is whether Jesus is here referring to the destruction of Jerusalem or to the second coming and end of the world. If to the destruction of Jerusalem, there was a literal fulfilment. In the Old Testament a generation was reckoned as forty years. This is the natural way to take verse 34| as of 33| (Bruce), "all things" meaning the same in both verses.

rwp@Matthew:26:4 @{They took counsel together} (\sunebouleusanto\). Aorist middle indicative, indicating their puzzled state of mind. They have had no trouble in finding Jesus (John:11:57|). Their problem now is how to {take Jesus by subtilty and kill him} (\hina ton Iˆsoun dol“i kratˆsosin kai apoktein“sin\). The Triumphal Entry and the Tuesday debate in the temple revealed the powerful following that Jesus had among the crowds from Galilee.

rwp@Matthew:27:11 @{Now Jesus stood before the governor} (\ho de Iˆsous estathˆ emprosthen tou hˆgemonos\). Here is one of the dramatic episodes of history. Jesus stood face to face with the Roman governor. The verb \estathˆ\, not \estˆ\ (second aorist active), is first aorist passive and can mean "was placed" there, but he stood, not sat. The term \hˆgem“n\ (from \hˆgeomai\, to lead) was technically a _legatus Caesaris_, an officer of the Emperor, more exactly procurator, ruler under the Emperor of a less important province than propraetor (as over Syria). The senatorial provinces like Achaia were governed by proconsuls. Pilate represented Roman law. {Art thou the King of the Jews?} (\Su ei ho basileus t“n Ioudai“n;\). This is what really mattered. Matthew does not give the charges made by the Sanhedrin (Luke:23:2|) nor the private interview with Pilate (John:18:28-32|). He could not ignore the accusation that Jesus claimed to be King of the Jews. Else he could be himself accused to Caesar for disloyalty. Rivals and pretenders were common all over the empire. Songs:here was one more. By his answer ({thou sayest}) Jesus confesses that he is. Songs:Pilate has a problem on his hands. What sort of a king does this one claim to be? {Thou} (\su\) the King of the Jews?

rwp@Matthew:27:22 @{What then shall I do unto Jesus which is called Christ?} (\ti oun poiˆs“ Iˆsoun ton legomenon Christon;\). They had asked for Barabbas under the tutelage of the Sanhedrin, but Pilate pressed home the problem of Jesus with the dim hope that they might ask for Jesus also. But they had learned their lesson. Some of the very people who shouted "Hosannah" on the Sunday morning of the Triumphal Entry now shout {Let him be crucified} (\staur“thˆt“\). The tide has now turned against Jesus, the hero of Sunday, now the condemned criminal of Friday. Such is popular favour. But all the while Pilate is shirking his own fearful responsibility and trying to hide his own weakness and injustice behind popular clamour and prejudice.

rwp@Matthew:27:63 @{Sir, we remember} (\kurie, emnesthˆmen\). 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@Info_Philemon @ THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON FROM ROME A.D. 63 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION This little letter was sent to Philemon by Onesimus, a converted runaway slave of Philemon, along with Tychicus who is going to Colossae with Onesimus (Colossians:4:7-9|) as the bearer also of the so-called Epistle to the Ephesians (Ephesians:6:21f.|). Hence it is clear that these three Epistles were carried to the Province of Asia at the same time. Colossians was probably written before Ephesians which appears to be a general treatment of the same theme. Whether Philemon was actually penned before the other two there is no way of knowing. But it is put first here as standing apart. Probably Paul wrote it himself without dictation because in verse 19| it constitutes a note in his own hand to Philemon for what Onesimus may owe him. Paul applies the spirit of Christianity to the problem of slavery in words that have ultimately set the slaves free from bondage to men. strkjv@Philemon:1:1 @{A prisoner of Christ Jesus} (\desmios Christou Iˆsou\). As verse 9| and in strkjv@Ephesians:3:1; strkjv@4:1|. Old adjective from \desmos\ (bond, \de“\, to bind). Apparently used here on purpose rather than \apostolos\ as more effective with Philemon and a more touching occasion of pride as Paul writes with his manacled right hand. {Timothy} (\Timotheos\). With Paul in Ephesus (Acts:19:22|) and probably known to Philemon. Associated with Paul also in I and II Thess., II Cor., Philipp., Col. {To Philemon} (\Philˆmoni\). A resident of Colossae and a convert of Paul's (verse 19|), perhaps coming to Ephesus while Paul was there when his ministry had so much influence over the province of Asia (Acts:19:9f., 26; strkjv@1Corinthians:16:19|). The name Philemon occurs in the legend of Baucis and Philemon (Ovid's _Metamorphoses_), but with no connection with the brother here. He was active in the church in Colossae ("our co-worker," \sunerg“i hˆm“n\) and was beloved (\agapˆt“i\) by Paul.

rwp@Philippians:1:18 @{What then?} (\ti gar?\). Sharp problem put up to Paul by the conduct of the Judaizers. {Only that} (\plˆn hoti\). Same idiom in strkjv@Acts:20:23|. \Plˆn\ is adverb \pleon\ (more besides). As a preposition \plˆn\ means "except." This essential thing Paul sees in spite of all their envy and selfishness that Christ is preached. {Whether in pretence} (\eite prophasei\). Either from \prophain“\, to shew forth, or \prophˆmi\, to speak forth, the ostensible presentation often untrue. See strkjv@Acts:27:30|. Paul sees clearly through the pious pretence of these Judaizers and rejoices that people get some knowledge of Christ. Some Christ is better than no Christ. {Yea, and will rejoice} (\alla kai charˆsomai\). Note affirmative, not adversative, use of \alla\. Volitive use of the future (second future passive) indicative (\charˆsomai\) of \chair“\. Paul is determined to rejoice in spite of the efforts of the Judaizers to prod him to anger.

rwp@Revelation:3:2 @{Be thou watchful} (\ginou grˆgor“n\). Periphrastic imperative with present middle of \ginomai\ (keep on becoming) and present active participle of \grˆgore“\ (late present from perfect \egrˆgora\ and that from \egeir“\, as in strkjv@Matthew:24:42|) and see strkjv@16:15| for \grˆgore“\ also. He does not say "Arise from the dead" (Ephesians:5:14|), for there are vestiges of life. Those still alive are addressed through the angel of the church. {Stablish the things that remain} (\stˆrison ta loipa\). First aorist active imperative of \stˆriz“\, to make stable. Those not actually dead, but in grave peril. See a like command to Titus in Crete (Titus:1:5|). Every new pastor faces such a problem. {Which were ready to die} (\ha emellon apothanein\). Imperfect active plural because the individuals, though neuter plural, are regarded as living realities. The imperfect looking on the situation "with a delicate optimism" (Swete) as having passed the crisis, a sort of epistolary imperfect. {For I have found no works of thine} (\ou gar heurˆka sou erga\). "For I have not found any works of thine." Perfect active indicative of \heurisk“\. The church as a whole represented by \sou\ (thy). {Fulfilled} (\peplˆr“mena\). Perfect passive predicate participle of \plˆro“\. Their works have not measured up to God's standard (\en“pion tou theou mou\).

rwp@Revelation:12:7 @{There was war in heaven} (\egeneto polemos en t“i ouran“i\). "There came to be war in heaven" (\egeneto\, not \ˆn\). "Another \tableau\, not a \sˆmeion\ (vv. 1,3|), but consequent upon the two \sˆmeia\ which precede it. The birth and rapture of the Woman's Son issue in a war which invades the \epourania\" (Swete). The reference is not to the original rebellion of Satan, as Andreas held. As the coming of Christ brought on fresh manifestations of diabolic power (Mark:1:13; strkjv@Luke:22:3,31; strkjv@John:12:31; strkjv@14:30; strkjv@16:11|), just so Christ's return to heaven is pictured as being the occasion of renewed attacks there. We are not to visualize it too literally, but certainly modern airplanes help us to grasp the notion of battles in the sky even more than the phalanxes of storm-clouds (Swete). John even describes this last conflict as in heaven itself. Cf. strkjv@Luke:10:18; strkjv@1Kings:22:1ff.; strkjv@Job:1; 2; strkjv@Zechariah:3:1ff|. {Michael and his angels} (\ho Michaˆl kai hoi aggeloi autou\). The nominative here may be in apposition with \polemos\, but it is an abnormal construction with no verb, though \egeneto\ (arose) can be understood as repeated. Michael is the champion of the Jewish people (Daniel:10:13,21; strkjv@12:1|) and is called the archangel in strkjv@Jude:9|. {Going forth to war} (\tou polemˆsai\). This genitive articular infinitive is another grammatical problem in this sentence. If \egeneto\ (arose) is repeated as above, then we have the infinitive for purpose, a common enough idiom. Otherwise it is anomalous, not even like strkjv@Acts:10:25|. {With the dragon} (\meta tou drakontos\). On the use of \meta\ with \poleme“\ see strkjv@2:16; strkjv@13:4; strkjv@17:14| (nowhere else in N.T.). The devil has angels under his command (Matthew:25:41|) and preachers also (2Corinthians:11:14f.|). {Warred} (\epolemˆsen\). Constative aorist active indicative of \poleme“\, picturing the whole battle in one glimpse.

rwp@Revelation:20:2 @{He laid hold on} (\ekratˆsen\). First aorist active indicative of \krate“\, to seize. {The dragon} (\ton drakonta\). Accusative after \ekratˆsen\ instead of the genitive as in strkjv@2:1|. He has been behind the beast and the false prophet from the start. Now he is seized. {The old serpent} (\ho ophis ho archaios\). Precisely the description in strkjv@12:9|, only the nominative is here retained, though in apposition with the accusative \ton drakonta\, a frequent anacoluthon in the Apocalypse (1:5|, etc.). Swete calls it a parenthesis. {Which is} (\hos estin\). The relative here relieves the construction and takes the place of \ho kaloumenos\ in strkjv@12:9| before \Diabolos kai ho Satanƒs\. {And bound him} (\kai edˆsen auton\). First aorist active indicative of \de“\. {For a thousand years} (\chilia etˆ\). Accusative of extent of time. Here we confront the same problem found in the 1260 days. In this book of symbols how long is a thousand years? All sorts of theories are proposed, none of which fully satisfy one. Perhaps Peter has given us the only solution open to us in strkjv@2Peter:3:8| when he argues that "one day with the Lord is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day." It will help us all to remember that God's clock does not run by ours and that times and seasons and programs are with him. This wonderful book was written to comfort the saints in a time of great trial, not to create strife among them.

rwp@Revelation:20:5 @{The rest of the dead} (\hoi loipoi t“n nekr“n\). "All except the martyrs, both the righteous and the unrighteous" (Beckwith). But some take this to mean only the wicked. {Lived not until the thousand years should be finished} (\ouk ezˆsan achri telesthˆi ta chilia etˆ\). See verse 4| for the items here. "To infer from this statement, as many expositors have done, that the \ezˆsan\ of v. 4| must be understood of bodily resuscitation, is to interpret apocalyptic prophecy by methods of exegesis which are proper to ordinary narrative" (Swete). I sympathize wholly with that comment and confess my own ignorance therefore as to the meaning of the symbolism without any predilections for post-millennialism or premillennialism. {This is the first resurrection} (\hautˆ hˆ anastasis hˆ pr“tˆ\). Scholars differ as to the genuineness of this phrase. Accepting it as genuine, Swete applies it to "the return of the martyrs and confessors to life at the beginning of the Thousand Years." According to this view the first resurrection is a special incident in the present life before the Parousia. It has no parallel with strkjv@1Thessalonians:4:16|, where the dead in Christ are raised before those living are changed. Some think that John here pictures the "Regeneration" (\palingenesia\) of strkjv@Matthew:19:28| and the "Restoration" (\apokatastasis\) of strkjv@Acts:3:21|. No effort is here made to solve this problem, save to call attention to the general judgment out of the books in strkjv@20:12| and to the general resurrection in strkjv@John:5:29; strkjv@Acts:24:15|.

rwp@Revelation:21:23 @{To shine upon it} (\hina phain“sin autˆi\). Purpose clause with \hina\ and the present active subjunctive of \phain“\, to keep on shining. Light is always a problem in our cities. See strkjv@Isaiah:60:19ff|. {Did lighten it} (\eph“tisen autˆn\). First aorist active indicative of \ph“tiz“\, to illumine, old verb from \ph“s\ (Luke:11:36|). If the sun and moon did shine, they would give no added light in the presence of the Shekinah Glory of God. See verse 11| for "the glory of God." Cf. strkjv@18:1; strkjv@21:3|. "Their splendour is simply put to shame by the glory of God Himself" (Charles). {And the lamp thereof is the Lamb} (\kai ho luchnos autˆs to arnion\). Charles takes \ho luchnos\ as predicate, "and the Lamb is the lamp thereof." Bousset thinks that John means to compare Christ to the moon the lesser light (Genesis:1:16|), but that contrast is not necessary. Swete sees Christ as the one lamp for all in contrast with the many \luchniai\ of the churches on earth (1:12,20|). "No words could more clearly demonstrate the purely spiritual character of St. John's conception of the New Jerusalem" (Swete).

rwp@Revelation:22:2 @{In the midst of the street thereof} (\en mes“i tˆs plateias autˆs\). Connected probably with the river in verse 1|, though many connect it with verse 2|. Only one street mentioned here as in strkjv@21:21|. {On this side of the river and on that} (\tou potamou enteuthen kai ekeithen\). \Enteuthen\ occurs as a preposition in strkjv@Daniel:12:5| (Theodoret) and may be so here (post-positive), purely adverbial in strkjv@John:19:18|. {The tree of life} (\xulon z“ˆs\). For the metaphor see strkjv@Genesis:1:11f.| and strkjv@Revelation:2:7; strkjv@22:14|. \Xulon\ is used for a green tree in strkjv@Luke:23:31; strkjv@Ezekiel:47:12|. {Bearing} (\poioun\). Neuter active participle of \poie“\ (making, producing, as in strkjv@Matthew:7:17|). Some MSS. have \poi“n\ (masculine), though \xulon\ is neuter. {Twelve manner of fruits} (\karpous d“deka\). "Twelve fruits." {Yielding} (\apodidoun\). Neuter active participle of \apodid“mi\, to give back, but some MSS. have \apodidous\ (masculine) like \poi“n\. {For the healing of the nations} (\eis therapeian t“n ethn“n\). Spiritual healing, of course, as leaves (\phulla\) are often used for obtaining medicines. Here again the problem occurs whether this picture is heaven before the judgment or afterwards. Charles distinguishes sharply between the Heavenly City for the millennial reign and the New Jerusalem that descends from heaven after the judgment. Charles rearranges these chapters to suit his theory. But chronology is precarious here.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ THE REVELATION OF JOHN ABOUT A.D. 95 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION DIFFICULTY IN THE PROBLEM Perhaps no single book in the New Testament presents so many and so formidable problems as the Apocalypse of John. These difficulties concern the authorship, the date, the apocalyptic method, the relation to the other Johannine books, the purpose, the historical environment, the reception of the book in the New Testament canon, the use and misuse of the book through the ages, etc. In the eastern churches the recognition of the Apocalypse of John was slower than in the west, since it was not in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Caius of Rome attributed the book to Cerinthus the Gnostic, but he was ably answered by Hippolytus, who attributed it to the Apostle John. The Council of Laodicea (about A.D. 360) omitted it, but the third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397) accepted it. The dispute about millenarianism led Dionysius of Alexandria (middle of the third century, A.D.) to deny the authorship to the Apostle John, though he accepted it as canonical. Eusebius suggested a second John as the author. But finally the book was accepted in the east as Hebrews was in the west after a period of doubt.

rwp@Info_Revelation @ A BRIEF BIBLIOGRAPHY (ONLY BOOKS SINCE 1875) Abbott, E. A., _Johannine Grammar_ (1906).,_Notes on New Testament Criticism_ (Part VII of Diatessarica, 1907). Allo, E. B., _L'apocalypse et l'epoque de la parousia_ (1915).,_Saint Jean. L'apocalypse_ (1921). Baldensperger, _Messian. Apok. Hoffnung_. 3rd ed. (1903). Baljon, J. M. S., _Openbaring van Johannes_ (1908). Beckwith, J. T., _The Apocalypse of John_ (1919). Benson, E. W., _The Apocalypse_ (1900). Berg, _The Drama of the Apocalypse_ (1894). Bleek, F., _Lectures on the Apocalypse_ (1875). Boll, _Aus der Offenbarung Johannis_ (1914). Bousset, W., _Die Offenbarung Johannis_. 2 Aufl. (1906).,_Zur Textkritik der Apokalypse_ (1894). Brown, Charles, _Heavenly Visions_ (1911). Brown, D., _The Structure of the Apocalypse_ (1891). Bullinger, _Die Apokalypse_ (1904). Bungeroth, _Schlussel zur Offenbarung Johannis_ (1907). Burger, C. H. A., _Offenbarung Johannis_ (1877). Cadwell, _The Revelation of Jesus Christ_ (1920). Calmes, _L'Apokalypse devant la Critique_ (1907). Campbell, _The Patmos Letters Applied to Modern Criticism_ (1908). Carrington, P., _The Meaning of the Revelation_ (1931). Case, S. J., _The Millennial Hope_ (1918).,_The Revelation of John_ (1920). Charles, R. H., _Studies in the Apocalypse_ (1913).,_The Revelation of St. John_. 2 vols. (1921). Chevalin, _L'apocalypse et les temps presents_ (1904). Crampon, _L'apocalypse de S. Jean_ (1904). Dean, J. T., _The Book of Revelation_ (1915) Deissmann, A., _Light from the Ancient East_. Tr. by Strachan (1927). Delaport, _Fragments sahidiques du N.T. Apocalypse_ (1906). Douglas, C. E., _New Light on the Revelation of St. John the Divine_ (1923). Dusterdieck, _Offenbarung Johannis_. 4 Aufl. (1887). Eckman, _When Christ Comes Again_ (1917). Erbes, _Offenbar. Johan. Kritischuntersucht_ (1891). Forbes, H. P., _International Handbook on the Apocalypse_ (1907). Gebhardt, _Doctrine of the Apocalypse_ (1878). Geil, W. E., _The Isle That Is Called Patmos_ (1905). Gibson, E. C. S., _The Revelation of St. John_ (1910). Gigot, _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1915). Glazebrook, _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1924). Gunkel, H., _Schopfung und Chaos_ (1895). Gwynn, _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1897). Harnack, A., _Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur_. Bd I (1897). Henderson, B. W., _The Life and Principate of the Emperor Nero_ (1903). Hill, _Apocalyptic Problems_ (1916). Hill, Erskine, _Mystic Studies in the Apocalypse_ (1931). Hirscht, _Die Apokalypse und ihre neueste Kritik_ (1895). Holtzmann, H. J., _Die Offenbarung Johannis_ (1891). Holtzmann-Bauer, _Hand-Comm., Offenbarung des Johannis_. 3 Aufl. (1908). Horne, _The Meaning of the Apocalypse_ (1916). Hort, F. J. A., _The Apocalypse of St. John, Chs. 1-3_ (1908). James, M. R., _The Apocalypse in Art_ (1931). Jowett, G. T., _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1910). Kubel, _Offenbarung Johannis_ (1893). Laughlin, _The Solecisms of the Apocalypse_ (1902). Lee, S., _Revelation in Speaker's Comm_. (1881). Linder, _Die Offenbarung des Johannis aufgeschlossen_ (1905). Llwyd, J. P. D., _The Son of Thunder_ (1932). Lohmeyer, E., _Die Offenbarung des Johannes_. Handbuch zum N.T. (1926). Loisy, A., _L'Apocalypse de Jean_ (1923). Matheson, _Sidelights upon Patmos_. Milligan, W., _The Revelation of St. John_. Schaff's Popular Comm. (1885).,_The Book of Revelation_. Expositor's Bible (1889).,_Lectures on the Apocalypse_ (1892).,_Discussions on the Apocalypse_ (1893). Moffatt, James, _Intr. to Literature of the N.T_. (1911).,_Revelation in Expos. Greek Testament_ (1910). Moule, H.C., _Some Thoughts on the Seven Epistles_ (1915). Mozley, _The Christian's Hope in the Apocalypse_ (1915). Oman, John, _The Book of Revelation_ (1923).,_The Text of Revelation_ (1928). Osborn, _The Lion and the Lamb_ (1922). Palmer, _The Drama of the Apocalypse_ (1902). Paul, _Latter Day Light on the Apocalypse_ (1898). Peake, A. S., _The Revelation of John_ (1921). Porter, F. C., _The Messages of the Apocalyptic Writers_ (1905). Pounder, _Historical Notes on the Book of Revelation_ (1912). Prager, L., _Die Offenbarung Johannis_ (1901). Ramsay, A., _Revelation in Westminster N.T_. (1910). Ramsay, W. M., _The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia_ (1904). Rauch, _Offenbarung des Johannis_ (1894). Reymond, _L'apocalypse_ (1908). Ross, J. J., _Pearls from Patmos_ (1923). Russell, J. S., _The Parousia_ (1878). Sabatier, _Les Origines Litteraires et la Comp. de l'Apoc_. (1888). Schlatter, _Der Evangelist Johannes_ (1931). Schoen, _L'Origine de l'Apocalypse_ (1887). Scott, C. Anderson, _Revelation in New Century Bible_ (1902). Scott, C. A., _Revelation in Devot. Comm_. (1906). Scott, J. J., _Lectures on the Apocalypse_ (1909). Selwyn, E. C., _The Christian Prophets and the Prophetic Apocalypse_ (1901). Shepherd, W. J. L., _The Revelation of St. John the Divine_. 2 vols. (1923). Simcox, W. H., _Revelation in Cambridge Greek Testament_ (1893). Smith, J. A., _Revelation in American Comm_. (1888).,_The World Lighted_ (1890).,_The Divine Parable of History_ (1901). Spitta, F., _Die Offenbarung des Johannis_ (1889). Strange, _Instructions on the Revelation of St. John the Divine_ (1900). Swete, H. B., _The Apocalypse of St. John_ (1906). 2nd ed. 1907. Turner, C. H., _Studies in Early Church History_ (1912). Vischer, _Die Offenb. Johan. eine judische Apok_ (1886). Volter, _Offenb. Johannis_. 2 Aufl. (1911).,_Das Problem der Apok_. (1893). Weiss, B., _Die Johannes-Apokalypse_. Textkrit. (1891, 2 Aufl. 1902). Weiss, J., _Offenb. Johannis_ (1904). Wellhausen, J., _Analyse der Offenb_. (1907). Weyland, _Omwerkings-en Compilatie-Hupothesen Toegepast op de Apok_. (1888). Whiting, _The Revelation of John_ (1918). Zahn, _Introduction to the N.T_. 3 vols. (1909).,_Komm_. (1926).

rwp@Info_Romans @ THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS SPRING OF A.D. 57 BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE The genuineness of the Epistle is so generally admitted by scholars that it is unnecessary to prove it here, for Loman, Steck, and the Dutch scholars (Van Manen, etc.) who deny it as Pauline are no longer taken seriously. He wrote it from Corinth because he sent it to Rome by Phoebe of Cenchreae (Romans:16:2|) if chapter 16 is acknowledged to be a part of the Epistle. Chapter 16 is held by some to be really a short epistle to Ephesus because of the long list of names in it, because of Paul's long stay in Ephesus, because he had not yet been to Rome, and because, in particular, Aquila and Priscilla are named (Romans:16:3-5|) who had been with Paul in Ephesus. But they had come from Rome before going to Corinth and there is no reason for thinking that they did not return to Rome. It was quite possible for Paul to have many friends in Rome whom he had met elsewhere. People naturally drifted to Rome from all over the empire. The old MSS. (Aleph A B C D) give chapter 16 as an integral part of the Epistle. Marcion rejected it and chapter 15 also for reasons of his own. Renan's theory that Romans was a circular letter like Ephesians sent in different forms to different churches (Rome, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc.) has appealed to some scholars as explaining the several doxologies in the Epistle, but they cause no real difficulty since Paul interjected them in his other epistles according to his moods (2Corinthians:1:20|, for instance). That theory raises more problems than it solves as, for example, Paul's remarks about going to Rome (Romans:1:9-16|) which apply to Rome. Lightfoot suggests the possibility that Paul added strkjv@Romans:16:25-27| some years after the original date so as to turn it into a circular letter. But the MSS. do not support that theory and that leaves strkjv@Romans:15:22-33 in the Epistle quite unsuitable to a circular letter. Modern knowledge leaves the Epistle intact with occasional variations in the MSS. on particular points as is true of all the N.T.

rwp@Romans:3:26 @{For the shewing} (\pros tˆn endeixin\). Repeats point of \eis endeixin\ of 25| with \pros\ instead of \eis\. {At this present season} (\en t“i nun kair“i\). "In the now crisis," in contrast with "done aforetime." {That he might himself be} (\eis to einai auton\). Purpose with \eis\ to and the infinitive \einai\ and the accusative of general reference. {Just and the justifier of} (\dikaion kai dikaiounta\). "This is the key phrase which establishes the connexion between the \dikaiosunˆ theou\ and the \dikaiosunˆ ek piste“s\" (Sanday and Headlam). Nowhere has Paul put the problem of God more acutely or profoundly. To pronounce the unrighteous righteous is unjust by itself (Romans:4:5|). God's mercy would not allow him to leave man to his fate. God's justice demanded some punishment for sin. The only possible way to save some was the propitiatory offering of Christ and the call for faith on man's part.

rwp@Romans:5:12 @{Therefore} (\dia touto\). "For this reason." What reason? Probably the argument made in verses 1-11|, assuming our justification and urging exultant joy in Christ because of the present reconciliation by Christ's death and the certainty of future final salvation by his life. {As through one man} (\h“sper di' henos anthr“pou\). Paul begins a comparison between the effects of Adam's sin and the effects of the redemptive work of Christ, but he does not give the second member of the comparison. Instead of that he discusses some problems about sin and death and starts over again in verse 15|. The general point is plain that the effects of Adam's sin are transmitted to his descendants, though he does not say how it was done whether by the natural or the federal headship of Adam. It is important to note that Paul does not say that the whole race receives the full benefit of Christ's atoning death, but only those who do. Christ is the head of all believers as Adam is the head of the race. In this sense Adam "is a figure of him that was to come." {Sin entered into the world} (\hˆ hamartia eis ton kosmon eisˆlthen\). Personification of sin and represented as coming from the outside into the world of humanity. Paul does not discuss the origin of evil beyond this fact. There are some today who deny the fact of sin at all and who call it merely "an error of mortal mind" (a notion) while others regard it as merely an animal inheritance devoid of ethical quality. {And so death passed unto all men} (\kai hout“s eis pantas anthr“pous diˆlthen\). Note use of \dierchomai\ rather than \eiserchomai\, just before, second aorist active indicative in both instances. By "death" in strkjv@Genesis:2:17; strkjv@3:19| physical death is meant, but in verses 17,21| eternal death is Paul's idea and that lurks constantly behind physical death with Paul. {For that all sinned} (\eph' h“i pantes hˆmarton\). Constative (summary) aorist active indicative of \hamartan“\, gathering up in this one tense the history of the race (committed sin). The transmission from Adam became facts of experience. In the old Greek \eph' h“i\ usually meant "on condition that," but "because" in N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 963).

rwp@Romans:7:13 @{Become death unto me?} (\emoi egeneto thanatos?\). Ethical dative \emoi\ again. New turn to the problem. Admitting the goodness of God's law, did it issue in death for me? Paul repels (\mˆ genoito\) this suggestion. It was sin that (But sin, \alla hˆ hamartia\) "became death for me." {That it might be shown} (\hina phanˆi\). Final clause, \hina\ and second aorist passive subjunctive of \phain“\, to show. The sinfulness of sin is revealed in its violations of God's law. {By working death to me} (\moi katergazomenˆ thanaton\). Present middle participle, as an incidental result. {Might become exceedingly sinful} (\genˆtai kath' huperbolˆn hamart“los\). Second aorist middle subjunctive of \ginomai\ with \hina\ in final clause. On \kath' huperbolˆn\, see on ¯1Corinthians:12:31|. Our _hyperbole_ is the Greek \huperbolˆ\. The excesses of sin reveal its real nature. Only then do some people get their eyes opened.

rwp@Romans:8:39 @{To separate us} (\hˆmƒs ch“risai\). Aorist active infinitive of \choriz“\ (same verb as in 35|). God's love is victor over all possible foes, "God's love that is in Christ Jesus." Paul has reached the mountain top. He has really completed his great argument concerning the God-kind of righteousness save for its bearing on some special problems. The first of these concerns the fact that the Jews (God's chosen people) have so largely rejected the gospel (chapters 9-11|).

rwp@Romans:9:14 @{Is there unrighteousness with God?} (\mˆ adikia para t“i the“i?\). Paul goes right to the heart of the problem. \Mˆ\ expects a negative answer. "Beside" (\para\) God there can be no injustice to Esau or to any one because of election.

rwp@Romans:9:20 @{Nay, but, O man, who art thou?} (\O anthr“pe, men oun ge su tis ei?\). "O man, but surely thou who art thou?" Unusual and emphatic order of the words, prolepsis of \su\ (thou) before \tis\ (who) and \men oun ge\ (triple particle, \men\, indeed, \oun\, therefore, \ge\, at least) at the beginning of clause as in strkjv@Romans:10:18; strkjv@Phillipians:3:8| contrary to ancient idiom, but so in papyri. {That repliest} (\ho antapokrinomenos\). Present middle articular participle of double compound verb \antapokrinomai\, to answer to one's face (\anti-\) late and vivid combination, also in strkjv@Luke:14:6|, nowhere else in N.T., but in LXX. {The thing formed} (\to plasma\). Old word (Plato, Aristophanes) from \plass“\, to mould, as with clay or wax, from which the aorist active participle used here (\t“i plasanti\) comes. Paul quotes these words from strkjv@Isaiah:29:16| verbatim. It is a familiar idea in the Old Testament, the absolute power of God as Creator like the potter's use of clay (Isaiah:44:8; strkjv@45:8-10; strkjv@Jeremiah:18:6|). \Mˆ\ expects a negative answer. {Why didst thou make me thus?} (\ti me epoiˆsas hout“s?\). The original words in Isaiah dealt with the nation, but Paul applies them to individuals. This question does not raise the problem of the origin of sin for the objector does not blame God for that but why God has used us as he has, made some vessels out of the clay for this purpose, some for that. Observe "thus" (\hout“s\). The potter takes the clay as he finds it, but uses it as he wishes.

rwp@Romans:10:1 @{Desire} (\eudokia\). No papyri examples of this word, though \eudokˆsis\ occurs, only in LXX and N.T., but no example for "desire" unless this is one, though the verb \eudoke“\ is common in Polybius, Diodorus, Dion, Hal. It means will, pleasure, satisfaction (Matthew:11:26; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:11; strkjv@Phillipians:1:15; strkjv@2:13; strkjv@Ephesians:1:5,9|). {Supplication} (\deˆsis\). Late word from \deomai\, to want, to beg, to pray. In the papyri. See strkjv@Luke:1:13|. It is noteworthy that, immediately after the discussion of the rejection of Christ by the Jews, Paul prays so earnestly for the Jews "that they may be saved" (\eis s“tˆrian\), literally "unto salvation." Clearly Paul did not feel that the case was hopeless for them in spite of their conduct. Bengel says: _Non orasset Paul si absolute reprobati essent_ (Paul would not have prayed if they had been absolutely reprobate). Paul leaves God's problem to him and pours out his prayer for the Jews in accordance with his strong words in strkjv@9:1-5|.

rwp@Romans:13:8 @{Save to love one another} (\ei mˆ to allˆlous agapƒin\). "Except the loving one another." This articular infinitive is in the accusative case the object of \opheilete\ and partitive apposition with \mˆden\ (nothing). This debt can never be paid off, but we should keep the interest paid up. {His neighbour} (\ton heteron\). "The other man," "the second man." "Just as in the relations of man and God \pistis\ has been substituted for \nomos\, so between man and man \agapˆ\ takes the place of definite legal relations" (Sanday and Headlam). See strkjv@Matthew:22:37-40| for the words of Jesus on this subject. Love is the only solution of our social relations and national problems.

rwp@Titus:1:5 @{For this cause} (\toutou charin\). In N.T. only here and strkjv@Ephesians:3:1,14|. Paul may be supplementing oral instruction as in Timothy's case and may even be replying to a letter from Titus (Zahn). {Left I thee in Crete} (\apeleipon se en Krˆtˆi\). This is the imperfect active of \apoleip“\, though MSS. give the aorist active also (\apelipon\) and some read \kateleipon\ or \katelipon\. Both are common verbs, though Paul uses \kataleip“\ only in strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:1| except two quotations (Romans:11:4; strkjv@Ephesians:5:31|) and \apoleip“\ only here and strkjv@2Timothy:4:13,20|. Perhaps \apoleip“\ suggests a more temporary stay than \kataleip“\. Paul had apparently stopped in Crete on his return from Spain about A.D. 65. {That thou shouldest set in order} (\hina epidiorth“sˆi\). Late and rare double compound (inscriptions, here only in N.T.), first aorist middle subjunctive (final clause with \hina\) of \epidiortho“\, to set straight (\ortho“\) thoroughly (\dia\) in addition (\epi\), a clean job of it. {The things that were wanting} (\ta leiponta\). "The things that remain." See strkjv@3:13; strkjv@Luke:18:22|. Either things left undone or things that survive. In both senses the new pastor faces problems after the tornado has passed. Parry takes it "of present defects" in Cretan character. {And appoint} (\kai katastˆsˆis\). Final clause still and first aorist active subjunctive of \kathistˆmi\, the word used in strkjv@Acts:6:13| about the deacons. The word does not preclude the choice by the churches (in every city, \kata polin\, distributive use of \kata\). This is a chief point in the \epidorth“sis\ (White). {Elders} (\presbuterous\). See strkjv@1Timothy:3:2; strkjv@4:17|. {As I gave thee charge} (\h“s eg“ soi dietaxamˆn\). First aorist (constative) middle imperative of \diatass“\, clear reference to previous personal details given to Titus on previous occasions.

Bible:
Filter: String:

[pBiblx2]
Mon Jun 3 00:16:09 2024
pBiblx2 Field Wise Bible System Version 2.1.9 - GPL3 2009-2020