OT-LAW.filter - rwp quality:

rwp@1Corinthians:3:13 @{The day} (\h hmera\). The day of judgment as in strkjv@1Thessalonians:5:4| (which see), strkjv@Romans:13:12; strkjv@Hebrews:10:25|. The work (\ergon\) of each will be made manifest. There is no escape from this final testing. {It is revealed in fire} (\en puri apokaluptetai\). Apparently "the day" is the subject of the verb, not the work, not the Lord. See strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:8; strkjv@2:8|. This metaphor of fire was employed in the O.T. (Daniel:7:9f.; strkjv@Malachi:4:1|) and by John the Baptist (Matthew:3:12; strkjv@Luke:3:16f.|). It is a metaphor that must not be understood as purgatorial, but simple testing (Ellicott) as every fire tests ({the fire itself will test}, \to pur auto dokimasei\) the quality of the material used in the building, {of what sort it is} (\hopoion estin\), qualitative relative pronoun. Men today find, alas, that some of the fireproof buildings are not fireproof when the fire actually comes.

rwp@1Corinthians:7:4 @{The wife} (\h gun\). The wife is mentioned first, but the equality of the sexes in marriage is clearly presented as the way to keep marriage undefiled (Hebrews:13:4|). "In wedlock separate ownership of the person ceases" (Robertson and Plummer).

rwp@1Corinthians:7:18 @{Let him not become uncircumcized} (\m epispasth\). Present middle imperative of \epispa\, old verb to draw on. In LXX (I Macc. strkjv@1:15) and Josephus (_Ant_. XII, V. I) in this sense. Here only in N.T. The point is that a Jew is to remain a Jew, a Gentile to be a Gentile. Both stand on an equality in the Christian churches. This freedom about circumcision illustrates the freedom about Gentile mixed marriages.

rwp@1Corinthians:15:48 @{As is the earthly} (\hoios ho choikos\). Masculine gender because of \anthrpos\ and correlative pronouns (\hoios, toioutoi\) of character or quality. All men of dust (\chokoi\) correspond to "the man of dust" (\ho chokos\), the first Adam. {As is the heavenly} (\hoios ho epouranios\). Christ in his ascended state (1Thessalonians:4:16; strkjv@2Thessalonians:1:7; strkjv@Ephesians:2:6,20; strkjv@Phillipians:3:20f.|).

rwp@1John:5:11 @{That God gave} (\hoti edken ho theos\). Declarative \hoti\ in apposition with \marturia\ as in verse 14; strkjv@John:3:19|. Note aorist active indicative \edken\ (from \didmi\) as in strkjv@3:23f.|, the great historic fact of the Incarnation (John:3:16|), but the perfect \dedken\ in strkjv@1John:3:1| to emphasize the abiding presence of God's love. {Eternal life} (\zn ainion\). Anarthrous emphasizing quality, but with the article in strkjv@1:2|. {In his Son} (\en ti huii autou\). This life and the witness also. This is why Jesus who is life (John:14:6|) came to give us abundant life (John:10:10|).

rwp@1Timothy:6:2 @{Let not despise them} (\m kataphroneitsan\). Negative imperative active third plural of \kataphrone\, to think down on. See strkjv@4:12|. He must not presume on the equality of Christian brotherhood not allowed by the state's laws. Some of these Christian slaves might be pastors of churches to which the master belonged. For the difficulty of the Christian master's position, see strkjv@1Corinthians:7:22; strkjv@Philemon:1:16|. {But rather} (\alla mallon\). Render the Christian Master better service. {They that partake of the benefit} (\hoi ts energesias antilambanomenoi\). For \euergesias\ (genitive case after participle) see strkjv@Acts:4:9|, only other N.T. example of this old word. Present middle participle of \antilamban\, old verb, to take in turn, to lay fast hold of, in N.T. only here, strkjv@Luke:1:54; strkjv@Acts:20:35|.

rwp@2Corinthians:8:14 @{By equality} (\ex isottos\). Old word from \isos\, fair, equal. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Colossians:4:1|. {Abundancy} (\perisseuma\). Late word from \perisseu\ like \perisseia\ (verse 2|) Cf. strkjv@Matthew:12:34|. {Want} (\husterma\). Late word from \hustere\, to be in want. See also strkjv@9:12; strkjv@Luke:21:4| (cf. \hustersis\ in strkjv@Mark:12:44|).

rwp@2Corinthians:10:11 @{What we are} (\hoioi esmen\). Rather, "what sort" (\hoioi\), not \ho\ (what) nor \hoi\ (who). Literary plural. \Hoios\ is qualitative just as \toioutoi\ (such). Paul's quality in his letters when absent (\apontes\) and in his deeds when present (\parontes\) is precisely the same.

rwp@2Peter:2:22 @{It has happened} (\sumbebken\). Perfect active indicative of \sumbain\, for which see strkjv@1Peter:4:12|. {According to the true proverb} (\to ts althous paroimias\). "The word (\to\ used absolutely, the matter of, as in strkjv@Matthew:21:21; strkjv@James:4:14|) of the true proverb" (\paroimia\ a wayside saying, for which see strkjv@John:10:6; strkjv@16:25,29|). The first proverb here given comes from strkjv@Proverbs:26:11|. \Exerama\ is a late and rare word (here only in N.T., in Diosc. and Eustath.) from \exera\, to vomit. {The sow that had washed} (\hs lousamen\). \Hs\, old word for hog, here only in N.T. Participle first aorist direct middle of \lou\ shows that it is feminine (anarthrous). This second proverb does not occur in the O.T., probably from a Gentile source because about the habit of hogs. Epictetus and other writers moralize on the habit of hogs, having once bathed in a filthy mud-hole, to delight in it. {To wallowing} (\eis kulismon\). "To rolling." Late and rare word (from \kuli\, strkjv@Mark:9:20|), here only in N.T. {In the mire} (\borborou\). Objective genitive, old word for dung, mire, here only in N.T. J. Rendel Harris (_Story of Ahikar_, p. LXVII) tells of a story about a hog that went to the bath with people of quality, but on coming out saw a stinking drain and went and rolled himself in it.

rwp@Acts:9:15 @{A chosen vessel} (\skeuos eklogs\). A vessel of choice or selection. The genitive of quality is common in the Hebrew, as in the vernacular _Koin_. Jesus chose Saul before Saul chose Jesus. He felt of himself that he was an earthen vessel (2Corinthians:4:7|) unworthy of so great a treasure. It was a great message that Ananias had to bear to Saul. He told it in his own way (9:17; strkjv@22:14f.|) and in strkjv@26:16f.| Paul blends the message of Jesus to Ananias with that to him as one. {Before the Gentiles} (\enpion tn ethnn\). This was the chief element in the call of Saul. He was to be an apostle to the Gentiles (Ephesians:3:6-12|).

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

rwp@Colossians:2:9 @{For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily} (\hoti en auti katoikei pn to plrma ts theottos smatiks\). In this sentence, given as the reason (\hoti\, because) for the preceding claim for Christ as the measure of human knowledge Paul states the heart of his message about the Person of Christ. There dwells (at home) in Christ not one or more aspects of the Godhead (the very \essence\ of God, from \theos, deitas\) and not to be confused with \theiotes\ in strkjv@Romans:1:20| (from \theios\, the {quality} of God, _divinitas_), here only in N.T. as \theiots\ only in strkjv@Romans:1:20|. The distinction is observed in Lucian and Plutarch. \Theiots\ occurs in the papyri and inscriptions. Paul here asserts that "all the \plrma\ of the Godhead," not just certain aspects, dwells in Christ and in bodily form (\smatiks\, late and rare adverb, in Plutarch, inscription, here only in N.T.), dwells now in Christ in his glorified humanity (Phillipians:2:9-11|), "the body of his glory" (\ti smati ts doxs\). The fulness of the God-head was in Christ before the Incarnation (John:1:1,18; strkjv@Phillipians:2:6|), during the Incarnation (John:1:14,18; strkjv@1John:1:1-3|). It was the Son of God who came in the likeness of men (Phillipians:2:7|). Paul here disposes of the Docetic theory that Jesus had no human body as well as the Cerinthian separation between the man Jesus and the aeon Christ. He asserts plainly the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ in corporeal form.

rwp@Info_Epistles-Paul @ SOME BOOKS ON THE PAULINE EPISTLES Bate, _As a Whole Guide to the Epistles of St. Paul_ (1927). Bonnet-Schroeder, _Epitres de Paul_ (4 ed. 1912). Champlain, _The Epistles of Paul_ (1906). Clemen, _Einheitlichkeit d. paul. Briefe_ (1894). Conybeare and Howson, _Life and Epistles of St. Paul_. Drummond, _The Epistles of Paul the Apostle_ (1899). Hayes, _Paul and His Epistles_ (1915). Heinrici, _Die Forschungen uber die paul. Briefe_ (1886). Lake, _The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul_ (1915). Lewin, _Life and Epistles of St. Paul_. (1875). Neil, _The Pauline Epistles_ (1906). Scott, _The Pauline Epistles_ (1909). Shaw, _The Pauline Epistles_ (1903). Vischer, _Die Paulusbriefe_ (1910). Voelter, _Die Composition der paul. Haupt Briefe_ (1890). Voelter, _Paulus und seine Briefe_ (1905). Way, _The Letters of Paul to Seven Churches and Three Friends_ (1906) Weinel, _Die Echtheit der paul. Hauptbriefe_ (1920). Weiss, B., _Present Status of the Inquiry Concerning the Genuineness of the Pauline Epistles_ (1901). Weiss, B., _Die Paulinische Briefe_ (1902). Wood, _Life, Letters, and Religion of St. Paul_ (1925). strkjv@Galatians:1:1 @{Not from men, neither through men} (\ouk ap' anthrpn oude di' anthrpou\). The bluntness of Paul's denial is due to the charge made by the Judaizers that Paul was not a genuine apostle because not one of the twelve. This charge had been made in Corinth and called forth the keenest irony of Paul (2Corinthians:10-12|). In strkjv@Galatians:1; 2| Paul proves his independence of the twelve and his equality with them as recognized by them. Paul denies that his apostleship had a human source (\ouk ap' anthrpn\) and that it had come to him through (\di' anthrpou\) a human channel (Burton). {But through Jesus Christ and God the Father} (\alla dia Isou Christou kai theou patros\). The call to be an apostle came to Paul through Jesus Christ as he claimed in strkjv@1Corinthians:9:1| and as told in strkjv@Acts:9:4-6; strkjv@22:7ff.; strkjv@26:16ff|. He is apostle also by the will of God. {Who raised him from the dead} (\tou egeirantos auton ek nekrn\). And therefore Paul was qualified to be an apostle since he had seen the Risen Christ (1Corinthians:9:1; strkjv@15:8f.|). This verb \egeir\ is often used in N.T. for raising from the sleep of death, to wake up the dead.

rwp@Galatians:1:19 @{Except James the brother of the Lord} (\ei m Iakbon ton adelphon tou Kuriou\). James the son of Zebedee was still living at that time. The rest of the twelve were probably away preaching and James, brother of the Lord, is here termed an apostle, though not one of the twelve as Barnabas is later so called. Paul is showing his independence of and equality with the twelve in answer to the attacks of the Judaizers.

rwp@Hebrews:7:11 @{Perfection} (\teleisis\). Abstract substantive of \teleio\. More the act than the quality or state (\teleiots\, strkjv@6:1|). The condition is of the second class, "if there were perfection, etc." The Levitical priesthood failed to give men "a perfectly adequate relation to God" (Moffatt). {Priesthood} (\hierosuns\). Old word, in N.T. only here, verses 12,24|. Cf. \hieretia\ in verse 5|. The adjective \Leueitik\ occurs in Philo. {Received the law} (\nenomothettai\). Perfect passive indicative of \nomothete\, old compound to enact law (\nomos, tithmi\), to furnish with law (as here), only other N.T. example in strkjv@8:6|. {What further need was there?} (\tis eti chreia;\). No copula expressed, but it would normally be \n an\, not just \n\: "What need still would there be?" {Another priest} (\heteron hierea\). Of a different line (\heteron\), not just one more (\allon\). Accusative of general reference with the infinitive \anistasthai\ (present middle of \anistmi\ intransitive). {And not to be reckoned} (\kai ou legesthai\). The negative \ou\ belongs rather to the descriptive clause than just to the infinitive.

rwp@Hebrews:7:18 @{A disannulling} (\athetsis\). Late word from \athete\ (alpha privative and \tithmi\), to set aside (Mark:6:26|), in N.T. only here and strkjv@9:26|. Common in the papyri in a legal sense of making void. Involved in \metathesis\ (change in verse 12|). {Foregoing} (\proagouss\). Present active participle of \proag\, to go before (1Timothy:1:18|). {Because of its weakness} (\dia to auts asthenes\). Neuter abstract adjective with article for quality as in verse 7| with \dia\ and accusative case for reason. {Unprofitableness} (\anpheles\). Old compound (alpha privative and \ophelos\) useless, and neuter singular like \asthenes\. In N.T. only here and strkjv@Titus:3:9|.

rwp@Hebrews:9:14 @{How much more} (\posi mallon\). Instrumental case, "by how much more," by the measure of the superiority of Christ's blood to that of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer. {Through the eternal Spirit} (\dia pneumatos ainiou\). Not the Holy Spirit, but Christ's own spirit which is eternal as he is. There is thus a moral quality in the blood of Christ not in that of other sacrifices. {Offered himself} (\heauton prosnegken\). Second aorist active indicative of \prospher\ (used so often as in strkjv@5:1,3; strkjv@8:3|). The voluntary character of Christ's death is again emphasized. {Without blemish} (\ammon\). Old compound adjective (Colossians:1:22; strkjv@1Peter:1:19|) as the sacrifice had to be (Exodus:29:1; strkjv@Leviticus:1:3,10|). {Shall cleanse from conscience} (\kathariei tn suneidsin humn\). Future active indicative of \kathariz\. Some MSS. have \hmn\ (our). The old Greek used \kathair\, not \kathariz\ (in inscriptions for ceremonial cleansing, Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, pp. 216f.), for cleansing. {From dead works} (\apo nekrn ergn\). As in strkjv@6:1|. "A pause might be made before \ergn\, from dead--(not bodies but) works."

rwp@James:3:11 @{The fountain} (\h pg\). Old word for spring (John:4:14|). {Opening} (\ops\). Old word for fissure in the earth, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Hebrews:11:38| (caves). {Send forth} (\bruei\). Present active indicative of \bru\, old verb, to bubble up, to gush forth, here only in N.T. The use of \mti\ shows that a negative answer is expected in this rhetorical question. {The sweet and the bitter} (\to gluku kai to pikron\). Cognate accusatives with \bruei\. Separate articles to distinguish sharply the two things. The neuter singular articular adjective is a common way of presenting a quality. \Glukus\ is an old adjective (in N.T. only here and strkjv@Revelation:10:9f.|), the opposite of \pikron\ (from old root, to cut, to prick), in N.T. only here and verse 14| (sharp, harsh).

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 archi\). \Arch\ 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} (\n\). 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" (\paraklton echomen pros ton patera\). See \prospon pros prospon\ (face to face, strkjv@1Corinthians:13:12|), a triple use of \pros\. There is a papyrus example of \pros\ in this sense \to gnston ts pros alllous suntheias\, "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 n ho logos\). By exact and careful language John denied Sabellianism by not saying \ho theos n 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 agap 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@Info_Luke @ THE CHARACTER OF THE BOOK Literary charm is here beyond dispute. It is a book that only a man with genuine culture and literary genius could write. It has all the simple grace of Mark and Matthew plus an indefinable quality not in these wonderful books. There is a delicate finish of detail and proportion of parts that give the balance and poise that come only from full knowledge of the subject, the chief element in a good style according to Dr. James Stalker. This scientific physician, this man of the schools, this converted Gentile, this devoted friend of Paul, comes to the study of the life of Christ with a trained intellect, with an historian's method of research, with a physician's care in diagnosis and discrimination, with a charm of style all his own, with reverence for and loyalty to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. One could not afford to give up either of the Four Gospels. They each supplement the other in a wonderful way. John's Gospel is the greatest book in all the world, reaching the highest heights of all. But if we had only Luke's Gospel, we should have an adequate portrait of Jesus Christ as Son of God and Son of Man. If Mark's is the Gospel for the Romans and Matthew's for the Jews, the Gospel of Luke is for the Gentile world. He shows the sympathy of Jesus for the poor and the outcast. Luke understands women and children and so is the universal Gospel of mankind in all phases and conditions. It is often called the Gospel of womanhood, of infancy, of prayer, of praise. We have in Luke the first Christian hymns. With Luke we catch some glimpses of the child Jesus for which we are grateful. Luke was a friend and follower of Paul, and verbal parallels with Paul's Epistles do occur, but there is no Pauline propaganda in the Gospel as Moffatt clearly shows (_Intr. to Lit. of the N.T._, p. 281). The Prologue is in literary _Koin_ and deserves comparison with those in any Greek and Latin writers. His style is versatile and is often coloured by his source. He was a great reader of the Septuagint as is shown by occasional Hebraisms evidently due to reading that translation Greek. He has graciousness and a sense of humour as McLachlan and Ragg show. Every really great man has a saving sense of humour as Jesus himself had. Ramsay dares to call Luke, as shown by the Gospel and Acts, the greatest of all historians not even excepting Thucydides. Ramsay has done much to restore Luke to his rightful place in the estimation of modern scholars. Some German critics used to cite strkjv@Luke:2:1-7| as a passage containing more historical blunders than any similar passage in any historian. The story of how papyri and inscriptions have fully justified Luke in every statement here made is carefully worked out by Ramsay in his various books, especially in _The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament_. The main feature of this proof appears also in my _Luke the Historian in the Light of Research_. Songs:many items, where Luke once stood alone, have been confirmed by recent discoveries that the burden of proof now rests on those who challenge Luke in those cases where he still stands alone.

rwp@Luke:10:22 @{Knoweth who the Son is} (\ginskei tis estin ho huios\). Knows by experience, \ginskei\. Here strkjv@Matthew:11:27| has \epiginskei\ (fully knows) and simply \ton huion\ (the Son) instead of the "who" (\tis\) clause. Songs:also in "who the Father is" (\tis estin ho pater\). But the same use and contrast of "the Father," "the Son." in both Matthew and Luke, "an aerolite from the Johannean heaven" (Hase). No sane criticism can get rid of this Johannine bit in these Gospels written long before the Fourth Gospel was composed. We are dealing here with the oldest known document about Christ (the Logia) and the picture is that drawn in the Fourth Gospel (see my _The Christ of the Logia_). It is idle to try to whittle away by fantastic exegesis the high claims made by Jesus in this passage. It is an ecstatic prayer in the presence of the Seventy under the rapture of the Holy Spirit on terms of perfect equality and understanding between the Father and the Son in the tone of the priestly prayer in strkjv@John:17|. We are justified in saying that this prayer of supreme Fellowship with the Father in contemplation of final victory over Satan gives us a glimpse of the prayers with the Father when the Son spent whole nights on the mountain alone with the Father. Here is the Messianic consciousness in complete control and with perfect confidence in the outcome. Here as in strkjv@Matthew:11:27| by the use of {willeth to reveal him} (\boultai apokalupsai\). The Son claims the power to reveal the Father "to whomsoever he wills" (\hi an boultai\, indefinite relative and present subjunctive of \boulomai\, to will, not the future indicative). This is divine sovereignty most assuredly. Human free agency is also true, but it is full divine sovereignty in salvation that is here claimed along with possession (\paredoth\, timeless aorist passive indicative) of all power from the Father. Let that supreme claim stand.

rwp@Luke:22:69 @{The Son of man} (\ho huios tou anthrpou\). Jesus really answers their demand about "the Messiah" by asserting that he is "the Son of man" and they so understand him. He makes claims of equality with God also which they take up.

rwp@Mark:2:12 @{Before them all} (\emprosthen pantn\). strkjv@Luke:5:25| follows Mark in this detail. He picked up (\aras\) his pallet and walked and went home as Jesus had commanded him to do (Mark:2:11|). It was an amazing proceeding and made it unnecessary for Jesus to refute the scribes further on this occasion. The amazement (\existasthai\, our _ecstasy_, as strkjv@Luke:5:26| has it), was too general and great for words. The people could only say: "We never saw it on this fashion" (\Houts oudepote eidamen\). Jesus had acted with the power of God and claimed equality with God and had made good his claim. They all marvelled at the {paradoxes} (\paradoxa\, strkjv@Luke:5:26|) of that day. For it all they glorified God.

rwp@Mark:12:25 @{When they shall rise from the dead} (\hotan ek nekrn anastsin\). Second aorist active subjunctive with \hotan\ (\hote\ plus \an\). strkjv@Matthew:22:30| has it "in the resurrection," strkjv@Luke:20:35| "to attain to the resurrection." The Pharisees regarded the future resurrection body as performing marriage functions, as Mohammedans do today. The Pharisees were in error on this point. The Sadducees made this one of their objections to belief in the resurrection body, revealing thus their own ignorance of the true resurrection body and the future life where marriage functions do not exist. {As angels in heaven} (\hs aggeloi en ti ourani\). Songs:Matthew:22:30|. strkjv@Luke:20:36| has "equal unto the angels" (\isaggeloi\). "Their equality with angels consists in their deliverance from mortality and its consequences" (Swete). The angels are directly created, not procreated.

rwp@Matthew:1:1 @{The Son of David, the son of Abraham} (\huiou Daueid huiou Abraam\). Matthew proposes to show that Jesus Christ is on the human side the son of David, as the Messiah was to be, and the son of Abraham, not merely a real Jew and the heir of the promises, but the promise made to Abraham. Songs:Matthew begins his line with Abraham while Luke traces his line back to Adam. The Hebrew and Aramaic often used the word son (\bn\) for the quality or character, but here the idea is descent. Christians are called sons of God because Christ has bestowed this dignity upon us (Romans:8:14; strkjv@9:26; strkjv@Galatians:3:26; strkjv@4:5-7|). Verse 1 is the description of the list in verses 2-17|. The names are given in three groups, Abraham to David (2-6|), David to Babylon Removal (6-11|), Jechoniah to Jesus (12-16|). The removal to Babylon (\metoikesias Babulnos\) occurs at the end of verse 11|, the beginning of verse 12|, and twice in the resume in verse 17|. This great event is used to mark off the two last divisions from each other. It is a good illustration of the genitive as the case of genus or kind. The Babylon removal could mean either to Babylon or from Babylon or, indeed, the removal of Babylon. But the readers would know the facts from the Old Testament, the removal of the Jews to Babylon. Then verse 17| makes a summary of the three lists, fourteen in each by counting David twice and omitting several, a sort of mnemonic device that is common enough. Matthew does not mean to say that there were only fourteen in actual genealogy. The names of the women (Thamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba the wife of Uriah) are likewise not counted. But it is a most interesting list.

rwp@Matthew:5:3 @{Blessed} (\makarioi\). The English word "blessed" is more exactly represented by the Greek verbal \eulogtoi\ as in strkjv@Luke:1:68| of God by Zacharias, or the perfect passive participle \eulogmenos\ as in strkjv@Luke:1:42| of Mary by Elizabeth and in strkjv@Matthew:21:9|. Both forms come from \euloge\, to speak well of (\eu, logos\). The Greek word here (\makarioi\) is an adjective that means "happy" which in English etymology goes back to hap, chance, good-luck as seen in our words haply, hapless, happily, happiness. "Blessedness is, of course, an infinitely higher and better thing than mere happiness" (Weymouth). English has thus ennobled "blessed" to a higher rank than "happy." But "happy" is what Jesus said and the _Braid Scots New Testament_ dares to say "Happy" each time here as does the _Improved Edition of the American Bible Union Version_. The Greek word is as old as Homer and Pindar and was used of the Greek gods and also of men, but largely of outward prosperity. Then it is applied to the dead who died in the Lord as in strkjv@Revelation:14:13|. Already in the Old Testament the Septuagint uses it of moral quality. "Shaking itself loose from all thoughts of outward good, it becomes the express symbol of a happiness identified with pure character. Behind it lies the clear cognition of sin as the fountain-head of all misery, and of holiness as the final and effectual cure for every woe. For knowledge as the basis of virtue, and therefore of happiness, it substitutes faith and love" (Vincent). Jesus takes this word "happy" and puts it in this rich environment. "This is one of the words which have been transformed and ennobled by New Testament use; by association, as in the Beatitudes, with unusual conditions, accounted by the world miserable, or with rare and difficult" (Bruce). It is a pity that we have not kept the word "happy" to the high and holy plane where Jesus placed it. "If you know these things, happy (\makarioi\) are you if you do them" (John:13:17|). "Happy (\makarioi\) are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John:20:29|). And Paul applies this adjective to God, "according to the gospel of the glory of the happy (\makariou\) God" (1Timothy:1:11|. Cf. also strkjv@Titus:2:13|). The term "Beatitudes" (Latin _beatus_) comes close to the meaning of Christ here by \makarioi\. It will repay one to make a careful study of all the "beatitudes" in the New Testament where this word is employed. It occurs nine times here (3-11|), though the beatitudes in verses 10 and 11 are very much alike. The copula is not expressed in either of these nine beatitudes. In each case a reason is given for the beatitude, "for" (\hoti\), that shows the spiritual quality involved. Some of the phrases employed by Jesus here occur in the Psalms, some even in the Talmud (itself later than the New Testament, though of separate origin). That is of small moment. "The originality of Jesus lies in putting the due value on these thoughts, collecting them, and making them as prominent as the Ten Commandments. No greater service can be rendered to mankind than to rescue from obscurity neglected moral commonplaces " (Bruce). Jesus repeated his sayings many times as all great teachers and preachers do, but this sermon has unity, progress, and consummation. It does not contain all that Jesus taught by any means, but it stands out as the greatest single sermon of all time, in its penetration, pungency, and power. {The poor in spirit} (\hoi ptchoi ti pneumati\). Luke has only "the poor," but he means the same by it as this form in Matthew, "the pious in Israel, for the most part poor, whom the worldly rich despised and persecuted" (McNeile). The word used here (\ptchoi\) is applied to the beggar Lazarus in strkjv@Luke:16:20,22| and suggests spiritual destitution (from \ptss\ to crouch, to cower). The other word \pens\ is from \penomai\, to work for one's daily bread and so means one who works for his living. The word \ptchos\ is more frequent in the New Testament and implies deeper poverty than \pens\. "The kingdom of heaven" here means the reign of God in the heart and life. This is the _summum bonum_ and is what matters most.

rwp@Philippians:2:6 @{Being} (\huparchn\). Rather, "existing," present active participle of \huparch\. In the form of God (\en morphi theou\). \Morph\ means the essential attributes as shown in the form. In his preincarnate state Christ possessed the attributes of God and so appeared to those in heaven who saw him. Here is a clear statement by Paul of the deity of Christ. {A prize} (\harpagmon\). Predicate accusative with \hgsato\. Originally words in \-mos\ signified the act, not the result (\-ma\). The few examples of \harpagmos\ (Plutarch, etc.) allow it to be understood as equivalent to \harpagma\, like \baptismos\ and \baptisma\. That is to say Paul means a prize to be held on to rather than something to be won ("robbery"). {To be on an equality with God} (\to einai isa theoi\). Accusative articular infinitive object of \hgsato\, "the being equal with God" (associative instrumental case \thei\ after \isa\). \Isa\ is adverbial use of neuter plural with \einai\ as in strkjv@Revelation:21:16|. {Emptied himself} (\heauton ekense\). First aorist active indicative of \keno\, old verb from \kenos\, empty. Of what did Christ empty himself? Not of his divine nature. That was impossible. He continued to be the Son of God. There has arisen a great controversy on this word, a \Kenosis\ doctrine. Undoubtedly Christ gave up his environment of glory. He took upon himself limitations of place (space) and of knowledge and of power, though still on earth retaining more of these than any mere man. It is here that men should show restraint and modesty, though it is hard to believe that Jesus limited himself by error of knowledge and certainly not by error of conduct. He was without sin, though tempted as we are. "He stripped himself of the insignia of majesty" (Lightfoot).

rwp@Philippians:4:8 @{Finally} (\to loipon\). See on ¯3:1|. {Whatsoever} (\hosa\). Thus he introduces six adjectives picturing Christian ideals, old-fashioned and familiar words not necessarily from any philosophic list of moral excellencies Stoic or otherwise. Without these no ideals can exist. They are pertinent now when so much filth is flaunted before the world in books, magazines and moving-pictures under the name of realism (the slime of the gutter and the cess-pool). {Honourable} (\semna\). Old word from \seb\, to worship, revere. Songs:revered, venerated (1Timothy:3:8|). {Pure} (\hagna\). Old word for all sorts of purity. There are clean things, thoughts, words, deeds. {Lovely} (\prosphil\). Old word, here only in N.T., from \pros\ and \phile\, pleasing, winsome. {Of good report} (\euphma\. Old word, only here in N.T., from \eu\ and \phm\, fair-speaking, attractive. {If there be any} (\ei tis\). Paul changes the construction from \hosa\ (whatsoever) to a condition of the first class, as in strkjv@2:1|, with two substantives. {Virtue} (\aret\). Old word, possibly from \aresk\, to please, used very often in a variety of senses by the ancients for any mental excellence or moral quality or physical power. Its very vagueness perhaps explains its rarity in the N.T., only four times (Phillipians:4:8; strkjv@1Peter:2:9; strkjv@2Peter:1:3,5|). It is common in the papyri, but probably Paul is using it in the sense found in the LXX (Isaiah:42:12; strkjv@43:21|) of God's splendour and might (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 95) in connection with "praise" (\epainos\) as here or even meaning praise. {Think on these things} (\tauta logizesthe\). Present middle imperative for habit of thought. We are responsible for our thoughts and can hold them to high and holy ideals.

rwp@Philippians:4:18 @{I have all things} (\apech panta\). As a receipt in full in appreciation of their kindness. \Apech\ is common in the papyri and the ostraca for "receipt in full" (Deissmann, _Bible Studies_, p. 110). See strkjv@Matthew:6:2,5,16|. {I am filled} (\peplrmai\). Perfect passive indicative of \plro\. "Classical Greek would hardly use the word in this personal sense" (Kennedy). {An odour of a sweet smell} (\osmn eudias\). \Osm\, old word from \oz\, to smell. \Eudia\, old word from \eu\ and \oz\. In strkjv@Ephesians:5:2| both words come together as here and in strkjv@2Corinthians:2:15| we have \eudia\ (only other N.T. example) and in verse strkjv@2Corinthians:2:16| \osm\ twice. \Eudias\ here is genitive of quality. {Sacrifice} (\thusian\). Not the act, but the offering as in strkjv@Romans:12:1|. {Well-pleasing} (\euareston\). As in strkjv@Romans:12:1|.

rwp@Revelation:6:17 @{The great day} (\h hmera h megal\). The phrase occurs in the O.T. prophets (Joel:2:11,31; strkjv@Zephaniah:1:14|. Cf. strkjv@Jude:1:6|) and is here combined with "of their wrath" (\ts orgs autn\) as in strkjv@Zephaniah:1:15,18; strkjv@2:3; Rom strkjv@2:5|. "Their" (\autn\) means the wrath of God and of the Lamb put here on an equality as in strkjv@1:17f., strkjv@22:3,13; strkjv@1Thessalonians:3:11; strkjv@2Thessalonians:2:16|. Beckwith holds that this language about the great day having come "is the mistaken cry of men in terror caused by the portents which are bursting upon them." There is something, to be sure, to be said for this view which denies that John commits himself to the position that this is the end of the ages. {And who is able to stand?} (\kai tis dunatai stathnai?\). Very much like the words in strkjv@Nahum:1:6; strkjv@Malachi:3:2|. First aorist passive infinitive of \histmi\. It is a rhetorical question, apparently by the frightened crowds of verse 15|. Swete observes that the only possible answer to that cry is the command of Jesus in strkjv@Luke:21:36|: "Keep awake on every occasion, praying that ye may get strength to stand (\stathnai\, the very form) before the Son of Man."

rwp@Romans:1:17 @{For therein} (\gar en auti\). In the gospel (verse 16|) of which Paul is not ashamed. {A righteousness of God} (\dikaiosun theou\). Subjective genitive, "a God kind of righteousness," one that each must have and can obtain in no other way save "from faith unto faith" (\ek pistes eis pistin\), faith the starting point and faith the goal (Lightfoot). {Is revealed} (\apokaluptetai\). It is a revelation from God, this God kind of righteousness, that man unaided could never have conceived or still less attained. In these words we have Paul's statement in his own way of the theme of the Epistle, the content of the gospel as Paul understands it. Every word is important: \strian\ (salvation), \euaggelion\ (gospel), \apokaluptetai\ (is revealed), \dikaiosun theou\ (righteousness of God), \pistis\ (faith) and \pisteuonti\ (believing). He grounds his position on strkjv@Habbakkuk:2:4| (quoted also in strkjv@Galatians:3:11|). By "righteousness" we shall see that Paul means both "justification" and "sanctification." It is important to get a clear idea of Paul's use of \dikaiosun\ here for it controls the thought throughout the Epistle. Jesus set up a higher standard of righteousness (\dikaiosun\) in the Sermon on the Mount than the Scribes and Pharisees taught and practised (Matthew:5:20|) and proves it in various items. Here Paul claims that in the gospel, taught by Jesus and by himself there is revealed a God kind of righteousness with two ideas in it (the righteousness that God has and that he bestows). It is an old word for quality from \dikaios\, a righteous man, and that from \dik\, right or justice (called a goddess in strkjv@Acts:28:4|), and that allied with \deiknumi\, to show, to point out. Other allied words are \dikaio\, to declare or make \dikaios\ (Romans:3:24,26|), \dikaima\, that which is deemed \dikaios\ (sentence or ordinance as in strkjv@1:32; strkjv@2:26; strkjv@8:4|), \dikaisis\, the act of declaring \dikaios\ (only twice in N.T., strkjv@4:25; strkjv@5:18|). \Dikaiosun\ and \dikaio\ are easy to render into English, though we use justice in distinction from righteousness and sanctification for the result that comes after justification (the setting one right with God). Paul is consistent and usually clear in his use of these great words.

rwp@Romans:1:20 @{The invisible things of him} (\ta aorata autou\). Another verbal adjective (\a\ privative and \hora\, to see), old word, either unseen or invisible as here and elsewhere in N.T. (Colossians:1:15f.|, etc.). The attributes of God's nature defined here as "his everlasting power and divinity" (\h te aidios autou dunamis kai theiots\). \Aidios\ is for \aeidios\ from \aei\ (always), old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Jude:1:6|, common in Philo (\z aidios\), elsewhere \ainios\. \Theiots\ is from \theios\ (from \theos\) quality of \theos\ and corresponds more to Latin _divinitas_ from _divus_, divine. In strkjv@Colossians:2:9| Paul uses \theots\ (Latin _deitas_ from _deus_) {deity}, both old words and nowhere else in the N.T. \Theots\ is Divine Personality, \theiots\, Divine Nature and properties (Sanday and Headlam). {Since the creation of the world} (\apo ktises kosmou\). He means by God and unto God as antecedent to and superior to the world (cf. strkjv@Colossians:1:15f|. about Christ). {Are clearly seen} (\kathoratai\). Present passive indicative of \kathora\ (perfective use of \kata-\), old word, only here in N.T., with direct reference to \aorata\. {Being perceived} (\nooumena\). Present passive participle of \noe\, to use the \nous\ (intellect). {That they may be without excuse} (\eis to einai autous anapologtous\). More likely, "so that they are without excuse." The use of \eis to\ and the infinitive (with accusative of general reference) for result like \hste\ is reasonably clear in the N.T. (Moulton, _Prolegomena_, p. 219; Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 1003). \Anapologtous\ is another verbal with \an\ from \apologeomai\. Old word, in N.T. only here and strkjv@Romans:2:1| ("inexcusable" here).

rwp@Romans:2:4 @{Or despiseth thou?} (\ kataphroneis?\). Another alternative, that of scorn of God's kindness (\chrstottos\, strkjv@2Corinthians:6:6|) and forbearance (\anochs\, old word, holding back from \anech\, only here in N.T.) and longsuffering (\makrothumias\, late word for which see strkjv@2Corinthians:6:4,6|). \Kataphrone\ is old verb to think down on (\kata, phrone\) as in strkjv@Matthew:6:24; strkjv@1Corinthians:11:22|. This upstart Jew actually thinks down on God. And then "the riches" (\tou ploutou\) of all that comes from God. {Leadeth thee to repentance} (\eis metanoian se agei\). The very kindness (\to chrston\, the kindly quality) of God is trying to lead (conative present \agei\) thee to a right-about face, a change of mind and attitude (\metanoian\) instead of a complacent self-satisfaction and pride of race and privilege.

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} (\hsper di' henos anthrpou\). 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} (\h hamartia eis ton kosmon eislthen\). 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 houts eis pantas anthrpous dilthen\). 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' hi pantes hmarton\). 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' hi\ usually meant "on condition that," but "because" in N.T. (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 963).

rwp@Romans:9:16 @{Songs:then} (\ara oun\). In view of this quotation. {It is not of} (\ou\). We must supply \estin eleos\ with \ou\. "Mercy is not of." The articular participles (\tou thelontos, tou trechontos, tou elentos\) can be understood as in the genitive with \eleos\ understood (mercy is not a quality of) or as the predicate ablative of source like \epiluses\ in strkjv@2Peter:1:20|. Paul is fond of the metaphor of running.